| Big & Tall/BBW
Posted: 6/21/2008 12:38:21 PM |
Sometimes a person's forum posting history is a great measurement.
I agree, I have used it myself as back up for posts that violate rules on flaming and name calling and even to weed out some contacts.
I also agree with those that have stated "numbers" don't tell anything, like most anything else ugly, too fat, too skinny, too short or even too tall is all a matter of perspective. This is why I usually skip over the "description" and don't even really care about photos, that part isn't important to me. I understand that it is important to others but again with "numbers" not being equal to all body "types" or even "eyes" there comes a point where they are really more of a hindrance than a helpful tool. | |
|
| Big & Tall/BBW
Posted: 6/21/2008 8:09:19 PM | Everyone seems to be arguing over what options/choices they'd like to see in the drop down "body type" list.
Personally, I'd love for this area to be blank so we can simply fill in what we think we are.
Makes everyone's life easier if we could just type in how we wanted to describe ourselves instead of giving us a list of about 5 or 6 different options.
Case solved! You're all welcome. :-)
Actually, I'd love to see more customizable answer areas instead of the drop down menus. | |
|
| Big & Tall/BBW
Posted: 6/21/2008 8:21:17 PM | Personally, I'd love for this area to be blank so we can simply fill in what
we think we are.
Problem is, we'd have about 7537 different Body Type Selections because of all the Off-Base, in
Left-Field Body Type Labels and possible Variations of Spelling Mistakes Users would enter.
That does not expand, but reduce your Ability to find Users in Searches, not enhancing the Search Functions, but impeding them.
For this Reason, Users are only given limited Options for Selection, and kept rather broad at the same Time for maximum Search Results.
So, its not about your personal Preference how you would like to refer to yourself, or other refer to you, but more practical Issues that affect the Search Functions.
|
| |
|
| Big & Tall/BBW
Posted: 6/21/2008 8:27:24 PM | What if we don't care if we're included in the search or whatnot?
Personally, I never use the search function, nor do I care if my profile comes up in other people's search results. And the options we're given for 'body type' are too limited, hence why I've never been anything but a "prefer not to say" type of gal.
Or keep the pull down menu descriptions, but maybe put a disclaimer that filling in your own "body type" will disable accurate search results for possible suitors. | |
|
| Big & Tall/BBW
Posted: 6/21/2008 8:30:32 PM | Then you would have the same problem with it being a “searchable “ function similar to the profession box. As it stands there are people that state “have one” or "ask me" in the job slot.
If you left the “body type” open to a typed one invariably there would be your smarty pants that would enter “Greek God” or “sizzling hot” and that would defeat even more the purpose of people being able to search for the most part something within their preferences.
It is hard enough for some people with the existing one because many people "fib" so by putting it to an enter anything you wish box, it would be rendered almost completely useless to those that care. The idea is to make it easier to search for your preferences not harder, even if there are only 2 people on the planet that are anyone’s “ideal” or "perfect" type. Me personally, I am just thankful they have plenty of “I don’t cares” on the advance search. Variety is my preference. | |
|
| Big & Tall/BBW
Posted: 6/21/2008 8:40:20 PM | If people are going to put something obscure as their "body type" (or what have you), then I say, let them. If there's a disclaimer up saying that their profile might be rendered inaccurately unsearchable because of this, then at least they know beforehand, so it'll be their choice.
Personally, I don't care about the search function since I never use it, nor do I care about showing up in someone else's search. And I'm sure the people here who are married/here for the forums feel the same way.
I dunno, something to at least think about. It would be a nice option.
Either that, or they need to expand their body type descriptions a bit more. Maybe take a poll or something to see what two or three words people would like to have added?
"Thin" is nice, but I'm not thin. How about "slender" or "slim"? Or for someone else, "Curvy"? Things like that. | |
|
| Big & Tall/BBW
Posted: 6/21/2008 8:46:31 PM | What if we don't care if we're included in the search or whatnot?
Its not based on whether you care or not, but how it actually Functions. The POF Search Engine would have to be completely revamped, incl. much newer and intelligent Technology to accodomate these Type of Requests not too dissimilar to how 'Google' works, and its not just a Matter for the Admin to change a little Bit of Code here and there. Further, this Site is run out a little Apartment, and there are Issues with querying Billions of Items in Database Tables, and the current Hardware set-up could not play Ball with any of that. Short of spending Hundreds of Thousands in additional Computer Equipment & Servers, this simply is not possible.
Then you would have the same problem with it being a searchable function similar to the profession box. As it stands there are people that state have one or "ask me" in the job slot.
Profession has never been a searchable Field, and would also, with the current POF Search Engine Technology have to be a Drop Down Deal as well. Its all run by the same Backbone Search Technology, and all Items regardless what they are can only currently be searched on that Basis.
