Hair thickness categories?

**Just_Isabel** · February 11th, 2009, 09:44 AM

A discussion about the hair thickness categories started in this thread, from about this post (#43) onward.

Speedbump suggested that we ask here in Site Support about a redesign of the system, so I started this thread.

The suggestion for a 5 category system is:

i - less than 2"
ii - 2" to 3"
iii - 3" to 4"
iv - 4" to 5"
v - >5"

So... would this work?

**Presto** · February 11th, 2009, 09:57 AM

My two cents would be that this system did not originate with LHC, and other hair care sites use the same classification system.
Whether or not we care if our information is cross compatible with other sites might be the real question.
I would imagine it would be just as clear to state that you fall to one end or the other of each category, which would give you the same number of categories, like this:
i
i/ii
ii
ii/iii
iii
And would still be somewhat understandable to other people who use the original system.

**Just_Isabel** · February 11th, 2009, 10:07 AM

Originally Posted by Presto

My two cents would be that this system did not originate with LHC, and other hair care sites use the same classification system.
Whether or not we care if our information is cross compatible with other sites might be the real question.
I would imagine it would be just as clear to state that you fall to one end or the other of each category, which would give you the same number of categories, like this:
i
i/ii
ii
ii/iii
iii
And would still be somewhat understandable to other people who use the original system.

I didn't know about the other sites using the same system, I thought it was a LHC thing.
Since I don't go to other hair sites, maybe I shouldn't vote on this, I don't know how much of a hassle it could become / how much confusion it would create.

But I'd like to say that while using the i/ii, ii/iii categories does give us a total of 5 in theory, it's not the same as the new 5 that were suggested. And I used "in theory" because, as far as I know, i/ii and ii/iii are used by people who are very close to the border. If i/ii is used by people who have 1.75 - 2.25", and ii/iii for 3.75 - 4.25", you still have no extra category for the 5"+ and there is still a very big difference between a 2.25" and a 3.75" pony tail circumference. (A person with 3.75" has almost 3x the volume of hair of someone with 2.25", but they're both in the "ii" category.)

**darkwaves** · February 11th, 2009, 10:18 AM

Originally Posted by Just_Isabel

But I'd like to say that while using the i/ii, ii/iii categories does give us a total of 5 in theory, it's not the same as the new 5 that were suggested.

I agree -- the new five would split the current ii category, and allows an extra range at the top for the super-thick.

This would make sense to me!

**harpgal** · February 11th, 2009, 10:32 AM

Interesting.... I'll put it before the powers that be.

**Euphony** · February 11th, 2009, 10:43 AM

I would love it (of course!!)...and ummmm sorry I think it was my 'gripe' post that started this train of thought - sorry for causing extra work.

BUT it'd be SOOOOO COOL!!!!!

**Just_Isabel** · February 11th, 2009, 11:08 AM

Originally Posted by harpgal

Interesting.... I'll put it before the powers that be.

Thanks, Harpgal.

**Anje** · February 11th, 2009, 12:07 PM

Just another vote to say that it could be nice, and quite useful.

Then again, I wouldn't even have to re-classify.

**Just_Isabel** · February 11th, 2009, 12:17 PM

Originally Posted by Anje

Then again, I wouldn't even have to re-classify.

Me neither, but having the current "ii" split into two groups would be helpful. I wouldn't try to guess if a person was close to me in thickness despite belonging to the same category.

**Rohele** · February 11th, 2009, 12:26 PM

Originally Posted by Just_Isabel

But I'd like to say that while using the i/ii, ii/iii categories does give us a total of 5 in theory, it's not the same as the new 5 that were suggested. And I used "in theory" because, as far as I know, i/ii and ii/iii are used by people who are very close to the border. If i/ii is used by people who have 1.75 - 2.25", and ii/iii for 3.75 - 4.25", you still have no extra category for the 5"+ and there is still a very big difference between a 2.25" and a 3.75" pony tail circumference. (A person with 3.75" has almost 3x the volume of hair of someone with 2.25", but they're both in the "ii" category.)

I would just like to add that even the new system would produce people with 2 numbers in their classifier - at 4 inches in circumference I would now classify myself as iii/iv since I'm at the top range of one category and the bottom range in another. If the goal is to eliminate those types of categorizations, maybe redefining the ranges would eliminate that sort of confusion (ie category iii includes 3" to under 4" - if that makes any sense)