You should post another picture of your hand.abraker wrote: 70543g
so I am out of the picture now?
forum
Hand Thread 96t6o
posted
Total Posts
411
oh um okay okay
I really like the 1st one, the overall shape is good and nails are well trimmed. Although it's a little bit wrinkly.
The 2nd one is really natural, the shading and lighting looks good, very well done.
3rd one isn't good though, it's not as good looking as the other ones.
4th one is my favorite of the bunch, it has the best features that the other ones has.
The 5th one is similar to the 1st, although not as good.
The 6th looks even more unnatural than the 3rd, almost synthetic like.
7th is the most wrinkly so not good.
8th is the least wrinkly of the bunch, but still pretty wrinkly nonetheless.
The 9th has the best looking nails.
The 10th one is so far the worst, it's shaped poorly and looks unnatural.
11th is almost as good as the 4th one.
The 12th is exactly like the 1st, although the lighting is ever so slightly better.
And finally, the 13th looks the most lively, though not as good as some of the other ones.
I really like the 1st one, the overall shape is good and nails are well trimmed. Although it's a little bit wrinkly.
The 2nd one is really natural, the shading and lighting looks good, very well done.
3rd one isn't good though, it's not as good looking as the other ones.
4th one is my favorite of the bunch, it has the best features that the other ones has.
The 5th one is similar to the 1st, although not as good.
The 6th looks even more unnatural than the 3rd, almost synthetic like.
7th is the most wrinkly so not good.
8th is the least wrinkly of the bunch, but still pretty wrinkly nonetheless.
The 9th has the best looking nails.
The 10th one is so far the worst, it's shaped poorly and looks unnatural.
11th is almost as good as the 4th one.
The 12th is exactly like the 1st, although the lighting is ever so slightly better.
And finally, the 13th looks the most lively, though not as good as some of the other ones.
Lmaoabraker wrote: 70543g
I knew that hand looked somewhat familiar
Nate Bait wrote: 5a1r3v
slight necroed this :l
part 1
part 2: the other side
Nice tendons and vascularity. Fingers and fingernails are way too long and skinny for my liking though.
I forgot to take pictures today hehe
I'll post last year's pictures, and I for sure will post new pics tomorrow.
I'll post last year's pictures, and I for sure will post new pics tomorrow.
ok
ok here
https://ibb.co/4Ks84Jg idk that img thing doesn't work idk why
Hi guys, I apologize for slacking with my ratings in this wonderful thread. I have made it my New Years resolution to continue with this.
Here is a picture of my hand as a form of an apology.
https://imgur.com/a/ggH7zCj
Here is a picture of my hand as a form of an apology.
https://imgur.com/a/ggH7zCj
Tad Fibonacci wrote: 1h70l
subbie6 wrote: 50273a
That set up is just screaming the 90s.
And is that a track ball I see?
Yeah it's a kensington slimblade, kind of pricey but got it on a decent sale about a year and a half ago and I'd say if you wait for a good markdown it's fairly tolerable since most trackballs have a deep slope but this one is basically flat which is way more cozy and is generally really good quality. Anyhow, I use it for general browsing and when I play games I pull down my mouse (which in that pic is resting on the top of the monitor hence the cord leading up to it). Incidentally, I saw your hand near the top of the thread, our hands seem somewhat similar. Perhaps I'm generally more bulgy at the knuckle points and ts but aside from that it lookes like the same general shape.
Endaris wrote: 5yt4j
samX500 wrote: 263c5c
abraker wrote: 70543g
you don't know how to feel about this
but you weren't there when the holy leg thread was decapitated at its height by the ruthless seagull
Wow I didn't even notice. This truly is a tragedy.
It was way before your time.
Didn't someone post a leg thread a week ago?
samX500 wrote: 263c5c
Endaris wrote: 5yt4j
samX500 wrote: 263c5c
abraker wrote: 70543g
you don't know how to feel about this
but you weren't there when the holy leg thread was decapitated at its height by the ruthless seagull
Wow I didn't even notice. This truly is a tragedy.
It was way before your time.
Didn't someone post a leg thread a week ago?
Potentially but the original leg thread that was decapitated by the musculous bird has been older.
