| |
| |
| Filtering out Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex.
Posted: 6/11/2009 3:17:12 PM | ^^^^What I'm getting at is that some people have tons of mail restrictions... and you read through their profile and only to find you don't live close enough or you're not in the age range or whatever.
And to me, people who have the restriction "Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex" are prudish and to an extent, controlling who I wish to contact.
I will contact who I want to. And if that was someone who was looking for IE, then so be it.
If anyone has a problem with that, then it's unlikely I want to date them in the first place.
They aren't interested in me and I'm not interested in them.
Hence, my desire to filter them out from my search results. | |
|
| |
| Filtering out Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex.
Posted: 6/12/2009 9:01:08 PM | i agree with zekestone. the existence of the 'must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex' option is silly in my opinion. y add 'or sex' to that? there is no 'looking for sex' option. how does anyone know y someone contacted a person looking for an intimate encounter? sure, it usually means theyre lookin for some tail but not always. there is no set definition for the term 'intimate encounter.' in general, mostly all of us know wut it means, but still...
for example, there's no 'must not have messaged users looking for an activity partner' or 'long term relationship' option or something along those lines. the available option is 'must not be looking for an activity partner.' the wording is fair with LOOKING FOR. there's also 'must not be looking for an intimate encounter.' again, fair. there's a counter for all options and a way to become eligible for messaging by changing your status.
since the option exists for users to filter out those who have MESSAGED those looking for an intimate encounter, there should b a fair and equal option for users to filter people with that option out of searches since we can't counter it. there is no other 'messaged' option other than intimate encounter. all the others, including it, are strictly 'looking for.' it should go both ways, not b a one way street.
if a person wants to restrict people, that's perfectly fine. but there should b a way for those of us that have been restricted due to this one particular option to filter them as we have been filtered. no other option has 'messaged' as a restriction. fair is fair. it should either b removed altogether or a countering option should exist. | |
|
| Filtering out Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex.
Posted: 6/13/2009 2:41:01 AM | I really don't see what the problem is if someone says they don't want to meet someone who's looking to shag a girl whose profile he spent 10 seconds looking at online. I agree that those who think with their**** probably would find it handier to have the option added, but I really don't think it's anything to get upset about.
zekestone, you use the word 'controlling' like it's a negative thing that someone wants to stop men on the internet bombarding them with messages along the line of "dam u sexy. wanna hook up?"
I agree with cowboy, just check the bottom first and move on. | |
|
| Filtering out Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex.
Posted: 6/13/2009 3:40:12 PM | ^^^^ the problem is that it gets irritating and wastes time when you get 5 people or more in a row and you're having to flick in and out of profiles because they have that option selected.
And girls still get the 'dam u sexy' messages regardless... They *DON'T EVER* get messages like that from me though... go figure, eh?
If I'm not interested in them and they're not interested in me, why wouldn't filtering them out of my searches be a good idea?
And yes... 'controlling' can be a negative thing... But anyway, why are YOU opposed to ME (and others) *not* having people with 'must not message IE' selected show up in our searches?
This has nothing to do with me or anyone else thinking with our d1cks or any other part of the body.
The fact of the matter is that there are some people who are prudes... and there are some who are not.
Selecting the 'must not have messaged IE' suggests a high likelihood of prudish attitudes... because they're effectively saying they're not interested in sexually liberal people.
And I'm a liberal person and am making no apologies for it.
And selecting that option does NOT say "they don't want to meet someone who's looking to shag a girl whose profile he spent 10 seconds looking at online".
It REALLY says "I don't want you talking to anyone who is looking for sex without a relationship because I don't agree with that. And since I don't agree with that, YOU are not allowed to agree with that either".
That is the NEGATIVE and passive-aggressive form of control. THAT says "Prude" to me. THAT is what I DON'T want to show up in my search list.
Spiral... get to know someone with passive-aggressive tendencies and you'll begin to understand what I mean. | |
|
| |
| Filtering out Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex.
Posted: 6/13/2009 6:55:50 PM | Well charmed, you've missed the point.
If you have "no idea" how this restriction is an indirect attempt at control, then re-read my last post until it sinks in... in particular the words:
"It REALLY says "I don't want you talking to anyone who is looking for sex without a relationship because I don't agree with that. And since I don't agree with that, YOU are not allowed to agree with that either".
