5 ms·

Note that this is inherent to the current dating app models. Everyone I have spoken to who uses dating apps, male or female, intuitively understands this. The b

Note that this is inherent to the current dating app models. Everyone I have spoken to who uses dating apps, male or female, intuitively understands this. The best strategy for men is to spam matches and messages as much as possible and hope you grab someone's attention. The best strategy for women is to filter heavily and pick randomly from the ones who get through and hope they aren't a weirdo. But those strategies, while optimal for individuals, make the experience overall disappointing. I wonder if there is a way (in the game theory sense) to craft a strategy that is both optimal for individuals and the community, and then design an app around that.

zwaps 4y ago
Yes there is, and it is quite related to the article. But it is not practical - both men and women should rank their preferences and then an optimal matching can be found. In online dating, I would not expect people to have complete and transitive preferences.
- astrange 4y ago
  OKCupid used to do that, but when I tried it the 100% match was someone I knew and didn't like because they were too similar to me.
swatcoder 4y ago
> The best strategy for men is to spam matches and messages as much as possible and hope you grab someone's attention. That’s a naive idea that makes it worse for everybody, including yourself. If you’re genuinely looking for attention from anyone that’ll give it to you, you probably want to do some self-reflection. More likely, I hope, you actually do know something about yourself and your tastes and can recognize that you’ll only be a good fit with a tiny fraction of the people on there. If you’re not seeing that tiny fraction on the app or not matching with them, you either need to be patient, figure out ways to improve your profile, or figure out a different way to meet people. Spamming indiscriminately may get you the a few extra internet points, but it doesn’t get you any good matches that you wouldn’t have gotten from being a genuine human person on there. And it’s just makes an already crappy environment even worse.
- subjectsigma 4y ago
  In the book Dataclysm by Christian Rudder, he performs an analysis of OkCupid messages and responses. Number of responses received after an initial message was used as the success metric (because that's really the only thing they can accurately measure, no reliable way to quantify the quality or satisfaction from a conversation). Unsurprisingly, the men who sent the most messages performed better than average. More surprisingly, men who copied-and-pasted the same messages over and over again to different women did even better. I don't know if this applies exactly to apps like Tinder and Bumble who use a hidden elo system, but it seems like sending as many messages as possible is (intuitively) a winning strategy. More messages = more opportunities. EDIT: Sorry this is like the fifth time I've edited this. I think the conclusion from the OkCupid data is that writing thoughtful openers quickly hits diminishing returns. Thoughtful discussion won't ever be a bad thing, though.
  - swatcoder 4y ago
    Choosing a metric because it’s the only one you have doesn’t make it a good one. The only person who cares how many responses you get from random people is a data scientist. Presumably, you’re there to connect with people you’d have a good time with. You want to optimize for suitability, which has nothing to do with that metric. (And besides, all of the apps now penalize indiscriminate swiping and other spammy behaviors that are cheap to track)
    - zarzavat 4y ago
      Both can be true. Is spamming the best strategy for Tinder? Yes. Spamming may be penalized but using the app discerningly (for men) is penalized more harshly. Is using Tinder a waste of time? Yes, unless your value to the opposite sex can be encapsulated in one photograph (i.e. you spend a lot of time in the gym). There are easier ways to get laid. > Presumably, you’re there to connect with people you’d have a good time with It’s a casual sex app. Real dating apps have profiles.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
