| Filtering out Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex.
Posted: 7/8/2009 8:26:33 PM | I agree in principle with the idea that people you cannot contact should not appear in your search results. For a more innocuous example, smokers should not see people with the "Must not smoke" filter in place. Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen, though. More pageviews means more revenue.
However, for all you crybabies whining about your inability to contact these so-called "control freaks," etc., get a grip. First, why would you want to contact someone who annoys you with their uptight ways? Second, how did your egos get so huge to think that they're losing out by not wanting to talk to someone who either can't keep it in their pants or who only looks at the pretty pictures, not reading carefully enough to know the object of their ogling is looking for IE? Oh, look, something shiny...
Filter works just fine at filtering out both perverts and idiots. Ask yourself which category you fall in. If you're upset by this post, I'm thinking you fall into column B, but since I have the filter on, at least I won't be hearing from you.  | |
|
| Filtering out Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex.
Posted: 7/9/2009 5:18:18 AM | This is because the IE flag is of course required in order for your self serving suggestion to work.
What is your opposition to users having the option to filter out people they cannot contact, for whatever reason? There isn't much point in having a profile appear in your search results if that person's mail settings preclude you from contacting that person, regardless of whether that is because of age restrictions or the IE flag or anything else. The only real arguments for not providing that option are (1) Overhead in terms of system resources (2) Bad pr due to the vastly reduced number of profiles that would appear for just about everyone who opted to filter search results on mail settings. I can't see any other opposition to allowing that sort of filtering other than personal weirdness. | |
|
| Filtering out Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex.
Posted: 7/9/2009 6:54:42 AM |
What is your opposition to users having the option to filter out people they cannot contact, for whatever reason?
It makes no difference one way or the other to me personally. See Message # 65.
I can't see any other opposition to allowing that sort of filtering other than personal weirdness.
'personal weirdness' . . I beg your pardon?
Please feel free to indulge your ad hominem attacks . . . somewhere else! . . OK?
In the mean time you might find some answers if you were to read the whole thread.
Your examples (1) and (2) may be part of it but more likely the reasons outlined in Message #43, I'd think.
For one example of what I would consider an undesirable consequence, you might read Message # 37 & 38.
You may noticed the only ones that seem to be in favour of the idea are those that have tripped the IE filter.
Coincidence? Have you tripped the filter too? | |
|
| Filtering out Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex.
Posted: 7/9/2009 8:14:54 AM | It makes no difference one way or the other to me personally. See Message # 65.
So what's the point in continuing to argue about it?
'personal weirdness' . . I beg your pardon?
Please feel free to indulge your ad hominem attacks . . . somewhere else! . . OK?
The statement to which you directed those comments (and you even quoted) was:
I can't see any other opposition to allowing that sort of filtering other than personal weirdness.
If you aren't opposed to that sort of filtering, then I can't see what your problem is with the statement I made. If you are opposed to that sort of filtering, it would be simpler to provide some rational reason for your opposition that wouldn't be just personal weirdness. Either way, your comment regarding an ad hominem attack is a strawman, since it was your choice to apply ``personal weirdness'' to yourself.
As for your reference to msg43 (which merely agrees and affirms what you wrote in msg 42 and could have been referenced directly):
Your definition of better search results is obviously better for you . . as well as . . ummmm . . SOME people.
Doesn't apply. Obviously there is nothing to be gained by ANYONE who receives search results containing ANYONE he/she can't contact. The IE filter is but one of many mail settings that would affect the search results. So, unless you can see some benefit in receiving search results containing people who have excluded you for reasons of age, geographical distance, the category you selected, whatever, then the benefit applies across the board. Stop reading IE into everything and then reacting.
You seem to be abnormally focussed on the IE filter, whereas I specifically stated filtering ought to be possible to eliminate results containing anyone you can't contact based on all of their mail settings. The argument you referenced in msgs 37 & 38 are nothing but paternalistic drivel posed in deliberately inflammatory language. It isn't applicable to filtering on all mail restrictions unless you want to apply the same argument to filtering on age, geographical distance, etc.
