61–70 of 81 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 ;)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you mean by throttled? As I've seen there is a daily limit on swipes (which can be bypassed with an in app purchase).
As in after a high enough number of consecutive swipes in a time period, i.e. 3 swipes a second for 30 seconds, the swipes get ignored. No one can evaluate people that quickly, so it's okay to assume the client is a bot or a human spamming likes.
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…
By questioning the bot author over the morality of their methodology, your post appears to suggest that people who don't reply to messages would be equally perceived as having wasted the time of message authors, which is a view that your downvoters find troubling. That may not have been your intention, given your disclaimer and edits, but I can see why it could be construed that way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a person not on Tinder, I wonder: what is the endgame for bots or botmasters?
I've seen a few things: 1. "Follow me on instagram/twitter for more pics!" Getting real followers for fake social media accounts. 2. "I want to give you a sexy show, go this website!" Driving traffic to paid webcam sites. 3. "Friend me on facebook!" Similar to one, but datamining for ad networks could be the real motivation here. 4. "I want to fly out to meet you, but I can't afford a plane ticket!" Old school scammi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As in after a high enough number of consecutive swipes in a time period, i.e. 3 swipes a second for 30 seconds, the swipes get ignored. No one can evaluate people that quickly, so it's okay to assume the client is a bot or a human spamming likes.
Do you have proof of this? 3 swipes in 30 seconds sounds way low. (imho)
They're saying 90 swipes in 30 seconds.
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?
It's complicated, and there's more than one dimension.
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…
Finally, a topic I can consider myself some kind of expert in! For the record, here are my credentials: I've tinder-valeted multiple guy friends, selecting women and conversing with them and warming things up for them. My friends happen to be across a wide variety of attractiveness and success spectrum. Observations: 1. As is obvious, attractive/successful men get a lot more likes than women. 2. Guys who get lesser m…
What I found interesting is that I (a straight, male) get a far higher match percentage in the D.C. area than in the S.F. Bay Area. This happens every time I travel back to D.C. I imagine that there are a lot of interesting variables that go into this, making this research not applicable for the "real world."
SF has an unusually lopsided gender ratio, with more college-educated men than women, while almost all other major metro areas skew towards having more women than men. Jon Birger's Date-onomics covers this: http://jakeseliger.com/2015/09/19/briefly-noted-date-onomics..., and I rather liked it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why put effort into making a decision now, when you can filter out everyone who didn't reject you first and then make fewer decisions later?
Because that constitutes being an irresponsible participant. If everyone did that, it just shifts the filter from swiping to unmatching. It also signals a lack of empathy IMO. No one likes being matched and immediately unmatched.