3 ms·
Easy: limit the supply of men but not women (e.g. let almost all women register, but only let the top x% of the men register). There's pretty much no gender-neu
by nawitus 13y ago
Easy: limit the supply of men but not women (e.g. let almost all women register, but only let the top x% of the men register). There's pretty much no gender-neutral solution (which is "ironic" since the service is supported by a feminist).
EDIT: The app appears to allow requests only if two profiles have been mutually selected as attractive, which would indicate that men need to spam those attractive buttons quite a lot..
- jiggy2011 13y agoQuestion is, how do you decide on the top % of men without falling back onto "shallow" factors like classical good looks or income?
- JeremyMorgan 13y agoYou don't.
- bilbo0s 13y agoAnd therein lies the age old problem of online dating. Why would a rich, good looking guy need a "hook up" service? Tom Brady's mistress, or mistresses, are likely to look a lot better than any of the women on Pure. There is even a joke about it I hear a lot when speaking to online dating startup guys... "...What do statistics tell us about the rich, good looking guys on an online dating service? That they are liars..."
- baddox 13y ago> And therein lies the age old problem of online dating. Why would a rich, good looking guy need a "hook up" service? And yet, online dating sites do okay, don't they?
- xxhere 13y agoI think that for short-term encounters "rich" is a proxy for sanity. It means they have jobs that bring in good money; which means they need to be integrated to the society to some degree and wouldn't have too much time to be focused on stalking someone. It also means that they have something important to lose and have an active interest in not freaking a woman out. "educated" could be a substitute for "rich" - and the educated, good looking, but not very rich people would be ideal for dating sites.
- potatolicious 13y agoIt'll back onto "shallow" factors anyways. Even on "traditional" dating sites the vast, vast, vast majority of messaging occurs based almost entirely on looks. Websites that market themselves as soulmate-finding services haven't solved this, I highly doubt a hookup site is going to do it.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- baddox 13y agoYou really on the factors that work, as determined by the satisfaction of the female users. If that qualifies to you as "shallow," then so be it.
- samstave 13y ago$$$$
- jkscm 13y agoHow would limiting the the supply of men increase the chance of women finding the "right" one? I also don't understand how a non-gender-neutral solution is ironic. I can hardly think of any solution to a gender problem that is "neutral". You don't fix gender imbalance with gender neutral methods. Actually forbidding men to spam copy and paste messages to every woman could elevate the experience for women.
- dubfan 13y agoThere's a site that is trying this (not letting men message women until the woman gives permission). I tried it out but there were only about 20 female profiles in my area (a large coastal metro) and most of them were inactive. The ones who were active were unattractive and their profiles were all of the "I'm an easy-going girl who loves to laugh" variety. I'm not sure if that's a result of the approach or just a marketing problem on the part of that site in particular.