OLD fail - post mostly for entertainment value

[nospam99]

17 OLD contacts in a row without getting a phone number - a personal 'best'. But the streak has now been broken, which I guess I should call 'good news'. No meet with the new phone number though.

[CautiouslyOptimistic]

Onward and upward, NS!

[nospam99]

Silly me. I probably should have started this thread in Water Cooler. Maybe okay here in ISO if it becomes a (another) discussion of frustration about how much OLD is a numbers game.

Edited June 1, 2018 by nospam99

[LuckyM]

How old are you? Which OLD site do you mean? Maybe the wrong site.

 

Even with a phone number, it is likely you won't date her. That's what I found years ago.

[carhill]

17 isn't bad. Welcome to the rejection game. At least you're spared the laughs and scrunched up 'are you kidding me?' faces. Those are a harbinger of dating times gone by before people could reject each other electronically.

 

The cool thing is you'll get some stories out of the deal which may end up being quite humorous years or decades down the road.

 

My most memorable one, decades ago, was when 'phone personals' from the newspaper personals were in their infancy and, with one lady, hooking up, getting phone numbers, calling on land lines, dating, having phone sex, getting married, fighting, getting divorced and killing each other all happened during one very long phone call one rainy Saturday night 30 some years ago. I seriously had to question my sanity after that.

 

Once you give up all hope, life gets better

[nospam99]

How old are you? Which OLD site do you mean? Maybe the wrong site.

 

Even with a phone number, it is likely you won't date her. That's what I found years ago.

 

LOL. I don't think you recognize me (I believe CO and carhill do). I'm LS' resident OLD fanboy.

 

To answer your questions: 64 and Match (in this case). I've also had some 'success' meeting women on POF. Given my age demographics, once I get a phone number I 'usually meet the woman. Date? Only if she and I 'hit it off' at the meeting which is running about 50%. Like I hinted earlier in this thread, 17 'strikes' in a row is unusual so I posted with tongue in cheek.

 

I understand and agree with your point about a phone number is not a date. Nor is a date a relationship. It's a numbers game. But (so far) I am having fun both playing the numbers game and meeting the women.

[BaronChairman]

That seems to be fairly normal for Match. I joined up in March, and I got four or five phone numbers and two dates.

 

One of those dates turned into a budding relationship, but she broke it off a couple of days ago.

[BaronChairman]

So is there a thrad anywhere here about how to be better at online dating?

[Chris2016]

So is there a thrad anywhere here about how to be better at online dating?

 

My guess is hump and dump. If you can get the ladies, but you're not that good looking, go with the flow and not take anything too seriously.

[Chris2016]

17 isn't bad. Welcome to the rejection game. At least you're spared the laughs and scrunched up 'are you kidding me?' faces. Those are a harbinger of dating times gone by before people could reject each other electronically.

 

The cool thing is you'll get some stories out of the deal which may end up being quite humorous years or decades down the road.

 

My most memorable one, decades ago, was when 'phone personals' from the newspaper personals were in their infancy and, with one lady, hooking up, getting phone numbers, calling on land lines, dating, having phone sex, getting married, fighting, getting divorced and killing each other all happened during one very long phone call one rainy Saturday night 30 some years ago. I seriously had to question my sanity after that.

 

Once you give up all hope, life gets better

 

At least ya'll have the fortitude. But like you said, if anything, you at least have stories to tell. Honestly, some of these ladies having nothing home to write up about (still single and searching for however long) acting like their poo don't stink. Reality check, nature sets it course for everyone.

[Chris2016]

My guess is hump and dump. If you can get the ladies, but you're not that good looking, go with the flow and not take anything too seriously.

 

Edit (but it won't let me edit):

My guess is hump and dump. If you can get the ladies or get dates (or maybe not too good looking) go with the flow and not take anything too seriously.

[nospam99]

So is there a thrad anywhere here about how to be better at online dating?

 

One thread? Not really. I post about OLD 'frequently' and would vicariously enjoy a 'discussion' in this thread or in other threads in ISO. But I'll observe that YMMV and seemingly with the major variables being gender, age, location, and objective (getting laid vs finding love).

 

As a senior male seeking an LTR in a semi-urban area, my experience only slightly fits the parameters of others'. E.g. I often see threads on LS of 20-somethings of both genders looking for sex and whining when their Tinder match or last night's hookup doesn't text them within 6 hours. Also 30-something women looking for husband/father candidates as the biological clock ticks loudly. And 30 and 40-something men who finally want to settle down looking for fertile young women to bear their children. What is is.

 

Updating a bit: My post https://www.loveshack.org/forums/general/general-relationship-discussion/658863-internet-killed-how-relationships-dating-work-2.html#post7585412 'might' suggest some ideas about 'better'. Again, YMMV.

Edited June 25, 2018 by nospam99

[nospam99]

I considered starting a new thread for this post, but didn't to keep down the clutter in ISO. What got me thinking about it is another currently active thread where a 'young' fellow (25), apparently at a college, is having trouble dating the 'local' population of 18-21 y/o women.

 

With dating in general, and OLD included, there seems to be a consensus that one problem is for a potential meet the two parties must at least superficially satisfy each others' filters. As a male, I do more 'approaches' than I receive. I'll focus on Match.com because it's fairly easy to produce some 'sample data'. I am 64 y/o. In my profile, I explicitly state that I am looking for women younger than 67, who live within a 50 minute drive, and exclude women of Black Ethnicity (I'm White - I'd relax this preference for Beyonce or Meghan but they're currently attached ). I initiate contact by message and rarely receive unsolicited messages on Match. However, ladies do send me 'Likes'. In order to do so, they have access to my profile which lists my preferences as above. My current most recent Likes received include:

- 100 minute drive

- 69 y/o

- black

- 100 minutes

- 85 minutes

- no obvious problem, but NOT a 'match' as calculated by Match.com (the ladies know this)

- 67 y/o

- 50 minutes (at my limit)

- 68 y/o

- 70 y/o

- no obvious problem

- black

- 67 y/o

- 66 y/o (at my limit)

- 69 y/o

- 32 y/o (way UNDER my sought age range), 330 minute drive, and her profile says she's seeking men 32-43 y/o - has this profile been hacked?

 

I think this sample shows that at least a significant portion of the ladies on Match are not filtering their targets. I do, especially for such obvious criteria as the age, height, and body type my targets say they are seeking.