Looking through OKcupid's profiles...

[Rakehellion]

I was already under the presumption that there are no women on the internet anyway.

Sure there are. Just go to Tumblr.

 

[tortillasoup]

Sure there are. Just go to Tumblr.

Are those women? I thought tumblr was a chatroom for the whales stuck in holding tanks at various water parks.

 

[mmntech]

Even average attractiveness for a male have a hard time on dating sites, with the average attractiveness rating about the same as someone who's ugly. On the other hand, if you're a woman, it doesn't matter if you're walrus and disfigured, you'll get a lot of messages still. Granted, it's unknown with this guy's experiment how good his profile or his messages are. Perhaps he wrote the most bland profile and generic messages so he hardly got a response with his attractiveness going for him.

I recall seeing a study done by one of the dating sites that basically confirmed this. Wish I could find it. While it's commonly thought that men have unrealistic expectations of female beauty, the opposite it true. Men tend to bell curve around average to above average.

 

[tortillasoup]

not a bad milf but the answers to some of her questions....
http://www.okcupid.com/profile/krushu
Which is bigger?
The earth

Would the world be a better place if people with
low IQs were not allowed to reproduce?
yes


For you personally, is abortion an option in
case of an accidental pregnancy?
no

 

[gophertron]

I recall seeing a study done by one of the dating sites that basically confirmed this. Wish I could find it. While it's commonly thought that men have unrealistic expectations of female beauty, the opposite it true. Men tend to bell curve around average to above average.

I used online dating extensively during all of my 20s, and I definitely agree with this when it comes to online dating - for all the reasons 88keys mentioned. I think there tends to be more guys actively using online dating sites, and the women that use it are generally on the lower end of the looks scales. I'm around a 6.5 or 7ish on the looks scale in the LA area, and I had tons of dates, that was never an issue. But my not-interested rate was probably around 80%. A portion of the 20% that I was into turned out not to be interested in me. I suppose that isn't really too different from real-life success, but the volumes here were crazy - I went on dates with probably over 150 people in entirety, and I think it was a pretty big waste of time if you have higher expectations.

I had to get crafty with looking at people's pictures to see what they really look like, cause everyone always picks their best pics. So you get a lot of women you're just not attracted to. Then for the small remainder that you are, they get so flooded with options both online and in real-life that they get to be extra picky. I did have one long term girlfriend from it, so it did work, but it took too much work.

I finally gave up when I was 30 and went to real-life only and went on some much better dates in a short period of time, I could at least get the attractive part of it figured out right away. I met my fiance within two months of having given up online dating after having used it for 8+ years. It was hard of course, online dating makes setting things up much easier when you're not used to real-life, but in the end I think the real-life aspect makes things less awkward.

I think tinder and such have made lower barriers of entry for women, but I still think if you're trying to date a 7+ woman it's probably easier to just suck it up and go real-life.

 

[Platypus]

Dankk post pics, I'll tell you if you're subjectively attractive.

 

[jlee]

not a bad milf but the answers to some of her questions....
http://www.okcupid.com/profile/krushu
Which is bigger?
The earth

Would the world be a better place if people with
low IQs were not allowed to reproduce?
yes


For you personally, is abortion an option in
case of an accidental pregnancy?
no

lmao

 

[Exophase]

Even average attractiveness for a male have a hard time on dating sites who gets about the same response as someone who's ugly. On the other hand, if you're a woman, it doesn't matter if you're a walrus and disfigured, you'll get a lot of messages still. Granted, it's unknown with this guy's experiment how good his profile or his messages are. Perhaps he wrote the most bland profile and generic messages so he hardly got a response with his attractiveness going for him.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...okcupid_and_tinder/+&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

On the other hand, if you look at the kind of messages women gets spammed with, it's easy to see why they would be so insanely selective with the responses. Most guys are just sad horny losers looking for sex.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...t_it_was_like_to_be+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

The problem isn't really with (much of) the men or women using the dating sites but the nature of the sites themselves. When women get so many messages that they can't respond to most of them, or won't because they're afraid of the man being a jerk in response, men get more frustrated and desperate. They reason that it's not worth writing a thoughtful message because it raises attachment to wanting a response that will probably not come. Instead they write more and lower quality messages. Which makes the problem worse. And both sides end up more bitter and with entrenched prejudice against the opposite gender.

