Rakehellion
Lifer
- Jan 15, 2013
- 12,181
- 35
- 91
I was already under the presumption that there are no women on the internet anyway.
Sure there are. Just go to Tumblr.
I was already under the presumption that there are no women on the internet anyway.
Sure there are. Just go to Tumblr.
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.
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
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
not a bad milf but the answers to some of her questions....
http://www.okcupid.com/profile/krushu
Which is bigger?
The earth
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.
@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.
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.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.
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.
I had an account for three years or so. Got hundreds of dates. It wasn't bad.
That'll likely result in women getting spammed with hundreds of 'connect' requests, instead of hundreds of messages.
@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.
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.
For instance, one of my ideas was to limit the number of women that a man could contact per month.
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.
Not perfect. Maybe 8 dates one week and none the next. I think I peaked at three in one day. Quality varied tremendously.
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.