181–190 of 373 posts
The qualities that women find attractive in men cannot be captured in a static profile on a website ... plus most of the men in that site are there because they don't have those qualities. Let's just say that if you can open your mouth enough to say hi to a woman without hesitation, you are completely wasting your time on dating sites.
My anecdotal user-end data-science-ish story about dating apps: A few years back I was single and on Hinge a fair amount. If you used Hinge back then, you'll remember some key differences between the platform and other dating apps: 1) when you "like"'d someone, you'd have to comment on a specific part of their profile (a photo, a prompt answer, etc), 2) these likes showed up in their inbox, independent of whether the…
That's similar to getting votes on HN, it's mostly about appearing near the top of the comments, and that has mostly to so with getting in relatively early. You also need to be reasonably good at commenting (ie, don't be ugly).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It does imply a potentially interesting algorithm though: Show all of the women to all of the men. From this you get numbers on which women are the most highly rated. Then, show women a) men who are at the same percentile as them or below and b) the smaller number of men who have already liked them. The result is that 60th percentile women end up primarily liking 60th percentile men and so on, because they're the hig…
how do you get the percentile ranking for the men to do the matching with?
Girl: lower your standards.
Boy: pay a photographer to look nicer.
This double disadvantages women as I see it: Their standards are held to be unrealistic (downpoint) and they have to incur the dissatisfaction of beleiving it, and acting on it to lower their expectations. AND Boys are expected to glam up and project a demonstrably less real state of themselves, to get over this bar. So women have to accept lies, and tolerate reality.
(63, in a longterm 40y relationship, not using the apps and not judging individuals here)
> For girls, it is the number of likes sent; the number of likes received has no impact on retention, maybe a little bit but less than 1%. The number of likes sent has a huge impact; a user that liked no profile in her 100 first scrolls has a d30 of 12%, and 19% for girls that like 10 profiles and 16% for girls that liked 5 profiles. The d1 retention is almost 100% correlated to a girl sending 5 likes to active guys in the first 24 hours (the real thing is to get a match, but it is easy to get a match when a girl sends 5 likes). So to have the perfect d1 retention for girls, the only thing you should focus on is to get them to send 5 likes. And you have about 100 scrolls to do so.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn’t run the numbers but I also quickly figured that the only chance to make progress is to like a lot of profiles. For a while i liked only profiles which i thought are a really good fit but got no responses. Turns out spamming works better. Once a woman likes you back, then you can take a closer look.
[flagged]
The advice to boys/girls felt very real. And also, objectively not equal. Girl: lower your standards. Boy: pay a photographer to look nicer. This double disadvantages women as I see it: Their standards are held to be unrealistic (downpoint) and they have to incur the dissatisfaction of beleiving it, and acting on it to lower their expectations. AND Boys are expected to glam up and project a demonstrably less real sta…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This one is classic: > Girls would say, red flag if a guy has shirtless pictures and then liking profiles where guys were shirtless. This is surprising: > In our case we had even acquisition in terms of male/female, but the retention of girls is lower than that of men, so you end up with 66% men and 34% women. 2:1 men to woman is a far better ratio than what most people claim (5:1 is usually thrown around with no evi…
> For girls you need to lower your standards and force you to go on a date with guys that you dont have the flame for (it is actually very hard to do that for a girl, very very hard) I kind of didn't understand the logic behind how he got there. According to the article women get more matches then they know what to do with. Why would lowering your standards in such an environment be a good strategy?
The advice to boys/girls felt very real. And also, objectively not equal. Girl: lower your standards. Boy: pay a photographer to look nicer. This double disadvantages women as I see it: Their standards are held to be unrealistic (downpoint) and they have to incur the dissatisfaction of beleiving it, and acting on it to lower their expectations. AND Boys are expected to glam up and project a demonstrably less real sta…
If the advice had been "Boys: lower your standards, girls: pay a photographer" I wonder if you'd have said "guys just get to be dawgs, women have to spend money to beautify themselves".
But, remember the asymmetry in this space is large. The asymmetry of risk, of expectations, of outcome. It doesn't go to what you project as a hypothetical, it goes to the one I responded to. If you can show me a dating app with the right dynamics to demand the response you hypothesized, we can see how the numbers pan out. The one we have, it's the other direction of bias in expectation and behaviour.
Ask yourself why the asymmetry in hinge/bumble about who initiates contact exist.
With no intent of doxxing your bio page here says you're a social scientist. I'd welcome an understanding of if the current praxis in your field suggests the kind of cultural bias I projected isn't widespread, and if your field views this as "anti men" because I certainly didn't mean it to be, I simply think there is an inherent asymmetry to who has to act, and how they act, in the recommendations from this author in this space, which appears backed by data.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It does imply a potentially interesting algorithm though: Show all of the women to all of the men. From this you get numbers on which women are the most highly rated. Then, show women a) men who are at the same percentile as them or below and b) the smaller number of men who have already liked them. The result is that 60th percentile women end up primarily liking 60th percentile men and so on, because they're the hig…
won't work. many women won't end up liking anyone. And like he said, the most expensive thing to acquire is women. You have to be able to give women their "dream man" to retain them. And in apps, much much much more so than in real life, they will mostly all choose the same dream man. showing a 60 percentile woman, men that around 60 percentile is a sure way to drive women away from your app
The implication being that the 60th percentile women who don't like 60th percentile men would have liked 95th percentile men. But that's useless, because finding matches for those men was never your problem to begin with. And those men are also going to match with 95th percentile women and then choose them over the 60th percentile women anyway unless they're only looking for a hookup, so you're neither solving any problem for the platform nor any problem for the women.
> You have to be able to give women their "dream man" to retain them.
That's just a charade. The 60th percentile women on average can't actually land the 95th percentile men, but if you show them all the 95th percentile men then it reduces the rate at which they like the men they could actually land, which frustrates both the men and the women, because they're both looking for real matches that could actually go somewhere.
> showing a 60 percentile woman, men that around 60 percentile is a sure way to drive women away from your app
If you show them 95th percentile men then they like them but so do most other women, and then the men in that group will either not reply to most of them or will reply to all of them intending to ghost them after having sex or cheat on them, which... is a sure way to drive women away from your app.