3 ms·
You have to fight scale with scale https://www.wired.com/2014/01/how-to-hack-okcupid/ https://www.wired.com/2014/01/how-to-hack-okcupid/
by kaiju0 6y ago
You have to fight scale with scale https://www.wired.com/2014/01/how-to-hack-okcupid/ https://www.wired.com/2014/01/how-to-hack-okcupid/
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- csunbird 6y agoThat is an interesting approach. Maybe I should do something like that too!
- purplecats 6y agocan you expand on that saying of "fight scale with scale"?
- dane-pgp 6y agoPresumably the two uses of the word "scale" refer to "the scale of the problem of being just one person competing against thousands" and "scaling up your chances by going on many first dates", respectively.
- kaiju0 6y agoLet's say your response rate for initial messages is 10%. Next is if a girl will engage beyond the initial response chances drop from 10% to something like 3%. Then they have to accept your call to action. We are down to even a lower percentage now. With these kinds of numbers working against you you need scale on your side or your getting nowhere fast. But if you are able to contact 10k people what comes out of those small percentages are decent numbers.
- ezl 6y ago(Note: Loved this story, so I don't want this comment to be interpreted criticism.) If you strip away the machine learning/computer/math part, the story is: After 88 first dates, Chris finds someone he thinks he wants to marry. (Article says from the first 55 1st dates -> 3 2nd dates -> 1 3rd date). It seems possible that going on 88 random dates would lead to a similarly shaped funnel. While "use math" sounds like smart strategy, many (most probably?) happily married people have not gone on 88 actual first dates.