I think this would happen even if there were a similar number of men and women on the sites because of the expectation for men to make the first move and be aggressive. The fact that men greatly outnumber women in site registration and activity (although that's kind of a given, since it takes a lot more time to write many messages than ignore them) makes the issue that much worse.

What would help is if there was a dating site that actually acknowledged this is a big problem and took some steps to try to improve it. For example:

- Have some kind of message rating system based on the (preferably multi-dimensional) opinion of the receivers and some kind of algorithmic heuristics of analyzing the messages. Allow (or possibly even require) received messages to be sorted by rating. Allow tuning features that let receivers weight what they do and don't value in messages. Possibly throttle messaging capabilities of the lowest quality posters.
- Let people give passive feedback to their messengers to say why they're not interested without actually responding, which would show up in a summarized evaluation (averaged over all responses, potentially weighted by the receiver's ratings/characteristics) available to that person. Right now when someone is ignored they have zero feedback as to why.
- Have a respond + block feature so you can tell people you're not interested without worrying about them responding negatively.
- Throttle the number of messages that can be sent to someone without their response.
- Incorporate more dynamic social features into the site, like chat rooms and games, that have stats/links/etc tied into the profiles. That's a more natural way to get to know someone than reading a profile.

 

[tortillasoup]

A lot of these problems would miraculously solve themselves by having more women on the site.

 

[Aikouka]

There's a question about what causes the Earth's seasons, and I've seen way too many people answer something other than "tilt".

not a bad milf but the answers to some of her questions....
http://www.okcupid.com/profile/krushu
Which is bigger?
The earth

Maybe she's a follower of Geocentrism? I haven't checked her profile, but she does perhaps say, "Fuck Copernicus!", anywhere?

 

[Exophase]

A lot of these problems would miraculously solve themselves by having more women on the site.

That's what eHarmony seems to think anyway. They have more women than men on their site, and they get their by rejecting more men by telling them they didn't meet their criteria after taking some long winded survey.

But I don't agree that the problem would totally go away.

 

[Aikouka]

That's what eHarmony seems to think anyway. They have more women than men on their site, and they get their by rejecting more men by telling them they didn't meet their criteria after taking some long winded survey.

But I don't agree that the problem would totally go away.

Ugh... I hate eHarmony. Honestly, it's probably the worst dating site out there. The biggest problem is that they feed you the matches, but their system is so ridiculous at overfeeding you. They'd usually send me 3-7 matches in the morning and 2-5 in the evening. You might think, "What's wrong with having more choice?" The problem is that (1) the matches weren't very good, and (2) they were usually quite far away. Being in Alabama, I've had matches from as far away as Kentucky and Indiana, and that's with my distance setting set to 60 miles with a requirement set to "somewhat important". I used to have it set to 60 with "very important", but I saw almost no matches.

I think part of the thing with eHarmony is that I'm not subscribed anymore. So, they send you deluges of matches just to try and push you to subscribe since you can't see your matches or communicate beyond simple questions (most people just hide contact info in a question or answer). It's even more annoying that the site constantly forwards you to a subscription page, which has a huge CONTINUE button and a very, very small link to continue to where you actually wanted to go. If I ever click on a link in an eHarmony e-mail, I log in and immediately see the subscription page. I just usually click the logo at the top as it's faster than finding the stupid "Go to matches>" link.

 

[Ancalagon44]

@Exophase

I think about dating sites a lot, and what could be done to improve them. I think you have some very good ideas.

I have been trying to rack my brains to come up with ideas that improve the dating site for both sexes, not just one. For instance, one of my ideas was to limit the number of women that a man could contact per month. This would make the men more careful about who they contact, and thus will probably result in a reduction in the number of new contacts that a woman receives. However, for women, is this a positive or a negative? It suits women to have as many men as possible contact them, so that they can pick from the best of them.

But that is where your idea of message rating (or sender rating?) could work somehow.

Another idea I had is to not allow messages to be exchanged until after contact has been established. In other words, Fred requests to connect with Jane. Jane accepts. Now Fred and Jane can message each other, but not before.

One thing I think a lot of dating sites get wrong is asking for too much information. For curiousity, I signed up for this dating site called elitesingles.co.za. I couldn't believe how many questions were asked, and all of them were compulsory. None of them were important though. I made up answers for them as quickly as possible just to see what the entire process is like. Seriously, check it out. It's the worst dating site I've ever seen because of that. I thought it might have been a scam actually.

