341–350 of 373 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quite interesting! But you’re leaving us hanging, did you ask her why she was on Hinge at 2pm?
I never talked to any of the girls about this. Pretty obviously "I analyzed the data from hundreds of conversations to optimize..." is not a good look. I'm pretty confident though that it's just the after-lunch doldrums and people just.. sit around swiping at work? Best guess anyway
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your complaints are highly exaggerated. Anecdotal, but more than enough data to disprove your point, over the last 8 years I've used multiple dating apps, never paid a dime, and have been on somewhere around 400 first dates. I'd also add that my match rate with bots or scammers is very low, certainly under 10%.
Are you still on dating apps? And was your initial intention to find an amazing gf, or just play the field? Not poking just curious.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It isn't all women who leave, it's the ones who refuse to have anything to do with men in the same percentile as they are themselves. And you couldn't sell that to men anyway.
less women overall, worse experience for guys, paying customers leave. App dies. Its a vicious cycle. A dating app, commercially has no reason to chase women off. A woman who is present and only occasionally swipes is very very commercially viable.
Under the status quo, they get shown 100 guys and like five of them. Four are above the 95th percentile and two of those never even reply. The other two are players. The fifth was at the same percentile as the woman and is the only interaction we're trying to preserve because it's the only one of any genuine value to either her or him. He also replies, so she gets three replies, but the two players are hotter so her first two dates are with them. They both suck and one is so sleazy it turns her off the app before she even goes on the third date that might have been good, and she's gone. And if she's not gone yet then she matches with another player before she goes on a date with the third guy, so even if she goes on the date she's already written him off because she's got a date with another philandering Ken doll the day after.
Now suppose you don't show her those guys. She doesn't like as many people at first -- only three or four instead of five. But they're all in the same percentile as she is, they all reply, none of them are players, and she goes on dates she actually enjoys. She's now going to be on this app until she enters a committed relationship with someone instead of quitting after two bad dates.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m more cynical. Dating apps are easy, and entertaining. Finding a good person to spend your life (or a prolonged period) with is hard. I’m not sure there is an external solution to this in the world we live in - it’s like getting fit. People need to suck it up and put in the work if they want results.
Picking that example when we're entering into the ozempic era is brave
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article identifies a very specific problem. Women will swipe through the app and reject the bottom 95% of the men immediately, but then all of them women end up matching with only 5% of the men. This is useless to both the 95% of men who don't get any matches and the 95% of women who can't all be in a monogamous relationship with that 5% of men. In theory you could just stop showing the top 5% of men to anyone, b…
Again, this is all predicated on what data can be measured inside the app. The top 5% of men would be a completely different group if it was measured differently. It's not the actual men we are ranking here, it's their profiles.
Interesting data in the article though nothing unexpected for people who follow this space. Some notable points: > The other thing that interests you is the like ratio, or the openness, among 100 profiles that the user sees, how many of them does he like? (The median for men is 26% and for women is 4%.) >The like ratio of a girl is almost independent of the profiles she sees. For example, if a girl has a like ratio o…
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…
Hah, check out this claim 3 women to every 2 men. Of course there's no mention of what site/app it is: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38059778
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When people match with me, then read my profile, get mad about what's in my profile, send me a message expressing said anger, and then unmatch, it's a big waste of time. And that's actually the best case scenario. Worst case they don't read the profile at all and keep stringing me along. The first time I joined a dating website I got a like from a person who I would have thought was way out of my league. I was really…
Seems these apps are not healthy for your mental state.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you’re good looking, you’re not going to be wasting time on apps These days, saying hi seems to be risky for more reasons than rejection. Maybe more so if you’re not good looking. Hence the apps
That used to be true in the pre-Tinder age. Tinder and other mobile dating apps have somehow normalized dating among both the highly social and the good looking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you’re good looking, you’re not going to be wasting time on apps These days, saying hi seems to be risky for more reasons than rejection. Maybe more so if you’re not good looking. Hence the apps
Can confirm as a good looking male, I slay on apps compared to my peers. However I believe it also boils down to personality traits too. Saying "Hi" isn't enough. One needs to be creative to stand out from the field. Women get absolutely swamped on the apps.
Women who are swamped on dating apps are not swamped with attention from men in real life.
They see this discrepancy, and instinctively interpret that as the dating site being a space where all the world's desperate losers have gathered.
You don't need to stand out, just not stand in that same place.
Turns out even highly motivated professionals don't understand that correlation is not causality: > 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 like…
If you read the article, it is very clear that the author understands that this correlation is not causation. He points out numerous times that the thing which causes girls to send likes is that their feed contains attractive men.