OkCupid experiment - From a girl's point of view

[GravityMan]

Art_Critic and Ruby Slippers's posts in here are pretty much on the mark. Especially that bit about not taking dating too seriously. One of the biggest reasons why some people struggle with dating (online or off) is that they try/think too hard and are overly results-oriented or outcome-oriented. I mentioned in another thread a week or two ago that I noticed that people were more positively receptive to me when I was just being myself and simply interacted with them (in a friendly way of course) just for the heck of it. Whether it was just brief small talk or a lighthearted humorous conversation about some silly thing. Zero expectations. True both in the digital and physical realms. Sometimes it was just a brief casual conversation for a few minutes and then we went our separate ways never to see each other again. Sometimes it led to a new friendship. Sometimes it led to one or multiple dates.

 

It is very likely that you will be more likable to the opposite sex (and in social situations in general) if you just loosen up and get outside your own head.

 

That said, some of the others here have a good point about online dating today being quite different from OLD 5-10 years ago. OLD these days is very much a numbers game - much more so than more organic means of meeting people IRL. OLD is also filled with a bunch of shallow people, as well as people (men especially) who seem like they've never learned basic soft skills. I think one of the worst things to happen to OLD sites is their surge in popularity. Surging popularity = plummeting quality. Bunch of people found out that OKC/PoF/Match were the next big, trendy thing in the dating world, and rushed in en masse. And most ended up disappointed...women because they were overwhelmed; men because they got little or no attention. I also think that OLD has unfortunately influenced some of the bad views some people currently have about dating as a whole and the opposite sex in general.

 

I think 90% of men and a high percentage of women currently on dating sites would be much better off devoting more of their time to interacting and doing activities with people IRL, and less time online. The bigger your network and the more public exposure you get, the more frequent your dating opportunities, regardless of your looks, status, B-tier social skills, whatever. And people will see you as an actual person replete with intangibles and other characteristics that can't be measured, instead of a few pics and some superficial sentences and bullet points that reveal very little about who you actually are.

[boilingpoint]

As a man, it's pretty much a biological prerogative that we must chase women. Since that's the case, you generally want to give as much effort as possible. When you leave everything up to the interwebz, you essentially become a page in a catalog. Your looks are the only thing you have to showcase. In addition to accurately conveying your personality in x amount of characters. (Provided she gets to your profile in the first place.)

 

You see I don't agree with this - I think the girl has to come to you.

 

I suppose it depends on your personality, looks and rapport with the girl but I don't think it's up to the guy to chase.

 

If you're interested and you think she's interested then give it a shot but NEVER make it a rule that as a man you have to chase, because you should also let the girls come to you and chase you.

[Maleficent]

OP, I'd be curious to know how old were the men who expressed interest.

 

This study is overdone, yes, but I noticed a young woman is generally used (early 20s) and a lot of older women don't have the same experience with OLD.

 

Also, if you're going to use a hot 20 year old to prove women are getting more attention, well, duh...

I'm going to guess there are far less 20 year old women in OLD than men of similar age.

I'm sure if you created a profil for a 25 year old David Beckham he'd receive just as much.

 

Also WILL PEOPLE PLEASE STOP CREATING FAKE PROFILES FOR EXPERIMENTS FFS!

[Mascara]

Firstly, the numbers of men vs women on dating sites is about the same.

 

Secondly, It's simple mathematics that just as many men as women are successful in OLD if the goal is a long term relationship - if a million straight women are in a long term relationship, then a million men must be too.

 

Now, in terms of "getting as much attention as possible" then yes, women will be more successful. Women might go on more dates to get that LTR, but the end result is the same.

 

So OLD works equally for both sexes who end up in LTRs. If, however, you're judging it on "how many dates can I get" or "how easily can I get laid", then of course women have it easier. Welcome to the world for the last 10,000 years.

[gaius]

I think I'm gonna start a dating site that caters to guys who want to pretend to be women and have other guys hit on them, because there seems to be a whole lot of them out there.

