Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Dating Experiences  > Profile errors, height, values, and the kitchen sink.      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 norwegianguy456
Joined: 6/11/2015
Msg: 326
view profile
History
Profile errors, height, values, and the kitchen sink.Page 14 of 18    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18)

Because theoretically, anyone should be able to get a date with his or her equivalent, right?

To be able to find someone in their League, yes. Not necessarily the type they more desire. A guy could have a thing for foreign Asian gals who couldn't speak a lick of English, and the ones he chases wouldn't be out of his league, but he could be coming up goose-egg all the time because they're not into his type. But zooming out and looking at everyone in your league, yeah, you should be able to land one, with the the right effort (marketing/approach).

The short guys messaging the tall women. The fat guys messaging the thin women. The high school drop-outs messaging the Ph.Ds. The janitors messaging the attorneys. The couch potatoes messaging the cross-fitters. The 60-year-olds messaging the 20-year-olds (well, before the maximum age contact limits). UNREALISTIC EXPECTATIONS

How about the short guys messaging short women? Is that so unrealistic?

Maybe it’s my messages, maybe it’s my profile, maybe it’s my pics. Then why do I get responses from and (previously) unsolicited messages from women who are absolutely nothing like me (and I’m not talking about in the supermodel direction from me either)?

Why do some women have pictures of themselves in lingerie laying out on their bed, spread eagle licking their lips in many different positions -- yet go on in their profile about how they're not looking for sex and wants a real man for a real relationship? It's POF, man! You're thinking too much about it. I suffer from the same problem. Like my prize-money concept. When offered $100 million to land a nice date from online, why would one's results suddenly be different for the better? Because you're thinking less, and just "doing". As Yoda once said, "Just do it" (then he put on sneakers). ;)

maybe, just maybe... a person’s “equivalent” is not necessarily remotely similar to that person

Yeah, it's about the league they're in. There can be a type mis-match, even though one is not out of the other's league. Ya gotta be cognizant of that.

I will readily admit: I am actually too dumb to figure that one out. I don’t have any idea what my equivalent woman is.

You boast about all your experience and how you Know what does and doesn't work, and you aren't "literate" in this very key part of it all? That's GREAT news, actually. You have a door that's never really been aimed at.

Any of you can tell me right here in this thread and end my anguish over this matter.

I can...

If you think it’s like porn and you can’t define it

OH, I can define some porn for ya. In grand detail. But that's a whole other topic...

just do a search of women in Tampa and send me an email with equivalent females for me to contact

I personally would, but I'm not female according to your settings. Of course, I would say reboot and make a new profile, and At Least rotate the pics (and disclude 1 or 2).
 CrookCatcher
Joined: 7/14/2014
Msg: 327
Profile errors, height, values, and the kitchen sink.
Posted: 8/11/2015 2:33:04 PM

But there are quite a few men on here, including Crook and Clooney, who claim they get so many first contact emails from “acceptable” women that they never have to make first contact themselves and often end up on multiple dates a week without initiating at all. What’s the difference between them and me?


Just happened to catch this...

Hawking, I would have to guess for me it's just the age bracket I'm in.

I had never even heard of POF prior to my 57th year. Never used a dating site period, prior to that, didn't have to. I was talking with a friend of mine one day and she mentioned a first meet she was going to that evening. I asked what that was about and she explained it. Well she suggested I make a profile and expand my prospect area so I did. I started checking the search I put in and came across an attractive woman with a similar background etc. I messaged her, did'nt get a response initially and the next day there was a message. Having positive expectations I opened that jewel and......whuutt!? No Thanks.

I messaged another and bingo .....No Thanks.

I let it get to the point where I was changing the profile contents etc. on a continuous basis...lol... all for naught.

Then it occurred to me I was attempting to change me to fit them, I never had to do that in real life, why was it necessary here?

So I just stopped messaging. Though I do mention my career in my profile about me, I change my profile profession often to just have fun with it. Last week or so I was a short order cook at Joe's Diner, this week I'm a retired mystery shopper.

