Updated assessment of OLD on POF: don't waste your time

[nospam99]

That would be Online Dating on the Plenty of Fish (POF) web site. LSers who remember my posts know I'm relatively pro-OLD. I've pointed out many times that the advantage of OLD is that the user can assume that the profiles they see are of people who are open to and maybe even actively looking for relationships (or hookups in some cases) and that they have provided information about what they're looking for (age, location, type of relationship, personal values, etc). There are several OLD sites (ourtime, eharmony, elite, zoosk) that I have tried and quickly assessed as 'not happening'. (OKCupid was okay but changed to restrictive messaging rules and is now useless.)

 

Early on, POF was on my short list of 'good' sites. But I now have to report that was a 'false positive', largely colored in my mind by meeting 'Natalie' there (LSers who have read my posts know who Natalie is). It's been 18 months. Looking back, Natalie was the ONLY 'good' match I got on POF (and she didn't 'end well' either). So my current assessment of POF is 'meh'. You can try it out for free by putting a profile out there. But I wouldn't bother to actively search there. Specific problems include no 'new blood', lack of technical support (support never responded to any of my messages), the site's high rankings of 'compatibility' seem to mean nothing, and lots of sexting scams (though the photos the scammers use are hot ).

 

I'm taking a 'break' from POF - no $ for 'upgrades' and I won't bother to search. I'm still on match.com. If nothing else, there are more users (though most of them are not active - 100 active users out of 1000 search results is what it is) and regular appearances of 'new blood'. Even though the relationships haven't grown, the dozen women I've met in the last year are all from match.

[Purepony]

Pof and okc really took a dive and became a mess lately.

 

It’s a shame because I had so much luck on okc back in the day

[shydad]

Specific problems include no 'new blood'

Hi nospam99! So I guess they don't actually have "plenty" of fish!

 

I agree with you about Match. Did you ever have luck with Bumble? (Let's define luck as you met a woman.) I'm still with the woman I met from there, from back in September. Things are going really well.

[nospam99]

@shydad

 

Good (VERY good) zinger about the fish. I think the reality is that 'the match group' bought out POF and a) doesn't invest in it and b) actually puts match.com advertisements on POF pages.

 

Nary a 'match' on Bumble for me. I tried for a month, swiped right on several, mostly saw the same women as on match where I live, got some that swiped right on me that I couldn't see their profiles without buying the 'boost', and decided not to pay for the 'boost' on the assumption I had swiped left on all those who swiped right on me. Like any OLD I've tried, one major variable is location and women who are more 'dating challenged' hunt (or fish) more aggressively.

 

Gratz on your success. IIRC you are a relatively recent divorcee in your forties. I'm happy for you to hear that you have had a 'soft landing'.

[PegNosePete]

the reality is that 'the match group' bought out POF and a) doesn't invest in it

Yes, but that was true long before Match bought them. The site never changed except for switching a few features between paid / free and then back again a few weeks later, sometimes introducing useless bells and whistles which would normally cause all kinds of bugs. Support was always non-existent. It always just ran on autopilot with very little attention from any real staff and nobody, especially free users, ever got replies to emails.

 

Match basically bought them to own the competition and have left it pretty much as it was. It all runs an autopilot, so they just bought it and let it do it's thing.

 

I don't think it's fair to demote a dating site assessment based on the failure of an 18 month relationship. The website did it's part successfully, which is to introduce you. But if that's the way you judge these things, fair enough...

[nospam99]

@pegnosepete

Just in case I need to clarify, the 18 month relationship was my relationship with the web site, not with a particular woman. My criticism of POF is that in direct comparison to match.com (at least where I live) I have met significantly fewer women and the site has attracted significantly fewer female users (probably cause and effect relationship there). I also suspect that the reason fewer woman start or continue using POF is that they see the same lack of support and value that I do.