 

[jlee]

@Exophase

I think about dating sites a lot, and what could be done to improve them. I think you have some very good ideas.

I have been trying to rack my brains to come up with ideas that improve the dating site for both sexes, not just one. For instance, one of my ideas was to limit the number of women that a man could contact per month. This would make the men more careful about who they contact, and thus will probably result in a reduction in the number of new contacts that a woman receives. However, for women, is this a positive or a negative? It suits women to have as many men as possible contact them, so that they can pick from the best of them.

But that is where your idea of message rating (or sender rating?) could work somehow.

Another idea I had is to not allow messages to be exchanged until after contact has been established. In other words, Fred requests to connect with Jane. Jane accepts. Now Fred and Jane can message each other, but not before.

One thing I think a lot of dating sites get wrong is asking for too much information. For curiousity, I signed up for this dating site called elitesingles.co.za. I couldn't believe how many questions were asked, and all of them were compulsory. None of them were important though. I made up answers for them as quickly as possible just to see what the entire process is like. Seriously, check it out. It's the worst dating site I've ever seen because of that. I thought it might have been a scam actually.

That'll likely result in women getting spammed with hundreds of 'connect' requests, instead of hundreds of messages.

 

[clamum]

Ugh... I hate eHarmony. Honestly, it's probably the worst dating site out there. The biggest problem is that they feed you the matches, but their system is so ridiculous at overfeeding you. They'd usually send me 3-7 matches in the morning and 2-5 in the evening. You might think, "What's wrong with having more choice?" The problem is that (1) the matches weren't very good, and (2) they were usually quite far away. Being in Alabama, I've had matches from as far away as Kentucky and Indiana, and that's with my distance setting set to 60 miles with a requirement set to "somewhat important". I used to have it set to 60 with "very important", but I saw almost no matches.

I think part of the thing with eHarmony is that I'm not subscribed anymore. So, they send you deluges of matches just to try and push you to subscribe since you can't see your matches or communicate beyond simple questions (most people just hide contact info in a question or answer). It's even more annoying that the site constantly forwards you to a subscription page, which has a huge CONTINUE button and a very, very small link to continue to where you actually wanted to go. If I ever click on a link in an eHarmony e-mail, I log in and immediately see the subscription page. I just usually click the logo at the top as it's faster than finding the stupid "Go to matches>" link.

Yeah I'm constantly deleting their "Check out your new matches" emails. Out of say 10 matches there's only about 2 or 3 that I find attractive, within an hour of me, and within the age range I'm looking for (24-34); and I'm not picky when it comes to looks either, I just don't find overly fat women attractive. At first I found the multiple daily emails annoying but I guess I'd rather have more matches than less.

 

[gorcorps]

Ugh... I hate eHarmony. Honestly, it's probably the worst dating site out there. The biggest problem is that they feed you the matches, but their system is so ridiculous at overfeeding you. They'd usually send me 3-7 matches in the morning and 2-5 in the evening. You might think, "What's wrong with having more choice?" The problem is that (1) the matches weren't very good, and (2) they were usually quite far away. Being in Alabama, I've had matches from as far away as Kentucky and Indiana, and that's with my distance setting set to 60 miles with a requirement set to "somewhat important". I used to have it set to 60 with "very important", but I saw almost no matches.

I think part of the thing with eHarmony is that I'm not subscribed anymore. So, they send you deluges of matches just to try and push you to subscribe since you can't see your matches or communicate beyond simple questions (most people just hide contact info in a question or answer). It's even more annoying that the site constantly forwards you to a subscription page, which has a huge CONTINUE button and a very, very small link to continue to where you actually wanted to go. If I ever click on a link in an eHarmony e-mail, I log in and immediately see the subscription page. I just usually click the logo at the top as it's faster than finding the stupid "Go to matches>" link.

Agreed

The fact that I couldn't search for my own matches boggled my mind. eharmony was terrible... just terrible

 

[doubledeluxe]

I had an account for three years or so. Got hundreds of dates. It wasn't bad.

150 weeks and you got lets say 300 dates. You scored a perfect 2 dates a week? High five. I would have considered finding 2 quality dates on that website to have been impossible before reading your comment.

 

[Ancalagon44]

That'll likely result in women getting spammed with hundreds of 'connect' requests, instead of hundreds of messages.