I do get a lot of messages when the profile is up and that's why it's hidden. I could date seven days a week, I don't want to. That's not what I'm looking for. My search is for one...and only one. She may or may not be on here, and I'm certainly not expecting her to be. IRL is where she's probably at.....the journey continues. Good luck to you. :)
 adventurejoe70
Joined: 3/1/2013
Msg: 328
view profile
History
Profile errors, height, values, and the kitchen sink.
Posted: 8/11/2015 2:38:03 PM

Most women in these forums claim the primary reason for consistent male failure is always overshooting his equivalent. The short guys messaging the tall women. The fat guys messaging the thin women. The high school drop-outs messaging the Ph.Ds. The janitors messaging the attorneys. The couch potatoes messaging the cross-fitters. The 60-year-olds messaging the 20-year-olds (well, before the maximum age contact limits). UNREALISTIC EXPECTATIONS, clogging up the system with worthless messages.


Ah I see! :)...without trying to downplay any ones else's opinion, I will have to inform you that "forum women's claims" are in NO way going to determine your dating success or failure. If that was true, me, IG, and Pig would have been imprisoned long ago for not complying with the obligatory "smiling pics" requirement.

Again, real good pre-screening matching in OLD seems to NOT be the norm. I can write someone who has the same job as me, same education, same interests, say she is looking for a 6 ft dark Ital/Russian and be ignored. But the motorcycle riding Pilates instructor sends me 3 messages(true story) because I didn't answer her fast enough after her 1st message.

If you are going to play OLD, you are going to have to realize it is a numbers game and musical chairs rolled in one. You never really know what seat you are going to be sitting in! You want better matches , IRL will be better.

BTW in real life one see's fat guys with thin women often enough, so obviously some understand the way the game is played! You don't pay attention to those that don't want you, you find the ones that do or might so!

That being said, as you know I moved myself to Tampa for 1 day, and I had about 7-8 unsolicited messages inbox(4-5 were hot, which included 1 Hispanic and 1 mixed ethnic, and one was a bodybuilder I think lol) and I made an observation about your dating pool there. You never pm'ed me for my observation but both IG, Pig know what it is. You and MOST guys in that area will probably IMHO, REGARDLESS of height have an issue with women being swamped regardless if they are above avg or not, which means women have less reason to do searches and initiate messages and VIEW you.

That is my opinion based on demographics. I think once I would have been not the "new boy on the block" anymore my traffic would perhaps drop the low levels that would make me want to move! lol
 halcyon_skies
Joined: 7/27/2015
Msg: 329
Profile errors, height, values, and the kitchen sink.
Posted: 8/11/2015 3:58:07 PM

BTW in real life one see's fat guys with thin women often enough, so obviously some understand the way the game is played! You don't pay attention to those that don't want you, you find the ones that do or might so!


Having recently moved to Sin City, I'm not witnessing this phenomenon at all. The few thin women I've seen with fat guys looked suspiciously like they might be professional escorts. On the other hand, I'm seeing plenty of couples where the woman is overweight, but not the man.
 adventurejoe70
Joined: 3/1/2013
Msg: 330
view profile
History
Profile errors, height, values, and the kitchen sink.
Posted: 8/11/2015 4:12:54 PM
^^^Cities that are more transient and touristy, like Vegas, will often give you different observations depending where you look. I noticed on the strip that the crowds are full of people from the Midwest gambling, and I notice Midwest people tend to be bigger than what we are used to in the Northeast(i recall you originally from NE) . But in the actual clubs there seems to be a Los Angeles vibe and many seem to be the jet set of LA or pretending to be type. So I don't know.

