6 ms·

Spam. Spam spam spam spam spam spam. More spam. Could you please elaborate? Do women get spammed a lot? Do men have to spam to be spoken to?

by listic 12y ago

gk1 12y ago
A lot of men find it easier to send short and generic messages ("Hey ur cute wats up?") to many women rather than taking time to write something thoughtful. The logic is that if you message 100 women, at least a few are going to respond. As a result of this, female members are under a constant barrage of mindless messages, which is what's being referred to as spam.
- pyre 12y ago
  > The logic is that if you message 100 women, at least a few are going to respond. While this is true that some people subscribe to this logic[1], the number of messages (good or bad) that women get seems to out-weigh the number that the men get. I've heard (anecdata alert!) that some men get frustrated and will start sending out "form messages" because they will take the time to craft meaningful messages only to get no reply[2]. [1] I heard a similar story of someone (a "dad's friend" of a friend a long time ago) that would basically ask every woman at a party for oral sex. He would get lots of slaps in the face, but he never went home empty-handed (allegedly). [2] I would personally liken it to investing time into job-hunting (i.e. trying to craft a decent cover letter) and then just getting no response from the potential employer. Though depending on the situation one other the other might be more stressful (e.g. searching for a job while unemployed).
  - was_hellbanned 12y ago
    I've heard (anecdata alert!) that some men get frustrated and will start sending out "form messages" because they will take the time to craft meaningful messages only to get no reply This was documented on the old OKCupid blog. I think the post was taken down after Match bought them. Men grow frustrated and get tired of wasting their time, so they stop sending in-depth messages. Women are then even less likely to respond, which ultimately sends men into a downward spiral of desperation.
- Kalium 12y ago
  It's not just that if you message 100 women, a few will respond. It's that you tried being thoughtful and genuine and discovered it was a waste of time.
jmclean 12y ago
Though it's of course anecdata, this is a huge problem for basically every woman I know who's used the service. Not only is it mostly spam, a lot of it is pretty horrible and demeaning. A few friends post the worst of it to Facebook and tumblr and it's cringe-inducing. Can't speak to the male side of things, as I haven't used it myself. But I feel gross being lumped in with the things that friends have shown me.
- Kalium 12y ago
  The male experience on dating sites is soul-crushing. It consists mainly being utterly ignored by everyone. Then, when you read profiles and put in effort, you discover that you're shouting into the void. So you move to copy-paste in part because it hurts less and in part because it gets you more responses.
  - Chirael 12y ago
    It's a marketing effort. Your goal is to communicate the benefits of your product (you) to your prospective customers. And just like real marketing, there is a ton of other marketing competing for the same customers. If nearly everyone else is sending copy-paste short messages, do you really think doing the same is going to succeed? Yes, it sucks to actually read profiles, compose thoughtful initial intro messages, and then be ignored. Just like it sucks to come up with a great startup marketing campaign and then not get the results you were hoping for. Instead of that's too much work, let's change from rifle/targeted to shotgun/blast, I think you just have to keep iterating and changing how you target, change your marketing media (different sites/venues/ways of meeting people), etc. I understand the "trough of sorrow" of shouting in the void. But I don't think the answer is to start doing what everyone else is doing - unless you want to get the same results as everyone else of course. (Not meant to you specifically, Kalium; "you" is meant in a general sense above)
    - Kalium 12y ago
      What you've missed - and I implied instead of stating outright - is that the "same results as everyone else" is in fact more desirable. Mainly because it is something other than the null set. The copy-paste-spam method produces better net results that the thoughtful, targeted approach. The only other more successful method I've ever even heard of rests on data mining OKCupid's users, carefully crafting your profile for them, and so on. Described here: http://www.wired.com/2014/01/how-to-hack-okcupid/all/ http://www.wired.com/2014/01/how-to-hack-okcupid/all/ EDIT: Also, getting meaningful data is nearly impossible here. Generally all you get is positive response/no response. When most of your iterations come up with a lot of no responses, you've really got nothing to go on. You cannot target without data. The blast approach compensates for that. Imagine doing a dozen very different marketing campaigns and being greeted with an identical total lack of response from all of them. Hard to learn from that.
pyre 12y ago
Women receive more messages from men then men receive from women. From complains that women leave in their OKCupid profiles I would say that a lot of these messages are not from people trying to intelligently converse with the women that they are trying to connect with. Seemingly common things: - Messages that are too short. E.g. "hey babe" doesn't mean much, when a women gets 10 - 20 "hey babe" messages in a day. - There are men that get frustrated at the lack of response from women, and start turning their messages into "form letters" which don't show any level of having read the woman's profile. - Initiating conversation with sexual propositions. - Depending on the platform, sending unsolicited pictures of genitalia. While some of these might not qualify as "spam" compared to a 419 scammers emails, I would say that wading through all of that seems akin to wading through one's spam folder...
