12 Mar 2014, 6:05 pm
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
leafplant wrote:
lol you realised (finally!) that it was me who sent you that message when I posted somewhere else about my experience about OKC..the bulb finally went off in your head *Oh, now I get it, that must have been leafplant*
And I hope you also said doh.
How's that?
And I hope you also said doh.
How's that?
lol Nice try.
I realized it was you all along, you said you're leafie or something, but pretended I didn't know you - stalker! Hence why the hint.
you are very confusing person boo. So if you didn't want me to know you knew it was me (in spite of me signing off as leafy!?) and I played along at the time (if you recall) because I don't want to make you feel uncomfortable ffs, why are you bringing it up now and on open forum? You is making no sense at all!
And oh yeah, stalker of the year award will be coming home to me, thank you
The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,072
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.
12 Mar 2014, 6:23 pm
leafplant wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
leafplant wrote:
lol you realised (finally!) that it was me who sent you that message when I posted somewhere else about my experience about OKC..the bulb finally went off in your head *Oh, now I get it, that must have been leafplant*
And I hope you also said doh.
How's that?
And I hope you also said doh.
How's that?
lol Nice try.
I realized it was you all along, you said you're leafie or something, but pretended I didn't know you - stalker! Hence why the hint.
you are very confusing person boo. So if you didn't want me to know you knew it was me (in spite of me signing off as leafy!?) and I played along at the time (if you recall) because I don't want to make you feel uncomfortable ffs, why are you bringing it up now and on open forum? You is making no sense at all!
And oh yeah, stalker of the year award will be coming home to me, thank you
You did make me uncomfortable but this account of yours is no more so not worried anymore.
I wanna expose your stalker side in front of all WP
12 Mar 2014, 6:37 pm
I am sorry to have made you feel uncomfortable. You were not at all difficult to find, though. 
12 Mar 2014, 6:42 pm
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
akrasia wrote:
MegaBass wrote:
Schneekugel wrote:
MegaBass wrote:
I have never been bombared with messages as a woman I wonder if this is really true for most women.
As mentioned, he meaned only the "reasonable attractive" woman, so the 2% that look like an actress, not the 98% looking like normal womans look like.
Ohh I see.
Heh. Just for the record, I'm a woman. I am speaking from both personal experience as well as anecdotes offered by my female friends (and none of us look like actresses, I assure you!).
So you're saying that online dating works better for women and very hard for men, well that's not new news, but I am glad to see someone admits it.
And yes, none of the ones I dated through online dating looked like models/actresses, the only physical trait they had in common is slimness, because I am slim too.
"works better" is a subjective term. Women will receive more messages, yes. If you define "work" as "actually finding someone that you then successfully embark on a relationship with" though then it's a wash since each heterosexual woman would theoretically take one of the heterosexual men off the market (assuming they aren't polyamorous). The psychological costs are different. Men have to deal with high rates of ignored messages. Women have to deal with countless messages of objectification and crude imagery.
The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,072
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.
12 Mar 2014, 7:16 pm
akrasia wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
akrasia wrote:
MegaBass wrote:
Schneekugel wrote:
MegaBass wrote:
I have never been bombared with messages as a woman I wonder if this is really true for most women.
As mentioned, he meaned only the "reasonable attractive" woman, so the 2% that look like an actress, not the 98% looking like normal womans look like.
Ohh I see.
Heh. Just for the record, I'm a woman. I am speaking from both personal experience as well as anecdotes offered by my female friends (and none of us look like actresses, I assure you!).
So you're saying that online dating works better for women and very hard for men, well that's not new news, but I am glad to see someone admits it.
And yes, none of the ones I dated through online dating looked like models/actresses, the only physical trait they had in common is slimness, because I am slim too.
"works better" is a subjective term. Women will receive more messages, yes. If you define "work" as "actually finding someone that you then successfully embark on a relationship with" though then it's a wash since each heterosexual woman would theoretically take one of the heterosexual men off the market (assuming they aren't polyamorous). The psychological costs are different. Men have to deal with high rates of ignored messages. Women have to deal with countless messages of objectification and crude imagery.
um... no, because the gender ratio on dating sites is never 1:1, it varies from 2:1 to 10:1 and paid sites are full of fake women profiles. So even if all hetero female users get someone online, there will still be hordes of males with no one.
12 Mar 2014, 8:30 pm
12 Mar 2014, 9:02 pm
I can't say how all women approach online dating. In my case, I read the profiles first (while I'm waiting for my slow internet to load the photos). If, and only if, the profile is interesting do I even bother to look at the photos.
