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

The dating app paradox

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

511–520 of 570 posts

Re: The dating app paradox

#511

Post by sublinear »

swozey wrote: post #480
sublinear wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have no idea if she's attracted to me, nor single, etc. I've probably spent thousands of hours casually talking to someone I may find interesting only to find out before they leave that they're either not interested or not single or not hetero, whatever. This sounds very off. It's extremely common for people to overshare when drinking. If you can't figure things out in that environment I'm not sure how much lower…

Well, I didn't say "I can't figure out how to pick someone up at a bar or IRL," I said- in less words, my ratio of successfully picking someone up via OLD is higher than my IRL pickups. You have no idea if that's 20 or 300, I can easily say 80-90% of mine, and I think ALL of my last 5-10 serious partners all came from OLD. People IRL, especially frequenting the dive bars I worked at, were't very much out there to get…

I'm admittedly biased because I definitely cannot pick up anyone online, but do well in person.

Online dating is working with limited information. Some people just look better than others when squinted at. I guess the low-res digital version of me is too unappealing.

IRL: "esto quod esse videris"

online: "adchay annaway ashsmay"

Re: The dating app paradox

#512

Post by freeAgent »

nvarsj wrote: post #190
trashface wrote: post #56

A couple years ago, post pandemic, I tried these apps for the first time in my life (mid forties), and I had the what is apparently the typical hetero male experience of no matches. It wasn't bad dates or ghosting or catfishing all that stuff you read about. Just no dates, no chats even. Gave up after a few months and deleted them, I doubt I'll ever go back on there. Its perhaps controversial, but I definitely didn't…

The way these apps work, you pretty much have to pay as a guy. It's like a club where women get in free. The algorithms will derank you very fast unless you're a 10/10 male, and you will basically get no matches from then on. Most guys who are successful on dating apps are paying for it.

My experience is 10 years old now (I met my wife on OKC then), but at the time I was getting plenty of mutual matches and actually had enough women contacting me that I never initiated contact. I wouldn’t say I’m a 10/10, but definitely on the luckier side where it comes to traits attractive to women. I was also in my mid- to late-20s at the time, which I still feel like is the peak dating app age range.

Re: The dating app paradox

#513

Post by leach »

herbst wrote: post #426
leach wrote: post #68

Dating apps by and far are quite useless. If you ever want to know how insidious they are, just download one, finish your profile, and swipe for 10 minutes a week. Since you are not an "active user" they will give you the most attractive people to swipe on. Every couple of days they will give you a "limited time" discount on gold or platinum or whatever. The push notifications are my favorite part, "you could be miss…

You are talking specifically about the male experience. As 'female' it doesn't matter how often I use the app, if my profile attracts enough males I get matches and ice breakers all day long. If I accidentally open the app after 2 months it just gets more. I don't need to match or look out. I get nice and stupid messages in mailbox and can choose from them. If I go to match 80% (made up but realistic number) of the p…

This is very true, I've never used a dating app as the opposite sex so I'm not sure what their experience is like. This definitely sounds about right though.

Makes sense that attention is what they want from you, and how the experience compares to that of an average dude on it.

I suppose I'm forgetting other experiences too, I guess I follow the two "rules" of dating apps because as a dude I get a decent amount of matches. Still I don't like the dating apps, maybe I just yearn for something more real I'm not sure.

Re: The dating app paradox

#514

Post by leach »

Qem wrote: post #90
leach wrote: post #68

Dating apps by and far are quite useless. If you ever want to know how insidious they are, just download one, finish your profile, and swipe for 10 minutes a week. Since you are not an "active user" they will give you the most attractive people to swipe on. Every couple of days they will give you a "limited time" discount on gold or platinum or whatever. The push notifications are my favorite part, "you could be miss…

> It's much easier to naturally meet people in real life through work/school. It was. Nowadays people including the office in their dating pool face a high risk of harassment claims.

If you don't date at work you still make friends at work and grow your social circle. Leverage that to meet new people through work people.

It can be risky dating at work but some find the trade off worth it. I suppose it depends on how comfortable you are at your job too. I've definitely seen relationships blossom in my workplace more than once. When you spend so much time with people it's only natural.

