| email suggestion to save time and aggravation for all parties
Posted: 1/21/2006 2:12:42 AM | | By adding stats on mailings, you end up polarizing the membership. People want someone or something to blame for their lack of success, when people are in doubt they will keep trying. When someone gets no responses and see a low reply rating they will assume that no one on this site answers email and they will leave. Ie by just seeing this number it pisses off people and causes them to leave. Also the message history shows if someone has read your message etc. Many women on the site will check out your profile before they read your letter, if your profile "sucks", has no picture etc they will NOT open your letter. They do this because many people email them demanding to know why they didn't get a response, and only a read deleted. | |
|
| email suggestion to save time and aggravation for all parties
Posted: 1/21/2006 4:28:56 AM | Many women on the site will check out your profile before they read your letter, if your profile "sucks", has no picture etc they will NOT open your letter. They do this because many people email them demanding to know why they didn't get a response, and only a read deleted.
Well, it's your site and you probably know best what will work and what will not. The only thing that bothers me is that so many assume that all these emails are getting ignored because the senders' profiles "suck" or they are sending lousy letters, etc. I suppose that everyone would have their personal opinion about whether a profile "sucks" or not. I don't think mine, for instance, sucks. Also, I've taken the time to write thoughtful letters tailored to the individuals, addressing common interests, etc, AFTER having read their profiles. None of these women would be in any way "out of my league" if I were to meet them in person.
The best response rate I've managed is probably less than twenty percent. From what I hear around here, I'm probably doing well compared to a lot of guys -- and many of these guys are quite articulate and polite in the forums so one can assume that their letters are similarly decent. I've had the odd lady write back and say she was dating someone else or "thanks but I don't think we'd be a match" or something to that effect. Still, about 80% of the letters I sent were read/deleted with no response at all. Also, I've had women write an initial letter to me -- this has happened at least four times -- saying they'd like to chat. I wrote back and said "Sure, I looked at your profile. You seem like an interesting and attractive lady. Let's chat." Then they just disappeared. What is a person to make of all this? One has to conclude that all kinds of people are just diddling around here. Those are the kind of people that I guess we're hoping to weed out somehow before we waste our time on them.
It may be true that in many cases "people want someone or something to blame for their lack of success". Nevertheless that's all too easy to say and it seems that all of you are singing the same tune in that regard. It's also true that because this is the internet and people are "anonymous" and not accountable in any way for their actions here, they tend to act far more rudely and irresponsibly than they would in "real life". Our suggestion was intended to, in a way bring this venue closer to real life by injecting some accountability and fair warning for those who do write decent letters but don't like wasting them on such people.
Granted, statistics can be misread; still, noone has really answered the question as to why these people who are receiving a deluge of email -- according to them at least -- should really care if they did not have a high response rating. One would think that they would welcome anything that would reduce the flow of unsolicited email to their bursting inboxes. And, as already discussed, there is no reason that they could not themselves take the initiative to contact people they are interested in (but who, presumably, would hesitate to write because of their low response rate). Are they afraid that they would be ignored themselves? Are they afraid that a low response rating would make them appear rude -- even though they generally insist that there is nothing rude about not answering a polite letter? Either way, something doesn't ring true about their protests and it seems that these people want to have their cake and eat it too.
Having said all this, I'll drop the issue. I appreciate you taking the time to address it. As I said, this is your site and you probably know better than I what is practical and what is not.
Thanks for a site that -- no matter what -- is far and away the best of its kind that I have ever seen. | |
|
| |
| email suggestion to save time and aggravation for all parties
Posted: 1/21/2006 5:42:16 PM |
Deja News was swallowed up by Google, still works for Usenet too.....
(lacking moderation, usenet has turned into a cesspool of spammers, scammers, trolls, and ass-clowns)
More's the pity that it's become a toxic waste dump-- I've used to think Usenet was one of the most stunning human achievements of the last century. It gave the common man a voice that used to be reserved for those who bought ink by the drum. Too bad so many wasted their free speech nickel on bile. :::sighs:::
But never did it allow you to access anybody's "replied to" email %, nor can you access email reply % on eBay... Only issues involving "business" conducted AFTER completed auctions (where there IS risk involved). Hmmmm... what would this really be analogous to, on POF????
I was thinking not so much risk, but more an index of an account holder's electronic bonhomie. Or looked at in an Ebay context, are they putting a reserve price on their interaction that is impossibly high for the people the from whom their profile appears to be soliciting 'bids'?