Pretty basic hand imo. Nice nails, could use a bit of trimming though. It looks like you rubbed your middle finger knuckle on your desk really hard and burned it. I did that in 4th grade one time and game myself a little scar. Also, your thumb gives me anxiety.Captain Picard wrote: m5n2h
keep the hand thread alive
6/10
basic hand. Your fingers seem a little bit proportionally small, might just be the angle though. Off-topic, but your tattoo seems cool.[ - Zekks - ] wrote: 525y1k
5/10
why? what am I looking at here?levesterz wrote: 355c6e
Absolutely Beautiful! Great vascularity, really nice fingernails. That mole is adorable, wowee.henry11hei wrote: 422l59
Wow that took longer then I thought
9/10
Your fingers look like they suffer from Gigantism. Fingernails are little short for my liking. I like your hands though overall.[Ska] wrote: 5j4w39
ok but im still looking for the toe thread
7/10
4/10Penguin wrote: 2z2h6s
Nice tendons and vascularity. Fingers and fingernails are way too long and skinny for my liking though.Nate Bait wrote: 5a1r3v
slight necroed this :l
part 1
part 2: the other side
I like them! Nice nails, great vascularity. Finger to hand proportions are good. I used to have that exact same watch until I left it at my friends housejohnmedina999 wrote: 67b57
I forgot to take pictures today hehe
I'll post last year's pictures, and I for sure will post new pics tomorrow.
9/10
clean your fingernails plsKatouMegumi wrote: 2f5h6q
2.5/10
Very nice. Would probably be a lot better with some vascularity, but oh well.subbie6 wrote: 50273a
7.5/10
Your hand seems kinda small compared to your fingers. Could just be the cropping of your picture, but idk.eblf2013 wrote: c554s
HÆND
4/10
Your nails are waaaay too long for my liking. Finger are kinda long too, but not bad.click squares wrote: 3xf6d
ok
5/10
pretty basic, not much going on here. There's no real definition, but proportions are pretty good.Rizevim wrote: 4i4w5l
4/10
You're very right, nice and smooth! Nice proportions, decent tendons.q9za wrote: 4w1c3d
I'm smooth boi
10/10 very veiny, will please anyone.Penguin wrote: 2z2h6s
Here's my hand a few months ago on a hot sunny day.
Left hand here
oof
oof
Wow! Great improvement from before! much better pose and angle and lighting! Nice vascularity and hand proportion!Ashton wrote: 2es4d
Rate this pls. It is one year later from my original post.
I'm bumping your score up to 8.75
also, thanks for breaking the streak of cursed hands
I was planning on doing that to make it easier for me to maintain an accurate rating standard. I'm just lazy and haven't set aside the time on doing so yet, lmaoAshton wrote: 2es4d
Would it be possible to link the persons hand with their rating? Would that be too much work?
I'll get to it soon™
it's never too much effort for the wonderful hand thread.q9za wrote: 4w1c3d
It's too much effort, discovering hands and rating them yourself is part of the fun.
also, as I was going through and linking all the pics to the leaderboard, I noticed that a lot of the images have been removed / unhosted. If I missed your hand on the leaderboard then please post another picture so I can fix it.
yup, and now that I've had a chance to compare all the submissions side by side I have adjusted a few scores.Ashton wrote: 2es4d
that was quicker than i thought. nice
Nate Bate, subbie6, [Ska] have had their scores readjusted and have all been moved up a few ranks to compensate for their new scores.
the color of your hands makes it look kinda bad. I assume you used the eraser in the back before you took this shot. It feels as if your colors on your hands were as if you just got back from punching your hand into a wall for an hour. However I will it that you have a good palm and fingers weight ratio that goes well together. The fingernails are too short for my liking as it looks like a garbled piece of mess. You however have a good amount of hair on your hands. It's not too much in which you look like you got bit by a werewolf but not too little where your skin is just see-through and you can see all of your tendons.samX500 wrote: 263c5c
overall a solid build 6/10
2/10, not good. Need more spice.samX500 wrote: 263c5c
no tendon 0/10abraker wrote: 70543g
self portrait
the color of your hand is fine, it just seems like it's cold when you took the picture. Nice amount of hair, not too much which is perfect. Fingernails are a little stubby, but not terrible.samX500 wrote: 263c5c
7/10
I'm still rating your hand from all those months ago. Please do not rush the rating process, it is a very delicate ordeal and any little interruption can throw me off. You will get your rating in due time.abraker wrote: 70543g
I like how my hand is still not considered a hand lol
here's is the wiki page for standard rankings. I'm just using the standard competition-style ranking.Ashton wrote: 2es4d
Hey technically im third right? Since second place is tied? You have me as 4th atm
wiki
Strategies for asg rankings
It is not always possible to assign rankings uniquely. For example, in a race or competition two (or more) entrants might tie for a place in the ranking.[3] When computing an ordinal measurement, two (or more) of the quantities being ranked might measure equal. In these cases, one of the strategies shown below for asg the rankings may be adopted. A common shorthand way to distinguish these ranking strategies is by the ranking numbers that would be produced for four items, with the first item ranked ahead of the second and third (which compare equal) which are both ranked ahead of the fourth. These names are also shown below.
