Live data from Hacker News

The Lie Hollywood Loves to Tell

jmtame.posthaven.com

41–50 of 258 posts

Re: The Lie Hollywood Loves to Tell

#41
One theory on why the author might be having a little trouble with OkCupid comes down to this sentence:

"Unless your parents are Jewish and they threaten to disown you for not having a Jewish boyfriend...yea, you may not want to message me in that case."

I mean, I laughed, it's a funny profile, but ultimately it implies bitterness over your last relationship, which, in my experience, is a turn off for both sexes. Don't get me wrong, everyone's bitter after getting dumped, but your next significant other doesn't want to know about it (at least not at first). In fact, they don't want to know anything about your previous relationship, good or bad, period.

EDIT: This actually adds some merit to his idea...his friends would be objective and wouldn't make the same mistake.

I'll second the confusion over people thinking there's a stigma to online dating. I thought that was a 90's thing.

Re: The Lie Hollywood Loves to Tell

#42
post #10

Wait, what? My friends might be setting up a profile for me without even knowing it? I sure hope that's qualified by "if I'm signed up", because otherwise I might need to engage in some rage.

They can already matchmake you without you knowing it offline; what's the difference if it's online?

Presumably they wouldn't be allowed to use your real name or super-identifying photos or anything, so this "dating persona" they set up from you is divorced from the rest of your identity, and nobody will find it by looking for you.

Re: The Lie Hollywood Loves to Tell

#43
post #18

What's the incentive for my friends to do all this work for me for free? Why would I bother setting up a profile for a friend? It seems like a lot of work for no benefit. The OkCupid profiles make more sense: you make them so that you look good and you get dates. Work -> reward.

The article was tl;dr for me, but is there a gamification angle? Like can me and my buds set up a fantasy football league and see how our team scores against other teams (or against women teams??) Because gamification, social media, that's money in the bank right there.

At first I thought this had to be a parody comment, but I think you're actually for real. Amazing.

Re: The Lie Hollywood Loves to Tell

#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 man doesn't get a response to the more likely they are to put less effort into their messages. If you solve this problem, you effectively solve attrition rate in dating sites.

If you look at an old inbox full of sent of received messages for a man versus a women, you'll notice something interesting. The woman's inbox will be full of avatars next to almost all the messages. Men don't delete or suspend accounts. Now if you look at the inbox of the men on the other hand you'll notice that more and more of the messages have the default avatar next to the name as you move back in time in the inbox. This is because many women become totally overwhelmed by the number of messages, the quantity of them that are vulgar, etc.

I've talked to a bunch of people about this (because I'm one of those few people that has no problem talking about online dating because like you I think it is the future) and the conclusion I've come to that many people agree with is that online dating needs the equivalent of the spam button in many email inboxes. However instead of saying the words "Mark as spam", there should be two buttons, one that says "Mark as did not read my profile" and one that says "Flag as vulgar or offensive". The first button is to be used every time a women (or a man) receives a message where someone sends a one line message with no content specific to the recipient or any message which is obviously cookie cutter (cut & paste job)[0] and the second should be used whenever the sender is overtly sexual or mean.

Every time these buttons are used it should impact a score on both the sender and the recipient. For the sender, they're "doesn't read profiles" score should go up and for the recipient that used the button, their "cares that senders don't read and consider their profile" score should go up. The same goes for vulgarity/offensive content. The balance of these two numbers should determine if the message makes it through to the recipients email inboxes at all in the future. You could even warn senders when their score starts getting too bad, like "This message will not be delivered to this user because you've been flagged as someone who doesn't consider the content of user's profiles when crafting a message" or "This user only receives messages from people who take time to craft a personal message". If the sender then goes back and significantly modifies their message before sending again (verified via a text diff and possibly the passage of time), then send it through. This time however, if that message gets flagged by the recipient, then it counts very negatively towards their score.

If you use an approach like this you should be able to keep the inboxes of females (and desirable males) with a high signal to noise ratio. This will greatly improve their experience and lead them to respond to more messages and not get so fed up with the bullshit messages that they either quit responding or quit the site entirely.

[0] The only counterpoint to this are messages that achieve the Forer Effect[1]. One of my friends has crafted some particularly generic messages (his own admission) that presses all the right buttons just like horoscopes texts do and he gets a pretty solid response rate despite the fact that those messages are just cut and pasted. He's even frustrated that his well thought out personal messages often perform worse than his generic ones that play to a recipients own positive self image. TBH, I'd like to take Forer's original text, and modify it for OkCupid to see how it performs. Besides crafting the message, I'd need to figure out how to produce an acceptably generic profile that still conveys enough authority for the recipient to think the fake profile has the authority to make those statements/judgements.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forer_effect

Re: The Lie Hollywood Loves to Tell

#45

I think you're right about a lot of the problems with dating websites - I wrote about this recently too here ( http://www.zacharyalberico.net/blog/dating-websites/ ). I remember checking your site out when you posted it and it's nice to see someone trying something actually new, but I feel like this concept doesn't solve the common problems and adds some new ones. Women will still be over messaged and men are still u…

[deleted]

Re: The Lie Hollywood Loves to Tell

#48
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…

Myers Briggs: http://www.skepdic.com/myersb

Re: The Lie Hollywood Loves to Tell

#50
post #36
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a very "Hollywood" way to think. If you're looking for a compatible someone, why not increase your chances by searching among a group of people who are also looking for a compatible someone, instead of hoping you randomly happen upon people while out with your friends.

For an actual, sound reason: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons Just as with employers looking for employees, some of the people who are looking just haven't found the right fit yet. The rest are people nobody wants. The former churn (or dwindle if the market isn't being replenished), while the latter remain constant. The game-theoretic optimum in a market for lemons--whatever you might think of it--…

I don't think that's a particularly apt analogy, for the simple reason that people break up for all sorts of reasons that have nothing to do with one or the other person being a "lemon." Relationships are based on idiosyncratic compatibility, unlike cars where "lemon" is a well-defined, universal concept. E.g. it's rare that one person's lemon will be another person's dream car, but that's often the case for relationships.

A more apt economic analogy is that dating is a market where deals are hard to match up, transaction costs are high, and the repetition rate of testing compatibility to lead to a possible deal is low. Online dating reduces transaction costs, in the same way EBay does.

Post reply on HN