Again, I can't speak for all women, but I look for things that make the user stand out from the pack. Does he have any interests in common with mine? Does he sound like he's bright? Does he give any glimmer of having a sense of humor?
Of course, at my age I'm not looking for marriage and family and kids, I'm looking solely for compatibility, so the things that are important to me may not be important to everyone.
I get so many messages from men who absolutely, positively did not read even the first line of my profile, much less the whole thing, that I am leaning towards concluding that men only look at the pictures themselves.
12 Mar 2014, 11:38 pm
Eureka13 wrote:
I can't say how all women approach online dating. In my case, I read the profiles first (while I'm waiting for my slow internet to load the photos). If, and only if, the profile is interesting do I even bother to look at the photos.
Again, I can't speak for all women, but I look for things that make the user stand out from the pack. Does he have any interests in common with mine? Does he sound like he's bright? Does he give any glimmer of having a sense of humor?
Of course, at my age I'm not looking for marriage and family and kids, I'm looking solely for compatibility, so the things that are important to me may not be important to everyone.
I get so many messages from men who absolutely, positively did not read even the first line of my profile, much less the whole thing, that I am leaning towards concluding that men only look at the pictures themselves.
Again, I can't speak for all women, but I look for things that make the user stand out from the pack. Does he have any interests in common with mine? Does he sound like he's bright? Does he give any glimmer of having a sense of humor?
Of course, at my age I'm not looking for marriage and family and kids, I'm looking solely for compatibility, so the things that are important to me may not be important to everyone.
I get so many messages from men who absolutely, positively did not read even the first line of my profile, much less the whole thing, that I am leaning towards concluding that men only look at the pictures themselves.
I merely started with the pictures tbh. If I found somebody attractive, I'd read their profile ( and with OKCupid, compare questions ) and check for things in common as well as non-negotiables like smoking, excessive drinking, drug use, having certain pets, racism etc.
And to everybody thinking I'm ONLY interested in looks: you completely misunderstand what I'm saying. Merely needing to find somebody attractive does not mean I need Hayden Panetteire or Julianne Hough. But I'm also not about to date a woman who looks like Jabba the Hutt and smokes 12 packs a day just for the sake of dating somebody and not being alone. Of course, in my eyes even Victoria's Secret models look like the Toxic Avenger compared to my best friend ( I seriously love her that much ) so wtf do I know....
13 Mar 2014, 12:24 am
13 Mar 2014, 1:14 am
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
akrasia wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
akrasia wrote:
MegaBass wrote:
Schneekugel wrote:
MegaBass wrote:
I have never been bombared with messages as a woman I wonder if this is really true for most women.
As mentioned, he meaned only the "reasonable attractive" woman, so the 2% that look like an actress, not the 98% looking like normal womans look like.
Ohh I see.
Heh. Just for the record, I'm a woman. I am speaking from both personal experience as well as anecdotes offered by my female friends (and none of us look like actresses, I assure you!).
So you're saying that online dating works better for women and very hard for men, well that's not new news, but I am glad to see someone admits it.
And yes, none of the ones I dated through online dating looked like models/actresses, the only physical trait they had in common is slimness, because I am slim too.
"works better" is a subjective term. Women will receive more messages, yes. If you define "work" as "actually finding someone that you then successfully embark on a relationship with" though then it's a wash since each heterosexual woman would theoretically take one of the heterosexual men off the market (assuming they aren't polyamorous). The psychological costs are different. Men have to deal with high rates of ignored messages. Women have to deal with countless messages of objectification and crude imagery.
um... no, because the gender ratio on dating sites is never 1:1, it varies from 2:1 to 10:1 and paid sites are full of fake women profiles. So even if all hetero female users get someone online, there will still be hordes of males with no one.
Per OKCupid's data: http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/the-c ... der-woman/
Specifically, this chart: http://cdn.okcimg.com/blog/older_lover/ ... -Ratio.png
Granted, the data is outdated and potentially skewed, but it seems pretty even.
Quora also has a few other (somewhat outdated) responses on the topic: http://www.quora.com/Online-Dating/What ... id?share=1
13 Mar 2014, 1:18 am
Eureka13 wrote:
I can't say how all women approach online dating. In my case, I read the profiles first (while I'm waiting for my slow internet to load the photos). If, and only if, the profile is interesting do I even bother to look at the photos.
Again, I can't speak for all women, but I look for things that make the user stand out from the pack. Does he have any interests in common with mine? Does he sound like he's bright? Does he give any glimmer of having a sense of humor?
