3 ms·

This reads more like 'How to get lowest common denominator dates'. If someone I write to can't be bothered to read ~700 words I'm fairly certain we aren't goin

This reads more like 'How to get lowest common denominator dates'. If someone I write to can't be bothered to read ~700 words I'm fairly certain we aren't going to get along too well.

dotpavan 17y ago
to each his own, but what okcupid might be aiming at is something similar to comments-->leading to blog posts (if I strike a chord with your concise comment at HN, I would be more inclined to check your profile and follow links to say your blog etc and read more.. similarly for dating sites). this is like the trailer->movie effect which is an effect of short attention span and saves time.
GiraffeNecktie 17y ago
That may be true, but many people like to start off a little slower. If you write a lengthy essay about yourself, the other person might feel like it's too much too soon and they may feel pressured to reveal more about themselves than they're comfortable doing on first contact. It's got nothing to do with their reading ability.
- puredemo 17y ago
  Sure, there is no need to tell your life story on first contact. But at least learning about interests is nice. You can find out commonalities (as well as incompatibilities) sooner, and then shape the relationship along those lines.
  - timr 17y ago
    In everything in life, a little seduction goes a long way. You start slow, and work your way into the meaningful interactions. The principle applies in everything from scientific talks to marketing. You've gotta have a brief hook -- only after you've earned the privilege of your target's interest can you ease into deeper subjects.
- mdakin 17y ago
  It's true that "many people" may indeed like to start off slower but those data show clearly that for male initiated communication longer messages have increased probability of reply. The recommendation for short messages is intended to maximize replies per unit time not the reply of any given message. I don't think there is a problem with either approach. Each strategy probably appeals to a different type of recipient. So the chosen strategy can be thought to partition the potential recipients into the different types. (If you send 'A' a long message and A replies A is of the type who likes long messages. 'A' very well might ignore all short messages. B might have the exact opposite preferences of A.) At this level of abstraction there's not a wrong answer to the question. By that I mean that the details and content of a message whether long or short are probably more important than the length for any given case. But if you're someone who prefers to act in an open, earnest manner it's probably best to go with that and partition out people who are mistrustful, cynical or otherwise turned-off by open, earnest action and communication styles. An analogous statement holds for those who prefer to act more closeted, subtle and aloof.
philwelch 17y ago
If someone writing to me can't be bothered to say something interesting in the first 100 words I'm fairly certain he won't get to anything interesting in the first 1000. You can be concise and intelligent.
scott_s 17y ago
I think you're interpreting the situation incorrectly. People probably aren't rejecting to reading a lot of text. They're probably using message length as a signal - people who share too much information with strangers put people off. It implies desperation at worst, and at best, an imbalance of interest.
- roundsquare 17y ago
  If anything, the opposite of true. Long messages --> higher reply rate. Its the reply rate per message that is improved with shorter messages. Edit: Of course this doesn't factor in the guilt mentioned by someone else, but with all these other variables I don't think this data is very useful as is.
dkarl 17y ago
It's probably heresy here, but a lot of people still consider email a terrible way to get to know someone and online means in general to be extremely limited. An online dating site should be like Google: give me a bunch of options, and I'll make a quick low-bandwidth decision whether to invest in a face-to-face encounter. Engaging in an email conversation with someone isn't going to result in a better decision than making a snap judgment based on their picture and profile. I think it's more likely to result in a worse decision, actually. When I meet a potential date online, I just want to get face-to-face over drinks (coffee or alcohol) as quickly as possible so I can decide whether to have a real date with her. For me, the only role of the initial contact is to say, "I would like to meet you. Would you like to meet me?" Of course, you also have to communicate that you're human and that you've actually read her profile, and you have to avoid communicating any desperation, narcissism, or other creepiness. So it's good to keep it short and make a little bit of conversation about something in her profile just to prove you read it.
- theorique 17y ago
  Definitely true. Email is a good way to get to know someone on a technical level where you're kicking around programming problems or mathematical theorems. That's probably one reason why international open source collaboration works so well - people are (1) focused on the technical and (2) often share a common internationalized hacker/geek culture On the other hand, to get to know someone in a romantic/sexual chemistry way, email is atrocious unless the people involved already share a lot of cultural reference points. It's a lot like sending out a resume - you're not trying to pack everything about yourself into the written text, you're just trying to be interesting enough to get a phone call. With the phone call, you're trying to be interesting enough to get the low-risk face to face meeting. And so on...