orangecat 4y ago
Limiting the rate at which men can send messages seems like it would be a clear improvement for everyone.
- swatcoder 4y ago
  All of the apps have that. Some openly stop users who hit the limit, some shadowban them. And they all penalize indiscriminate swiping by giving spammers lower priority. Sometimes I swear that the advice that men should swipe on everybody is put out there by successful users to trick others into getting hidden and deranked.
rtpg 4y ago
Coffee Meets Bagel has people be presented with a handful of profiles a day ("handful" being a bit variable but...). So no infinite profile browsing. Everyone I know (and I met my partner through that) has felt like it's a nicer system.
- prawn 4y ago
  I always assumed this would be a winning play for dating apps. Limit the browsing and offerings so people are realistic in assessing others. Give people thousands of choices and they'll go after the best. Give them a realistic selection and they're more likely to take time and see positives in each opportunity. Make sure the listings are accurate (quality, recent photos). Then repeat daily for each gender interest, location, etc.
  - dane-pgp 4y ago
    > Limit the browsing and offerings so people are realistic in assessing others. I've often wondered if there isn't some clever marketified/gamified version of this, where users can put on their profile "To contact me, you have to wait N days", where N is some variable they can control, and if the viewer clicks "Wait", they are prevented from browsing or messaging (or "Waiting" for) other people through the app for that period of time. Of course people could still use other apps, which is probably the major flaw, but it would make people more selective about who they expressed an interest in, and in turn make the recipients feel more valued. Some people might set the parameter a little higher than their desirability really warrants, but I'd be intrigued to see how the meta-game around this develops.
    - prawn 4y ago
      I think people would still try their luck with more desirable prospects and end up getting frustrated. Another idea is having a moderator of sorts. The moderator would pick from the "applicants" that make it through to the prospect, and mean that only high-effort options are seen. Removes "hey" and abusive messages from the pool. Maybe applicants pay a $5 fee which is refunded if they are not picked as one of a handful of dates.
prawn 4y ago
If you're in a public space and the most attractive person is surrounded by more desirable prospects and ignoring you, do you join the throng or potentially lower your expectations and talk to someone less crowded by competition? I haven't experienced online dating and I'm sure it's grim, but I also know people who've perhaps had unrealistic expectations and stayed largely single into their forties. I've said before, but I think the dating apps are mostly grim for people around 20-25. Anyone after that is more realistic about their prospects and what's worth looking for in a partner.
- trashface 4y ago
  As a mid-40s guy who used the apps (not sure about my expectations, but I just wasn't interested in marriage, family or dating). I really believe that people do not get more realistic as they get older. Its probably the reverse, most just add more to the requirements for their "soul mate". At the same time the dating pool shrinks dramatically, and the people in it are often, like me, "discounted" so to speak. I do agree the 20+ crowd seems to have the worst of it, but it really doesn't improve all that much. I think the best strategy is to find someone as early in adult life as possible.
DeathArrow 4y ago
>I wonder if there is a way (in the game theory sense) to craft a strategy that is both optimal for individuals and the community, and then design an app around that. That wouldn't be possible unless both the individuals and the community is settling for less. And that is true for anything. In socialist or leftist countries, people are levelled off, most having and average outcome and no individual doing really great or really bad. In other countries, some have really great outcomes and others have really bad outcomes.