That is the NEGATIVE and passive-aggressive form of control. THAT says "Prude" to me. THAT is what I DON'T want to show up in my search list."
The issue is not whether I want to contact you.
The issue is making search results better with less time wasting.
Are you afraid that the 'must not have messaged IE' flag can be made to cut both ways?
If you are, it would be completely irrational since you'll just get fewer *incompatible* people looking you up.
I don't understand the opposition to this idea.
It's not like I'm saying IE mail restriction flag ISN'T useful...
And yeah... if you have a problem with someone merely contacting someone else who was looking for an Intimate Encounter, then yes, in my view you are a prude to an extent.
If you don't like that perception of you, then change your mail settings if that's not how you really feel. | |
|
| Filtering out Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex.
Posted: 6/13/2009 7:40:28 PM |
"It REALLY says "I don't want you talking to anyone who is looking for sex without a relationship because I don't agree with that. And since I don't agree with that, YOU are not allowed to agree with that either".
Actually what it means is I don't want a man who is just looking for sex that has contacted a lady that is looking for sex to contact me... what you do with your time is your business.
Just like I don't want anyone that smokes to contact me either. I don't need their second hand smoke or the sink that goes along with it near me.
Or any married men contacting me either cause I don't want a cheater to be involved with me...
So if some how not wanting anyone looking for just a hook up or having causal sex me makes me a controlling person and a prude your in your books so be it. I can live with that...funny the last time I looked this was 2009 we have Aids that can kill you, herpes the gift that keeps on giving, hep C, Syphilis and many other sexually transmitted diseases that can cause sterility.
Ya I am controlling about who is in my life... cause I happen to enjoy it and respect myself. Nope I am really good with that. Keep posting your rebuttal it just keeps showing up on your profile... and shows the kind of person you really are.
Enjoy your evening.
~Charmed~ | |
|
| Filtering out Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex.
Posted: 6/13/2009 8:17:24 PM |
Actually what it means is I don't want a man who is just looking for sex that has contacted a lady that is looking for sex to contact me... what you do with your time is your business.
And as a result, by checking that flag, you're making my business your business indirectly.
Just like I don't want anyone that smokes to contact me either. I don't need their second hand smoke or the sink that goes along with it near me.
Yeah but you're not blocking them if they ever contacted someone who smokes, are you?
So if some how not wanting anyone looking for just a hook up or having causal sex me makes me a controlling person and a prude your in your books so be it. I can live with that...funny the last time I looked this was 2009 we have Aids that can kill you, herpes the gift that keeps on giving, hep C, Syphilis and many other sexually transmitted diseases that can cause sterility.
Ooohh.... playing the irrational-culture-of-fear card are we? So essentially the position you are Insinuating is that someone who merely *contacts* someone who says they're looking for IE is gonna die of Aids, eh? Puuulllleeeaassse....
Or any married men contacting me either cause I don't want a cheater to be involved with me...
Yep... and another insult... this one insinuating that I'm a liar about being separated. Unfortunately for you, I'm really good at identifying and debunking insinuations... AND I don't hide anything from anybody.
FYI... I typically use my HOME number when contacting people... Not all splits are high-drama like what is only reported in the media... Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it isn't reality.
Keep posting your rebuttal it just keeps showing up on your profile... and shows the kind of person you really are.
And that, my dear, cuts both ways. YOU are perfect proof why adding the filter option I propose would be VERY useful and would make this site better.
And you clearly missed the part where I said that I'm Liberal and am not making any apologies for it.
The person I am is Openly Liberal and I don't let myself be swayed by ridiculous insinuations and peer pressure.
And another truth that I see in your words is that clearly YOU don't want to be on MY search result list. Nor do I want YOU on my search list.
So would it be fair to say that you AGREE that having such a filter would be useful?
Are you starting to see my point? | |
|
| Filtering out Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex.
Posted: 6/13/2009 8:54:55 PM |
Selecting the 'must not have messaged IE' suggests a high likelihood of prudish attitudes... because they're effectively saying they're not interested in sexually liberal people.
False premise.