I used to own a condo(sold it) near Boca Park(at the Summerlin border near W Charleston Blvd, if you don't know the area yet) and there were many ATTRACTIVE women living in the complex, who were working the strip, but NOT sure the capacity! They could have been prostitutes. In Vegas I bet dating often includes dating prostitutes for a love connection . :)

That being said my father and his domestic partner spend 4 months every year on the strip and my father swears that if he was single again he would move full time to Vegas because he sees so many dressed and made up women in one place to pursue. Yes, he is 77 , but that never stopped him . :)
 HawkingJr
Joined: 4/16/2007
Msg: 331
view profile
History
Profile errors, height, values, and the kitchen sink.
Posted: 8/11/2015 4:57:24 PM
I feel like I’m being tested. I don’t get any new unsolicited views for 4 months, talk about that fact in the forums for a couple of days, then today discover I have an unsolicited view from a supermodel-esque looking woman with bikini pictures that is supposedly from my area. Seems very suspicious to me, considering in 9 years I can’t recall any woman half that attractive viewing my profile without being prompted to. Yeah, I don’t think I’m going to count that one. Nice try, fellas.

But that’s not even the craziest thing that happened during that log-in. Remember the story about the woman on eH who was the last brick contributor to the “wall” I hit? By God, her POF profile was one of the thumbnails at the top of the page when I checked out the supermodel’s profile! Her eH profile was much better – I’m guessing she put this one together on a smartphone (POF makes people lazy). Well, I guess I can write her again now. I mean, this has got to be some kind of sign, right? Round and round and round we go...

*

The Crook-Clooney thing was almost rhetorical – we all know what the answer to that is: they’re in the top 10% of searchable characteristics. Anyone going to argue with that? Does it really matter their ages? Would a 25-year-old male in the top 10% also not get a ton more messages than a 25-year-old not in the top 10%? Certainly I realize Clooney probably gets more messages than his 25-year-old equivalent, though I don’t think it’s “because there are more women looking to date than men.” That doesn’t make any statistical sense, because the higher one’s age (up until near-death ages), the less single (including divorced) people there are (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_the_United_States#/media/File:
Marital_status_of_residents_of_the_United_States_of_America_in_2004.png ; note there are slightly less single women in their 40s than in their 30s; btw, I broke up that link so it wouldn't screw up the html on this POF page). Rather, I’m sure it’s because older women have less men initiating contacting with them, so they are more likely to be aggressive and initiate contact than a younger woman, many of whom don’t even have time to bother searching because they’re getting so many messages. Maybe the "crossover" is about 40 as Volkano keeps claiming -- although Literate Hiker is like 60 and still claims she gets a lot of unsolicited mail, so I don't know.

All I'm sure of is I'm similar to Crook and Clooney among searchable characteristics in numerous ways (heck, Crook and I apparently even live in the same city at the moment!), with the exception for the two mainly discussed characteristics here, where I am completel opposites from them, plus age, which Clooney and I are slightly different, and they get tons of unsolicited views and I get none (not including today's suspicious supermodel). I have trouble believe that HUGE difference in views is entirely because of age.

“I don't agree. The most common complaints are outright lying, being crude and wanting sex too soon, or only interested in sex.”

I didn’t say what I thought the #1 female complaints were. I said many women have stated that overshooting his equivalent was the primary reason for male failure. I’d say the sex/crudity fits into that, because if a man sends an initial message asking for sex to a woman who also believes in having sex quickly, then he has sent a message to his equivalent (at least in that sense).

“If I were you, I would either MSG attractive older women, women with children or foreign born women,”

But are these my equivalent? And I have dated women with children. That wasn’t right for ANYBODY involved.

"How about the short guys messaging short women? Is that so unrealistic?"

Like I've said before, this is the one unquestionable case in which "equivalency" does not equal "same," because the most desirable male and female heights are opposite. But this is also the one case where "equivalency" only exists at one end of the continuum -- in other words, there is no advantage for the short man to go after the tall woman, even though the tall woman is on the negative side of the continuum with the short man. Instead his best bet is, somewhat paradoxically, the highly desired short woman with whom he competes with the highly desired tall man. Nowhere else am I aware of does this happen. I'm even having trouble comprehending anything remotely similar in dating. The closest might be income, because some rich men would rather have a not-rich wife, but still, for the most part, the rich man and the rich woman are the most desired in this category -- it's not anywhere near as cut-and-dried as short woman/tall man.