This reads more like 'How to get lowest common denominator dates'. If someone I write to can't be bothered to read ~700 words I'm fairly certain we aren't going to get along too well.

dotpavan 17y ago

to each his own, but what okcupid might be aiming at is something similar to comments-->leading to blog posts (if I strike a chord with your concise comment at HN, I would be more inclined to check your profile and follow links to say your blog etc and read more.. similarly for dating sites). this is like the trailer->movie effect which is an effect of short attention span and saves time.

GiraffeNecktie 17y ago

That may be true, but many people like to start off a little slower. If you write a lengthy essay about yourself, the other person might feel like it's too much too soon and they may feel pressured to reveal more about themselves than they're comfortable doing on first contact. It's got nothing to do with their reading ability.

puredemo 17y ago
Sure, there is no need to tell your life story on first contact. But at least learning about interests is nice. You can find out commonalities (as well as incompatibilities) sooner, and then shape the relationship along those lines.
- timr 17y ago
  In everything in life, a little seduction goes a long way. You start slow, and work your way into the meaningful interactions. The principle applies in everything from scientific talks to marketing. You've gotta have a brief hook -- only after you've earned the privilege of your target's interest can you ease into deeper subjects.
mdakin 17y ago
It's true that "many people" may indeed like to start off slower but those data show clearly that for male initiated communication longer messages have increased probability of reply. The recommendation for short messages is intended to maximize replies per unit time not the reply of any given message. I don't think there is a problem with either approach. Each strategy probably appeals to a different type of recipient. So the chosen strategy can be thought to partition the potential recipients into the different types. (If you send 'A' a long message and A replies A is of the type who likes long messages. 'A' very well might ignore all short messages. B might have the exact opposite preferences of A.) At this level of abstraction there's not a wrong answer to the question. By that I mean that the details and content of a message whether long or short are probably more important than the length for any given case. But if you're someone who prefers to act in an open, earnest manner it's probably best to go with that and partition out people who are mistrustful, cynical or otherwise turned-off by open, earnest action and communication styles. An analogous statement holds for those who prefer to act more closeted, subtle and aloof.

philwelch 17y ago

If someone writing to me can't be bothered to say something interesting in the first 100 words I'm fairly certain he won't get to anything interesting in the first 1000. You can be concise and intelligent.

scott_s 17y ago

I think you're interpreting the situation incorrectly. People probably aren't rejecting to reading a lot of text. They're probably using message length as a signal - people who share too much information with strangers put people off. It implies desperation at worst, and at best, an imbalance of interest.

roundsquare 17y ago
If anything, the opposite of true. Long messages --> higher reply rate. Its the reply rate per message that is improved with shorter messages. Edit: Of course this doesn't factor in the guilt mentioned by someone else, but with all these other variables I don't think this data is very useful as is.

dkarl 17y ago

It's probably heresy here, but a lot of people still consider email a terrible way to get to know someone and online means in general to be extremely limited. An online dating site should be like Google: give me a bunch of options, and I'll make a quick low-bandwidth decision whether to invest in a face-to-face encounter. Engaging in an email conversation with someone isn't going to result in a better decision than making a snap judgment based on their picture and profile. I think it's more likely to result in a worse decision, actually. When I meet a potential date online, I just want to get face-to-face over drinks (coffee or alcohol) as quickly as possible so I can decide whether to have a real date with her. For me, the only role of the initial contact is to say, "I would like to meet you. Would you like to meet me?" Of course, you also have to communicate that you're human and that you've actually read her profile, and you have to avoid communicating any desperation, narcissism, or other creepiness. So it's good to keep it short and make a little bit of conversation about something in her profile just to prove you read it.

theorique 17y ago
Definitely true. Email is a good way to get to know someone on a technical level where you're kicking around programming problems or mathematical theorems. That's probably one reason why international open source collaboration works so well - people are (1) focused on the technical and (2) often share a common internationalized hacker/geek culture On the other hand, to get to know someone in a romantic/sexual chemistry way, email is atrocious unless the people involved already share a lot of cultural reference points. It's a lot like sending out a resume - you're not trying to pack everything about yourself into the written text, you're just trying to be interesting enough to get a phone call. With the phone call, you're trying to be interesting enough to get the low-risk face to face meeting. And so on...