At the same time, you might see that from '~charmed's~' point of view, the filter has been effective even outside the intent of the setting.
The issue is making search results better with less time wasting.
Agreed . . in principal at least, but not wholeheartedly.
I guess in principal it's possible to implement enough criteria so that no desirable fish escapes the net, but the existing criteria seems to be adequate for most purposes. So you are spending time, not wasting it.
Think of it like this: The site is called 'Plentyoffish'.
The idea is to fish.
Some may argue that any type of fishing is a waste of time.
What you're effectively asking is for the system to tell you precisely where a nice fish resides so you only have to lower your bait into the water as opposed to casting it upon the wider part of the lake. The problem then arises that you miss a damn nice fish that really isn't a prude after all . . and she got caught up as a false positive in your elaborate search.
Bottom line: Fishing is more about art and probably less about precision.
I'm with 'cowboy'. One click will get you to the bottom of a profile to find out if you qualify. | |
|
| Filtering out Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex.
Posted: 6/13/2009 9:48:51 PM |
And another truth that I see in your words is that clearly YOU don't want to be on MY search result list. Nor do I want YOU on my search list.
zeke makes another good point. people like charmed dont want people like zeke to contact her. so zeke doesnt want charmed appearing in his searches. likewise, charmed shouldnt want zeke to appear in her searches. yet, zeke will appear in charmed's searches and charmed can contact zeke (if she hasnt messaged any1 looking for IE). but zeke, under no circumstances can contact charmed.
so again, it would b fair for those with the MESSAGED filter checked to not hav people who've contacted those looking for IE to appear in searches. they don't want us contacting them, so y should we appear? also, if they don't want us contacting them, then y should they b able to contact us? there should b an autoblock for those with the MESSAGED filter checked off. they shouldnt b able to contact us and we shouldnt appear in their searches since we cant contact them and they shouldn't appear in our searches. that should b how this thing works. as it stands, its one-sided.
i dont think its a control issue. i dont think its prudish. the wording is just wrong. OR SEX shouldnt b there cuz there is no LOOKING FOR SEX option. the script/code can b changed to accomodate both sides. that way, regardless of wording, things remain fair. to me, that's the key in my opinion.
charmed's words speak volumes about her mentality and attitude. a bit divisive n even scornful and chastising. in zeke's case, she's representative of the type of chick he doesn't wanna contact n doesnt want appearing in his searches. first, cuz of the MESSAGED restriction, second cuz of the attitude displayed here in this thread. it helps to keep an open mind.
Yeah but you're not blocking them if they ever contacted someone who smokes, are you?
exactly! it boils down to wording and script/code. it couldn't b that hard to implement. matter of fact, its not. mayb a mod would like 2 chime in wit some logical reasons, rather than short easy answers, as to y a reverse filter and enhanced search option as it relates to this issue hasn't been developed or considered? | |
|
| |
| Filtering out Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex.
Posted: 6/14/2009 4:12:08 AM |
Yep... and another insult... this one insinuating that I'm a liar about being separated. Unfortunately for you, I'm really good at identifying and debunking insinuations... AND I don't hide anything from anybody.
FYI... I typically use my HOME number when contacting people... Not all splits are high-drama like what is only reported in the media... Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it isn't reality.
The way this filter works is that it filters out people that have Married, Living together or undecided... has nothing to do with separated.
I did not mention anything about you personally. You must be very sensitive about this, many ladies view this as married (legally you are but without the responsibilities). It was just a filter I pulled out off my profile I could have used the must not use drugs...
And no I don't think my concern about Aids in irrational.
You know I agree with you... I think there should be a filter for people not wanting to contact people like me that have the no IE filter... that would be fine with me. Include an opposite one for all the filters I'm fine with that....
~Charmed~ | |
|
| Filtering out Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex.
Posted: 6/14/2009 8:43:18 AM | Faux Pa,
That link you cited has nothing to do with what I'm suggesting.
That link you cited has to do with removing people from future search results... with no specific flag to reference. That thread also has nothing to do with filtering people with the 'must not have contacted IE' flag.
What I'm suggesting is much more simple. | |
|
| Filtering out Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex.
