rant about OLD from the LS poster boy

[nospam99]

I'm calling myself the LS poster boy for OLD because a lot of the rest of y'all have complained about OLD not 'delivering'. I agree that it's not perfect. But I'm getting my money's worth.

 

What prompted me feeling like starting 'yet another thread about OLD' is a recent change at match.com. Match is my 'preferred' OLD site: more than half of the women I've met have been via match and I haven't met any other than on match since May. So while a lot of what I'm writing is specific to match.com, the ideas about providing users enough information to facilitate filtering can be generalized to all OLD sites. The change has to do with a feature called 'matches' (yeah, EVERY OLD site has a feature called matches). Every day match.com delivers a set of matches. The user essentially swipes left or right (tinder model) on each match. (Although match.com doesn't work exactly like tinder, I'll keep using swiping as a metaphor for choosing whether to take the potential match to the next level.) The change is that a couple of days ago match.com stopped specifying location in the matches. People who care WHERE the potential dating partner lives (ME!!!) now have to view the match's full profile to find out. A profile view creates a notification to the match that I have viewed them. That can be interpreted as interest on my part. Good for match.com's business from a marketing standpoint because it 'pumps' the number of reported profile views. But bad for me because it may be (likely because most matches are outside my 50 minute dating range, some by a lot) sending a 'false positive' to the woman. Also I may get more false positives.

 

But that's just my reason for wanting to post at all today. What I really want to rant about is the selection/filter model that is used to produce that list of matches. The matches are presented with a list of the characteristics of the woman. So, as the recipient, I get information so I can 'filter' i.e. decide to swipe left or right. It says NOTHING about what she may see as interesting about me. Since, as a probably typical male, I swipe right on several women and then have a 'batting average' on whether or not they respond, I would strongly prefer if the matches I get sent have been prescreened by the site to make sure I am, at least superficially, what we are both looking for. I 'wish':

- that I only get matches if the woman is 'okay' with my height, body type, age, location, interests, and religion. Race is almost never a problem. The income (specified as salary, which is VERY different from income for seniors) the woman is seeking is frequently a mismatch but can't be prescreened for me because I don't and won't specify it in my profile.

- and, further, that I only get matches if I am 'okay' with the woman's body type, location, and how recently she's logged on (two weeks is a good marker).

 

That match.com, or any other OLD site, doesn't prescreen this way just makes it 'more work'. People frequently post here on LS that there is someone for everyone because there's 7 billion people in the world. Bullshyt - only a small fraction of those 7 billion people are going to pass the simplest filters of age, location, and marital status. Any tool that further narrows the search is valuable.

 

One last related observation: body type ... 'overweight' is overweight. Don't give me 'Big and beautiful', 'Curvy', 'Full-figured', 'Heavyset', 'A few extra pounds', or 'Stocky' (If I'm a chick, a guy describing himself as 'stocky' is okay - I'd take it as a man who's very muscular because of a combination of genetics and intense day to day physical activity.). 'Obese' is an okay descriptor. But I doubt anybody on OLD would use it voluntarily to describe themselves.

[Happy Lemming]

First off, I’d like to say I enjoy reading your posts; they are also well written. Although, I’m not a fan of OLD (tried it, briefly and hated it), I think the information you supply is helpful.

 

I don’t necessarily agree with you about the “False Positive”. I don’t think it matters (if you are a woman) and a man views your profile, but doesn’t contact you. I think a “false positive” would be if a man contacts the woman then doesn’t follow through with additional communication and an eventual invite for a date (provided there are no red flags during communication).

 

I never cared what euphemisms are used for a person being overweight. Unless the person is using an old photo or one that is heavily photo-shopped, you can pretty much tell someone’s body type from a photo.

 

Personally, I’ve dated women of all body types (98 – 305 pounds). I have no problem dating a big girl. If I enjoy her company and she is a kind person, I don’t care if she is of a larger variety. For the record the 305 pound woman was a fun person, I enjoyed her company. Her weight was never a factor in any of our adventures/activities.

[carhill]

What I really want to rant about is the selection/filter model that is used to produce that list of matches.

Nice rant. Ran into it nearly a decade ago when looking for dates after filing for divorce. With filters wide open, including age (18-99) there were ten women on match.com, at the busiest, within a ten mile radius of my zip code.

