4 ms·

It's so pointless for most men anyways, as women compete for the top 10% of men (woman get plenty of options on those platforms anyways) while men might compete

by wsc981 6y ago

It's so pointless for most men anyways, as women compete for the top 10% of men (woman get plenty of options on those platforms anyways) while men might compete for maybe 90% of women. I know my brother would just swipe "yes" to pretty much all women, hoping at least a few women would respond. And I bet he's not alone in doing this.

deanCommie 6y ago
I'm sure it's just a second language thing, but it's interesting that you use the plural of "men" but the singular "woman". Is that more grammatically appropriate in your first language?
- AnotherGoodName 6y ago
  Woman in the above case doesn't at all read correctly. It's simply a clear cut spelling mistake and not really worth further discussion.
- wsc981 6y ago
  > I'm sure it's just a second language thing, Thanks for your comment and I fixed the typos in my earlier post. English is indeed not my native language, but I should have noticed this spelling mistake, since I use English most every day. In my first language (Dutch) there is a clear distinction between singular and plural (men: man - mannen, women: vrouw - vrouwen).
vmception 6y ago
In Tinder, all of the Match Group near monopoly, and similar style apps, this behavior ensures you get less of the people you want to see. Basically just like in multiplayer game matchmaking, you get matched with people of a similar rank and never even see the people of different ranks. So if you yourself are matching people of lower ranks (ie. less visually attractive people, you know what the consensus is whether that matches your preference or not), that means you yourself have a lower rank and are not even shown to people with higher ranks. You might see higher ranked people, might super like them (like everyone else), might form clever a message because you paid for that feature too, but they will never see your profile. There are articles claiming the dating apps don't do this kind of ranked matchmaking anymore, but did you know they even used to? so yeah imagine believing them. These apps are not good for your mental health, and your own behavior influences other people's ranks whether you wanted it to or not. Caveat emptor.
- mpol 6y ago
  Oh, just wow for that simplicity. Yes, people are one-dimensional, or something. Really, dating is not like ELO-rating, do they really not think people can better be categorised in certain ways of thinking, instead of a one-dimensional ELO-rating? Like, how you view a relationship, just as one example. Just today I started in the often advised book by Christian Rudder from 2015, from OkCupid. And yes, this one-dimensional thinking seems to be prevalent amongs this kind of people. I very much prefer a dating website where I don't get the idea that I am an experiment. I want to meet someone with similar views on a relationship, views based on giving, trust, you know, the simple things. People who want other things, like traveling, will probably find similar minded matches.
  - vmception 6y ago
    They do it because the A/B test results also matched their revenue improvement results. I don't think many people involved actually believe this or actively think this way. That being said, the result does have some similarity to how the physical world operates in large gatherings like primary schools or military, where people of similar attractiveness and few differences in their supportive ability would congregate. People figure out where they are on the consensus-attractiveness scale and match with people in the same range. This doesn't match how the world outside of that works, and therefore almost all guys and unattractive women have the same result on dating apps. For dating apps they haven't figured out a better solution, and don't want to or need to as it is also a perfect frustration feedback loop for them.
- graeme 6y ago
  > You might see higher ranked people, might super like them (like everyone else), might form clever a message because you paid for that feature too, but they will never see your profile. Don’t believe that’s accurate for superlikes. Those tend to get put near the top of the pile. But, if you are a much lower rank, and use a superlike on someone higher ranked, the likely result is a quick swipe left. But with a regular swipe you won’t be seen at all.
istorical 6y ago
This isn't actually how it works out though, because average women or below average women can get dozens of matches, not ever receive a message or have the conversation fizzle out quickly from about 80% of those matches, end up on dates with 10 of them, and then have 6-8 of those men just end up ghosting after 1-5 dates or just eventually saying they don't feel a romantic connection after a few months of uncommitted casual sex. So yes men swipe right on tons of women, but the percentage of women in that pool that those men would date and not just hook up with is much much smaller. Obviously caveat that men truly at the bottom of the dating pool might behave differently.

by wsc981 6y ago

deanCommie 6y ago

I'm sure it's just a second language thing, but it's interesting that you use the plural of "men" but the singular "woman". Is that more grammatically appropriate in your first language?

AnotherGoodName 6y ago
Woman in the above case doesn't at all read correctly. It's simply a clear cut spelling mistake and not really worth further discussion.
wsc981 6y ago
> I'm sure it's just a second language thing, Thanks for your comment and I fixed the typos in my earlier post. English is indeed not my native language, but I should have noticed this spelling mistake, since I use English most every day. In my first language (Dutch) there is a clear distinction between singular and plural (men: man - mannen, women: vrouw - vrouwen).

vmception 6y ago

In Tinder, all of the Match Group near monopoly, and similar style apps, this behavior ensures you get less of the people you want to see. Basically just like in multiplayer game matchmaking, you get matched with people of a similar rank and never even see the people of different ranks. So if you yourself are matching people of lower ranks (ie. less visually attractive people, you know what the consensus is whether that matches your preference or not), that means you yourself have a lower rank and are not even shown to people with higher ranks. You might see higher ranked people, might super like them (like everyone else), might form clever a message because you paid for that feature too, but they will never see your profile. There are articles claiming the dating apps don't do this kind of ranked matchmaking anymore, but did you know they even used to? so yeah imagine believing them. These apps are not good for your mental health, and your own behavior influences other people's ranks whether you wanted it to or not. Caveat emptor.

mpol 6y ago
Oh, just wow for that simplicity. Yes, people are one-dimensional, or something. Really, dating is not like ELO-rating, do they really not think people can better be categorised in certain ways of thinking, instead of a one-dimensional ELO-rating? Like, how you view a relationship, just as one example. Just today I started in the often advised book by Christian Rudder from 2015, from OkCupid. And yes, this one-dimensional thinking seems to be prevalent amongs this kind of people. I very much prefer a dating website where I don't get the idea that I am an experiment. I want to meet someone with similar views on a relationship, views based on giving, trust, you know, the simple things. People who want other things, like traveling, will probably find similar minded matches.
- vmception 6y ago
  They do it because the A/B test results also matched their revenue improvement results. I don't think many people involved actually believe this or actively think this way. That being said, the result does have some similarity to how the physical world operates in large gatherings like primary schools or military, where people of similar attractiveness and few differences in their supportive ability would congregate. People figure out where they are on the consensus-attractiveness scale and match with people in the same range. This doesn't match how the world outside of that works, and therefore almost all guys and unattractive women have the same result on dating apps. For dating apps they haven't figured out a better solution, and don't want to or need to as it is also a perfect frustration feedback loop for them.
graeme 6y ago
> You might see higher ranked people, might super like them (like everyone else), might form clever a message because you paid for that feature too, but they will never see your profile. Don’t believe that’s accurate for superlikes. Those tend to get put near the top of the pile. But, if you are a much lower rank, and use a superlike on someone higher ranked, the likely result is a quick swipe left. But with a regular swipe you won’t be seen at all.

istorical 6y ago

This isn't actually how it works out though, because average women or below average women can get dozens of matches, not ever receive a message or have the conversation fizzle out quickly from about 80% of those matches, end up on dates with 10 of them, and then have 6-8 of those men just end up ghosting after 1-5 dates or just eventually saying they don't feel a romantic connection after a few months of uncommitted casual sex. So yes men swipe right on tons of women, but the percentage of women in that pool that those men would date and not just hook up with is much much smaller. Obviously caveat that men truly at the bottom of the dating pool might behave differently.