Posted: 6/14/2009 11:24:32 AM |
I think there should be a filter for people not wanting to contact people like me that have the no IE filter... that would be fine with me.
its not dat we dont want to. its dat we cant. since we cant, automatically we wont want to. on the flip side, u shouldnt b able to contact us either. kinda like if someone doesn't fit into the mail settings restrictions, they'll get a message saying so when they try to send a message. by u having the IE filter checked, u wont hav us contact u and u cant contact us.
Include an opposite one for all the filters I'm fine with that....
this would b a good start.
. . . yet, zeke will appear in charmed's searches and charmed can contact zeke (if she hasnt messaged any1 looking for IE). but zeke, under no circumstances can contact charmed.
Don't think so.
It looks to me like there's no filters on either side that would restrict contact . .
i guess i said dat wrong. currently, both could appear in each others searches. but since charmed has the IE filter enabled n zeke doesn't, charmed can still make first contact with zeke but he can't with her. dats wut i meant. since he can't with her, she shouldnt b able to with him.
faux pa,
i checked dat link n read wut u suggested. the site has certainly grown since that thread started. i c a lot of ideas dat hav been implemented n i suppose they failed cuz they're not being used anymore. adding totally new features is one thing. fixing/updating already existing features (like a reverse IE filter) is another. | |
|
| Filtering out Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex.
Posted: 6/15/2009 5:38:14 AM |
That link you cited has nothing to do with what I'm suggesting.
Apologies Zeke. You're right and I stand corrected.
I guess I'll have to re-group back at my fishing analogy.
But I do wonder if some of the computing resource issues Admin talked about would be applicable to this also.
I'm no DB expert and not sure of how some multiple cross-indexing type search might impact.
its not dat we dont want to. its dat we cant. since we cant, automatically we wont want to. on the flip side, u shouldnt b able to contact us either. kinda like if someone doesn't fit into the mail settings restrictions, they'll get a message saying so when they try to send a message. by u having the IE filter checked, u wont hav us contact u and u cant contact us.
i guess i said dat wrong. currently, both could appear in each others searches. but since charmed has the IE filter enabled n zeke doesn't, charmed can still make first contact with zeke but he can't with her. dats wut i meant. since he can't with her, she shouldnt b able to with him.
Kow626,
Are we to presume that both yourself and the OP have tripped the IE filter?
This was not made absolutely crystal clear up front and I've deliberately avoided the assumption.
As such, my previous responses were based on the merit of a principled suggestion.
If the motivation for the suggestion is based on the disadvantage of having tripped the IE filter, I'd suggest the merit has taken a major hit. | |
|
| Filtering out Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex.
Posted: 6/15/2009 7:50:33 AM | It appears you are doing things backwards to achieve your end goal – wouldn't it be much easier to search for profiles under Intimate Encounters? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe that's the reason that category is there; hence your needs/concerns have already been taken care of by the creator of POF.
My impression on your post is more about blaming and attempting to control matters; skew things towards a self-serving objective to support your imagined loophole/oversight. | |
|
| Filtering out Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex.
Posted: 6/15/2009 8:48:09 AM |
Are we to presume that both yourself and the OP have tripped the IE filter?
the only trip to the IE filter is for someone who has selected they dont want people who've messaged those looking for IE to contact u first. once dat happens, u can xchange emails all the time, but only wit dat person regardless of if they hav the IE filter selected.
but like i've been saying, if they dont want people who've messaged those looking for IE contacting them, shouldn't they not b allowed to message those dat hav? they hav no way of knowing if someone has contacted a person looking for IE, but the same way I message them and get an autoblock, the same should happen to them.
on top of that, the other suggestion is to have a search selection to remove those who have the IE filter selected from searches (since we cant contact them) and to remove those that have messaged those looking for IE.
the best solution is to just get rid of the IE filter, period. IE is a legit option just like all the others and shouldn't b targeted, unless all the rest will have a MESSAGED filter too. | |
|
| Filtering out Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex.
Posted: 6/15/2009 8:54:06 AM | The actual way to trip the filter is to have made first contact with a person looking for IE. Also it is not just one contact it is a history of contacts.
So once you have established a history of contacting people looking for IE you can no longer contact a person like me who is using the filter.
http://forums.plentyoffish.com/datingposts5269823.aspx
~Charmed~ | |
|
| Filtering out Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex.