You may noticed the only ones that seem to be in favour of the idea are those that have tripped the IE filter.
Actually, I haven't paid attention to who has or has not tripped the filter since that is not relevant to any argument about it. Arguments stand on their own merits independent of who says what for what reason.
Coincidence? Have you tripped the filter too?
Uh, apart from being irrelevant, I have my profile hidden because I'm not on the market at present. I couldn't care less either way. | |
|
| Filtering out Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex.
Posted: 7/9/2009 1:25:26 PM | The filter says, "Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex"
POF's quote on what the filter does exactly:
"Plentyoffish users have the option to select if they wish to be available for contact from others that have made contact with those looking for Intimate Encounters. Once you have contacted more than four users looking for Intimate Encounters you are restricted from contacting members that have this feature in place. This block cannot be reset."
And even that isn't quite specific enough, what they mean is that the person contacted had Intimate Encounters selected in their profile, not that the initiating had anything in their message or profile that intimated any such thing.
These two pieces of information are not in the same place.
I have yet to find anyone using the filter who thought that it meant what POF thinks it does. So sure, people can filter on whatever criterion they want. But this is not doing that, it's deceptive to the person using the filter.
It's also deceptively implemented. You don't get told this in bold pink letters signing up on POF or when you send messages to IE people. Generally rules are to prevent objectionable behaviour. When someone isn't committing any kind of objectionable behaviour it's unlikely that they will look to see if there are any rules against it. Lots of people get trapped by this filter who were not committing objectionable behaviour by any stretch of the imagination. If someone participates in the forums a lot then often times discussions get taken outside the forums. To email someone on an issue unrelated to intimate encounters because of some other relationship with them (know them in real life, forum post, whatever) really doesn't sound like the kind of thing the filter was meant to protect (judging by the wording, not the implementation).
Most of the people using the filter were probably really hoping it was a smarter filter based on the content and habit of first contacts. That's certainly what it looks like to most users. And yet for some reason, it does absolutely nothing to stop the number of messages that you receive that pretty much amount to, "wanna fuck?"
but I meander off topic... now the thread is becoming redundant...
footnote:
I find that terribly humorous... the word "cannot" in POFs description. Apparently the POF server is running completely out of control. Pretty soon the machines will rise. A correct wording would have been, "it's our policy not to reset this filter."
| |
|
| Filtering out Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex.
Posted: 7/9/2009 3:00:46 PM |
It's also deceptively implemented. You don't get told this in bold pink letters signing up on POF or when you send messages to IE people. Generally rules are to prevent objectionable behaviour.
Actually, that is irrelevant to the thread. People should be free to utilize anything available to them to get the results they want and should also be responsible for knowing what they are doing. The question her is whether it's useful to filter out users from your search results who have already precluded you from contacting them (originally specific to the IE filter, but in my opinion, it would useful if everyone could do that for all mail restrictions.) If it's useful for the IE filter, it's useful for everything else. | |
|
| Filtering out Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex.
Posted: 7/9/2009 3:04:51 PM | The filter says, "Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex"
POF's quote on what the filter does exactly:
"Plentyoffish users have the option to select if they wish to be available for contact from others that have made contact with those looking for Intimate Encounters. Once you have contacted more than four users looking for Intimate Encounters you are restricted from contacting members that have this feature in place. This block cannot be reset."
And even that isn't quite specific enough, what they mean is that the person contacted had Intimate Encounters selected in their profile, not that the initiating had anything in their message or profile that intimated any such thing.
Yes POF took a leap of faith that if you are contacting someone with an IE account it is for the purpose of hooking up with them. I would say that would be correct 95% of the time.
If you are contacting them for something in a forum then post it in the forum.
For the other 5%, well sucks to be you.
I have yet to find anyone using the filter who thought that it meant what POF thinks it does. So sure, people can filter on whatever criterion they want. But this is not doing that, it's deceptive to the person using the filter.