[dichotomy]

An experiment conducted many times, always with the same results.

 

All it says to me is that if women hope to find anything meaningful and legitimate on any online dating site, they have to go seek out profiles themselves, rather than relying on the right person finding them. I'm sure there have been countless potentially great relationships that have fallen through the cracks because she had so many messages that she became jaded by the whole process.

 

 

 

Send messages ladies. You have nothing to lose.

 

This was my experience. Its been soooooo long, but when I was on OLD (yahoo) I simply gave up sending ice breakers or contacts out to women...of any type/appearance... and waited for them pick me. It worked ok letting them choose me. I did not get a ton of responses but enough to go on dates and meet some new folks, and get a few relationships out of it.

[AD1980]

I just deleted my account it wasn't good for my self esteem..I was getting no responses from women I messaged and the only attention I got was from a few obese women trying to "meet me"

 

Welp another failed mission to meet women..

[Ruby Slippers]

Ruby, you seem pretty sensible -- I remember you from before, I quite coming to loveshack for quite a while.

 

I would be interested in knowing, what do you think of the whole multidating business, especially in OLD?

Welcome back!

 

Multi-dating isn't for me. It doesn't feel right to me to pick up and compare men like apples in the produce section. I prefer to meet someone, see if there's any potential, then continue if so and discontinue if not.

 

I think it's OK for people to go on a few early dates with a few different people, but I think it starts to get sleazy when they mix in sexual activity while multi-dating - unless everyone is 100% in the know and at peace with it, which I think is almost nonexistent.

[Frank2thepoint]

Found a Business Insider article (dated from July last year) on some statistics concerning online dating. The article refers to Are You Interested website, but I'm sure you can get similar information for various dating sites.

 

I want to point out a part about the article to emphasize that online dating for men is a numbers game.

 

An average man who sends 18 messages to women his own age can be 50% certain he'll receive at least one response. For women, they need to send only 5 messages to be 50% certain they'll get a response.

 

Looking at higher confidence levels, if a woman wants to be 90% certain she'll receive a response from a man her own age, she'll have to send 13 messages. A man will have to send 58 messages.

 

Finally, to be 99% certain she'll receive a response, a woman must send 25 messages to men her own age.

 

A man will have to send 114.

 

The article only mentions getting a response. Getting a date is probably even worse.

[PegNosePete]

That's because the vast majority of men have terrible profiles. If you saw half of them, you wouldn't respond either!!!

 

Fortunately it's quite easy to beat those statistics and make you OLD experience a lot easier. You just make a profile that is tip-top and get some great pics of you at your best. Because most guys have terrible profiles, it's quite easy to get into the top 10 percentile, but very few bother, they prefer to complain and moan and berate the whole thing as a waste of time and a "numbers game" (what does that even mean? The lottery is a numbers game, so is darts, but one can definitely be improved by skill and practice).

[Frank2thepoint]

That's because the vast majority of men have terrible profiles. If you saw half of them, you wouldn't respond either!!!

 

Interesting, because when I did online dating I could say the same thing about the profiles of women. Most I encountered had group photos as their main photo, and it was an annoying guessing game to figure out who the woman is that the profile belongs to. Some had the courtesy to write "I'm the one in the blue top". Genius. Also, the description basically had "I love my family, friends, and my pet gerbil. I really love to laugh. lol"

[PegNosePete]

True a lot of women have bad profiles too.

 

But a lot of guys are just looking for hookups, so send out messages without even reading the profile. So women get (poor quality) messages even if they have terrible profiles. Whereas guys with terrible profiles, don't get squat.

 

That's why the kind of statistics that you quoted are quite meaningless.

[Art_Critic]

The article only mentions getting a response. Getting a date is probably even worse.

 

they also say SAME age.. how many men doing OLD actually send their emails to women young enough to be their daughters or way younger than they are.. most..

[heartshaped]

I actually make my profile unsearchable on the sites I use (when I use them) because otherwise it's overwhelming.