If people are going to put something obscure as their "body type" (or what have you), then I say, let them. If there's a disclaimer up saying that their profile might be rendered inaccurately unsearchable because of this, then at least they know beforehand, so it'll be their choice.
Our next Accolade of Help Section Requests will be why nobody can find Users in any of the Searches, and why they are not being added to their Favourites or receiving any Mail. As it is right now, the worst Thing they can do is to screw up would be selecting the incorrect Profile or Search Option that will nevertheless produce at least some Feedback.
Maybe take a poll or something to see what two or three words people would like to have added?
 | They are not issuing any Cheques, thus immaterial. |
|
| |
|
| Big & Tall/BBW
Posted: 6/21/2008 9:15:00 PM |
And I'm sure the people here who are married/here for the forums feel the same way.
Kind of irrelevant since the site is not primarily for married people not looking or those just here for the forums. It is a dating site and in order to date, people that are looking/searching need to have somewhat of a basic criteria in which they can do just that, search for what they like and want in a “prospect”.
As stated above by rendering “body type” or many of the other boxes, even all of them to an “open” format it would make it almost useless for anyone to narrow down a search for “viable” members in which to contact for dating. Just as the profession box (which there have been many complaints about) not being a searchable item, then so would body type, what else? Age? Location? How about making the gender slot "open" imagine the gems you would get there. You make everything an enter at will box it would give people very few hits in their searches and there are already complaints even with a lot of searchable criteria.
They do offer “prefer not to say” for those few that aren’t interested in being searched by that criteria.
| |
|
| Big & Tall/BBW
Posted: 6/21/2008 10:47:14 PM | Why should I tell you my waistline measurement?
Do you publish the lenght of your privates? Maybe woman view that as just as important. Yes, I know it sounds crazy. So does the notion of expecting us to post measurements.
Apples and oranges. The circumferance of a waist (for both women and men), depending on their height, is a outward, visual reality.
The length of a man's "privates" is on par with the size of a woman's "privates," which has nothing to do with an initial visual attraction factor.
I do understand the difficulty for either large men who aren't tall, or large women who aren't comfortable calling themselves BBW (because of the conceit factor of labelling themselves "beautiful"). I recently snooped around another dating site that uses "King Size" and "Queen Size" as an option. It's a bit silly, granted (reminds me of mattresses), but it does eliminate either height or other "attractiveness" factors, while simply acknowledging the fat factor. | |
|
| Big & Tall/BBW
Posted: 6/21/2008 11:12:43 PM |
The length of a man's "privates" is on par with the size of a woman's "privates," which has nothing to do with an initial visual attraction factor.
Speak for yourself 
My point though is I suspect there are many woman that are equally as concerned about the length of a mans penis as men that are worried how many pounds a woman weighs. | |
|
| Big & Tall/BBW
Posted: 6/22/2008 5:47:06 AM | but it does eliminate either height or other "attractiveness" factors, while simply acknowledging the fat factor. Ooh... bad word! Naughty! Not allowed to use the f word anymore.
I am at the happy point in life where my emails from overweight people acknowledging the odd standards to do with obesity and from fat people haranguing me for daring to use the word fat are equal in number. There has been a surprising number from guys as well sharing my views... but I already guessed that from reading some of the discussions by bitter overweight people.
You would think in a context like this that overweight people would be able to get their heads around the idea of people can make choices about wether fat is attrative or not- and act on those choices. That we are not even at the stage where being fat is not encouraged is an interesting commentary on society.
The unfortunate part of it all is it adds to my tax bill- and when weight based fares come into play more often, I am going to suffer for the sake of the obese. | |
|
| Big & Tall/BBW
Posted: 6/22/2008 1:41:10 PM | ^^^^
Ohhh please.... I don't see any overweight people saying you shouldnt have the right to make a choice about whether or not you feel fat is attractive or not.
Additionally, just because someone doesn't want to put up being called names which for the most part have negative connotations doesn't make them "bitter overweight people". Just because someone is overweight doesn't mean they don't have the right to be treated with respect and dignity.
I will say this thread has shown one thing.
How ugly some attractive people can be.
It never ceases to amaze me how ugly an attractive man can become as soon as he opens his mouth and how attractive an average guy can become by doing the same. | |
|
| Big & Tall/BBW
Posted: 6/22/2008 1:56:34 PM | Saying something like "the fat factor" is not the same as calling someone fat in a derogatory way or to put someone "in their place".
It's not the word FAT that is offensive, it's how it's said and in what context it is used.
And I can hardly be considered a bitter overweight or "fat" anything since I'm none of those things.
And I very much respect the fact that anyone can be attracted to whoever they are attracted to.
I myself *prefer* and am attracted to thinner men. Nothing wrong with that.
But while stating MY preference, I also don't feel the need to insult or put down (or offend) anyone else .
JMO | |
|
Home
login 