Re: The dating app paradox

#515

Post by remram »

fluidcruft wrote: post #187
phlipski wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With all due respect here - "20 years of successful online dating" sounds like an oxymoron! Unless you're choosing to date and to not enter into a long term relationship?

With all due respect, this seems like a Rorschach test? He didn't say "20 years continuously dating online"? People can date online a bit, get into a relationship for a quite a while, relationship ends, go back to online dating, etc.

This is semantics, but I think the parent's point is: if the relationship ended, was it "successful"? You obviously have different answers (and that's fine!)

Re: The dating app paradox

#516

Post by leach »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #309
mancerayder wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a recipe for women to feel creeped out. Even at Meetups women get bugged by men who for lack of a better term lack awareness and communication skills. And by this I do imply men talking to women, because despite claims to the contrary, it's the accepted norm (and there are always exceptions). That's my experience, it may be different in same sex communities. There's no great place for people to meet anymore.

> That's a recipe for women to feel creeped out. Countless surveys have shown that women do want to be approached. And don't forget about the "Brad Pitt vs Stalker" duality that exists for women and dating: They either view you as handsome who can do no wrong (including approaching them at Meetups), or some kind of creep. There is little in-between. Also, women view about 80% of men as unattractive. It is not a norma…

Basically this, the bookstore was a stand in for any type of place that you may frequent and see others frequent.

People react differently to being approached, just like anyone would. If they are just into you it works. If not some are polite and see it as a compliment and just say no. Others will be offended and scoff. Either way no one gets hurt and you just move on.

Eventually you just get lucky with someone who is interested in you back. This is kinda how it was for most of history, so I find it odd people are so against it now. We are social creatures! go out and meet people, if they happen to be mean oh well, that reflects entirely on them.

Re: The dating app paradox

#517

Post by Legend2440 »

maxlamb wrote: post #504
Legend2440 wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? I find that it is way easier to meet people in person. In real life, girls approach me at the gym. On apps, I get maybe one like a week and it's usually not someone I'm interested in.

Where do you live? Most girls I know where I’ve lived would never approach random guys at a gym…

US West Coast.

Just casually make eye contact with people and see who looks back. Smile at them. If they smile back, that's an invitation to talk to them - or sometimes they'll just walk up and talk to you.

Re: The dating app paradox

#518

Post by freeAgent »

Spastche wrote: post #140
breather wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OkCupid used to be the best because they actually tried to match you up on common interests and relevant dating questions. Last I heard that had been ripped out and it was just another tinder clone emphasizing photos and swiping. Should be a crime to ruin an app that useful.

last time I was on it, the questions had been de-emphasized and it seemed more like a tinder clone. hopefully a better version of it comes along someday, it's a valid idea (matches based on quizzes)

That’s extremely disappointing. The questions were both entertaining in and of themselves and also extremely helpful as a filtering and sorting mechanism. I don’t know why they’d want to de-emphasize or eliminate the best part of OKC. That’s what OKC used to be about!

Re: The dating app paradox

#519

Post by faeriechangling »

Spivak wrote: post #509
hbn wrote: post #505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if I stopped showering and women found me unattractive for it? And I started blaming them, saying it’s their fault I can’t bring myself to shower?

You're ignoring the magnitude. To make this a fair comparison it would have to be something like "Women find men's musk so repulsive that men who struggle with controlling it due to their hormones, diet, or lifestyle are showering with so much chemical exfoliant to keep it under control that it's destroying their skin." And in that world I think you have a case that women have to get over it. You can be like "just lo…

It would not be a good thing for people to find indicators of poor health to be neutral or attractive. It would just perpetuate eating disorders generationally.

Re: The dating app paradox

#520

Post by dhosek »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #399
dhosek wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I worked at eHarmony in 2009 and we had a monitor in the office which showed user complaints. Apparently, the business people had A/B tested and determined that the additional revenue from ads outweighed the annoyance that users experienced (I actually asked directly about this). The other thing was the large number of people who were frustrated by the low density of users in their geographical region. Spending a lot…

> who were recovering from alcoholism or drug addiction How did you know this? Did people really put this in their public profile???

People really put this in their public profiles.
Post reply on HN