501–510 of 840 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As did I! OkCupid was a shining star of a product that treated its users with respect and provided a really valuable service. I didn't realize that it's no longer. I feel old pining for the internet of yesteryear. As is obvious only in retrospect, you don't realize when the golden years are!
I also met my wife on okcupid. I wonder how many of us their are.
Political party stances are the local maxima of AB testing talking points to their userbase around engagement.
> The busy man only has 48 hours to spare to learn JavaScript. The busy only has 24 hours to get more friends on your new social network. Only has 12 hours to decide which shoe to buy. Only has 10 minutes to wait for that email. Only has 2 minutes to read that long article you wrote. Only has 30 seconds to know what your product does. Only 8 seconds to register on your website. The busy man has only 2 seconds to spare to like your website.
[1]: https://idiallo.com/blog/the-busy-man (2015)
> We’ve all been Marl at one time or another This, to me, is the key line in this quite good article. It's not that software companies are catering to those other people who are infinitely stupid and deserving of our scorn. It's that they are catering to the worse impulses in all of us and encouraging us to become those people.
Yes and no 98% of Spotify users never take any action other than “press play” on a radio station 2% take some kind of agency (create a playlist, like a song) A vanishingly small amount create personal or public curated playlists Yes, that very small amount may also listen passively sometimes, but the difference matters. Imagine if Spotify was just a radio station.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd be curious if you're all over 6' tall. I never had any luck on OKCupid.
That height fetish stuff is the domain of 5'0" white women. Basically message taller women and it doesn't matter.
The same way men on average prefer big boobs, women on average will prefer taller men. Both can't really be changed by the person but exist as attractiveness scores against a person.
It matters to people who it matters to. Not many in the grand scheme and definitely not related to race.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That height fetish stuff is the domain of 5'0" white women. Basically message taller women and it doesn't matter.
Nope. It's not specific to their height and obviously not specific to their race. The same way men on average prefer big boobs, women on average will prefer taller men. Both can't really be changed by the person but exist as attractiveness scores against a person. It matters to people who it matters to. Not many in the grand scheme and definitely not related to race.
Of course it is because it's relative to how tall they are. But taller women already don't expect you to tower over them, because that's hard to find, so it's ok if you don't.
> and obviously not specific to their race.
It is within a specific ethnicity and generation. If you're in a country where the men in a specific age are short because food was scarce 2-3 decades ago, they're not all single because their women aren't attracted to them.
And depending on culture and economic class, it matters more what impresses their parents, which is being a doctor-lawyer-astronaut who owns a house.
> We’ve all been Marl at one time or another This, to me, is the key line in this quite good article. It's not that software companies are catering to those other people who are infinitely stupid and deserving of our scorn. It's that they are catering to the worse impulses in all of us and encouraging us to become those people.
This is a hilarious read but I think the author is too optimistic about the state of humanity. Marl isn't the "marginal" user, Marl is the "average" user. If the average user actually cared about deep and meaningful content, then any A/B test that throws her under the bus in order to please Marl will show bad data, and the proposed change would be killed. Yes, the author tries to hand-wave this away as "product is st…
"Marginal" in the blogpost is used in the economic sense, as in the next incremental user -- not "marginal" as in minority.
To perceive an effect in new users without getting the same effect in existing users, you'd need to show different content to those two groups.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anybody else remember the data blog posts? Those were interesting and satisfying. It was another confirmation that I'd found the right dating site and probably a like-minded userbase.
I fondly remember the one that showed men's rating of women approaching almost a perfect normal distribution, and then the men messaging mostly the hot ones anyway, whereas the women rated most men as ugly and then sloping downward toward very few as good looking, kind of like an exponential distribution, but that they also messaged the men almost exactly in tandem - uglier getting the most, with a steady drop as men…