zwaps 4y ago

Yes there is, and it is quite related to the article. But it is not practical - both men and women should rank their preferences and then an optimal matching can be found. In online dating, I would not expect people to have complete and transitive preferences.

astrange 4y ago
OKCupid used to do that, but when I tried it the 100% match was someone I knew and didn't like because they were too similar to me.

swatcoder 4y ago

> The best strategy for men is to spam matches and messages as much as possible and hope you grab someone's attention. That’s a naive idea that makes it worse for everybody, including yourself. If you’re genuinely looking for attention from anyone that’ll give it to you, you probably want to do some self-reflection. More likely, I hope, you actually do know something about yourself and your tastes and can recognize that you’ll only be a good fit with a tiny fraction of the people on there. If you’re not seeing that tiny fraction on the app or not matching with them, you either need to be patient, figure out ways to improve your profile, or figure out a different way to meet people. Spamming indiscriminately may get you the a few extra internet points, but it doesn’t get you any good matches that you wouldn’t have gotten from being a genuine human person on there. And it’s just makes an already crappy environment even worse.

subjectsigma 4y ago
In the book Dataclysm by Christian Rudder, he performs an analysis of OkCupid messages and responses. Number of responses received after an initial message was used as the success metric (because that's really the only thing they can accurately measure, no reliable way to quantify the quality or satisfaction from a conversation). Unsurprisingly, the men who sent the most messages performed better than average. More surprisingly, men who copied-and-pasted the same messages over and over again to different women did even better. I don't know if this applies exactly to apps like Tinder and Bumble who use a hidden elo system, but it seems like sending as many messages as possible is (intuitively) a winning strategy. More messages = more opportunities. EDIT: Sorry this is like the fifth time I've edited this. I think the conclusion from the OkCupid data is that writing thoughtful openers quickly hits diminishing returns. Thoughtful discussion won't ever be a bad thing, though.
- swatcoder 4y ago
  Choosing a metric because it’s the only one you have doesn’t make it a good one. The only person who cares how many responses you get from random people is a data scientist. Presumably, you’re there to connect with people you’d have a good time with. You want to optimize for suitability, which has nothing to do with that metric. (And besides, all of the apps now penalize indiscriminate swiping and other spammy behaviors that are cheap to track)
  - zarzavat 4y ago
    Both can be true. Is spamming the best strategy for Tinder? Yes. Spamming may be penalized but using the app discerningly (for men) is penalized more harshly. Is using Tinder a waste of time? Yes, unless your value to the opposite sex can be encapsulated in one photograph (i.e. you spend a lot of time in the gym). There are easier ways to get laid. > Presumably, you’re there to connect with people you’d have a good time with It’s a casual sex app. Real dating apps have profiles.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]

orangecat 4y ago

Limiting the rate at which men can send messages seems like it would be a clear improvement for everyone.

swatcoder 4y ago
All of the apps have that. Some openly stop users who hit the limit, some shadowban them. And they all penalize indiscriminate swiping by giving spammers lower priority. Sometimes I swear that the advice that men should swipe on everybody is put out there by successful users to trick others into getting hidden and deranked.

rtpg 4y ago

Coffee Meets Bagel has people be presented with a handful of profiles a day ("handful" being a bit variable but...). So no infinite profile browsing. Everyone I know (and I met my partner through that) has felt like it's a nicer system.

prawn 4y ago
I always assumed this would be a winning play for dating apps. Limit the browsing and offerings so people are realistic in assessing others. Give people thousands of choices and they'll go after the best. Give them a realistic selection and they're more likely to take time and see positives in each opportunity. Make sure the listings are accurate (quality, recent photos). Then repeat daily for each gender interest, location, etc.
- dane-pgp 4y ago
  > Limit the browsing and offerings so people are realistic in assessing others. I've often wondered if there isn't some clever marketified/gamified version of this, where users can put on their profile "To contact me, you have to wait N days", where N is some variable they can control, and if the viewer clicks "Wait", they are prevented from browsing or messaging (or "Waiting" for) other people through the app for that period of time. Of course people could still use other apps, which is probably the major flaw, but it would make people more selective about who they expressed an interest in, and in turn make the recipients feel more valued. Some people might set the parameter a little higher than their desirability really warrants, but I'd be intrigued to see how the meta-game around this develops.
  - prawn 4y ago
    I think people would still try their luck with more desirable prospects and end up getting frustrated. Another idea is having a moderator of sorts. The moderator would pick from the "applicants" that make it through to the prospect, and mean that only high-effort options are seen. Removes "hey" and abusive messages from the pool. Maybe applicants pay a $5 fee which is refunded if they are not picked as one of a handful of dates.

prawn 4y ago

If you're in a public space and the most attractive person is surrounded by more desirable prospects and ignoring you, do you join the throng or potentially lower your expectations and talk to someone less crowded by competition? I haven't experienced online dating and I'm sure it's grim, but I also know people who've perhaps had unrealistic expectations and stayed largely single into their forties. I've said before, but I think the dating apps are mostly grim for people around 20-25. Anyone after that is more realistic about their prospects and what's worth looking for in a partner.

trashface 4y ago
As a mid-40s guy who used the apps (not sure about my expectations, but I just wasn't interested in marriage, family or dating). I really believe that people do not get more realistic as they get older. Its probably the reverse, most just add more to the requirements for their "soul mate". At the same time the dating pool shrinks dramatically, and the people in it are often, like me, "discounted" so to speak. I do agree the 20+ crowd seems to have the worst of it, but it really doesn't improve all that much. I think the best strategy is to find someone as early in adult life as possible.

DeathArrow 4y ago

>I wonder if there is a way (in the game theory sense) to craft a strategy that is both optimal for individuals and the community, and then design an app around that. That wouldn't be possible unless both the individuals and the community is settling for less. And that is true for anything. In socialist or leftist countries, people are levelled off, most having and average outcome and no individual doing really great or really bad. In other countries, some have really great outcomes and others have really bad outcomes.