Hair thickness categories?

**snowbear** · February 11th, 2009, 03:20 PM

I think that there is more of a need for a iiii category than there is for further breakdowns of the existing categories. When someone says they have iii hair, and it turns out to be 4", I feel--I dunno, frustrated? I know I'm in no way one of the thickest-haired people here, but even with my 5"+, I feel that so many times when I see someone with iii hair, it's nowhere near mine.

**cobblersmaid** · February 11th, 2009, 03:38 PM

Originally Posted by snowbear

I think that there is more of a need for a iiii category than there is for further breakdowns of the existing categories. When someone says they have iii hair, and it turns out to be 4", I feel--I dunno, frustrated? I know I'm in no way one of the thickest-haired people here, but even with my 5"+, I feel that so many times when I see someone with iii hair, it's nowhere near mine.

This is true. I feel silly saying my 4" hair is iii, but technically it is.

**Beatnik Guy** · February 11th, 2009, 04:06 PM

Originally Posted by cobblersmaid

I agree that it will be confusing unless we simply but the measurement.

Uh-huh. It's not intended to be complex or scientific...

Originally Posted by snowbear

I think that there is more of a need for a iiii category than there is for further breakdowns of the existing categories.

snowbear does have a point though.

**cobblersmaid** · February 11th, 2009, 04:21 PM

[QUOTE=Beatnik Guy;459779]Uh-huh. It's not intended to be complex or scientific...

I know, I just meant that all these things people are bringing up will be an issue no matter what unless we just say the exact number. I am personally fine with the system now.

**nienna42** · February 11th, 2009, 04:27 PM

I think I was the first person in the other thread who actually mentioned that breaking the thickness classifier down might make it more useful. If I'd know what a ruckus it would cause...

I don't see what would be that confusing about breaking the thickness down further. All I was suggesting--and all that I see the OP of this thread as suggesting--was that the system continue to work exactly as it does now but with more categories. A category per inch or something like that (1" maximum=i, 1"-2"=ii, 2"-3"=iii) seems like it would give people a much better idea of who's close to them in thickness. People who are near the border or who want to account for bangs could still list themselves as two categories (i/ii, ii/iii, etc.). That's all I was envisioning.

But if even that will confuse people, then I suppose it's better to leave it as it is.

The easiest option, really, is just to list your exact circumference in your sig, if you're concerned about being accurate. *points downward at sig*

**Tabitha** · February 11th, 2009, 04:33 PM

Originally Posted by snowbear

I think that there is more of a need for a iiii category than there is for further breakdowns of the existing categories. When someone says they have iii hair, and it turns out to be 4", I feel--I dunno, frustrated? I know I'm in no way one of the thickest-haired people here, but even with my 5"+, I feel that so many times when I see someone with iii hair, it's nowhere near mine.

But following your argument, an ii person with 3"+ could feel just as frustrated at seeing another ii who has "only 2" ...

If it really needs changing, simplest would definitely be to give the actual measurement, which needs no interpretation.

**SimplyLonghair** · February 11th, 2009, 05:39 PM

The thing is, that then if it is just the actual inch measurement, many would not post it. Especially the very fine/thin hairs. There is a feeling of safety in the range. Some are just too embarrassed by how thin their hair is or has become to post it. I know that it is only an issue when trying to find others with like hair, and that can be frustrating.

I don't have an answer, but I wish that the ii range weren't so large, that is the one in which I have been having trouble finding like haired members.

But then if I were in the solid iii range, I would probably have trouble with it too.

I kind of like the idea of i=1-1.9 ii=2-2.9 iii=3-3.9 iiii=4-4.99 and so one. It is still somewhat anonymous but not so large of a range that we get lost trying to find each other. I know that folks would have to update, but many would feel good about it, most at least wouldn't feel worse. Just

**Ursula** · February 11th, 2009, 05:46 PM

Originally Posted by LisaJaney

As someone with thin hair (barely into the ii category), if there were iv and v categories, I'd want to curl up and die.

I personally would lean towards just saying (for the way-thick-hair people) "iii+" or something like "iii - 5in", so that you'd get full credit for all that hair. That way, we're still playing within the same system that other sites use (I remember when we "adopted" that typing system, and I recall borrowing things from other places to put it together. But maybe we borrowed the whole dang thing; my memory ain't what it used to be, and probably never was!)

This could all just be my insane jealousy talking, though...

If we borrowed the system from elsewhere, and use the same system as the other long hair boards, I figure we should stay on the same standard. Having "iii" mean something different hear than it does at any other long hair board would be confusing, both for new members here coming from other boards, and for LHCers going elsewhere.

If more detail is needed (and I doubt it is - the point is to give people a ballpark idea of what we're talking about in a rather subjective situation, not to collect scientific statistics) then perhaps subcatagories, the way we do with curl levels? That started out as 1, 2, 3, but then was broken down into 1a, 1b, 1c, etc. So ia, ib, iia, iib, etc. That would keep the Roman numerals the same as across the rest of the long-hair sites, but also allow for more information, if desired.

**nienna42** · February 11th, 2009, 06:35 PM

Originally Posted by Ursula

If more detail is needed (and I doubt it is - the point is to give people a ballpark idea of what we're talking about in a rather subjective situation, not to collect scientific statistics) then perhaps subcatagories, the way we do with curl levels? That started out as 1, 2, 3, but then was broken down into 1a, 1b, 1c, etc. So ia, ib, iia, iib, etc. That would keep the Roman numerals the same as across the rest of the long-hair sites, but also allow for more information, if desired.

Oh, I like this idea!

**Ursula** · February 11th, 2009, 06:40 PM

Originally Posted by LisaJaney

This could all just be my insane jealousy talking, though...

I'll trade you for a day!

I really would like to be able to do that lovely poofy/gibsony thing you can do when you put your hair up. Or a French twist. I've never been able to do a French twist.

And you can take the stiff neck I've had all day...