Standard competition ranking ("1224" ranking)
In competition ranking, items that compare equal receive the same ranking number, and then a gap is left in the ranking numbers. The number of ranking numbers that are left out in this gap is one less than the number of items that compared equal. Equivalently, each item's ranking number is 1 plus the number of items ranked above it. This ranking strategy is frequently adopted for competitions, as it means that if two (or more) competitors tie for a position in the ranking, the position of all those ranked below them is unaffected (i.e., a competitor only comes second if exactly one person scores better than them, third if exactly two people score better than them, fourth if exactly three people score better than them, etc.).
Thus if A ranks ahead of B and C (which compare equal) which are both ranked ahead of D, then A gets ranking number 1 ("first"), B gets ranking number 2 ("t second"), C also gets ranking number 2 ("t second") and D gets ranking number 4 ("fourth").
Modified competition ranking ("1334" ranking)
Sometimes, competition ranking is done by leaving the gaps in the ranking numbers before the sets of equal-ranking items (rather than after them as in standard competition ranking).[where?] The number of ranking numbers that are left out in this gap remains one less than the number of items that compared equal. Equivalently, each item's ranking number is equal to the number of items ranked equal to it or above it. This ranking ensures that a competitor only comes second if they score higher than all but one of their opponents, third if they score higher than all but two of their opponents, etc.
Thus if A ranks ahead of B and C (which compare equal) which are both ranked head of D, then A gets ranking number 1 ("first"), B gets ranking number 3 ("t third"), C also gets ranking number 3 ("t third") and D gets ranking number 4 ("fourth"). In this case, nobody would get ranking number 2 ("second") and that would be left as a gap.
Dense ranking ("1223" ranking)
In dense ranking, items that compare equally receive the same ranking number, and the next item(s) receive the immediately following ranking number. Equivalently, each item's ranking number is 1 plus the number of items ranked above it that are distinct with respect to the ranking order.
Thus if A ranks ahead of B and C (which compare equal) which are both ranked ahead of D, then A gets ranking number 1 ("first"), B gets ranking number 2 ("t second"), C also gets ranking number 2 ("t second") and D gets ranking number 3 ("Third").
It is not always possible to assign rankings uniquely. For example, in a race or competition two (or more) entrants might tie for a place in the ranking.[3] When computing an ordinal measurement, two (or more) of the quantities being ranked might measure equal. In these cases, one of the strategies shown below for asg the rankings may be adopted. A common shorthand way to distinguish these ranking strategies is by the ranking numbers that would be produced for four items, with the first item ranked ahead of the second and third (which compare equal) which are both ranked ahead of the fourth. These names are also shown below.
Standard competition ranking ("1224" ranking)
In competition ranking, items that compare equal receive the same ranking number, and then a gap is left in the ranking numbers. The number of ranking numbers that are left out in this gap is one less than the number of items that compared equal. Equivalently, each item's ranking number is 1 plus the number of items ranked above it. This ranking strategy is frequently adopted for competitions, as it means that if two (or more) competitors tie for a position in the ranking, the position of all those ranked below them is unaffected (i.e., a competitor only comes second if exactly one person scores better than them, third if exactly two people score better than them, fourth if exactly three people score better than them, etc.).
Thus if A ranks ahead of B and C (which compare equal) which are both ranked ahead of D, then A gets ranking number 1 ("first"), B gets ranking number 2 ("t second"), C also gets ranking number 2 ("t second") and D gets ranking number 4 ("fourth").
Modified competition ranking ("1334" ranking)
Sometimes, competition ranking is done by leaving the gaps in the ranking numbers before the sets of equal-ranking items (rather than after them as in standard competition ranking).[where?] The number of ranking numbers that are left out in this gap remains one less than the number of items that compared equal. Equivalently, each item's ranking number is equal to the number of items ranked equal to it or above it. This ranking ensures that a competitor only comes second if they score higher than all but one of their opponents, third if they score higher than all but two of their opponents, etc.
Thus if A ranks ahead of B and C (which compare equal) which are both ranked head of D, then A gets ranking number 1 ("first"), B gets ranking number 3 ("t third"), C also gets ranking number 3 ("t third") and D gets ranking number 4 ("fourth"). In this case, nobody would get ranking number 2 ("second") and that would be left as a gap.
Dense ranking ("1223" ranking)
In dense ranking, items that compare equally receive the same ranking number, and the next item(s) receive the immediately following ranking number. Equivalently, each item's ranking number is 1 plus the number of items ranked above it that are distinct with respect to the ranking order.
Thus if A ranks ahead of B and C (which compare equal) which are both ranked ahead of D, then A gets ranking number 1 ("first"), B gets ranking number 2 ("t second"), C also gets ranking number 2 ("t second") and D gets ranking number 3 ("Third").