- Kalium 12y ago
  Broadly speaking, this is what happens when the effort/volume tradeoff runs into low response rates and low read rates. The effort required to write a better message does not correspond to a sufficiently high chance of a response. Couple that with strong evidence that profiles and messages don't matter nearly as much as photos. The net result, is most any given man is going to see more success in getting responses - and dates - by spamming any woman within a hundred miles than by writing the kind of message women publicly opine to want.
  - pyre 12y ago
    > women publicly opine to want This comes across as cynical towards the women on dating sites. The problem is that the women on dating site become a lightning rod for messages. If every message were of a kind that interested a particular woman, how would she respond to (e.g.) 10-20 messages from new people every day? She's likely not going to end up going on dates with multiple people at a time, and if she finds someone long-term, it's (more than likely) only going to be a single person. She likely will only be able to carry on a few meaningful conversations at a time, and the rest just get dropped. If she were trying to meaningfully respond to everyone then going on a dating site would end up being a significant chore. Edit: Also, it's probably difficult to respond to someone that puts in the time to right a well-thought-out message, but doesn't come across as interesting (or expresses views that are contrary to your own -- e.g. an avid hunter messaging an animal rights activist). You don't necessarily want to be the bearer of bad news, so it's easier to not do it at all (or you convince yourself that you'll respond 'later' but 'later' never happens).
taejo 12y ago
Women generally get lots of low-effort messages, so they start to ignore most of them; men then generally realise that the probability of their messages getting read is low, so it's not worthwhile to put a lot of effort into them, but better to send lots of message to maximise the probability of being seen.
27182818284 12y ago
Well not spam per exactly, but the ratio of messages is like a couple of orders of magnitude different. A woman's OKCupid inbox can hit the > 100 to 1000 message each week. The difference is so large it is kinda of looked at by both genders with humor. (The side-by-side screenshots are pretty funny if you Google for them.) Also take a glance at http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/your-looks-and-online-dating/ http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/your-looks-and-online-dati...
mblevin 12y ago
Two words: Double opt-in. As simple as it seems, that is the primary driver of the success of Tinder, helped generously by a smart on-campus initial seeding strategy for the customer base. Every other dating site allows members to contact other members at the initiating member's will. All it takes is a few people with a dearth of tact and an overabundance of time to completely blow up (mostly women's) inboxes. Basic free-rider problem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem
- boyaka 12y ago
  Tinder is considered a success? I've used it and maybe I'm just a loser, but my experience and I believe the general consensus is that it is mostly for hookups. I am highly doubtful that women are meeting men that are actually interested in a long term relationship. There are a lot of issues with Tinder that have already been mentioned in this thread, such as 20% of the guys (I'm betting on less) get most of the likes and that women are the gatekeepers; which is good for them not having to trudge through spam, but it perpetuates the problem that guys already have IRL at social scenes and just keeps the women playing into the players' hands.
  - chatmasta 12y ago
    No dating app is going to solve the problem that 80% of the men on the app are unappealing to 80% of the women. That's a fundamental social issue, and there's no magic fix for the 80% of men having trouble finding success on these apps.
    - boyaka 12y ago
      Taking the decision of who is appealing away from women (and men, as if the 80% ever had any selection power) by using matchmakers seems like a promising fix to me. Although women still have the power to reject the date, they at least might be relinquished of the power to all go after the same guy (much to the chagrin of the guy who wants to fool around with all those women). Too bad I currently have so many other issues in my life more critical than wasting time in the dating scene, or I would try this one out.
zdean 12y ago
There's actually something of a negative feedback loop that's taking place. Women get a ton of junk messages (spam, inappropriate, etc.) while men get responses to their initial messages very rarely (most often just dead silence). So the women continue to be frustrated by the dozens of terrible messages they get and men continue to get frustrated by the low return on their efforts when they take the time to read profiles and craft thoughtful messages. In the end, it's a lot of effort on both parts to even establish a conversation. While the feedback on Tinder (where there is less investment required by both to start a conversation) early on was positive in my circles, it's starting to turn really noisy too. In the end, I think we'll see a successful model where you have the low barrier to conversation as per Tinder but a bit more info about the person as per OKC.
jaredandrews 12y ago
See: http://straightwhiteboystexting.tumblr.com/ http://straightwhiteboystexting.tumblr.com/ (Let's try to ignore the flame inducing name of this tumblr).

