CBQ revised?

A suggestion has arrived to StinkyLu (via criticlasm) from Rich -- an actual mathlete it seems -- that aims to clarify StinkyLulu's proposed vector of film analysis, CBQ (Cute Boy Quotient)...

Rich notes:
"There are major mathematical difficulties
underlying StinkyLulu's poposed CBQ.
For instance, if both the numerator and the
denominator of the ratio are in the range
1 to 10, no negative numbers are possible.
Also, ANY film for which the overall rating
equals the CB rating would have a CBQ of 1 -
that is, a great film with lots of CB's or
a terrible one with few.

"I would propose, instead, a "CBD"
or "Cute Boy Differential" which is
the DIFFERENCE between the two numbers.
Miracle would have a CBD of 8
(an even "better" number than its CBQ of 5),
good films with cute boys and bad films
without cute boys would both have CBD's of zero,
and good films inadequately populated
with cute boys would have negatve CBD's...."

Innnersting. Indeed, Rich's proposal of the CBD is appealing.
Now, StinkyLulu's math history is near-tragic (LilStinky nearly failed out of mid-school for a pedagogical failure in conveying some essential lessons in "number properties" that made the transition into higher maths near impossible. It was only during preparations for the GRE nearly two decades later that StinkyLulu discovered the square root of years of math trauma. But that's another story...) So, as a general rule, StinkyLu prefers mathemagic to actual math.

So, lovely readers, enjoy diddling with Rich's proposal, the CBD.
Anything to encourage honesty in film engagement & assessment.
That's all StinkyLu really wants...