501–508 of 508 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
yea cause every girl on tinder wants a guy over 6 foot tall
I'm 6'2" and it seems to have done nothing for me. I only have maybe 1-3 people to swipe on anyway. Once you get outside of densely populated cities, Tinder is all but useless.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You routinely shadowban people you disagree with We don't ban people we disagree with. If we did, hardly anyone would be left unbanned. As for shadowbanning, the practice is as I described it: if the account is established, we tell people we're banning them and why (your account was an example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15615092 ). If an account is new, different rules apply: we (meaning some combo of so…
"It's not hard to get an account unbanned and/or unpenalized if you really want to use HN as intended." For the most part, I DO use HN as intended, IN SPITE of your shadowbanning. You just refuse to read my posting history to see that much. This clearly shows I have more integrity than you, as you won't dare unhide any of my decent comments, instead preferring to make yourself look the victim by only unbanning my com…
I've tried a number of dating websites in the past year, and all of them are like this. First and foremost: No matter how hard they try to hide it, the male/female balance on all straight dating sites is completely off. I'd say it's about 80% male. So most of them fill with fake accounts to get the balance backs. The matching algorithms don't really exist, they are extremely primitive and usually optimised for engage…
I don't know about the ratios (or how a user looking through could really tell what the true ratio is) but as far as none of them having a decent matching algorithm... I'm a big fan of OkCupid here... (I know they were aquired by match but they still operate independently AFAIK) I interviewed for them 12-13 years ago but never worked there, but they were Harvard math guys who founded SparkNotes and "opensouced" an ea…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
An honest question: Do you have any evidence to back up this claim? I keep hearing this claim, but I haven’t see any solid science or other data supporting it. My understanding is that women are more picky than men about who they find attractive, but less picky about who they will message and respond to.
yea okcupid did a test and showed it then tinder did a test and its even worse now https://medium.com/@worstonlinedater/tinder-experiments-ii-g... https://twitter.com/paperclique/status/1087579317809246210 https://twitter.com/devonzuegel/status/1087575749949673472
I have seen that @medium link before; this is an informal survey done by a single person so there’s probably a lot of methodological issues with the survey. The third link is just a screenshot from that same article, so it is just as dubious.
The second link is quoting the actual article out of context.
Here is the entire article: https://archive.is/yse2
To wit: “Site-wide, two-thirds of male messages go to the best-looking third of women [...] women rate an incredible 80% of guys as worse-looking than medium. Very harsh. On the other hand, when it comes to actual messaging, women shift their expectations only just slightly ahead of the curve, which is a healthier pattern than guys’ pursuing the all-but-unattainable.”
Point being, it’s men who only want the most attractive girls, and it’s women who are more willing to give a homely guy a chance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's one dynamic. But there's also the opposite incentive of word of mouth from positive experiences. When I hear of real people paying money on a dating site and finding what they want, that's a powerful motivator. So we can only hypothesize whether a few desperate users do cough out more cash than a larger number of one-time subscribers would, but the later strategy is certainly more sustainable over the long ter…
It's a strange situation where they're literally telling you the great thing they found on that website is no longer available! It's also a very personal decision, perhaps more like picking movies or music you'd like. I don't generally trust any of my friends' movie or music recommendations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "men would be assumed to be okay with matching any woman" That assumption might be correct for some men, but certainly not for all, and I would expect not even for most. In any case, requiring men to swipe right first doesn't hurt the process in any way. And requiring both sides to agree to contact makes a lot of sense.
No, not for all; but it’s an assumption , it doesn’t have to be true. Bumble itself assumes that women will ever bother to make the first move, even though most women won’t. That assumption just means that Bumble draws in an audience of the people who fit that assumption, and pushes away the people who don’t. It’s serving a niche more particular than “everybody.” If you’re a woman with social anxiety who just wishes…
That may be a good thing. Different people prefer different ways of dating, so expecting one way to suit everybody may be unreasonable.
> "The real assumption here is that, while the average woman sees a spammed message of interest as an annoying bit of desperation, the average man will see that same message as an esteem-boost (“hey, someone actually contacted me on this website!”) even if they are just as unlikely to engage with it. In other words, the assumption is that men are more okay with receiving spam from women, than women are okay with receiving spam from men; and so that a site that favours men receiving spam from women will have less churn than a website that favours women receiving spam."
I would expect that's strongly influenced by how new that spam is to you. For plenty of women, the first time a man expresses interest may also be a self-esteem boost. It's just that after 50 times, it gets a bit tired. A system that turns this around so men get all the spam may be interesting and new to men, but I would expect that when they get that kind of spam as much as women do on other systems, many men may also get tired of it eventually.
> "No, allowing either side a choice to first have to verify the other side before they can make contact, makes a lot of sense."
I agree that making this configurable probably makes more sense than enforcing one specific type of behaviour. It's certainly something I'd generally prefer.
On the other hand, men who just want to contact everybody who expresses an interest in them and only start considering whether they are actually interested in the other party after that contact has been established, may still end up wasting a lot of people's time. So in that sense I can still understand if a site doesn't allow it. Which dating site you choose to use will always be a user option.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
yea okcupid did a test and showed it then tinder did a test and its even worse now https://medium.com/@worstonlinedater/tinder-experiments-ii-g... https://twitter.com/paperclique/status/1087579317809246210 https://twitter.com/devonzuegel/status/1087575749949673472
Thanks for the links. I have seen that @medium link before; this is an informal survey done by a single person so there’s probably a lot of methodological issues with the survey. The third link is just a screenshot from that same article, so it is just as dubious. The second link is quoting the actual article out of context. Here is the entire article: https://archive.is/yse2 To wit: “Site-wide, two-thirds of male me…
okcupid was from 2009, its way different now after ten years. women control the scene and they only go for the top. thats what the tweets i linked from 2019 show