There are two choices currently,
- adapt to others wants and needs
- expect them to adapt to yours.
Which do you think would work better on a dating site?
Expediency usually wins that little contest, of course, but I'm stubborn; especially so if the expedient choice is trying to herd me where I won't go :) I'll always pick choice three, even if I have to invent it myself.
I have another modest proposal in this same vein, a reverse logic implementation of sorts on the original idea. What if this were something for which an account holder could 'opt in'? A gold star of sorts that one, if one wished, could put in their profile (and for which a POF 'bot could vouch) showing they have a very low 'unread/deleted' history? Something to which they could point and say, "See, it doesn't take a Coast Gaurd cutter to break the ice with me"?
-Kerry O. | |
|
| email suggestion to save time and aggravation for all parties
Posted: 1/21/2006 8:20:31 PM | More's the pity that it's become a toxic waste dump-- I've used to think Usenet was one of the most stunning human achievements of the last century.
A decade has passed ... lol ... after the BBS slid over into what became USENET.
Then, only savy and knowledgeable Computer Users were able to interact amongst each other.
The Debut of the 'Outlook Express NewsReader' with IE 4 Beta back in 1997 also kicked off the ingression of Trolls and other Idiots unabatedly overrunning USENET which has sent the 'Old Fort' packing, leaving nothing more than a degenerate 'Ghetto' and a monitoring skeleton FAQ Crew in its place.
USENET Exodus went over 4 - 5 years ago, now the Neighbourhood ain't even faintly the same.
Since these Fora are moderated, this ain't gonna happen here. | |
|
| email suggestion to save time and aggravation for all parties
Posted: 1/22/2006 4:35:23 AM |
I have another modest proposal in this same vein, a reverse logic implementation of sorts on the original idea. What if this were something for which an account holder could 'opt in'? A gold star of sorts that one, if one wished, could put in their profile (and for which a POF 'bot could vouch) showing they have a very low 'unread/deleted' history? Something to which they could point and say, "See, it doesn't take a Coast Gaurd cutter to break the ice with me"?
Good idea, Kerry. Everyone's privacy is protected that way. Who could object to such a feature if it was optional? What do you think, Admin? | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 31 | |
| email suggestion to save time and aggravation for all parties
Posted: 1/22/2006 9:16:41 AM | There's nothing stopping people from putting that in their profile.
Personally (for a few different reasons), I don't think it warrants the time spent coding it.
Like the "nice guys finish last", "does size matter", "why do guys/gals lie" threads.
The "unanswered email" threads will always be with us, ...until they to, are spotted/reported; then deleted. | |
|
| email suggestion to save time and aggravation for all parties
Posted: 1/22/2006 1:48:05 PM | I think what we are all skirting around is, how to put a number whether or not you will get a response. Well you can't. I wish you could. but you can't there are far far too many variable to account for.
the only thing you can hope for is that who you contact has the same regards to others feelings as you do.
I haven't been on POF long, but I am on match and I actually subscribe. and yes it really pis*es me off to be ignored. kinda makes one wonder if his profile is flawed or if he is just flat out ugly .
But gentlemen and (ladies) we are dealing with the Internet. where one can be just as cold and heartles in one area and nice and sweet in other areas.and never have to pay any consiquences and of course we must remember one persons ignore is another persons too busy to respond or even get on the internet.
I am the type person that if you think I'm too skinny or fat or ugly or you think I might have bad breath, tell me, but I remind myself this is the internet. a person may be reluctant to reply negatively but with one click can ignore the problem. it dosen't solve the problem but there you go.
back on subject here: you can't place a number on the human equation it will never work. the Idea is good but there are to many ramifications should it actually happen. | |
|
| |
| |
| |
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 36 | |
| email suggestion to save time and aggravation for all parties
Posted: 1/23/2006 2:54:29 PM |
Someone mentioned that there is a stat telling you when a person has been active here.
Only shows on forum posts under a user's avatar.
<<<<<<<<<<<<
It was another one of those stats that was tried, then taken off profiles due to it's misinterperatation. | |
|
| email suggestion to save time and aggravation for all parties
Posted: 1/23/2006 5:15:29 PM | it is a good idea for a test i suppose.
Although who cares if men put up their response rates to emails? Only non popular women would want to put up their response rates. The whole email thing is very tricky, the best way to combat it is to give people very specific matches. | |
|
| email suggestion to save time and aggravation for all parties
Posted: 1/23/2006 8:00:58 PM |
"Someone mentioned that there is a stat telling you when a person has been active here."