"Yeah, it's about the league they're in. There can be a type mis-match, even though one is not out of the other's league."

Type mismatch -- there we go! I like that. I am a type mismatch!

“BTW in real life one see's fat guys with thin women often enough, so obviously some understand the way the game is played!”

That could be a misleading sight. My best friend, who has always been very petite (you can see her in the release party pic), married a guy who was 190 pounds at the time. He has been hanging around 400 over the past few years. To some extent, even though she is way out of my league, we actually do make a better-looking or at least more natural-looking couple than she and her husband do. But it’s not because a 110 pound woman chose to marry a 400 pound man. She just eventually ended up with one. More often than not, though, that ends up happening the other way around (sometimes because of baby weight).

“You and MOST guys in that area will probably IMHO, REGARDLESS of height have an issue with women being swamped regardless if they are above avg or not, which means women have less reason to do searches and initiate messages and VIEW you.”

Are you actually suggesting that women in Tampa are hotter than women in NYC? I would think NYC women, regardless of relative attractiveness, would be getting far more views and messages than Tampa women just because of population density and demographics (we have far less younger women spread out over a much larger area of space).

“And Pig is right, I see many posters that go a long way back create a new profile every 6 months.”

I actually remember my first year on this site. It took over 6 months to get my first unsolicited message. Being “new” only helps if women are actively looking for someone like you – like any woman gives a damn how long a guy’s been on a site or could even know that information. The only search we know is affected by “newness” is the new user search, so maybe that’s a pretty popular search, because otherwise it’s difficult to imagine how being “new” when you really aren’t could possibly be meaningful to any of POF’s features nor why a woman would click on a picture of a guy she’d already seen before (unless it was a new picture, too, and it confused her). Now if it were possible to exclude previously viewed profiles or contacts, then it would absolutely be a strong advantage to delete an old profile and start a new, but POF doesn’t have that option. (I’d also like to point out that although Clooney uses the delete-and-new strategy, Crook does not and still gets a “lot of messages” when not hidden. Arguably, just hiding your profile for a few weeks should have an even stronger effect than deleting-then-immediately-starting a new profile, mostly because of the build up of new female users over those few weeks not to mention giving the previous female users time to forget about you.)

If I gave enough of a damn anymore about this site, I probably would delete my profile and start over, because even though I’m pretty sure it would not help ME (as opposed to other men), I also figure it can’t hurt (especially as far as the new user search is concerned, which has no height or race search parameters), but now I can’t do that even if I did give a damn, because I’ve already messaged the eH woman and have to wait to see what’s going to happen with that.
 adventurejoe70
Joined: 3/1/2013
Msg: 332
view profile
History
Profile errors, height, values, and the kitchen sink.
Posted: 8/11/2015 5:14:02 PM

Are you actually suggesting that women in Tampa are hotter than women in NYC? I would think NYC women, regardless of relative attractiveness, would be getting far more views and messages than Tampa women just because of population density and demographics (we have far less younger women spread out over a much larger area of space).


NO Hawk. I was actually disappointed. That is part of the problem. By having LESS hot gals that means the FEW are being hounded by EVERY guy who are trying to get the hot gal and even the ones NOT so hot will get more messages. Then when you add the tourists who are sending them messages, I see NO reason for their aggressiveness. (I also saw a confederate flag somewhere(sigh))


NYC(London, Toronto, etc) women are very picky, indeed. Reply rates are LOW(Brooklyn has the lowest reply rate for men in North America, I think, from articles I have seen and linked here). I never was happy with my reply rate but my incoming was way enough to offset it and the same quality type.

