This tells me a lot about what you think is attractive. To be honest, only 2 of the celebrities were ones I would consider to be on the attractive side of the coin.

Currently, gaunt looking women, are considered "attractive". Many of these women are extremely thin or have unusual bone structure.

Megan Fox and Olivia Wilde, for instance, are really unattractive women. (I personally like Olivia Wilde quite a bit as an actress, and bear no ill will against Megan Fox)

There are a huge variety of women out there, and from my perspective, you've presented a list consisting only of a narrow range of the spectrum.

No offense intended, this is meant to be honest feedback.

I found myself making decisions based on things other than attractiveness alone.

This might be better done w/ unknown stock photos. But I realize it's really just an exercise in programming.

Thank you for making my day. I have a long way to go. Long way.

Is the order of the selection randomized each time?

I just changed it to be randomized based on your comment, and reset the ranking. Before that it ranked them based on average score, which has the problem of creating a winner-takes all situation. Thanks!

Doesn't look like it. Which renders the results mostly useless.

What should be presented is how far they moved from the initial order.

Looking at the results, this appears to be almost certainly the case that the initial order of the set isn't random.

After your comment, I changed it to be random.

Did you also discard the data from before it was random?

Yes.

This was a fun little project I did last weekend to familiarize myself with Google App Engine and jQuery.

I have a question: Could I see little portrait pictures of the celebrities next to their name?

What's your Browser/OS? It is supposed to have pictures.

OSX with Firefox. I'll try Safari too.

EDIT: It works correctly in Safari.

I think it might be a good idea to do pairwise comparison instead.

This was fun!

doesnt work on touch devices