Only shows on forum posts under a user's avatar.
<<<<<<<<<<<<
It was another one of those stats that was tried, then taken off profiles due to it's misinterperatation.
Late ... What misinterpretation could there be of that stat? Every other dating site that I've ever been on has such a stat -- not that you should just because they do -- but still there's a good reason that they have it. If you see that a person hasn't been on the site in three months, you can assume they have either found someone else (is that the misinterpretation?) or that they rarely if ever come here in any case. Why would you waste time writing them a thoughtful letter that they are unlikely to even see for months? If people are concerned about their inactivity being misinterpreted, they can easily fix that just by logging in occasionally. Otherwise, what is their profile doing here other than wasting everyone else's time?
it is a good idea for a test i suppose.
Although who cares if men put up their response rates to emails? Only non popular women would want to put up their response rates. The whole email thing is very tricky, the best way to combat it is to give people very specific matches.
Admin ... Agreed, given the fact that men are less likely to ignore emails than women because they apparently get a lot less of them, some people might not care about this rate being put up. On the other hand, no doubt there are men who do the same thing and some women might appreciate the info. Also, just like women, men could opt out of the frequency response rate stat if they don't want it there. And even if it were true -- which I don't necessarily concede -- that "only non popular women would want to put up their response rates", then so be it. Those non popular women might get some more mail and become more popular; what's wrong with that? If it's an optional feature, people could opt out of it whenever they didn't feel it was desirable for them to use.
"Specific matches" are often very hard to determine in romantic relationships. There are all kinds of reasons for this -- such as:
People might seem to have very few common interests yet make great couples nevertheless -- the old "opposites attract" scenario.
A person might say I'm looking for someone between the ages of 30 - 40. Then they meet someone who is 29 or 41 and fall in love.
There's no way to quantify looks. I don't know how many times I've been "matched" to people --- by some computer program that determined this according to stats such as height, age, etc --- that I wouldn't look twice at.
Often, profiles give so little information that there isn't much to go on when trying to determine whether someone is a match. | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 39 | |
| email suggestion to save time and aggravation for all parties
Posted: 1/23/2006 8:03:20 PM | Late ... What misinterpretation could there be of that stat?
The reason Admin disgarded this feature was that too many people were getting asked why they had been here so long without finding anybody as in, "something must be wrong with you", etc.
Only non popular women would want to put up their response rates.
Stands to reason
The whole email thing is very tricky,
So we've seen by things that work, and things that are tried and discarded because they offer more problems than they do solutions.
the best way to combat it is to give people very specific matches.
Which is why more "hints" on "Edit Profile" (re: "Include your likes/dislikes, aspirations, the type of person you'd like to meet etc" ) and, "Send Mail" pages, (re: "Change the default subject line on your emails if you expect responses!") get right to the heart of the matter - the person's profile, and the mail they send.
If anything is to be added to profiles, it's a more pro-active strategy to do something positive without affecting things to do with what many perceive as issues of "privacy"
ie: Links on "Send Mail" and "Edit Profile" to:
Profile Writing Tips
Online Dating Guide for Men: Part One
Online Dating Guide for GALS: Part One
| |
|
| |
| |
| |
| email suggestion to save time and aggravation for all parties
Posted: 1/23/2006 10:16:41 PM | Admin ... with all due respect, I don't think that displaying more or different matches would significantly help in this area.
It's important to me that you understand where I am coming from here. Therefore, I'd like to preface this statement by reiterating my very sincere opinion that this is by far the best online dating site that I have ever seen. I am not saying this to butter your bread or polish your apple. It is said with absolute sincerity. I hardly bother with the other sites anymore and as soon as I get around to it, I will probably remove my profiles from them. I find them to be virtually useless when one considers the time and money spent on them versus the actual results. Here -- as several have pointed out, unnecessarily really -- at least it doesn't cost you any money to be ignored on a regular basis. In addition to that, a feature like the forums is a brilliant and enjoyable addition to a dating site. It's probably the most effective means of getting people together that you have.
I believe that you are not satisfied with having the best online dating site there is. Let's face it; you saw a need and you filled it and -- from what I can see -- for the most part you have done it wisely and well. You saw that the average dating site was not only ineffective for the majority of people but also costly and, in many cases, an outright scam. Your site is clearly on the cutting edge of online dating systems, a legitimate pioneer and breaker of new ground. But I believe that you would prefer your site to be not just better than the competition -- which, at this stage, is pretty weak -- but the very best that it can possibly be, ie, the most effective that it can possibly be in terms of helping people to make good romantic connections.