Yes it would. There are two ways of looking at though. The first way is that women actually like this, since they get to pick and choose. Plus it boosts their egos to have so many men want them.

However, would it result in them finding the right man? No use in having hundreds of men want to connect with you, if you still can't pick the right man from them. So, we would either need to reduce the number of men that can contact a woman, or make it easier for the woman to filter out undesirable men to find the one she wants.

The problem with filtering is that 90% of online dating just boils down to pictures. So, almost everything else is ignored.

 

[gotsmack]

@Exophase

I think about dating sites a lot, and what could be done to improve them. I think you have some very good ideas.

I have been trying to rack my brains to come up with ideas that improve the dating site for both sexes, not just one. For instance, one of my ideas was to limit the number of women that a man could contact per month. This would make the men more careful about who they contact, and thus will probably result in a reduction in the number of new contacts that a woman receives. However, for women, is this a positive or a negative? It suits women to have as many men as possible contact them, so that they can pick from the best of them.

But that is where your idea of message rating (or sender rating?) could work somehow.

Another idea I had is to not allow messages to be exchanged until after contact has been established. In other words, Fred requests to connect with Jane. Jane accepts. Now Fred and Jane can message each other, but not before.

One thing I think a lot of dating sites get wrong is asking for too much information. For curiousity, I signed up for this dating site called elitesingles.co.za. I couldn't believe how many questions were asked, and all of them were compulsory. None of them were important though. I made up answers for them as quickly as possible just to see what the entire process is like. Seriously, check it out. It's the worst dating site I've ever seen because of that. I thought it might have been a scam actually.

You just described tinder.

 

[Rakehellion]

150 weeks and you got lets say 300 dates. You scored a perfect 2 dates a week? High five. I would have considered finding 2 quality dates on that website to have been impossible before reading your comment.

Not perfect. Maybe 8 dates one week and none the next. I think I peaked at three in one day. Quality varied tremendously.

 

[Rakehellion]

For instance, one of my ideas was to limit the number of women that a man could contact per month.

Charge money before you can message anyone. It's been done before.

But that is where your idea of message rating (or sender rating?) could work somehow.

It's been done before. It breeds a clique mentality that one one type of person and one type of message is ever successful.

Another idea I had is to not allow messages to be exchanged until after contact has been established. In other words, Fred requests to connect with Jane. Jane accepts. Now Fred and Jane can message each other, but not before.

Tinder. The most popular dating app right now.


What exactly about online dating are you trying to improve? What do you think is wrong with the current system?

 

[doubledeluxe]

Not perfect. Maybe 8 dates one week and none the next. I think I peaked at three in one day. Quality varied tremendously.

I think what you did was smart. Everyone should be able to find that one place where they have great success. Online sites were fine for me getting laid but I found them to be utterly useless to find a partner. So I was incredibly active in other places. I made sure I had 2-3 dates a week until I met the right person. Obviously most didn't work and you knew it really quick but I didn't have to waste much time. Online, with all the writing, and with very little to show for it, I found it to be counterproductive for me.

Out of curiosity how did you have time for 8 dates in one week or 3 in one day? Did you just ditch them? Three was about my max. Wed, Fri, Sat. I never had one that was bad enough to ditch.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Met my wife on OKCupid. She basically said I stood out amongst the rest... Which is funny because that's exactly what I was going for /flex. Also, I was apparently one of the only ones that would continue talking even though she didn't have a profile picture up. Apparently most men can't handle the thought process of an attractive woman not flaunting herself with selfies.

It isn't rocket science. You have an abundance of horny men looking to get laid with 3 sentences worth of description text, and a bunch of emotional women. Stand out amongst the rest.

 

[mmntech]

Tinder. The most popular dating app right now.

From what I've seen, Tinder is more a hookup site than a dating site. It's almost like the straight version of Grinder.

A buddy of mind has a Tinder account. His profile picture is two handsome hockey players and some fat Italian guy off to the corner. Guess which one he is, and guess how many replies he gets.

 

[tortillasoup]

From what I've seen, Tinder is more a hookup site than a dating site. It's almost like the straight version of Grinder.

A buddy of mind has a Tinder account. His profile picture is two handsome hockey players and some fat Italian guy off to the corner. Guess which one he is, and guess how many replies he gets.

I don't want to guess. Which one is he and how many replies does he get?