 

At that point, along with other factors, I decided to retire from the dating scene. Haven't looked at an OLD site since. That's significant because all my relationships of consequence after the mid-90's came from OLD, including my marriage. Unlike your, and possibly others, rants, I had great fortune with OLD. I guess it changed and I changed. Good luck!

[nospam99]

I never cared what euphemisms are used for a person being overweight. Unless the person is using an old photo or one that is heavily photo-shopped, you can pretty much tell someone’s body type from a photo.

 

 

First off, thanks for the compliment. Even I appreciate being appreciated.

 

FWIW the euphemisms for overweight are the actually selectable descriptions from the Search filter on match.com. Free text descriptions are not allowed. With respect to detecting body types from photos, while women hoping to attract male interest probably 'should' post at least one current full-body photo (NOT of them dressed in a muumuu but bikini, mini-skirt, or yoga outfit are all appreciated but not required), not all do. I've found that when her photos merely hint at her body type, her self-description is helpful, especially for the 'slender's whose pictured faces, necks, or shoulders suggest that they are not overweight. It's just part of the game to help anticipate what the first face-to-face meeting will reveal.

[preraph]

Once you look at the profile and see they're far away, just send a polite message to that person and tell them, I'm only not matching because once I look at your profile (under the new Match procedure), you're simply too far away. Good luck.

[Happy Lemming]

I've found that when her photos merely hint at her body type, her self-description is helpful, especially for the 'slender's whose pictured faces, necks, or shoulders suggest that they are not overweight. It's just part of the game to help anticipate what the first face-to-face meeting will reveal.

 

OK... so let's say you meet face to face and she is larger than what you anticipated (based on description and/or pictures); what's the harm. What have you lost... a couple of hours and a few dollars for drinks and appetizers.

 

Personally, I've found larger women to be less demanding. Moreover, they are not starving themselves, so they aren't as bitchy/difficult.

Edited December 16, 2018 by Happy Lemming

[nospam99]

My intended topic was how OLD sites could provide good information to allow users to 'pick'. The following is related but tangential because it deals in specific details (location and body type) rather than the general idea. Keep in mind that what I am calling a 'match' has less information in it than a profile ...

 

I online chatted with a support person to complain about the location not appearing in match lists. Today location is back (yay!). How long that lasts remains to be seen.

 

Meanwhile match.com has added body type to the information in a match (yay!). Ironically the very first new match I got whose location was 'close enough' describes herself as 'slender' yet appears 'average' to 'a few extra pounds' in her photos and several of her photos are more than two years old ... 'liar, liar tongues on fire' (self description of 'average' is appropriate) ... swipe left.

[Happy Lemming]

Ironically the very first new match I got whose location was 'close enough' describes herself as 'slender' yet appears 'average' to 'a few extra pounds' in her photos and several of her photos are more than two years old ... 'liar, liar tongues on fire' (self description of 'average' is appropriate) ... swipe left.

 

So you are rejecting her for what reason??

 

(A) That her pictures are two years old

(B) That her description of her body type is inaccurate

© She is unethical in her description of herself

(D) You prefer "Slender" over "Average"

(E) All of the above

[nospam99]

So you are rejecting her for what reason??

 

(A) That her pictures are two years old

(B) That her description of her body type is inaccurate

© She is unethical in her description of herself

(D) You prefer ''Slender'' over ''Average''

(E) All of the above

 

I'm rejecting her because her appearance is not appealing to me (None of the above).

 

Your multiple-choice questions:

(A) Just a remark on my part. Lots of women (and men most likely) post old photos on OLD or otherwise 'fudge' their profiles as in your (B) and ©. This is not a reason for me to reject her.

(B) Ditto (A)

© Ditto (A)

(D) While I do indeed prefer 'Slender' over 'Average', I have met and dated several women who describe themselves as 'Average' even though for some of them I lament that they don't have a 'Hot' descriptor for their use (think Kate Upton as a 60 y/o - a little sagging and a few wrinkles here and there but still having a sexy body). In any case, 'Average' is not a reason for me to reject a match. However in this case, I assess her as 'a few extra pounds' and that contributed HEAVILY (I kill me ) to her appearance not being appealing to me. I admit to being a 'pig' to the extent that while I don't jump right into bed, I generally won't date a woman unless the thought of having sex with her arouses me.

(E) Covered by the other options