It is dong exactly what it was intended to do blocking people from contacting you that have a habit of contacting people with IE profiles.
It's also deceptively implemented. You don't get told this in bold pink letters signing up on POF or when you send messages to IE people. Generally rules are to prevent objectionable behaviour. When someone isn't committing any kind of objectionable behaviour it's unlikely that they will look to see if there are any rules against it. Lots of people get trapped by this filter who were not committing objectionable behaviour by any stretch of the imagination.
I like the way it is implemented, this way people get caught doing something they thought they would get away with, so they are unable to disguise their behaviour patterns ahead of time.
Most of the people using the filter were probably really hoping it was a smarter filter based on the content and habit of first contacts. That's certainly what it looks like to most users. And yet for some reason, it does absolutely nothing to stop the number of messages that you receive that pretty much amount to, "wanna ****?"
How are you able to speak for most users? | |
|
| |
| Filtering out Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex.
Posted: 7/9/2009 3:37:44 PM | Moderator, If you go to help -> contact us, and enter in any message that has a quote of the filter then you'll get that automated response that I pasted in.
James, I can speak for the fact that it's been tried out a number of times in longer threads than this on this topic and it really doesn't have any impact on the messages. When you turn the filter off or on it doesn't change the number of messages getting to you requesting sex. That's probably because the kind of person it's stopping isn't really the kind of person who contacts people who AREN'T looking for intimate encounters and then requesting them. It probably would be nice if there were two filters.
Must not have previously messaged someone who has Intimate Encounter selected as what they are looking for. (what it actually currently does and a small wording change that would make it more honest)
Must not have previously messaged someone looking for sex. (using some kind of Bayesian filter cribbed from open source spam blocking software, and/or perhaps from multiple independent reports)
In past threads on this topic that I've participated in people who come to learn what it does do tend to be surprised that it does not actually block people who tend to send messages out requesting sex. And really, that's exactly what it sounds like it does. Do you think doesn't? I've probably chatted with at least 30 people who had the filter who thought it blocked the people who send out dozens of messages asking for sex to those who aren't requesting it on their profile. It doesn't. Blocking people who ask for sex from people who clearly want it on their profile is a very different thing. I think that people should be allowed to do that. But the current system doesn't make it clear what you're blocking.
Again, we're off topic and probably now in danger of being moderated redundant because this has been discussed to death. POF has no interest in correcting it. And really, all it would take is some improved wording. | |
|
| Filtering out Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex.
Posted: 7/9/2009 3:48:38 PM |
In past threads on this topic that I've participated in people who come to learn what it does do tend to be surprised that it does not actually block people who tend to send messages out requesting sex. And really, that's exactly what it sounds like it does. Do you think doesn't? I've probably chatted with at least 30 people who had the filter who thought it blocked the people who send out dozens of messages asking for sex to those who aren't requesting it on their profile. It doesn't. Blocking people who ask for sex from people who clearly want it on their profile is a very different thing. I think that people should be allowed to do that. But the current system doesn't make it clear what you're blocking.
People on the forums only represent a very small minority of the users on this site and I would say in no way could be used as a sample to gauge the effectiveness of any features.
So basically what you are asking for, is for POF to change the way they do things because some people are not smart enough to figure it out. | |
|
| Filtering out Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex.
Posted: 7/9/2009 4:21:37 PM | James,
I only suggested the alternate filters as an ideal situation to put in contrast the actual filter to what people tend to think it is. I'm not saying POF should change anything they're actually doing. I'm saying they shouldn't be deceptive about it. And, I'm saying it will take all of about a minute to change the way the filter is worded. They can still make the newly worded filter based on the same criteria. I really don't care. They should make the criteria clear and up front as well. The mod in this thread didn't even know what they were!
Not understanding the filter has nothing to do with being smart. The current wording is ambiguous. It's double meaning is so unclear that most people think it means something it doesn't and that's not the readers fault. It's the writer's fault. And it's intentional at this point given that POF has known about this for years.