But the women are also often aggressive and go seek what they are looking for, therefore they will often/sometimes write a guy who is THEIR ideal. Tampa women are probably NOT that aggressive and also more family (CHILDREN/family)) orientated which means not good for someone who doesn't want children.

Again this is just a subjective opinion, but I feel the pool can get stale VERY quickly.
 LetitiaLeGrande
Joined: 3/22/2015
Msg: 333
view profile
History
never go...where your mind hasn't already gone ahead to recon
Posted: 8/11/2015 5:52:54 PM
Just a point to make. Chemotherapy does not always cure cancer, even in early stages. Not by any means. Steve Jobs chose to go his own route and he just did not use the right alternative treatment, is all.
 dragonbytes
Joined: 12/25/2014
Msg: 334
Profile errors, height, values, and the kitchen sink.
Posted: 8/11/2015 7:38:45 PM

Certainly I realize Clooney probably gets more messages than his 25-year-old equivalent, though I don’t think it’s “because there are more women looking to date than men.” That doesn’t make any statistical sense, because the higher one’s age (up until near-death ages), the less single (including divorced) people there are


You said you know a lot about statistics. Do you use statistics in work? Have you used statistical data analysis systems like SAS, or analyzed Oracle data sets? Do you use relational databases? Because you give me doubts you really know statistics.

Do you think it might make a difference if 55% of the older single people were women and 45% were men. Vs in the 35 age group there are 226% more men looking than women.

It's easy enough to prove. Don't log in, do an advanced search for how many women on POF in a zipcode in an age group. Change your advance search to a woman looking for men and do the same thing. If you go past 700, just narrow your age range and shorten your distance.

You will see how many men Vs women looking at difference age ranges. Within 5 miles of my zipcode I see the following data.

347 women, 700++ men, 28-30
290 women, 656 men 33-35
328 women, 348 men 50-55
285 women, 249 men 55-60
161 women, 128 men 60-65

When I was curious about this in the past, I have seen the same sort of data at many different zipcodes.
 norwegianguy456
Joined: 6/11/2015
Msg: 335
view profile
History
Profile errors, height, values, and the kitchen sink.
Posted: 8/11/2015 9:07:18 PM

347 women, 700++ men, 28-30
290 women, 656 men 33-35
328 women, 348 men 50-55
285 women, 249 men 55-60
161 women, 128 men 60-65

Remember: The best way to do it is to Log Out before you submit the search, to avoid filtration of "you" seeing in a search. And also, best to measure Active members (within 24 hours), and body types up to Average. From 60103 zip code, within 10 miles:

Age 28-30: 113 women, 406 men (78.2% men)
Age 33-35: 97 women, 270 men (73.6% men)
Age 42-45: 145 women, 240 men (62.3% men)
Age 50-55: 161 women, 233 men (59.1% men)
Age 55-60: 452 women, 659 men (59.3% men) [25m radius]
Age 60-65: 272 women, 343 men (55.8% men) [25m radius]

*66.7% = 2 dudes for every 1 gal.
 dragonbytes
Joined: 12/25/2014
Msg: 336
Profile errors, height, values, and the kitchen sink.
Posted: 8/11/2015 9:27:09 PM
^^^ How do you measure "active within 24 hours"? (Except for viewing them in order)

I didn't use 60103, I used 60107. I didn't specify body type nor if they were active or not. Not sure active within 24 hours is the best since it will change hour to hour and maybe men Vs women have different hours they are online. I wouldn't use body type since there is likely a perceptual difference of how each gender perceives their body type. Also as we age body type / fat distribution changes for men and women differently.

I looked at Tampa, there are a huge number more that are dating in 33605 area code, I had to specify only interested in long term just to get it below 700 men even when I used 34-35 age group.

But anyway you slice it, the ratios keep changing towards less men percentage wise Vs women the older we get.

And it seems to me that last year there weren't as many men on POF in the older age group, I posted about this subject a year ago.

