4 ms·

Dating apps are tailored to people in the top X% of attractiveness. Don't take it personally. Most people aren't successful on them, even the ones who get a lot

by smt88 4y ago

Dating apps are tailored to people in the top X% of attractiveness. Don't take it personally. Most people aren't successful on them, even the ones who get a lot of matches.

godmode2019 4y ago
I'm relevantly good looking, no problem with getting a beautiful woman IRL, but on dating apps I get no matches. Or if I do its girls who are either average or tinder addicts who everyone should avoid. My working theory is on a dating app woman have unlimited access, so tend to go torwards the top 99.9% of men. Solution: Shadow ban hyper attractive people. Solution 2: Only show people a similar level of attractiveness as yourself.
- borissk 4y ago
  Your theory makes no sense. First you obviously mean the top 0.1% of men. Second the top 0.1% of men can't date more than a few percent of the women. Much more likely you don't put enough effort into your profile or you have something on, that is a red flag for most women.
  - frontier 4y ago
    You are 100% correct, unsuccessful guys need to seek help and there are paid services out there. Or speak to a few women on these platforms (chicken-egg I know) and you will be told what others are doing that is turning them off. You need to treat this for what it is, marketing. You don't just put up your first attempt and say women aren't into me. You need to iterate and experiment. I know, it's hard work, 90% of guys won't put in the effort, they will just complain they aren't in the top 0.1% in attractiveness.
  - godmode2019 4y ago
    Yes I did mean the top 0.1% of men. I disagree with that the top man can not date more than a few. A single woman needs a romantic partner let's say ever three months, a man can have one every day. We see this in gay men having 500+ average sexual partners. Gay men can have sex as much as they want, because of access. Top 0.1% of men can also have sex when ever they want, they are getting constant matches with 6,7,8 level woman. Well below their level, because its easier to get people below your level into bed without courting. They have sex, he doesn't call her back, she is mad at men for another three months. A few men can soak up all of the above average woman, considering they are on a bell curve and are rare them self. Only a subset of people are even on these dating apps. Average looking people don't have this problem, because they are happy with matching other average woman who the top men are not interested in. Summary: top men can date below their own level because a 7 woman, three below them is still very beautiful. But a 7 man can't date three below their own level because a 4 is not attractive and not worth the time using a app for.
    - socialismisok 4y ago
      Judging by how you are framing the issue and the way you've talked about women in this thread (which has been a red flag for me, at least) I suspect your experience has nothing to do with your physical traits.
      - Beaver117 4y ago
        Please focus on the argument and don't attack the poster's character. This isn't reddit.
        borissk 4y ago
        If you'd read the thread, you'll find out that the poster's character is a part of the discussion (as he claims his character has nothing to do with his lack of success on dating sites).
        socialismisok 4y ago
        The argument is, "I'm having trouble getting women to approve of me because of systemic issues with women." I'm pointing out that the causal relationship the poster is making might be wrong. The issue could be the behavior if the poster, not some systemic issue with women.
- rabuse 4y ago
  The paradox of choice
- vidarh 4y ago
  A less dramatic version of your first solution is to show a profile progressively less the more matches are pending, and the more selective you are in rejecting pending matches. Couple that with trying to predict likely matches and weight towards showing profiles which are likely to match and you would likely approach solution 2 without explicitly focusing only on attractiveness. But at the same time you'll have killed a major revenue driver for a lot of dating sites: frustration over few matches.
  - godmode2019 4y ago
    How do dating apps make money? They were all prerevenue last time I used one. I think trying to move away from images is a good idea, so people can showcase their worth to better compete with the physical gifted people who benefit from images. I thought of a idea where you have to have a reel 10second video showcasing 5 traits Let's say, you see the list of options and choose Cooking Humour Adventure Intellect Strength Say those are your traits, your reel will show case them. With the aim of creating relationships rather than hook ups.