I mentioned people I spoke to beyond the threads. No one I've communicated with, who hasn't read the threads, and has the filter, understands what it does. And that's a lot of people. I gave a conservative estimate of 30. That's actually a pretty good sample size for this sort of thing.
I challenge anyone one to try it (again - this challenge has been made a lot of times). Turn the filter off and turn it on and record the number of first contacts looking for sex. The impact is near 0. The reason it's near 0 is because that isn't what the filter's supposed to do; but it damn sure looks like it should.
| |
|
| Filtering out Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex.
Posted: 7/10/2009 6:58:08 AM | abelian,
There may be to be some confusion as to who said what, so I'll lay out the sequence of events as I see them.
You said (#1):
I can't see any other opposition to allowing that sort of filtering other than personal weirdness.
To which I replied:
'personal weirdness' . . I beg your pardon?
Please feel free to indulge your ad hominem attacks . . . somewhere else! . . OK?
That above response was specific to your personal attack characterising myself as possessing a 'personal weirdness' as the reason for my stance on the topic.
Ad hominem argument is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or attacking the person who proposed the argument (personal attack) in an attempt to discredit the argument. It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
In your Message #79 you appear to believe that the (#1) quote above emanated from myself and you respond with:
. . . Either way, your comment regarding an ad hominem attack is a strawman, since it was your choice to apply ``personal weirdness'' to yourself.
Which leaves me baffled as I've not applied the term 'personal weirdness' to myself.
So, my position is that you can either cite where I referred to myself as possessing a 'personal weirdness' or you can withdraw the remark.
You seem to be abnormally focussed on the IE filter, whereas I specifically stated filtering ought to be possible to eliminate results containing anyone you can't contact based on all of their mail settings.
(SNIP) . . . The argument you referenced in msgs 37 & 38 . . (SNIP) . . isn't applicable to filtering on all mail restrictions unless you want to apply the same argument to filtering on age, geographical distance, etc.
Yes, I am 'abnormally' (as you put it) focussed on the IE filter because that is the thread topic. The OP was succinct in both his thread title and opening post.
Seeking to expand this topic to include 'filtering on all mail restrictions' would be irrelevant and constitute a hijack of this thread.
Maybe you could initiate a separate wider based thread to accommodate your wishes, but according to 'Dontmakecookies' who mentions having participated in similar threads, that may be redundant. Maybe try a thread search first.
Actually, I haven't paid attention to who has or has not tripped the filter since that is not relevant to any argument about it. Arguments stand on their own merits independent of who says what for what reason.
I would contend that it's very relevant to this thread.
If, for instance, a couple of bank robbers got together and protested that security cameras in banks were undesirable on the grounds that they were an invasion of privacy, would you agree wholeheartedly with them?
If you would, then I have a prime piece of beach front real estate in Alice Springs I could let go for a song.
Coincidence? Have you tripped the filter too?
Uh, apart from being irrelevant, I have my profile hidden because I'm not on the market at present. I couldn't care less either way.
A couple of things here . .
Whether you've tripped the IE filter (or not) is entirely relevant because it goes to motive and intent. I would refer you to the bank robber example.
I note however that you avoided answering the question.
The fact that you have your profile hidden, though, is irrelevant. | |
|
| |
| |
| |
| Filtering out Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex.
Posted: 7/26/2009 11:07:13 AM | If I can break in with a thought or two here: the general feel seems to be that the POF filters aren't behaving in a sophisticated enough fashion to be useful to some (perhaps many, myself included) users.
That's a given it seems and there are some gambits to get around the false feedback obtained in search results, many of them already mentioned. But I do have to agree with the first premiss of this thread, that the results being obtained are a huge time waster.
One example that arises frequently for me being a user seeking a long term relationship is the restriction on contacting other users who regard contacting IE members as tantamount to being instantly labeled a cheating, sex crazed freak. While the sentiment isn't without a sound foundation I have to wonder at the absurdity of this restriction as it is now.