 

One thing puzzles me about the 'autopilot'. It seems that most of the scammers (entertaining though they are - HOT photos of women whose profiles claim they are in their 50s or 60s) disappear within hours. I know enough about artificial intelligence to doubt that a 'bot' is deleting those accounts. If a 'bot' is doing the 'cleanup', it is likely that there are also many legitimate accounts deleted in the same manner (false positives).

[shydad]

Hi nospam99, in 18 months, how many women did you meet from POF? Was it only one woman you met, or did you meet more than one, but only one was "good"?

[Happy Lemming]

Hey "nospam99", now that you are 65, are there any "Senior Groups", "Senior Dances" or similar "Senior" activities where you could meet women in real life??

 

Just a thought...

[snowcones]

You are disappointed and that's understandable. Perhaps take a break.... maybe even up to a year or more, to re-direct your feelings back to a positive place, and then return to OLD.

[nospam99]

Hi nospam99, in 18 months, how many women did you meet from POF? Was it only one woman you met, or did you meet more than one, but only one was ''good''

 

I met four - Natalie was the only 'good' match i.e. mutual romantic interest (at least for a while). She was the second woman I met on POF, four months in at the end of Jan '18.

[nospam99]

Hey ''nospam99'', now that you are 65, are there any ''Senior Groups'', ''Senior Dances'' or similar ''Senior'' activities where you could meet women in real life??

 

Just a thought...

 

Thanks for the thought. Yes, there are but not for me (yet). The people, male and female, who participate in local 'senior' activities are OLD (and I don't mean OnLine Dating), fat, feeble, and sedentary. On the other hand, I can meet and have met 'young' senior women 'in real life' via hiking meetup groups. The problem there is one a lot of men probably have at meetups - not wanting to spoil acceptance in the group by acting like it's a 'p--sy safari' when the assumption is that everyone is there for the activity rather than to find dating partners.

[shydad]

The website did it's part successfully

Yes, it did. In 18 months, nospam99 met four women. His experience with POF was meeting one woman every 4.5 months, on average.

 

For comparison purposes, in 12 months he met 12 women on Match.com. That's one woman every 1 month, on average. A comparison of effectiveness, in his experience, can be made, and the results from POF are not even close to as effective, even though it did its job.

 

I was in it far less time than nospam99, but my experience with Match was meeting two women within a three month period, or one meeting every 1.5 months, on average.

 

On Bumble I met a woman within two weeks. nospam99 also used Bumble, for one month, and met no women.

 

In terms of quantity of meetings, Match seems to be the most effective OLD service.

[nospam99]

@shydad

LOL - very 'clinical'. But since there seems to be a consensus that OLD (and dating in general) is a 'numbers game', I can't fault your quantitative analysis (just your sample size for statistical hypothesis testing). Best wishes for your continued happiness with your Bumble damsel.

[Poke]

I am starting to think all the good guys are taken and what’s leftover are a mess! I thought I met the one, but he decided to break up with me like a coward through text. I think he got scared and put on the brakes. He gave a lame excuse and totally caught me off guard. I got upset and said some things that probably hurt him, but oh well.

 

I got back on pof and so far it seems all I’m getting are men who just want to hookup and men who just want texting buddies. I don’t want either of those.

[OatsAndHall]

I had a different experience with Match: I had fewer responses and fewer dates. I found out quickly that I was generally wasting my time if I messaged a woman on Match without meeting all of the criteria they had laid out. Even if we did come up as "matches", it only took one or two disparities between said criteria for my message to end up "read, deleted". I stopped using Match because I wasn't going to shell out the cash and get one date per month through the site.

[alphamale]

at POF you get what you pay for, which is nothing and nothing

[OatsAndHall]

at POF you get what you pay for, which is nothing and nothing

 

 

Yup. For me, POF is simple; send out messages to every woman who's profile vaguely piques my interest.

[shydad]

@OatsAndHall Your results on POF were different than on Match?

[OatsAndHall]

@OatsAndHall Your results on POF were different than on Match?