    - vidarh 4y ago
      Most of them make apps either by upsells or via ads, both of which gives them an incentive to prolong your usage of the site. The typical user stays only for weeks or months at a time. Many users come back rarely enough that e.g. Bumble offers a lifetime premium membership for less than it costs you to renew their quarterly membership a third time ($149 for the lifetime membership I think), which should tell you something about how long they expect even the most committed users to hang around. Which makes sense. After all, if they do their job, you'll meet someone and not need the app any more, and if they do nothing for you, you'll get tired of them and disappear eventually. Only a very narrow subset of users use the non-hookup focused sites for very long. The challenge then is that this puts a very severe ceiling on your customer acquisition cost. Who knows what their average lifetime value of a user is, but it's going to be a small fraction of that $149 lifetime membership, with most users never paying anything at all. If you can make one that is good enough that you don't need to advertise much, you might have a chance, but it's a very tough, very crowded market (for every Tinder and Bumble, there's are hundreds of dating sites which nobody remembers).
borissk 4y ago
If that's true the person to figure out how to make dating apps work for average guys can make a lot of money...
- Bakary 4y ago
  That doesn't sound logically possible, and if it were it would not last long as average men get wind of it
  - borissk 4y ago
    Why is it not possible? In a society where multi marriages are not allowed there's a woman for every man.
    - Rufbdbskrufb473 4y ago
      Most dating doesn't lead to permanent pairings, so the fact that there are roughly equal numbers of men and women isn't that relevant when people are free to date at different frequencies and durations.
    - Bakary 4y ago
      For that to work in practice implies a rigidly monogamous society where almost everyone participates in the same context, bonds for life and does so at an early stage of their lifecycle, as well as few mismatches between both relationship goals and pairing criteria. That's essentially the traditional non-polygamous agrarian civilization model if we ignore the fact that the 0.01% or so of nobles had multiple partners. On dating apps the dynamic is very different.
- smt88 4y ago
  I think lots of people have tried. I agree that among the pool of people on these apps, there are lots of matches that would work out among average-looking people. So why doesn't that happen? It's because a lot of attraction is based on things that photos and profiles can't convey. The medium of "digital app" is just very, very wrong for optimizing dating. I've seen research that the most efficient way to handle dating is in-person speed dating.
thrown_22 4y ago
>Dating apps are tailored to people in the top X% of attractiveness. They aren't. I'm in the top 1% for income and top 5% for looks. I used to get no matches on tinder. I asked a few female friends to come up with a profile they thought would be more attractive. After I saw what they came up with (I have a boat, I fly first class, I'm in a holiday in Europe) I deleted it and move them to acquaintances. The type of woman who would find that sort of thing attractive is _not_ the type of woman who I'd want to sleep with let alone have a relationship with.
- slingnow 4y ago
  Top 5% of looks based on what exactly? Something about your story doesn't add up. I would certainly consider myself NOT in the top %5 of looks, and get plenty of matches. And I'm not looking for trashy women who are only into material things either.
  - thrown_22 4y ago
    > Top 5% of looks based on what exactly? On looking at the average person I see on the street. Do you not have eyes? >and get plenty of matches Matches are the first step, then you have chatting, organizing a date and then a hookup/relationship. The attrition rate is abysmal at every level. It's just not time efficient to use online dating.
- Nimitz14 4y ago
  A close friend of mine kills it on tinder. He just has pics of himself looking good and smiling. He basically doesn't need to book a place to stay when going on holiday (lol). I would not put him in the top 5% (maybe top 10). Your pics either sucked or you're not as attractive as you think you are. You don't need pics of yourself being rich. Or maybe you're older (he's 27).
  - globular-toast 4y ago
    He's either far more attractive than you think. Or he's grossly exaggerating his success (like all men). Most likely a bit of both.