Of course, at my age I'm not looking for marriage and family and kids, I'm looking solely for compatibility, so the things that are important to me may not be important to everyone.
I get so many messages from men who absolutely, positively did not read even the first line of my profile, much less the whole thing, that I am leaning towards concluding that men only look at the pictures themselves.
Again, I can't speak for all women, but I look for things that make the user stand out from the pack. Does he have any interests in common with mine? Does he sound like he's bright? Does he give any glimmer of having a sense of humor?
Of course, at my age I'm not looking for marriage and family and kids, I'm looking solely for compatibility, so the things that are important to me may not be important to everyone.
I get so many messages from men who absolutely, positively did not read even the first line of my profile, much less the whole thing, that I am leaning towards concluding that men only look at the pictures themselves.
A lot of NT guys I know tend to message any girl they find remotely physically attractive, assuming they meet some minimum bar of intelligence. The rationale is that the chances of any woman responding are so low that they might as well improve their odds by increasing the size of the potential pool. Many of them don't even look at match percentages! I feel like this is somewhat self-defeating in that, as a woman, I would ignore messages from someone where our match percentage was lower than 90, but to each their own...
13 Mar 2014, 2:04 am
akrasia wrote:
Eureka13 wrote:
I can't say how all women approach online dating. In my case, I read the profiles first (while I'm waiting for my slow internet to load the photos). If, and only if, the profile is interesting do I even bother to look at the photos.
Again, I can't speak for all women, but I look for things that make the user stand out from the pack. Does he have any interests in common with mine? Does he sound like he's bright? Does he give any glimmer of having a sense of humor?
Of course, at my age I'm not looking for marriage and family and kids, I'm looking solely for compatibility, so the things that are important to me may not be important to everyone.
I get so many messages from men who absolutely, positively did not read even the first line of my profile, much less the whole thing, that I am leaning towards concluding that men only look at the pictures themselves.
Again, I can't speak for all women, but I look for things that make the user stand out from the pack. Does he have any interests in common with mine? Does he sound like he's bright? Does he give any glimmer of having a sense of humor?
Of course, at my age I'm not looking for marriage and family and kids, I'm looking solely for compatibility, so the things that are important to me may not be important to everyone.
I get so many messages from men who absolutely, positively did not read even the first line of my profile, much less the whole thing, that I am leaning towards concluding that men only look at the pictures themselves.
A lot of NT guys I know tend to message any girl they find remotely physically attractive, assuming they meet some minimum bar of intelligence. The rationale is that the chances of any woman responding are so low that they might as well improve their odds by increasing the size of the potential pool. Many of them don't even look at match percentages! I feel like this is somewhat self-defeating in that, as a woman, I would ignore messages from someone where our match percentage was lower than 90, but to each their own...
why 90% that's super high and would seem to limit yourself alot, what if a 60% made you super happy, had enough in common to share some interests but also interests of their own for alone time.
I don't think dating someone 100% like me would be fun for too long, I imagine it'd get boring.
The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,072
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.
13 Mar 2014, 2:14 am
Okcupid is 63% male, check the numbers.
eharmony are simply liars, they use tricks to appear gender balanced.
If you recall right, most dating sites where used to show the number of active members online and by gender, most no longer do that anymore.
akrasia wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
akrasia wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
akrasia wrote:
MegaBass wrote:
Schneekugel wrote:
MegaBass wrote:
I have never been bombared with messages as a woman I wonder if this is really true for most women.
As mentioned, he meaned only the "reasonable attractive" woman, so the 2% that look like an actress, not the 98% looking like normal womans look like.
Ohh I see.
Heh. Just for the record, I'm a woman. I am speaking from both personal experience as well as anecdotes offered by my female friends (and none of us look like actresses, I assure you!).
So you're saying that online dating works better for women and very hard for men, well that's not new news, but I am glad to see someone admits it.
And yes, none of the ones I dated through online dating looked like models/actresses, the only physical trait they had in common is slimness, because I am slim too.
"works better" is a subjective term. Women will receive more messages, yes. If you define "work" as "actually finding someone that you then successfully embark on a relationship with" though then it's a wash since each heterosexual woman would theoretically take one of the heterosexual men off the market (assuming they aren't polyamorous). The psychological costs are different. Men have to deal with high rates of ignored messages. Women have to deal with countless messages of objectification and crude imagery.
um... no, because the gender ratio on dating sites is never 1:1, it varies from 2:1 to 10:1 and paid sites are full of fake women profiles. So even if all hetero female users get someone online, there will still be hordes of males with no one.
