Objective in this context means based upon a uniform scale that’s rooted in science and rigorously challenged/analyzed. The TRM scale. That’s main point of this sub to give a numerical rating. The raters aren’t suppose to use personal preferences, such as hair color, to rank a person’s face here. (Tho some do, and some don’t believe in or care about the scale.) So, on the TRM scale, Angie in her prime was about a 9.3. This based upon using the scientific ratios/angles, skin quality, neoteny, age, etc. Also, Angie is not on the woman’s guide. I think largely because she has a halo effect, so the community realizes the inherent bias. She may be referenced to an example of a 9.5, but I don’t see too many people here using her as the face that all beauty flows. She has flaws, altho minor. But my point of bringing her up was to illustrate how we discuss our personal preferences and how subjectivity affects or doesn’t affect a rating. Also to illustrate from what I’ve seen, no one goes out of their way to call her ugly or spam her boards or sth. In reference to this board being generally toxic.