I believe that, in general, the potential of online dating services has barely been tapped. There are some success stories, yes; one could hardly say that they are never effective. Nevertheless, having talked to numerous others, read numerous opinions from other members in forum threads and via private emails, and considering my own experience, I don't think it's unfair or inaccurate to say that the "failure rate" and the "dissatisfaction rate" are considerably higher than the success rate.
One of the primary reasons that the internet is often so unsatisfactory as an effective and enjoyable means of getting people together is -- as you no doubt know -- the fact that there is little or no "accountability" here. The "anonymity factor" makes all kinds of deception and strange behaviour possible. Married people pose as single. People send emails and other messages that they would never send if they were not shielded by the anonymity and lack of accountability that they enjoy in the wild west fantasy world that the internet often is. Consequently, the world of internet dating and romance is often as far removed from the "real world" as it could possibly be. Since, presumably, most users of your service are hoping to make connections in the "real world", this seems to be a rather lamentable truth.
Useful stats such as those we are suggesting here -- that can be opted into, not crammed down anyone's throats -- would help to bring the online dating experience one step closer to the "real world" and would inject a measure of accountability that many would appreciate. I humbly suggest that, at the very least, the addition of these optional statistical features holds enough potential to make the internet dating experience more enjoyable and more rewarding for many that it deserves a trial at least -- as, gratefully, you seem to be considering.
Those who prefer not to reveal such information or accept this form of accountability would be free to opt out. I can anticipate the objections of those who, for whatever reasons, seem so adamantly opposed to our suggestions here. I expect they will say something to the effect of: "people who opt out of these features will be considered guilty by omission, people will misinterpret the stats, etc ..." In the first place, the possibility of misinterpretations could be mitigated somewhat by disclaimers, advice re "reading of stats", etc. Secondly, is it really your responsibility to worry about such possible misinterpretations of an optional statistical feature? As for the objection that people will post new profiles, etc, to get around such a feature, that is hardly a valid reason to not even try it. People find ways to circumvent every system and every law known to man. Certainly, we try to make them as foolproof and as just as we can, knowing that there will always be loopholes for the abusers to slip through. We do not abandon all systems and all laws on that account.
So -- this is my earnest plea to you to give some serious consideration to the suggestions made. Thanks for your time and interest and, again, thank you for the best online dating site that I have ever participated in. If I can play a small part in helping it to go from "good to great", I would be very pleased.
Best Regards
Ron Hughes | |
|
| email suggestion to save time and aggravation for all parties
Posted: 1/24/2006 7:00:20 PM |
There's nothing stopping people from putting that in their profile.
I'd been thinking along those lines over the weekend, but had this suspicion that somehow, doing that could run one afoul of Terms of Service if it weren't worded just so. Sure, I know one couldn't name names in one's profile, but for those of us in more sparsely populated areas with fewer matches where the 'small town' scenario comes into play (read: everyone knows everyone's business), people might get upset by thinking they were being accused by inference. Judging by how much light and heat has come from some quarters about the email stats, I don't think such an inference would be taken kindly.
-Kerry O. | |
|
| email suggestion to save time and aggravation for all parties
Posted: 1/24/2006 7:12:14 PM |
it is a good idea for a test i suppose.
It seemed worth lobbying for to me. If it would help in any small measure to allow people who don't get a lot of responses to dial into better odds, target their audience more accurately and wouldn't be too tedious to code, it could help some of the people some of the time.
Although who cares if men put up their response rates to emails? Only non popular women would want to put up their response rates. The whole email thing is very tricky, the best way to combat it is to give people very specific matches.
Yeabut... even the non populars are eyeballs for the ads that make this all possible. :) And who knows, this experiment might fail, but it *could* fail in a way that puts you onto a better idea to better serve a segment of the audience that sometimes feels left out. And that's almost always a win-win scenario.
-Kerry O. | |
|
| |
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 47 | |
| email suggestion to save time and aggravation for all parties
Posted: 1/24/2006 10:28:55 PM | Re-route some to those who don't get any?
If all these guys not getting replies are sending emails to the same ladies who are getting a million a day....
Maybe a limit on new contacts?
Let the user pick?
If they cap it at 30......
BUT, ....what if the first 30 are variations on "UR kewt wat RU weering, do U like tatoos I hav a gr8 1 on my but"?
309?
Yikes!
 | |
|
PA!GE®
|
Joined: 11/9/2005
Msg: 48 | |
| |
Home
login 