Per OKCupid's data: http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/the-c ... der-woman/
Specifically, this chart: http://cdn.okcimg.com/blog/older_lover/ ... -Ratio.png
Granted, the data is outdated and potentially skewed, but it seems pretty even.
Quora also has a few other (somewhat outdated) responses on the topic: http://www.quora.com/Online-Dating/What ... id?share=1
13 Mar 2014, 2:32 am
sly279 wrote:
akrasia wrote:
Eureka13 wrote:
I can't say how all women approach online dating. In my case, I read the profiles first (while I'm waiting for my slow internet to load the photos). If, and only if, the profile is interesting do I even bother to look at the photos.
Again, I can't speak for all women, but I look for things that make the user stand out from the pack. Does he have any interests in common with mine? Does he sound like he's bright? Does he give any glimmer of having a sense of humor?
Of course, at my age I'm not looking for marriage and family and kids, I'm looking solely for compatibility, so the things that are important to me may not be important to everyone.
I get so many messages from men who absolutely, positively did not read even the first line of my profile, much less the whole thing, that I am leaning towards concluding that men only look at the pictures themselves.
Again, I can't speak for all women, but I look for things that make the user stand out from the pack. Does he have any interests in common with mine? Does he sound like he's bright? Does he give any glimmer of having a sense of humor?
Of course, at my age I'm not looking for marriage and family and kids, I'm looking solely for compatibility, so the things that are important to me may not be important to everyone.
I get so many messages from men who absolutely, positively did not read even the first line of my profile, much less the whole thing, that I am leaning towards concluding that men only look at the pictures themselves.
A lot of NT guys I know tend to message any girl they find remotely physically attractive, assuming they meet some minimum bar of intelligence. The rationale is that the chances of any woman responding are so low that they might as well improve their odds by increasing the size of the potential pool. Many of them don't even look at match percentages! I feel like this is somewhat self-defeating in that, as a woman, I would ignore messages from someone where our match percentage was lower than 90, but to each their own...
why 90% that's super high and would seem to limit yourself alot, what if a 60% made you super happy, had enough in common to share some interests but also interests of their own for alone time.
I don't think dating someone 100% like me would be fun for too long, I imagine it'd get boring.
sly279: 90% because most of my real-life friends have match percentages of over 90% with me and I haven't gotten bored of them yet. It's possible that someone with a 60% match could make me happy, but if I have limited time, why would I invest it in someone with a lower match percentage? Again, messages don't appear in a vacuum. It's also important to note that a high "match" percentage in OKCupid doesn't mean that we are similar. It means that the other person has responded to questions in a way that I would like. See: https://www.okcupid.com/help/match-percentages
So 60% is actually really low...
The_Face_of_Boo: Where does it say OKCupid is 63% male? The Quora post said 53%.
The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,072
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.
13 Mar 2014, 3:16 am
akrasia wrote:
sly279 wrote:
akrasia wrote:
Eureka13 wrote:
I can't say how all women approach online dating. In my case, I read the profiles first (while I'm waiting for my slow internet to load the photos). If, and only if, the profile is interesting do I even bother to look at the photos.
Again, I can't speak for all women, but I look for things that make the user stand out from the pack. Does he have any interests in common with mine? Does he sound like he's bright? Does he give any glimmer of having a sense of humor?
Of course, at my age I'm not looking for marriage and family and kids, I'm looking solely for compatibility, so the things that are important to me may not be important to everyone.
I get so many messages from men who absolutely, positively did not read even the first line of my profile, much less the whole thing, that I am leaning towards concluding that men only look at the pictures themselves.
Again, I can't speak for all women, but I look for things that make the user stand out from the pack. Does he have any interests in common with mine? Does he sound like he's bright? Does he give any glimmer of having a sense of humor?
Of course, at my age I'm not looking for marriage and family and kids, I'm looking solely for compatibility, so the things that are important to me may not be important to everyone.
I get so many messages from men who absolutely, positively did not read even the first line of my profile, much less the whole thing, that I am leaning towards concluding that men only look at the pictures themselves.
A lot of NT guys I know tend to message any girl they find remotely physically attractive, assuming they meet some minimum bar of intelligence. The rationale is that the chances of any woman responding are so low that they might as well improve their odds by increasing the size of the potential pool. Many of them don't even look at match percentages! I feel like this is somewhat self-defeating in that, as a woman, I would ignore messages from someone where our match percentage was lower than 90, but to each their own...
why 90% that's super high and would seem to limit yourself alot, what if a 60% made you super happy, had enough in common to share some interests but also interests of their own for alone time.
