6 ms·
Sometimes paying seems like a good idea. More exposure on Badoo was lucrative. Same with little features on Tinder and OkCupid at certain points during their de
by baccheion 6y ago
Sometimes paying seems like a good idea. More exposure on Badoo was lucrative. Same with little features on Tinder and OkCupid at certain points during their development.
Most dating sites are a bad deal for males, mainly due to the gender skew. There are at least 2x as many males. The top 20-25% is then enough to gobble up all viable women (top 50%). 1 out of 2 are at least not unattractive, 1 out of 3 are outright attractive, and 1 out of 5 are hot. That is, not even out of attractive males and the women are already gone.
- jfengel 6y agoI think you'll find that women of all attractiveness levels are put off by men who outright reject half of all women as "unviable", based solely on their appearance. And that's just one dimension. If you have 2 or 3 other axes where you cut off anybody below the median (intelligence, income, politics, interest, etc.) you're quickly finding yourself looking only at a few percent of the population. And if you have no other metrics other than attractiveness, you'll find that few women wish to date you.
- baccheion 6y agoWTF? Half the pool was considered viable based on swipe percentages. You seem unable to properly comprehend even basics communicated. Further, the most superficial experience highest success. That is, they are most likely to lie. A high percentage of viable matches is uncommon. 1/2 minimally mutually satisfying match * 1/2 at least not unattractive * 1/2 reciprocating attractiveness = 1 out of 8 random pairings find each other minimally mutually satisfying and at least not unattractive (by their own measure of what that is; whether aesthetics, social status, money, etc). Truth.