8 ms·

As did I! OkCupid was a shining star of a product that treated its users with respect and provided a really valuable service. I didn't realize that it's no lon

As did I! OkCupid was a shining star of a product that treated its users with respect and provided a really valuable service. I didn't realize that it's no longer. I feel old pining for the internet of yesteryear. As is obvious only in retrospect, you don't realize when the golden years are!

raisedbyninjas 3y ago
Anybody else remember the data blog posts? Those were interesting and satisfying. It was another confirmation that I'd found the right dating site and probably a like-minded userbase.
- dspillett 3y ago
  Particularly the one that was a tare-down of why paid dating sites like match.com where a mug's game for almost everyone. That somehow went AWOL fairly soon after the match.com take-over…
  - lolinder 3y ago
    This one, Why You Should Never Pay For Online Dating: http://web.archive.org/web/20100725135309/http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/why-you-should-never-pay-for-online-dating/ http://web.archive.org/web/20100725135309/http://blog.okcupi...
    - dspillett 3y ago
      Very much sounds like the one. Can't double-check ATM as network I'm on blocks archive.org.
- lr4444lr 3y ago
  I fondly remember the one that showed men's rating of women approaching almost a perfect normal distribution, and then the men messaging mostly the hot ones anyway, whereas the women rated most men as ugly and then sloping downward toward very few as good looking, kind of like an exponential distribution, but that they also messaged the men almost exactly in tandem - uglier getting the most, with a steady drop as men's ranking rose.
  - throwaway2037 3y ago
    This is basically the foundation of modern, online dating -- aka red pill. Roughly, the top 20% of men get 80% of the attention from women. (I'm pretty sure that figure comes from Tinder data.) It makes sense from an evolutionary perspective, but is brutal in the real world. What do you do if you are average (or less) in looks and income (potential)? Prepare for a lonely existance.
    - slashdev 3y ago
      You’re being downvoted, but that’s pretty well supported with data. In fact it’s more skewed than 20/80. Closer to 10/90.
      - deanCommie 3y ago
        They're being downvoted because the very comment they're replying to contradicts it: "but that they also messaged the men almost exactly in tandem - uglier getting the most, with a steady drop as men's ranking rose. OKCupid's own data showed that women rate men is ugly but message them anyway.
    - tspike 3y ago
      Isn’t the parent comment saying the opposite of this? That despite rating most men as ugly, it didn’t affect their messaging behavior nearly as much?
      - friendzis 3y ago
        No, they are saying a bit tangential things. Tinder's data shows "chance of approach", which is brutal for men who are not too good looking. IIRC, OkCupid's data shows a bit different thing. The distribution of ratings determines chance of messages/likes - the larger stddev the better chances. IIRC, the most messaged men were ones with ratings characterized by bimodal distribution. Therefore, the most messaged men were not the ones with highest visual rating. I do not recall the distribution of messages, so can't comment much on that.
- astrange 3y ago
  The main effect of those data posts seems to have been to cause people to spread a lot of misinfo like "women aren't attracted to 80% of men". (What they actually said was that women rate men much lower than men rate women, but the women still respond the same way despite rating them lower, so it doesn't mean anything.)
- Noumenon72 3y ago
  Information has gotten harder and harder to come by as the Internet has matured. Think how much Tinder, Twitter, and Hinge know about human flirting and attraction. I believe it's just too black pilled to see the light of day.
- isolli 3y ago
  This was a good one [0]: > When men message women, women tend to respond most often to men around their own ages. But when women message men, they’re actually more likely to get a response from younger men than they are from older ones. A 40-year-old woman will have better luck messaging a 25-year-old man than a 55-year-old one, according to the data. And a 30-year-old man is more likely to respond to a message from a 50-year-old woman than a message from any other age group. When women make the first move, the age gap dating norm is reversed. [0] https://theblog.okcupid.com/undressed-whats-the-deal-with-the-age-gap-in-relationships-3143a2ca5178 https://theblog.okcupid.com/undressed-whats-the-deal-with-th...
geraldwhen 3y ago
I also met my wife on okcupid. I wonder how many of us their are.
- dghughes 3y ago
  I'd be curious if you're all over 6' tall. I never had any luck on OKCupid.
  - astrange 3y ago
    That height fetish stuff is the domain of 5'0" white women. Basically message taller women and it doesn't matter.
    - seoulmetro 3y ago
      Nope. It's not specific to their height and obviously not specific to their race. The same way men on average prefer big boobs, women on average will prefer taller men. Both can't really be changed by the person but exist as attractiveness scores against a person. It matters to people who it matters to. Not many in the grand scheme and definitely not related to race.
      - astrange 3y ago
        > It's not specific to their height Of course it is because it's relative to how tall they are. But taller women already don't expect you to tower over them, because that's hard to find, so it's ok if you don't. > and obviously not specific to their race. It is within a specific ethnicity and generation. If you're in a country where the men in a specific age are short because food was scarce 2-3 decades ago, they're not all single because their women aren't attracted to them. And depending on culture and economic class, it matters more what impresses their parents, which is being a doctor-lawyer-astronaut who owns a house.
        seoulmetro 3y ago
        No it's not. There is always a taller person and shorter people. Thinking someone thinks a certain way based on their height is weird and wrong. You are reading way too far into this and your take is incredibly wrong, not to mention racist.

