5 ms·

It might also attract attractive people tired of vapid interactions. I think you'll get all sorts of people.

sandoooo 7y ago
But mostly the unattractive people by number. I am not saying your scenario doesn't happen, but compared to the other one it will be statistically insignificant. This also means that the attractive people will find they'll get matched up with nothing but uggos, and then they'll leave.
- jacquesm 7y ago
  Sorry but this kind of language has no place on HN.
  - icebraining 7y ago
    What kind, specifically? The particular term, or the underlying idea?
    - jacquesm 7y ago
      The term. This isn't 3rd grade.
  - sandoooo 7y ago
    Hello tone police, I would like you to know that I am fully paid up on my Responsible Free Speech subscriptions and am entitled to at least five more politically incorrect statements this year.
  - LandR 7y ago
    He's not wrong...
    - adventured 7y ago
      I don't much care for their term uggos either, it's rather crass. However, the op is definitely correct. By removing photos it removes a dramatic advantage that attractive people have on dating sites. It takes away one of their best matching strengths, one of the core human matching elements, and the one that is often a first-filter item. It is obvious if you do that to a group of people, they will not be inclined to your service: they gain little benefit (if any), and lose enormous advantage.
    - jsjohnst 7y ago
      OP’s wrong in their tone and delivery, not necessarily in the under lying premise. HN has community guidelines around civil discourse for a reason.
    - jacquesm 7y ago
      OP can be right and still make the point in a respectful way.
    - boring_twenties 7y ago
      "You're not wrong, Walter. You're just an asshole."
- wwweston 7y ago
  “uggos” is ... pretty ugly in its own way. There are people whose aesthetic appeal is quite broad. There are people whose aesthetic appeal is narrower. There are relatively few people who are broadly aesthetically repulsive. No one should deny that the former end of things makes a lot of activities easier, including dating... but the funny thing in talking to my acquaintances from the very attractive to narrower-appeal segment is that nobody seems to find it easy. It’s almost as if what people are looking for isn’t as easy as negotiating aesthetics.
  - sandoooo 7y ago
    I challenge you to find a more succinct term that gets the same point across. Politically correct speech pays a heavy price in expressiveness, especially of the banned ideas. It is kind of the point. What did I save up the points for, if not to spend it to say what I actually want, rather than gesture at it ineffectively?
    - jsjohnst 7y ago
      > I challenge you to find a more succinct term that gets the same point across. “unattractive” a word you yourself already used. If you read the guidelines of the site, you’d understand the difference and why it’s important.
      - sjwright 7y ago
        Ugly and unattractive aren't the same thing.
        jsjohnst 7y ago
        Then use “ugly”, rather than a pejorative term meant to ridicule. As an illustrative example, “ugly person” is to “uggos” as “fat person” is to “fatso”.
        sjwright 7y ago
- klyrs 7y ago
  > This also means that the attractive people will find they'll get matched up with nothing but uggos, and then they'll leave. Yikes. Gotta hope you're physically attractive, 'cause your attitude is extremely not. My cynical take, as a divorcée, is that folks who've been married before will be less interested in the superficial and better equipped to evaluate compatibility. Folks drawn to this site will probably be less interested in the looks of their intended, and perhaps their own appearance as well. And they'll be all the happier if you keep to the shallows.
brailsafe 7y ago
As an attractive person, I can say that we never get tired of vapid interactions ;)
- riversflow 7y ago
  Maybe you don’t. I am already tired of it and I’m not even 30.
  - brailsafe 7y ago
    I was being facetious, but as an under 30 as well I do agree vapid interactions are tiresome. I'd draw a distinction between compliments or attention and wholely vapid interactions though. I don't know that I've had what I'd call a prolonged interaction or investment of my time solely based on looks, because there isn't much material to go on just based on that. Usually short lived interactions and such. Maybe as a woman this would be more extensive.

But mostly the unattractive people by number. I am not saying your scenario doesn't happen, but compared to the other one it will be statistically insignificant. This also means that the attractive people will find they'll get matched up with nothing but uggos, and then they'll leave.

jacquesm 7y ago
Sorry but this kind of language has no place on HN.
- icebraining 7y ago
  What kind, specifically? The particular term, or the underlying idea?
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    The term. This isn't 3rd grade.
- sandoooo 7y ago
  Hello tone police, I would like you to know that I am fully paid up on my Responsible Free Speech subscriptions and am entitled to at least five more politically incorrect statements this year.
- LandR 7y ago
  He's not wrong...
  - adventured 7y ago
    I don't much care for their term uggos either, it's rather crass. However, the op is definitely correct. By removing photos it removes a dramatic advantage that attractive people have on dating sites. It takes away one of their best matching strengths, one of the core human matching elements, and the one that is often a first-filter item. It is obvious if you do that to a group of people, they will not be inclined to your service: they gain little benefit (if any), and lose enormous advantage.
  - jsjohnst 7y ago
    OP’s wrong in their tone and delivery, not necessarily in the under lying premise. HN has community guidelines around civil discourse for a reason.
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    OP can be right and still make the point in a respectful way.
  - boring_twenties 7y ago
    "You're not wrong, Walter. You're just an asshole."
wwweston 7y ago
“uggos” is ... pretty ugly in its own way. There are people whose aesthetic appeal is quite broad. There are people whose aesthetic appeal is narrower. There are relatively few people who are broadly aesthetically repulsive. No one should deny that the former end of things makes a lot of activities easier, including dating... but the funny thing in talking to my acquaintances from the very attractive to narrower-appeal segment is that nobody seems to find it easy. It’s almost as if what people are looking for isn’t as easy as negotiating aesthetics.
- sandoooo 7y ago
  I challenge you to find a more succinct term that gets the same point across. Politically correct speech pays a heavy price in expressiveness, especially of the banned ideas. It is kind of the point. What did I save up the points for, if not to spend it to say what I actually want, rather than gesture at it ineffectively?
  - jsjohnst 7y ago
    > I challenge you to find a more succinct term that gets the same point across. “unattractive” a word you yourself already used. If you read the guidelines of the site, you’d understand the difference and why it’s important.
    - sjwright 7y ago
      Ugly and unattractive aren't the same thing.
      - jsjohnst 7y ago
        Then use “ugly”, rather than a pejorative term meant to ridicule. As an illustrative example, “ugly person” is to “uggos” as “fat person” is to “fatso”.
        sjwright 7y ago
klyrs 7y ago
> This also means that the attractive people will find they'll get matched up with nothing but uggos, and then they'll leave. Yikes. Gotta hope you're physically attractive, 'cause your attitude is extremely not. My cynical take, as a divorcée, is that folks who've been married before will be less interested in the superficial and better equipped to evaluate compatibility. Folks drawn to this site will probably be less interested in the looks of their intended, and perhaps their own appearance as well. And they'll be all the happier if you keep to the shallows.

brailsafe 7y ago

As an attractive person, I can say that we never get tired of vapid interactions ;)

riversflow 7y ago
Maybe you don’t. I am already tired of it and I’m not even 30.
- brailsafe 7y ago
  I was being facetious, but as an under 30 as well I do agree vapid interactions are tiresome. I'd draw a distinction between compliments or attention and wholely vapid interactions though. I don't know that I've had what I'd call a prolonged interaction or investment of my time solely based on looks, because there isn't much material to go on just based on that. Usually short lived interactions and such. Maybe as a woman this would be more extensive.