On Universityrated.com, users can upload pictures of themselves or others and vote for those they find the most attractive. Many students said the website is offensive, but it’s gained popularity since its launch in February.

It takes about three seconds to figure out the purpose of the increasingly popular website www.universityrated.com.

Plastered across the homepage are pictures of smiling college-aged girls in everything from skimpy party dresses to barely-there bikinis and guys dressed in the preppiest of attires. The website allows visitors to vote on who is the more attractive of two individuals whose pictures are dispalyed side-by-side.

University of Connecticut graduate Jared Rada, 22, created the website in February, intending it to be the newest social networking phenomenon — a “unique concept not seen by the Internet,” he said. In the two months since its launch, the website, which is marketed specifically to college students, has taken off, but not everyone is thrilled with the latest online fad.

Rada said Universityrated saw immediate success, garnering 4,000 hits in the first week. The site now ranks among one of the top 60,000 most-visited websites out of more than 1 million, according to www.Alexa.com — a site that tracks Internet traffic.

To participate, users must create a log-in name and register under their college. They can then upload pictures of themselves or others, browse through thousands of photos and cast votes for whom they find the most attractive. Some students said they find the concept entertaining, but others said it is offensive and promotes a negative social culture.

Rada said he thinks Universityrated‘s biggest draw is its ability to entertain different campuses across the nation simultaneously, but with a personalized feel.

“The strongest feature of the website is the entertainment it provides,” he said. “I also believe the fact that users can vote on individuals only from their school adds to the interest. It’s a personal experience, localized to your school.”

But Deborah Rosenfelt, a women’s studies professor, is not impressed. She said the technological availability and ease of rating women and men may be something that “effectively commercializes women.”

“I’m not sure this website is a cause of this problem,” she said. “But it certainly is a symptom.”

Ever since Rosenfelt experienced a similar problem with students ranking pictures in her all-female Goucher College yearbook in the 1960s, she has realized that appearance-based judgments are an ancient idea, she said, even if people use modern vehicles to do so.

“The technology is new, but the rating of women’s ostensible beauty is pretty old,” she said.

Another negative of the website, Rosenfelt noted, was the pressure it might put on university females to conform to a certain image of beauty.

“In some ways, there’s been a narrowing of criteria of what counts as beauty,” she said.

Despite criticism, Rada said he has no plans to slow development. New features for the website are in the works, he said, including an iPhone application that is nearing completion and a new profile page that will allow access to statistical voting information, users’ upload data and “favorites.”

Pierce Kugler, a sophomore accounting major, knows many people around the campus that view the website frequently and said while he does not have a problem with it, he can understand others’ concerns.

“I really don’t mind it,” he said. “I know a few people that have had pictures posted without their permission, which isn’t cool. But I think it’s funny.”

Sophomore supply chain management major Maddie Koerber agreed that the site can be amusing and is definitely tailored to a specific demographic.

“I can see the market for it with college students and understand why people would like it,” she said. “I just wouldn’t want to be on it.”

But some students, such as sophomore engineering major Rachael Scott, said the website is insulting.

“The website is degrading, but kids are going to do what they want,” Scott said. “I would never put myself on there.”

Rada said he disagrees and that he thinks his site is not all that dissimilar from other social networking websites where users can post pictures — Universityrated just adds a little competition to the photo galleries.

He also noted he complies with all privacy standards stated on the website and that, up to this point, he has not received any negative complaints about the way the website is presented.

“The site was built with the intention of being fun,” he said. “If you believe it’s degrading, then simply don’t upload and don’t vote.”

news at umdbk dot com