Spam. Spam spam spam spam spam spam. More spam. Could you please elaborate? Do women get spammed a lot? Do men have to spam to be spoken to?

by listic 12y ago

Spam. Spam spam spam spam spam spam. More spam. Could you please elaborate? Do women get spammed a lot? Do men have to spam to be spoken to?

gk1 12y ago

A lot of men find it easier to send short and generic messages ("Hey ur cute wats up?") to many women rather than taking time to write something thoughtful. The logic is that if you message 100 women, at least a few are going to respond. As a result of this, female members are under a constant barrage of mindless messages, which is what's being referred to as spam.

pyre 12y ago
> The logic is that if you message 100 women, at least a few are going to respond. While this is true that some people subscribe to this logic[1], the number of messages (good or bad) that women get seems to out-weigh the number that the men get. I've heard (anecdata alert!) that some men get frustrated and will start sending out "form messages" because they will take the time to craft meaningful messages only to get no reply[2]. [1] I heard a similar story of someone (a "dad's friend" of a friend a long time ago) that would basically ask every woman at a party for oral sex. He would get lots of slaps in the face, but he never went home empty-handed (allegedly). [2] I would personally liken it to investing time into job-hunting (i.e. trying to craft a decent cover letter) and then just getting no response from the potential employer. Though depending on the situation one other the other might be more stressful (e.g. searching for a job while unemployed).
- was_hellbanned 12y ago
  I've heard (anecdata alert!) that some men get frustrated and will start sending out "form messages" because they will take the time to craft meaningful messages only to get no reply This was documented on the old OKCupid blog. I think the post was taken down after Match bought them. Men grow frustrated and get tired of wasting their time, so they stop sending in-depth messages. Women are then even less likely to respond, which ultimately sends men into a downward spiral of desperation.
Kalium 12y ago
It's not just that if you message 100 women, a few will respond. It's that you tried being thoughtful and genuine and discovered it was a waste of time.

jmclean 12y ago

Though it's of course anecdata, this is a huge problem for basically every woman I know who's used the service. Not only is it mostly spam, a lot of it is pretty horrible and demeaning. A few friends post the worst of it to Facebook and tumblr and it's cringe-inducing. Can't speak to the male side of things, as I haven't used it myself. But I feel gross being lumped in with the things that friends have shown me.

Kalium 12y ago
The male experience on dating sites is soul-crushing. It consists mainly being utterly ignored by everyone. Then, when you read profiles and put in effort, you discover that you're shouting into the void. So you move to copy-paste in part because it hurts less and in part because it gets you more responses.
- Chirael 12y ago
  It's a marketing effort. Your goal is to communicate the benefits of your product (you) to your prospective customers. And just like real marketing, there is a ton of other marketing competing for the same customers. If nearly everyone else is sending copy-paste short messages, do you really think doing the same is going to succeed? Yes, it sucks to actually read profiles, compose thoughtful initial intro messages, and then be ignored. Just like it sucks to come up with a great startup marketing campaign and then not get the results you were hoping for. Instead of that's too much work, let's change from rifle/targeted to shotgun/blast, I think you just have to keep iterating and changing how you target, change your marketing media (different sites/venues/ways of meeting people), etc. I understand the "trough of sorrow" of shouting in the void. But I don't think the answer is to start doing what everyone else is doing - unless you want to get the same results as everyone else of course. (Not meant to you specifically, Kalium; "you" is meant in a general sense above)
  - Kalium 12y ago
    What you've missed - and I implied instead of stating outright - is that the "same results as everyone else" is in fact more desirable. Mainly because it is something other than the null set. The copy-paste-spam method produces better net results that the thoughtful, targeted approach. The only other more successful method I've ever even heard of rests on data mining OKCupid's users, carefully crafting your profile for them, and so on. Described here: http://www.wired.com/2014/01/how-to-hack-okcupid/all/ http://www.wired.com/2014/01/how-to-hack-okcupid/all/ EDIT: Also, getting meaningful data is nearly impossible here. Generally all you get is positive response/no response. When most of your iterations come up with a lot of no responses, you've really got nothing to go on. You cannot target without data. The blast approach compensates for that. Imagine doing a dozen very different marketing campaigns and being greeted with an identical total lack of response from all of them. Hard to learn from that.

pyre 12y ago

Women receive more messages from men then men receive from women. From complains that women leave in their OKCupid profiles I would say that a lot of these messages are not from people trying to intelligently converse with the women that they are trying to connect with. Seemingly common things: - Messages that are too short. E.g. "hey babe" doesn't mean much, when a women gets 10 - 20 "hey babe" messages in a day. - There are men that get frustrated at the lack of response from women, and start turning their messages into "form letters" which don't show any level of having read the woman's profile. - Initiating conversation with sexual propositions. - Depending on the platform, sending unsolicited pictures of genitalia. While some of these might not qualify as "spam" compared to a 419 scammers emails, I would say that wading through all of that seems akin to wading through one's spam folder...