 

I prefer to make first contact anyway. Maybe for every 5 messages I send 1 man doesn't respond? But I'm not even sure if that's a fair average. I know out of my most recent bout of online dating, only 3 men to my recollection didn't respond versus the 10 or there abouts that did. I went out with a number of them (maybe 4-5) and the others thing didn't materialize though I conversed on the phone with another 2-3. I am now seeing a man I met through OLD and have taken down my profile.

[kaylan]

True a lot of women have bad profiles too.

 

But a lot of guys are just looking for hookups, so send out messages without even reading the profile. So women get (poor quality) messages even if they have terrible profiles. Whereas guys with terrible profiles, don't get squat.

 

That's why the kind of statistics that you quoted are quite meaningless.

Read my previous posts.

 

Some guys are like me...and realize that going after sex, and being the "casual, lets have fun" guy gets more success online...despite the crap women say. Actions > words.

 

I get more replies from short, uninteresting first messages than I do with unique messages longer than 2 sentences. I usually just end up laughing anytime I see a woman complaining about her bad luck with guys on OLD. There are decent folks on it...its just that a lot of people on OLD have *****tty mate pickers.

Edited October 30, 2014 by kaylan

[Andy_K]

I actually make my profile unsearchable on the sites I use (when I use them) because otherwise it's overwhelming.

 

I prefer to make first contact anyway. Maybe for every 5 messages I send 1 man doesn't respond? But I'm not even sure if that's a fair average. I know out of my most recent bout of online dating, only 3 men to my recollection didn't respond versus the 10 or there abouts that did. I went out with a number of them (maybe 4-5) and the others thing didn't materialize though I conversed on the phone with another 2-3. I am now seeing a man I met through OLD and have taken down my profile.

 

Now this is the kind of success that guys can only dream of... From 13 messages you got 10 replies, 7-8 of those resulted in phone numbers, and ultimately 4-5 dates. And I suspect almost every one of them wanted to see you again.

 

Congrats though, you figured out a way to make it work for you, instead of just wading through a full inbox, picking out the wrong guys, and becoming disillusioned with the whole thing.

[Frank2thepoint]

That's why the kind of statistics that you quoted are quite meaningless.

 

I disagree with this statement. The statistics are proof of the disparity.

 

I prefer to make first contact anyway. Maybe for every 5 messages I send 1 man doesn't respond? But I'm not even sure if that's a fair average. I know out of my most recent bout of online dating, only 3 men to my recollection didn't respond versus the 10 or there abouts that did. I went out with a number of them (maybe 4-5) and the others thing didn't materialize though I conversed on the phone with another 2-3. I am now seeing a man I met through OLD and have taken down my profile.

 

And here's the proof. A woman taking the initiative to contact the man first. Reading her numbers, any man would be ecstatic to get these same results as heartshaped has received. From my personal experience, male friends, and from what I've read in articles and male comments on LS in the past, regardless if it is a tailored message or a blanket mass message, a man has to send more messages to get a response. For the majority of males on OLD, this is a fact, proved by statistics.

[PegNosePete]

I disagree with this statement. The statistics are proof of the disparity.

I never said the statistics are wrong. Just that they are meaningless. And the conclusions that people draw from this kind of statistics, are generally false.

 

Yes, guys have to send a lot more messages to get anywhere. I never claimed otherwise. But often people will conclude from that, that it doesn't matter what your profile is like or what your message says, you're playing a lottery anyway so why put in the effort?

 

But that logic is simply wrong. Any guy who has a great profile with great pictures and sends great messages will have success. Sure he's unlikely to get 10/13 response rate but 1 in 4 or 5 is easily possible. Women do not pick and choose who to reply to and meet, based on pure randomness. They pick and choose based on the photos, the profile and the message.

[Shining One]

Any guy who has a great profile with great pictures and sends great messages will have success.

I just want to point out that this is not necessarily true. I've been told by several women I have a great profile and I write great messages. Despite all of this, I don't have success. I'm dating someone now, but a 0.1% rate is not what I consider successful.