Posted: 6/15/2009 9:24:23 AM | Ispeakthetruth... of course offering a suggestion that makes my life easier with searching is self-serving.
It causes me to waste less time by having better search results.
And as for only looking for profiles with Intimate Encounters... well you've missed the point.
Intimate Encounters isn't what I'm specifically looking for. My approach to dating in general is more along the lines of "I know what I'm NOT looking for"... and one of the things I'm NOT looking for are people who have the "must not have messaged IE" flag selected.
I simply don't want someone who has prudish tendencies. That does NOT mean I want sex with no relationship. And I believe that people who select that flag are more likely to have prudish and possibly passive-aggressive tendencies.
AAANNND... I'm not blaming anyone for having restrictions on their account. On the contrary... I think it's useful.
But it can be made even more useful.
And since the flag is already there and in use, why not enhance the search functionality by using that flag that's already there?
My goal with this thread is to suggest an enhancement to the site that I think would make the site better and more useful to all.
It's not like I'm saying it should be for me and nobody else and I'm not blaming anybody for choosing to have restrictions. After all, did you ever see me say that this flag isn't useful?
And charmed... once again you've missed the point.
Whether one thing or another trips up the filter or not is irrelevant to what I'm suggesting. If I don't want people in my search results who have selected that flag, why do I care about *what* trips up that flag?
| |
|
| Filtering out Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex.
Posted: 6/15/2009 9:25:39 AM |
but like i've been saying, if they dont want people who've messaged those looking for IE contacting them, shouldn't they not b allowed to message those dat hav?
So your suggesting that a completely innocent fish should be automatically penalised for your messaging habits?
on top of that, the other suggestion is to have a search selection to remove those who have the IE filter selected from searches (since we cant contact them) and to remove those that have messaged those looking for IE.
You mean so that it make it easier to target and work on the remaining ~15% of available fish?
the best solution is to just get rid of the IE filter, period. IE is a legit option just like all the others and shouldn't b targeted, unless all the rest will have a MESSAGED filter too.
Yes, IE is a legitimate pursuit and it's equally legitimate for a user to decide they don't want to be contacted by IE seeking members . . or married members . . or members that smoke . . same as members that do drugs . . same as members that don't have a pic.
See where this is going? | |
|
| Filtering out Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex.
Posted: 6/15/2009 9:45:37 AM | [Quote] I simply don't want someone who has prudish tendencies. That does NOT mean I want sex with no relationship. And I believe that people who select that flag are more likely to have prudish and possibly passive-aggressive tendencies.[Quote]
On the same token, people who have that IE filter aren't saying they want a relationship with NO sex either...that would be too presumptuous and without merit.
People come from all backgrounds, what one thinks is prudish...another may not – that's why we have opinions and preferences. I tend to see people with the IE filter not as prudish but persons of discerning tastes, values and morals – higher standards they seek in a partner/SO.... Is that very wrong? The word "prudish" comes across very negative...how about I use the word "LOOSE" to describe people of the opposite stance? It fits the bill.
sheesh! | |
|
| Filtering out Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex.
Posted: 6/15/2009 10:08:36 AM |
Yes, IE is a legitimate pursuit and it's equally legitimate for a user to decide they don't want to be contacted by IE seeking members . . or married members . . or members that smoke . . same as members that do drugs . . same as members that don't have a pic.
See where this is going?
the diff is in the wording. MESSAGED v. LOOKING FOR. you can choose the filter that you dont want someone LOOKING FOR an activity partner contacting you. you can't choose the filter that you dont want someone who's MESSAGED people looking for an activity partner contacting you cuz it doesnt exist.
u can filter out smokers n dopeheads from contacting u but not those that have MESSAGED smokers n dopeheads
do u see the diff?
So your suggesting that a completely innocent fish should be automatically penalised for your messaging habits?
im saying if they're not interested in people contacting them who've messaged those looking for IE, the system should hav a filter to restrict them from contacting those that hav. its contradictory to the system and the user.
i cant contact u cuz i did sumthin u dont like. yet u can contact me even though i did the very thing u say u dont like. makes no sense. | |
|
Home
login 