raisedbyninjas 3y ago

Anybody else remember the data blog posts? Those were interesting and satisfying. It was another confirmation that I'd found the right dating site and probably a like-minded userbase.

dspillett 3y ago
Particularly the one that was a tare-down of why paid dating sites like match.com where a mug's game for almost everyone. That somehow went AWOL fairly soon after the match.com take-over…
- lolinder 3y ago
  This one, Why You Should Never Pay For Online Dating: http://web.archive.org/web/20100725135309/http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/why-you-should-never-pay-for-online-dating/ http://web.archive.org/web/20100725135309/http://blog.okcupi...
  - dspillett 3y ago
    Very much sounds like the one. Can't double-check ATM as network I'm on blocks archive.org.
lr4444lr 3y ago
I fondly remember the one that showed men's rating of women approaching almost a perfect normal distribution, and then the men messaging mostly the hot ones anyway, whereas the women rated most men as ugly and then sloping downward toward very few as good looking, kind of like an exponential distribution, but that they also messaged the men almost exactly in tandem - uglier getting the most, with a steady drop as men's ranking rose.
- throwaway2037 3y ago
  This is basically the foundation of modern, online dating -- aka red pill. Roughly, the top 20% of men get 80% of the attention from women. (I'm pretty sure that figure comes from Tinder data.) It makes sense from an evolutionary perspective, but is brutal in the real world. What do you do if you are average (or less) in looks and income (potential)? Prepare for a lonely existance.
  - slashdev 3y ago
    You’re being downvoted, but that’s pretty well supported with data. In fact it’s more skewed than 20/80. Closer to 10/90.
    - deanCommie 3y ago
      They're being downvoted because the very comment they're replying to contradicts it: "but that they also messaged the men almost exactly in tandem - uglier getting the most, with a steady drop as men's ranking rose. OKCupid's own data showed that women rate men is ugly but message them anyway.
  - tspike 3y ago
    Isn’t the parent comment saying the opposite of this? That despite rating most men as ugly, it didn’t affect their messaging behavior nearly as much?
    - friendzis 3y ago
      No, they are saying a bit tangential things. Tinder's data shows "chance of approach", which is brutal for men who are not too good looking. IIRC, OkCupid's data shows a bit different thing. The distribution of ratings determines chance of messages/likes - the larger stddev the better chances. IIRC, the most messaged men were ones with ratings characterized by bimodal distribution. Therefore, the most messaged men were not the ones with highest visual rating. I do not recall the distribution of messages, so can't comment much on that.
astrange 3y ago
The main effect of those data posts seems to have been to cause people to spread a lot of misinfo like "women aren't attracted to 80% of men". (What they actually said was that women rate men much lower than men rate women, but the women still respond the same way despite rating them lower, so it doesn't mean anything.)
Noumenon72 3y ago
Information has gotten harder and harder to come by as the Internet has matured. Think how much Tinder, Twitter, and Hinge know about human flirting and attraction. I believe it's just too black pilled to see the light of day.
isolli 3y ago
This was a good one [0]: > When men message women, women tend to respond most often to men around their own ages. But when women message men, they’re actually more likely to get a response from younger men than they are from older ones. A 40-year-old woman will have better luck messaging a 25-year-old man than a 55-year-old one, according to the data. And a 30-year-old man is more likely to respond to a message from a 50-year-old woman than a message from any other age group. When women make the first move, the age gap dating norm is reversed. [0] https://theblog.okcupid.com/undressed-whats-the-deal-with-the-age-gap-in-relationships-3143a2ca5178 https://theblog.okcupid.com/undressed-whats-the-deal-with-th...

geraldwhen 3y ago

I also met my wife on okcupid. I wonder how many of us their are.

dghughes 3y ago
I'd be curious if you're all over 6' tall. I never had any luck on OKCupid.
- astrange 3y ago
  That height fetish stuff is the domain of 5'0" white women. Basically message taller women and it doesn't matter.
  - seoulmetro 3y ago
    Nope. It's not specific to their height and obviously not specific to their race. The same way men on average prefer big boobs, women on average will prefer taller men. Both can't really be changed by the person but exist as attractiveness scores against a person. It matters to people who it matters to. Not many in the grand scheme and definitely not related to race.
    - astrange 3y ago
      > It's not specific to their height Of course it is because it's relative to how tall they are. But taller women already don't expect you to tower over them, because that's hard to find, so it's ok if you don't. > and obviously not specific to their race. It is within a specific ethnicity and generation. If you're in a country where the men in a specific age are short because food was scarce 2-3 decades ago, they're not all single because their women aren't attracted to them. And depending on culture and economic class, it matters more what impresses their parents, which is being a doctor-lawyer-astronaut who owns a house.
      - seoulmetro 3y ago
        No it's not. There is always a taller person and shorter people. Thinking someone thinks a certain way based on their height is weird and wrong. You are reading way too far into this and your take is incredibly wrong, not to mention racist.