Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How Tinder's “feedback loop” forces men and women into extreme strategies

technologyreview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 81 posts

Re: How Tinder's “feedback loop” forces men and women into extreme strategies

#41

Post by tedsanders »

PaulMest wrote: post #25

I wrote a Tinder bot a couple of years ago and ran some interesting studies: 1) I placed a male profile in ~10 different cities, auto-swiped for a few days, and waited for matches and messages to flow in. I found the match/message rates to be significantly different for each city. Sample size of ~34,000 right swipes. 2) A/B test two female profiles with exact same photos and bio except 1 was a CEO and 1 was Graphic D…

Honestly curious: Do you feel guilty for wasting the time of 4,000 men? To me, it feels selfish to value your own learning over the time of thousands of other strangers. Of course, you and others may feel differently than me. What's your approach for thinking about where to draw the line?

Edit: To those downvoting, could you explain why? I'd be happy to improve my comment, if I knew how. I am honestly interested in discussing the ethics of bots that pose as humans.

Re: How Tinder's “feedback loop” forces men and women into extreme strategies

#42

Post by mynegation »

Grishnakh wrote: post #36
lloyd-christmas wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, this is definitely the case. I swipe right on everyone. It's an extreme rarity to find a woman who texts first. I'd put it at easily less than 5% (if they aren't a bot).

The bots are getting smarter; now they wait for you to write first, then chat you up a bit, then give you a spiel about how their boyfriend has ED and they need a hook-up.

As a person not on Tinder, I wonder: what is the endgame for bots or botmasters?

Re: How Tinder's “feedback loop” forces men and women into extreme strategies

#43

Post by antisthenes »

Grishnakh wrote: post #29
mwfunk wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, they are serious. That's just what a lot of people have to do to get anywhere with anyone. The alternative for most guys is being picky and getting nothing.

Personally, I'd rather be picky and get nothing if the alternative is having to sleep with someone I'm totally not attracted to. Porn is more satisfying, and with porn I don't have to worry about hurting the girl's feelings. That said, however, you do have to be realistic about what kind of woman you can attract. Also, if you get distracted by someone you're really not into, that can keep you from meeting someone who…

> the alternative is having to sleep with someone I'm totally not attracted to.

I'm not sure how people can sleep with someone they're not attracted to. Isn't being attracted required you know for getting a physical response?

Re: How Tinder's “feedback loop” forces men and women into extreme strategies

#44

Post by thatswrong0 »

tedsanders wrote: post #41
PaulMest wrote: post #25

I wrote a Tinder bot a couple of years ago and ran some interesting studies: 1) I placed a male profile in ~10 different cities, auto-swiped for a few days, and waited for matches and messages to flow in. I found the match/message rates to be significantly different for each city. Sample size of ~34,000 right swipes. 2) A/B test two female profiles with exact same photos and bio except 1 was a CEO and 1 was Graphic D…

Honestly curious: Do you feel guilty for wasting the time of 4,000 men? To me, it feels selfish to value your own learning over the time of thousands of other strangers. Of course, you and others may feel differently than me. What's your approach for thinking about where to draw the line? Edit: To those downvoting, could you explain why? I'd be happy to improve my comment, if I knew how. I am honestly interested in d…

If you're a man on Tinder, you play a numbers game and assume a relatively low response rate. It doesn't take to long to send that first message

Re: How Tinder's “feedback loop” forces men and women into extreme strategies

#45

Post by tuxracer »

PaulMest wrote: post #25

I wrote a Tinder bot a couple of years ago and ran some interesting studies: 1) I placed a male profile in ~10 different cities, auto-swiped for a few days, and waited for matches and messages to flow in. I found the match/message rates to be significantly different for each city. Sample size of ~34,000 right swipes. 2) A/B test two female profiles with exact same photos and bio except 1 was a CEO and 1 was Graphic D…

What were the results of your A/B tests??

Re: How Tinder's “feedback loop” forces men and women into extreme strategies

#46

Post by niels_olson »

imh wrote: post #22

21% of women sending a message first seems surprising. I only skimmed the paper, but it doesn't seem like they removed bots from their data. Back when I was single, the vast majority of women messaging first were bots.

I had no idea there was such a market for Tinder bots. What are they all doing? Are there a variety of types?

Re: How Tinder's “feedback loop” forces men and women into extreme strategies

#47

Post by Dzugaru »

heartsucker wrote: post #28
gallonofmilk wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess I'm the outlier then... :/

Because that's a shitty strategy and just doing what you like and talking to people while there works much better. I'm pretty sure I've gotten more dates sitting by myself reading at cafes and quiet bars that rowdy bars and clubs.

Doesn't work when you like doing functional programming or similar activities ;)

Re: How Tinder's “feedback loop” forces men and women into extreme strategies

#48

Post by Unklejoe »

antisthenes wrote: post #43
Grishnakh wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, I'd rather be picky and get nothing if the alternative is having to sleep with someone I'm totally not attracted to. Porn is more satisfying, and with porn I don't have to worry about hurting the girl's feelings. That said, however, you do have to be realistic about what kind of woman you can attract. Also, if you get distracted by someone you're really not into, that can keep you from meeting someone who…

> the alternative is having to sleep with someone I'm totally not attracted to. I'm not sure how people can sleep with someone they're not attracted to. Isn't being attracted required you know for getting a physical response?

Basically, no. You'd be surprised what the imagination can do.

Re: How Tinder's “feedback loop” forces men and women into extreme strategies

#49

Post by iaw »

tedsanders wrote: post #41
PaulMest wrote: post #25

I wrote a Tinder bot a couple of years ago and ran some interesting studies: 1) I placed a male profile in ~10 different cities, auto-swiped for a few days, and waited for matches and messages to flow in. I found the match/message rates to be significantly different for each city. Sample size of ~34,000 right swipes. 2) A/B test two female profiles with exact same photos and bio except 1 was a CEO and 1 was Graphic D…

Honestly curious: Do you feel guilty for wasting the time of 4,000 men? To me, it feels selfish to value your own learning over the time of thousands of other strangers. Of course, you and others may feel differently than me. What's your approach for thinking about where to draw the line? Edit: To those downvoting, could you explain why? I'd be happy to improve my comment, if I knew how. I am honestly interested in d…

On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog.

Re: How Tinder's “feedback loop” forces men and women into extreme strategies

#50

Post by J_Darnley »

mynegation wrote: post #42
Grishnakh wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bots are getting smarter; now they wait for you to write first, then chat you up a bit, then give you a spiel about how their boyfriend has ED and they need a hook-up.

As a person not on Tinder, I wonder: what is the endgame for bots or botmasters?

Most of the screenshots of the crap ones usually advertise some webcam sex show which requires a credit card for age verification (what they really mean is for scamming you out of money).
Post reply on HN