I don't think dating someone 100% like me would be fun for too long, I imagine it'd get boring.
sly279: 90% because most of my real-life friends have match percentages of over 90% with me and I haven't gotten bored of them yet. It's possible that someone with a 60% match could make me happy, but if I have limited time, why would I invest it in someone with a lower match percentage? Again, messages don't appear in a vacuum. It's also important to note that a high "match" percentage in OKCupid doesn't mean that we are similar. It means that the other person has responded to questions in a way that I would like. See: https://www.okcupid.com/help/match-percentages
So 60% is actually really low...
The_Face_of_Boo: Where does it say OKCupid is 63% male? The Quora post said 53%.
The link in the quora now says 63% http://www.quantcast.com/okcupid.com#!d ... nel-GENDER
And you can experiment yourself, just check the "online now" numbers and check the number of profile in the results, you'll see the males are way more, try small cities/towns to be countable and you'll notice than in most cases, the males way outnumber females.
13 Mar 2014, 10:30 pm
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
akrasia wrote:
sly279 wrote:
akrasia wrote:
Eureka13 wrote:
I can't say how all women approach online dating. In my case, I read the profiles first (while I'm waiting for my slow internet to load the photos). If, and only if, the profile is interesting do I even bother to look at the photos.
Again, I can't speak for all women, but I look for things that make the user stand out from the pack. Does he have any interests in common with mine? Does he sound like he's bright? Does he give any glimmer of having a sense of humor?
Of course, at my age I'm not looking for marriage and family and kids, I'm looking solely for compatibility, so the things that are important to me may not be important to everyone.
I get so many messages from men who absolutely, positively did not read even the first line of my profile, much less the whole thing, that I am leaning towards concluding that men only look at the pictures themselves.
Again, I can't speak for all women, but I look for things that make the user stand out from the pack. Does he have any interests in common with mine? Does he sound like he's bright? Does he give any glimmer of having a sense of humor?
Of course, at my age I'm not looking for marriage and family and kids, I'm looking solely for compatibility, so the things that are important to me may not be important to everyone.
I get so many messages from men who absolutely, positively did not read even the first line of my profile, much less the whole thing, that I am leaning towards concluding that men only look at the pictures themselves.
A lot of NT guys I know tend to message any girl they find remotely physically attractive, assuming they meet some minimum bar of intelligence. The rationale is that the chances of any woman responding are so low that they might as well improve their odds by increasing the size of the potential pool. Many of them don't even look at match percentages! I feel like this is somewhat self-defeating in that, as a woman, I would ignore messages from someone where our match percentage was lower than 90, but to each their own...
why 90% that's super high and would seem to limit yourself alot, what if a 60% made you super happy, had enough in common to share some interests but also interests of their own for alone time.
I don't think dating someone 100% like me would be fun for too long, I imagine it'd get boring.
sly279: 90% because most of my real-life friends have match percentages of over 90% with me and I haven't gotten bored of them yet. It's possible that someone with a 60% match could make me happy, but if I have limited time, why would I invest it in someone with a lower match percentage? Again, messages don't appear in a vacuum. It's also important to note that a high "match" percentage in OKCupid doesn't mean that we are similar. It means that the other person has responded to questions in a way that I would like. See: https://www.okcupid.com/help/match-percentages
So 60% is actually really low...
The_Face_of_Boo: Where does it say OKCupid is 63% male? The Quora post said 53%.
The link in the quora now says 63% http://www.quantcast.com/okcupid.com#!d ... nel-GENDER
And you can experiment yourself, just check the "online now" numbers and check the number of profile in the results, you'll see the males are way more, try small cities/towns to be countable and you'll notice than in most cases, the males way outnumber females.
Ah, got it. Interesting breakdown per Quantcast:
Male < 18 11%
Male 18-24 10%
Male 25-34 18%
Male 35-44 12%
Male 45-54 7%
Male 55-64 3%
Male 65+ 1%
Female < 18 6%
Female 18-24 5%
Female 25-34 10%
Female 35-44 8%
Female 45-54 5%
Female 55-64 2%
Female 65+ 1%
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| A part of me wants to give up with dating |
17 Nov 2024, 2:26 pm |
| A Socialist Plea not to give up on Americans |
17 Nov 2024, 12:45 pm |
