Posted
Increase Ranking Threshold
In order to address the ongoing problem that many users have with random women appearing in the top 25 list, I suggest that the minimum threshold to be ranked be raised from 25 to, perhaps, 50 or so. It would help minimize this issue by quite a bit, as a mathematically lessens the chance for a few users votes to help artificially elevate the woman at hand, whether they meant to or not.
Comments (7)
I think it would be better to rank based on the number of followers or the number of visits to the the profile's page over the last 7 days.
We thought about this idea a long time ago. I think the problem here is that there is a big difference in voting behavior between people who check the Rising Stars page or use Advanced Search to find models that don't yet rank, and those who have favorites in the top 25. If we increased the threshold to 50, it would mostly take a lot longer for new babes to reach ranking status, but you'd still have surprises, I think.
Our solution to this (a long time ago) was to "soften the landing" for these new entries and rank them #11 at best, on entry. The next day, they can move up higher. We could tweak this system.
The artificial elevation doesn't happen much anymore. I think Chloe Bell was the first one in a long time last week (first one in 2026 and most of 2025). That user probably figured out some things to make his manipulation work, and we've made it even more difficult since then.
@ganaconda7: We already have both lists.
Most Viewed is visible on the right-hand side, right below the top 25, and here: https://www.babepedia.com/mostviewed100
The problem with using "most viewed" is that it's very influenced by our gallery selection. It's no surprise that most of the babes in the top 10 have many galleries on our site.
The most favorited top 100 is here: https://www.babepedia.com/mostfavoritedtop100
If we used that to rank, there would be very little movement in the top 100, especially in the top 10.
No one in particular... I'm referencing the more often than not. New pages that make it to the top 25 after just 25 votes, just to see them go back down to 30,000 or whatever the day after. This would mathematically happen less often if the threshold was higher; It also lessens the effect of those who vote burner accounts... I know you guys do a lot to try to get rid of them, but they're always going to exist. At 25, it only takes 15 or so 10 votes two falsely prop someone up, but at 50, it would take more than 30. It's all about minimizing the effects.
Personally, I don't care about who makes it to the list, but every time someone random comes out of nowhere, you see the same old comments filling up our notifications about why this random came out of nowhere.
That's a completely different topic though... You probably should start a new thread for that.
Here's another way to say what I'm trying to say, as to be honest, I'm having a hard time coming up with a good way to say it.
Take an example like professional boxing... They have three judges, and it only takes to bad judges to change the outcome of a fight, and it unfortunately happens way too often.. If they were to add two more judges and make it five, It would take three bad actors to throw a fight, which in turn lessens the chance of it happening.
I hope that makes sense.