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

The Lie Hollywood Loves to Tell

jmtame.posthaven.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 258 posts

Re: The Lie Hollywood Loves to Tell

#211

Post by egypturnash »

calinet6 wrote: post #201
crazygringo wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's funny... here in New York City, I hear people saying the exact opposite. That guys are having a great time on a dating site, because there are tons of attractive and interesting women, and all the single girls seem to create profiles! And girls not having a lot of luck on a dating site, because a lot of guys don't create profiles, and sometimes it seems like all the "good" ones are taken. However, this may also…

Guys, seriously, spend a few years on the East coast. The girls are nice, down to earth, educated, and plentiful. And the winters will make you tough.

I dunno, man. I just wish they all could be Calfornia girls.

Re: The Lie Hollywood Loves to Tell

#212

Post by nawitus »

gonehome wrote: post #85
jmtame wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Women will still be over messaged and men are still under messaged. People still ignore profiles in favor of photos - what does this change? Aren't you more interested in reading what somebody's friend has to say about them rather than what they're saying about themselves? Also, we have Facebook accounts (100+ friends required to join) which are not easy to replicate and we can rate limit. On OkCupid, the worst that…

The facebook reputation barrier is a good idea - should set a bar for the low end of quality. I see your point about the reciprocity, makes sense and I wouldn't worry about the stigma - if your site catches on the stigma will just die faster. I'm not sure I'd be more receptive to what a friend has to say about someone, but that's generally because what anyone says doesn't matter when the sent/received message ratio i…

>The facebook reputation barrier is a good idea - should set a bar for the low end of quality.

Wait, are people with lots friend "high quality people" or "low quality people"?

Re: The Lie Hollywood Loves to Tell

#213

Post by longlegs636 »

p2w wrote: post #9

here's a novel idea dude. go interact with real people. in person.

I'm in my 50s. Online dating is the ONLY way I'll meet eligible men. And trust me, the pool of eligible men is much smaller than when you're young. That said, the innovation I'd most like to see is crowdsourcing of the online dater's social signals. Not only would that prove they're real humans, but what better way to capture who they really are personally.

Re: The Lie Hollywood Loves to Tell

#214

Post by illuminate »

smoyer wrote: post #4

My 25+ year marriage is actually the product of "predestined love" and I think most people could end up with a love like that. The reality is that you have to keep your eyes open if you want to notice the person that's right for you ... and you have to meet enough people to find them. EDIT: As I thought a bit more about it, I also realized that you have to have some criteria for what you're looking for in a partner t…

"I'd also recommend understanding your Myers-Briggs type and the types that are compatible (this is not your sign)"

You might as well recommend dowsing to find available mates.

Re: The Lie Hollywood Loves to Tell

#215

Post by illuminate »

p2w wrote: post #22
nhangen wrote: post #11

I think the lie told is not one of predestined love, but of perfect love. That you'll find the person of your dreams, they will sweep you off your feet, and you'll never have a negative feeling about them. It will all end storybook. Of course the next 20 chapters are ones of compromise, empathy, regret, and apologies, with happiness and perfection in between.

ha! no shit. after almost two decades of marriage i laugh my ass off at this online dating stuff. what a farce. it's a perfect metaphor for the shallow cesspool our culture has become...

It's one tool of many. It's absolutely no shallower than any of the other methods to find a mate.

Re: The Lie Hollywood Loves to Tell

#216

Post by illuminate »

jes5199 wrote: post #106
pjscott wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't find it strange; the fact that you do is surprising, and therefore potentially interesting. Would you care to elaborate?

It covers a lot of subject matter, and all of it seems to be from ways of interacting with the world that are alien to me. Public complaining about your ex? Pick up artistry? Inteviewing cliques of women in bars? Bizzare charactures of the idea of romance? Weird superiority/inferiority posturing? Trying to reduce a first impression to one-liners? It feels more like cable television than real life.

Yeah, the PUA discussion and "ha ha only serious" sour grapes are definite distractions.

Re: The Lie Hollywood Loves to Tell

#217

Post by gonehome »

nawitus wrote: post #212
gonehome wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The facebook reputation barrier is a good idea - should set a bar for the low end of quality. I see your point about the reciprocity, makes sense and I wouldn't worry about the stigma - if your site catches on the stigma will just die faster. I'm not sure I'd be more receptive to what a friend has to say about someone, but that's generally because what anyone says doesn't matter when the sent/received message ratio i…

>The facebook reputation barrier is a good idea - should set a bar for the low end of quality. Wait, are people with lots friend "high quality people" or "low quality people"?

I meant quality as a reference to spam and spam like accounts. If you can't easily just create a new account or create multiple accounts then that eliminates those kinds of issues.

Re: The Lie Hollywood Loves to Tell

#219

Post by jfriedly »

mikeash wrote: post #199
JDGM wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aha, I did not realise that. How interesting. Thanks! The values on that map are a little frustrating, have we got anything which offers more precision for those enormous 1-91 and 108-205 ranges? I look at that and think "Across the country the ratio could only vary between about 9 men for every 10 women and 9 women for every 10 men and the diagram would still be totally correct - is that even really significant?". (…

I think that the places covered by those enormous ranges can be fairly comfortably assumed to almost all be close to 91 and 108. As for a 9:10 ratio, it all depends on the rate of committed relationships. Remember that this is all people, married, committed, and single. If they're all single, 9:10 is probably pretty good. If 95% of people are in a committed relationship (ignoring homosexuality, which probably cancels…

According to the statistics site that the OP used, 54 million Americans are single. [1] Ignoring the 62 million Americans that are under fifteen, we find that only 21% of American adults are available. [2] So if your area's ratio is 9:10 and ~80% of the people are taken, you end up with a 7:12 ratio among the singles (ignoring homosexuality).

[1] http://www.statisticbrain.com/online-dating-statistics/

[2] https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/...

Re: The Lie Hollywood Loves to Tell

#220

Post by epsylon »

com2kid wrote: post #153
malandrew wrote: post #44

You're completely right, people are lazy, but online dating is also way more work than it has to be. Women receive so many messages that it becomes overwhelming and too much work and men try sending earnest messages for a little while and then concede that it's basically a numbers game. These two phenomena are self-reinforcing. The more messages women receive, the less likely they are to respond. The more messages a…

The solution is even easier. There is no need to have messages individually marked, the system knows what is being sent and can handle it automatically. Auto detect spam messages. If a guy keeps sending out the same copy and paste, after 2 or 3 sends, just forward future copies to /dev/null. Now this has to be personalized! If a women responds to those types of messages above some certain threshold, then hey, let her…

I was thinking of adapting xkcd's robot9000 to dating sites on the other day. Instead of searching duplicate messages from 1 user, you search for duplicates across the entire database, with exponentially increasing ban periods if your message is not original. It would definitely force men and women to write meaningful messages.
Post reply on HN