 

 

Yup. I averaged a date a week on POF, versus a date a month on Match. Same profile bio, same pics, same types of messages but quite a few more dates from POF.

[nospam99]

Yup. I averaged a date a week on POF, versus a date a month on Match. Same profile bio, same pics, same types of messages but quite a few more dates from POF.

 

Reverse of my results comparing the two sites (though I didn't get a date a week anywhere). An example, I suppose, of my observation that location is a major factor in how useful the various sites are.

 

I'll also throw in a progress report: though for many months I was averaging a date a month, I'm now in a serious 'dry spell'. One 'fresh' date (still seeing her but it won't last because I don't like her that much) in the last four months. Reasons? I'll speculate... The only thing that I can say has 'changed' about me is that I'm older and that shows in the age reported in my profile. Otherwise, I've observed before that I was already scraping 'the bottom of the barrel' i.e. had already met almost all the women who were on the sites when I first started using them. Perhaps it's simply harder for me to 'sell' myself to the 'new blood'. Time to get a dog?

[shydad]

I'm now in a serious 'dry spell'.

What makes this different from normal dry spells? How long has it been? My experience was that dry spells were common -- at least every month there was a dead period. I'm assuming you've had a similar or at least somewhat comparable experience.

[nospam99]

What makes this different from normal dry spells? How long has it been? My experience was that dry spells were common -- at least every month there was a dead period. I'm assuming you've had a similar or at least somewhat comparable experience.

 

The length of time is different now. Like I said, only met one woman in four months. Also my 'response rate' i.e. the percentage of my messages that get responses even if they don't result in a date has fallen off from a long-term 30% to recent (more typically reported) 10%. LOL - (I'M SPECULATING) is age 65 (the superficial factor that has changed) the same kind of 'threshold' that height 5'10'' is?

[Poke]

I’m sitting here scratching my head. Is it that much harder for men doing old?

I’ve did match and pof, haven’t had any problems with guys contacting me, in fact I had to hide my profile on pof because I couldn’t keep up with all the messages and I like to actually read profiles before I respond. It seems rude to read, but not acknowledge someone. I’m pushing 50 myself, so it’s not age, but I really am not understanding how a guy could only get a date once a month or so?

[nospam99]

I’m pushing 50 myself, so it’s not age, but I really am not understanding how a guy could only get a date once a month or so?

 

Hell yes, it's age! 'Pushing 50' = 49. I'm 65 - technically old enough to be your father (the 'plumbing' worked 'back then'). At the very least, age may be a factor.

 

As for a date once a month ... Back when I was getting to date a new woman once a month (on average), it took time measured in days to work through the steps of making initial contact, speaking enough on the phone to decide we both wanted to meet, having that first in-person meeting, and then one or more 'real' dates (dinner, movie, hike, dancing, whatever). Now ... 13 messages sent to 'new' women this month - no responses. Back when I was averaging 30% response rate, I'd have expected 4 responses. It is what it is.

Edited April 24, 2019 by nospam99

[chillii]

But even if it is harder for guys to get actual dates , women go in just as many circles getting nowhere OLD as the guys , just read LS , it's everywhere.

When l was on it even with the quality of the girls l met, yet even they had been on it for years and basically hated it and had basically gotten nowhere.

Most of them were on 3 or 4 sites.

Yaknow, that says it all. right there.

 

Anyway , me l'd take quality over quantity any day and one choice date a month rather than 10 waste of time dates nothings a month, sounds sensible to me. Just sayin. What a nightmare who could be bothered with that rubbish.

Yaknow , if someones goin on 10 different dates a month or meeting dozens of people, they must be choosing just anyones, because there's no way in hell 10 strangers a month could be what they're looking for or have any potential whatsoever in realty.

Me, l'd rather be a guy in all this tbh , l found at the end of the day we got a much better deal and choices with the quality we can choose, after hearing all the stories form girls l'd met , or reading it all on LS, sounds bloody useless.

Edited April 24, 2019 by chillii