Hair thickness categories?

[harpgal]

First of all, the entire mod team wishes to thank you all for your input into the issues surrounding the hair thickness categories. Every one of your posts was read and thought about. Your ideas are very good and we appreciate you taking the time to post.

However, at this present time, we have decided to keep the measurement stats the same as they have always been. This is not to say that in the future they may be altered a bit. But for now, they will remain the same.

If you would like to place your exact circumference in your siggy, please feel free to do that.

[FrayedFire]

The above gets my vote. It's super simple and straightforward:
i = up to 1"
ii = 1-2"
iii = 2-3"
iv = 3-4"
v = 4-5"
and so on.

I think this would be much more useful in terms of figuring out which hairdos can be done with your particular hair. It also seems as though a change like this would be easier than trying to separate out the ii category into i/ii for the bottom third, ii fo the middle third, and ii/iii for the upper third.

As an aside, I don't think the wording

i - thin (less than 2 inches/5 centimeters)
ii - normal (between 2-4 inches or 5-10 centimeters)
iii - thick (more than 4 inches/10 centmeters)

from here is the best. I'd like to see "normal" replaced with "average". As much as many of us are going for "abnormal" lengths, in this circumstance "normal" is inaccurate and misleading. There are plenty of people with very normal hair that is thick or thin. There are also people with abnormal (bright blue, anyone?) hair in the ii range.

And as an aside to my own aside, it took me some time to find where the hair classification information was. Is it possible to put a link to it on the user cp page where you actually fill it out? Or even on the FAQ page (which is where I looked next)?

I found this thread only by searching for it - I was actually trying to figure out if I should categorize myself as an i or ii because I'm exactly two inches. I think ii definition spans too far to be an accurate description for my hair, but I'm also not less than 2 inches, so i isn't the perfect fit either. Why don't we just use actual measurements instead of broad classifications? There's enough difference between 2.25 and 2.75 anyway that I feel it would be better to just use exact numbers (metric or imperial) instead of approximating with Roman numerals.

[lapushka]

I found this thread only by searching for it - I was actually trying to figure out if I should categorize myself as an i or ii because I'm exactly two inches. I think ii definition spans too far to be an accurate description for my hair, but I'm also not less than 2 inches, so i isn't the perfect fit either. Why don't we just use actual measurements instead of broad classifications? There's enough difference between 2.25 and 2.75 anyway that I feel it would be better to just use exact numbers (metric or imperial) instead of approximating with Roman numerals.

If you are exactly 2, you might want to go with i/ii.