 

 

I have more success when I'm dishonest about the following items in my profile:

Ethnicity (I can pass for Hispanic)

Income (set to $150,000+)

When I change my ethnicity, my date rate goes up to about 5%. Changing income takes it to about 15%. I have not yet tried changing both at the same time.

 

 

Obviously, I can't build relationships on a lie, so these are flings at best. I can only control one of these factors, so I'm focused heavily on my career.

[PegNosePete]

I just want to point out that this is not necessarily true. I've been told by several women I have a great profile and I write great messages.

And who were these women... online dating experts? Did they date you?

 

Many, many people get told they have a great profile by their friends. I was even told it myself, when I was younger and less experienced, and had a terrible profile. Many women, especially those in relationships, have very incorrect assumptions and opinions on what makes a good online dating profile.

 

Point in fact: I have a friend who wrote to a woman who had a photo of a bass guitar in the background, asking her about the bass. It was a very good message. He showed a female friend and she immediately said it was a bad thing to say, he should have said he likes her smile instead. WTF. Terrible advice.

[Shining One]

And who were these women... online dating experts? Did they date you?

One was an ex, the others were friends. One of those friends said she would have dated me if I had been white (she only dates white men). I've also received positive feedback from several of the women I messaged on OLD, but the vast majority of these women only pursued friendship with me.

 

 

I have not engaged an online dating expert, but I will do so if I find myself back in OLD. Are there any you would recommend? I'm always open to suggestions to help improve my chances.

[PegNosePete]

I've also received positive feedback from several of the women I messaged on OLD, but the vast majority of these women only pursued friendship with me.

Yeah classic friend-zone dude. You're a great guy, just not the one for me...... your profile is good for making friends, not attracting women. Better to get advice from experienced successful guys, than from women. A young lion does not ask a zebra how to catch zebras... he asks the older, more experienced lions.

 

Are there any you would recommend? I'm always open to suggestions to help improve my chances.

I'd recommend putting your profile up for review on the relevant section of your chosen OLD site's forums. There's plenty of experienced, knowledgable people there to help you. We generally can't review profiles on this forum because of the policy of not posting personally identifying information.

[Phoe]

When I did OLD, I don't think there were profile likes or anything like that. If there were, I sure as heck didn't know.

 

I was on for 2 days and got about 18 messages.

 

I responded to every one, except for 2 that were sexual.

 

I also sent messages.

 

Some of my messages never got responded to, some did. I had conversations with those who did, then I got asked on a date, and I went.

 

Not bad. Definitely manageable. I wasn't bombarded. I was able to respond easily.

[Phoe]

I have more success when I'm dishonest about the following items in my profile:

Ethnicity (I can pass for Hispanic)

Income (set to $150,000+).

 

See, if I saw someone who had that income rating on a local dating site, I'd know it was a lie. Or at least be pretty certain something was off. Young men living here just don't make that much.

 

I'd know it was a bluff, and I'd pass.

 

If someone put $20,000 I'd know they were being honest, and I'd appreciate that.

 

Truth be told, I don't know if income rating was even an option on the site I was on. I don't recall ever noticing an income for any of the guys I spoke with.

[Shining One]

See, if I saw someone who had that income rating on a local dating site, I'd know it was a lie. Or at least be pretty certain something was off. Young men living here just don't make that much.

 

I'd know it was a bluff, and I'd pass.

 

If someone put $20,000 I'd know they were being honest, and I'd appreciate that.

It's not that uncommon where I live. I'm not that far shy of $100,000 myself and I expect I will be making $150,000 in the next few years.

Judging by the increase in profile views, I'm guessing quite a few women in this area have that number in their search parameters.

 

Truth be told, I don't know if income rating was even an option on the site I was on. I don't recall ever noticing an income for any of the guys I spoke with.

This was on Match. It allows you to select salary ranges, with the highest being $150,000+. You can make it one of your requirements in the "What I'm looking for" section and search by income level.