Kalium 12y ago
Broadly speaking, this is what happens when the effort/volume tradeoff runs into low response rates and low read rates. The effort required to write a better message does not correspond to a sufficiently high chance of a response. Couple that with strong evidence that profiles and messages don't matter nearly as much as photos. The net result, is most any given man is going to see more success in getting responses - and dates - by spamming any woman within a hundred miles than by writing the kind of message women publicly opine to want.
- pyre 12y ago
  > women publicly opine to want This comes across as cynical towards the women on dating sites. The problem is that the women on dating site become a lightning rod for messages. If every message were of a kind that interested a particular woman, how would she respond to (e.g.) 10-20 messages from new people every day? She's likely not going to end up going on dates with multiple people at a time, and if she finds someone long-term, it's (more than likely) only going to be a single person. She likely will only be able to carry on a few meaningful conversations at a time, and the rest just get dropped. If she were trying to meaningfully respond to everyone then going on a dating site would end up being a significant chore. Edit: Also, it's probably difficult to respond to someone that puts in the time to right a well-thought-out message, but doesn't come across as interesting (or expresses views that are contrary to your own -- e.g. an avid hunter messaging an animal rights activist). You don't necessarily want to be the bearer of bad news, so it's easier to not do it at all (or you convince yourself that you'll respond 'later' but 'later' never happens).

taejo 12y ago

Women generally get lots of low-effort messages, so they start to ignore most of them; men then generally realise that the probability of their messages getting read is low, so it's not worthwhile to put a lot of effort into them, but better to send lots of message to maximise the probability of being seen.

27182818284 12y ago

Well not spam per exactly, but the ratio of messages is like a couple of orders of magnitude different. A woman's OKCupid inbox can hit the > 100 to 1000 message each week. The difference is so large it is kinda of looked at by both genders with humor. (The side-by-side screenshots are pretty funny if you Google for them.) Also take a glance at http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/your-looks-and-online-dating/ http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/your-looks-and-online-dati...

mblevin 12y ago

Two words: Double opt-in. As simple as it seems, that is the primary driver of the success of Tinder, helped generously by a smart on-campus initial seeding strategy for the customer base. Every other dating site allows members to contact other members at the initiating member's will. All it takes is a few people with a dearth of tact and an overabundance of time to completely blow up (mostly women's) inboxes. Basic free-rider problem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem

boyaka 12y ago
Tinder is considered a success? I've used it and maybe I'm just a loser, but my experience and I believe the general consensus is that it is mostly for hookups. I am highly doubtful that women are meeting men that are actually interested in a long term relationship. There are a lot of issues with Tinder that have already been mentioned in this thread, such as 20% of the guys (I'm betting on less) get most of the likes and that women are the gatekeepers; which is good for them not having to trudge through spam, but it perpetuates the problem that guys already have IRL at social scenes and just keeps the women playing into the players' hands.
- chatmasta 12y ago
  No dating app is going to solve the problem that 80% of the men on the app are unappealing to 80% of the women. That's a fundamental social issue, and there's no magic fix for the 80% of men having trouble finding success on these apps.
  - boyaka 12y ago
    Taking the decision of who is appealing away from women (and men, as if the 80% ever had any selection power) by using matchmakers seems like a promising fix to me. Although women still have the power to reject the date, they at least might be relinquished of the power to all go after the same guy (much to the chagrin of the guy who wants to fool around with all those women). Too bad I currently have so many other issues in my life more critical than wasting time in the dating scene, or I would try this one out.

zdean 12y ago

There's actually something of a negative feedback loop that's taking place. Women get a ton of junk messages (spam, inappropriate, etc.) while men get responses to their initial messages very rarely (most often just dead silence). So the women continue to be frustrated by the dozens of terrible messages they get and men continue to get frustrated by the low return on their efforts when they take the time to read profiles and craft thoughtful messages. In the end, it's a lot of effort on both parts to even establish a conversation. While the feedback on Tinder (where there is less investment required by both to start a conversation) early on was positive in my circles, it's starting to turn really noisy too. In the end, I think we'll see a successful model where you have the low barrier to conversation as per Tinder but a bit more info about the person as per OKC.

jaredandrews 12y ago

See: http://straightwhiteboystexting.tumblr.com/ http://straightwhiteboystexting.tumblr.com/ (Let's try to ignore the flame inducing name of this tumblr).