by smt88 4y ago

Dating apps are tailored to people in the top X% of attractiveness. Don't take it personally. Most people aren't successful on them, even the ones who get a lot of matches.

godmode2019 4y ago

I'm relevantly good looking, no problem with getting a beautiful woman IRL, but on dating apps I get no matches. Or if I do its girls who are either average or tinder addicts who everyone should avoid. My working theory is on a dating app woman have unlimited access, so tend to go torwards the top 99.9% of men. Solution: Shadow ban hyper attractive people. Solution 2: Only show people a similar level of attractiveness as yourself.

borissk 4y ago
Your theory makes no sense. First you obviously mean the top 0.1% of men. Second the top 0.1% of men can't date more than a few percent of the women. Much more likely you don't put enough effort into your profile or you have something on, that is a red flag for most women.
- frontier 4y ago
  You are 100% correct, unsuccessful guys need to seek help and there are paid services out there. Or speak to a few women on these platforms (chicken-egg I know) and you will be told what others are doing that is turning them off. You need to treat this for what it is, marketing. You don't just put up your first attempt and say women aren't into me. You need to iterate and experiment. I know, it's hard work, 90% of guys won't put in the effort, they will just complain they aren't in the top 0.1% in attractiveness.
- godmode2019 4y ago
  Yes I did mean the top 0.1% of men. I disagree with that the top man can not date more than a few. A single woman needs a romantic partner let's say ever three months, a man can have one every day. We see this in gay men having 500+ average sexual partners. Gay men can have sex as much as they want, because of access. Top 0.1% of men can also have sex when ever they want, they are getting constant matches with 6,7,8 level woman. Well below their level, because its easier to get people below your level into bed without courting. They have sex, he doesn't call her back, she is mad at men for another three months. A few men can soak up all of the above average woman, considering they are on a bell curve and are rare them self. Only a subset of people are even on these dating apps. Average looking people don't have this problem, because they are happy with matching other average woman who the top men are not interested in. Summary: top men can date below their own level because a 7 woman, three below them is still very beautiful. But a 7 man can't date three below their own level because a 4 is not attractive and not worth the time using a app for.
  - socialismisok 4y ago
    Judging by how you are framing the issue and the way you've talked about women in this thread (which has been a red flag for me, at least) I suspect your experience has nothing to do with your physical traits.
    - Beaver117 4y ago
      Please focus on the argument and don't attack the poster's character. This isn't reddit.
      - borissk 4y ago
        If you'd read the thread, you'll find out that the poster's character is a part of the discussion (as he claims his character has nothing to do with his lack of success on dating sites).
      - socialismisok 4y ago
        The argument is, "I'm having trouble getting women to approve of me because of systemic issues with women." I'm pointing out that the causal relationship the poster is making might be wrong. The issue could be the behavior if the poster, not some systemic issue with women.
rabuse 4y ago
The paradox of choice
vidarh 4y ago
A less dramatic version of your first solution is to show a profile progressively less the more matches are pending, and the more selective you are in rejecting pending matches. Couple that with trying to predict likely matches and weight towards showing profiles which are likely to match and you would likely approach solution 2 without explicitly focusing only on attractiveness. But at the same time you'll have killed a major revenue driver for a lot of dating sites: frustration over few matches.
- godmode2019 4y ago
  How do dating apps make money? They were all prerevenue last time I used one. I think trying to move away from images is a good idea, so people can showcase their worth to better compete with the physical gifted people who benefit from images. I thought of a idea where you have to have a reel 10second video showcasing 5 traits Let's say, you see the list of options and choose Cooking Humour Adventure Intellect Strength Say those are your traits, your reel will show case them. With the aim of creating relationships rather than hook ups.
  - vidarh 4y ago
    Most of them make apps either by upsells or via ads, both of which gives them an incentive to prolong your usage of the site. The typical user stays only for weeks or months at a time. Many users come back rarely enough that e.g. Bumble offers a lifetime premium membership for less than it costs you to renew their quarterly membership a third time ($149 for the lifetime membership I think), which should tell you something about how long they expect even the most committed users to hang around. Which makes sense. After all, if they do their job, you'll meet someone and not need the app any more, and if they do nothing for you, you'll get tired of them and disappear eventually. Only a very narrow subset of users use the non-hookup focused sites for very long. The challenge then is that this puts a very severe ceiling on your customer acquisition cost. Who knows what their average lifetime value of a user is, but it's going to be a small fraction of that $149 lifetime membership, with most users never paying anything at all. If you can make one that is good enough that you don't need to advertise much, you might have a chance, but it's a very tough, very crowded market (for every Tinder and Bumble, there's are hundreds of dating sites which nobody remembers).

borissk 4y ago

If that's true the person to figure out how to make dating apps work for average guys can make a lot of money...

Bakary 4y ago
That doesn't sound logically possible, and if it were it would not last long as average men get wind of it
- borissk 4y ago
  Why is it not possible? In a society where multi marriages are not allowed there's a woman for every man.
  - Rufbdbskrufb473 4y ago
    Most dating doesn't lead to permanent pairings, so the fact that there are roughly equal numbers of men and women isn't that relevant when people are free to date at different frequencies and durations.
  - Bakary 4y ago
    For that to work in practice implies a rigidly monogamous society where almost everyone participates in the same context, bonds for life and does so at an early stage of their lifecycle, as well as few mismatches between both relationship goals and pairing criteria. That's essentially the traditional non-polygamous agrarian civilization model if we ignore the fact that the 0.01% or so of nobles had multiple partners. On dating apps the dynamic is very different.
smt88 4y ago
I think lots of people have tried. I agree that among the pool of people on these apps, there are lots of matches that would work out among average-looking people. So why doesn't that happen? It's because a lot of attraction is based on things that photos and profiles can't convey. The medium of "digital app" is just very, very wrong for optimizing dating. I've seen research that the most efficient way to handle dating is in-person speed dating.

thrown_22 4y ago

>Dating apps are tailored to people in the top X% of attractiveness. They aren't. I'm in the top 1% for income and top 5% for looks. I used to get no matches on tinder. I asked a few female friends to come up with a profile they thought would be more attractive. After I saw what they came up with (I have a boat, I fly first class, I'm in a holiday in Europe) I deleted it and move them to acquaintances. The type of woman who would find that sort of thing attractive is _not_ the type of woman who I'd want to sleep with let alone have a relationship with.

slingnow 4y ago
Top 5% of looks based on what exactly? Something about your story doesn't add up. I would certainly consider myself NOT in the top %5 of looks, and get plenty of matches. And I'm not looking for trashy women who are only into material things either.
- thrown_22 4y ago
  > Top 5% of looks based on what exactly? On looking at the average person I see on the street. Do you not have eyes? >and get plenty of matches Matches are the first step, then you have chatting, organizing a date and then a hookup/relationship. The attrition rate is abysmal at every level. It's just not time efficient to use online dating.
Nimitz14 4y ago
A close friend of mine kills it on tinder. He just has pics of himself looking good and smiling. He basically doesn't need to book a place to stay when going on holiday (lol). I would not put him in the top 5% (maybe top 10). Your pics either sucked or you're not as attractive as you think you are. You don't need pics of yourself being rich. Or maybe you're older (he's 27).
- globular-toast 4y ago
  He's either far more attractive than you think. Or he's grossly exaggerating his success (like all men). Most likely a bit of both.