Does any long-term or dating user really think for example that the matter of sex WON'T or SHOULDN'T come up between consenting adults? Hell if that were really the intent of this restriction then I would definitely not be interested in those users.
I can make no apology for being a sexual person and no one else should either.
I realize this is a free site but come on POF stop consulting with the lawyers and consult with the users a litlle more sensitively. Amen. | |
|
| Filtering out Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex.
Posted: 7/26/2009 1:32:17 PM | Honestly, I haven't read much of this thread as people tend to say stupid and off-topic things on such threads so this may have already been said.
How about a search option "Only those I am able to message," a catchall for any combination such as the "have the messaged someone looking for IE" filter, etc?
This would take up about the same resources as any other search option. Also, it wouldn't be bad for PR. First of all, it would be an option the user specifically took, probably after seeing the unfiltered results. Second of all, it is actually bad for PR to give a bunch of results that could never lead to anything. All that really matters in the regard of quantity of people is that PoF gets to say they have eleventy billion people or whatever.
Also, the intent of such filters (the original ones in question, not the proposed ones) is to filter people out people who are in it ONLY for the sex. This is quite reasonable on site such as this, especially for girls. The only decent argument against this filter is that it encourages someone to make multiple profiles. I can see one making one profile to be a hornball and another to messages those with whatever filters. | |
|
| Filtering out Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex.
Posted: 7/28/2009 6:17:46 PM | Did my post get deleted?!
Anyway, I was moaning about this filter in another thread until it got closed because it seems the ADMIN thinks I am blowing "hot air" about who I am contacting so I decided to "follow the rules"... This link helped...
http://www.plentyoffish.com/firstcontacthistory.aspx
I went thru the history and NO ONE I contacted is looking for an INTIMATE ENCOUNTER but I did notice that I suddenly was being blocked after I contacted someone who had OTHER RELATIONSHIP...
I then checked the history and YEP... I sent 4 emails to people who had OTHER RELATIONSHIP and now suddenly I am being blocked from contacting ANYONE who has this filter turned on. I just signed up less than 2 weeks ago so not like my message box is SUPER LONG so I can actually look at who I messaged and I just think this should be openly communicated....
I know there must be other guys like me who are searching for DATING and LONG TERM but then you get "options" at the top of people NEARBY but these do not necessarily "fall within" your search criteria. This was the mistake I made. I search for DATING and LONG TERM and then I clicked on some of the "options" along the top and it seems I contacted someone with OTHER RELATIONSHIP...
I hope others read this and realize that contacting these women will get you FLAGGED because ironically some of them have OTHER RELATIONSHIP but then turn ON this filter, which seems like a contradiction. Might be time for a new account? 
That's correct and if you continue to moan over multiple threads on the same subject matter, you will lose your posting rights - you made your point over various threads - limit your complaining to one  | |
|
| Filtering out Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex.
Posted: 7/28/2009 6:41:05 PM | ^i did see your previous post and it disappeared so i thought YOU deleted it. i guess not. maybe someone else did somehow. who knows.
i wasn't aware 'other relationship' could be considered as seeking sex or lumped together with 'intimate encounter.' if that's the case, shouldn't 'activity partner' also apply? activity can have multiple meanings just like the other two.
pof probably ain't gonna change nothing no time soon cuz they need the money just like any other free site. they need the page loads, time spent on the site, clicks, etc and filtering won't help that. it'd help people like all of us tremendously by saving us time and giving us better search results. but it's a free site and we gotta take the bad with the good.
personally, the filter hasn't really affected my success rate much cuz i very rarely send 1st contact emails anyway. even if the filter was removed and if i thought there might be a connection, i still probably wouldn't send anything cuz i've seen enough read/unread deleted emails and gotten enough non-replies. but that doesn't mean i wouldn't wanna see improvements to search capabilities and results and possibly give them a try.
CLOSED - Mail Settings: Why was my IE Filter Discussion Thread Closed? - Enough with the never ending circular discussions that lead nowhere - If need be, write to Admin. | |
|
Home
login 
