Something about dating sites and the shallowness of users came up on TheRegister. I don't normally use that site but thought I'd check back today. Here's the link:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/07/28 ... _ok_cupid/
Quote:
When the site restored photographs to the site, it found those conversations dried up: "It was like we?d turned on the bright lights at the bar at midnight," Rudder said. Those who stuck with it and went on a date generally reported they had as good a time as if they'd met someone with a full profile, although Rudder notes that women who dated attractive men had slightly worse dates ? which he attributed to them being more likely to be "as*holes."
The second experiment stems from when OKCupid users were asked to rate profiles on the attractiveness and the personality of a stranger. The study found that profile text accounts for less than 10 per cent of the perceived attractiveness of people.
For example, we're told one profile had no text at all, just a picture of a nubile young lady in a bikini. Despite the lack of anything other than a picture in her profile she apparently scored in the top 99 per cent for personality. Yes, it seems we really are that shallow, it seems.
WOW..

I unfortunately find this does seem to be the case.
On a side note relating to this topic - Anyone used Tinder? I seem to have more fun and success using that. Like, I can actually have conversations on there. Mainly because it is unashamedly shallow and you deal with the looks part first and foremost.
_________________
Yours sincerely, some dude.