It would be interesting if I could have access to a dating website database, just out of curiosity.
 norwegianguy456
Joined: 6/11/2015
Msg: 337
view profile
History
Profile errors, height, values, and the kitchen sink.
Posted: 8/11/2015 9:39:30 PM

^^^ How do you measure "active within 24 hours"? (Except for viewing them in order)

In the search, you go page by page (each page being 20) -- and where it stops as "Online Today", you end the count. Multiply the page #s of full Online Today x 20 + remainder. Pretty quick.

I didn't use 60103, I used 60107.

Ehhh, tomato tomatoe, clitorus, cliterus. I wasn't challenging your exact numbers -- just trying to do a common report back with no-filters in mind, that's all.

Not sure active within 24 hours is the best since it will change hour to hour

Not really. It's within 24 hours. You do it around midnight ... midnight-midnight, who was on. If it had within 48 hours, I guess that may be best to give a little leeway. Best NOT to do over any spanse of time. That'll throw things off. Because any group that's timid about staying online (girls?) will make a profile and bolt much easier. So you don't want to count whoever's ever made a profile. Or who's been gone for a long time.

More difference from area to area. In some areas, you'll probably see a lot more older folks online VS others, and in some areas, you'd see a higher # of younger people, etc. Just a sample size in Illinois...

But anyway you slice it, the ratios keep changing towards less men percentage wise Vs women.

Yes. I once looked at it, and at a real young age in one midwestern area, guys & girls was pretty even. But not a lot of users in general at a real young age (in that area). But strongly separated once you were nearing 30 yo. Sausage filing in big.

But yeah, when you go older, the ratio gets closer to evening out. Guys should have better luck in their later years. And older people get shorter, too! Hawking will have a field day looking younger than he is at that age, everyone else coming down to size, and the ratio coming closer to evening out!

It would be interesting if I could have access to a dating website database, just out of curiosity.

Yeah, you can't trust what they advertise. They're going to play with the numbers and fine print to make it as even as possible (or make it look like there's tons o women, moreso than it is ratio-wise).
 Whatsamatterbaby
Joined: 5/6/2015
Msg: 338
Profile errors, height, values, and the kitchen sink.
Posted: 8/11/2015 11:41:32 PM
^ Good Lord. How many women do you need?
 MaleFeasance
Joined: 3/13/2015
Msg: 339
Profile errors, height, values, and the kitchen sink.
Posted: 8/12/2015 3:06:25 AM
Where I think you and I part ways with most everyone else is not only the question of level of difficulty for me to get a date with my equivalent, but even what my “equivalent” is.
--------------------
Your equivalent is a misanthropic, clinically depressed troll, wallowing in existential malaise who also misuses statistics to try and bullshit people into believing her confirmation bias has merit. She may be any height because, "Who cares? Life sucks and I'll be disappointed anyway." Hope that helps.
 dragonbytes
Joined: 12/25/2014
Msg: 340
Profile errors, height, values, and the kitchen sink.
Posted: 8/12/2015 3:45:51 AM
norG,
Not really. It's within 24 hours. You do it around midnight ... midnight-midnight, who was on. If it had within 48 hours, I guess that may be best to give a little leeway.


Men pursue, women choose. Most of us all agree this is the norm, I think so also.

Men have to login to send MSGs, but women don't have to login to see if they have any MSG, they will get an email. So if women don't have any MSGs, or the MSGs they do have are from users they already know they don't want to talk to, they don't need to login.

Personally if I were dating and mostly waiting for people to contact me, I would just look at my email to see if there were any new contracts. And I might get online to look at the profile of someone that sent me a MSG, but not login to look at profiles. You can search for the username without login, and this way the person that sent you the MSG will never know you checked them out.

If you don't login, you are like a ghost, no one will know you looked at a profile or were active at all on POF.

So I think men will naturally show as being active within any period of time much more often than women because they need to to login to be able to send a MSG.

If I am trying to ascertain ratios of men and women that use a service like POF, I prefer to use no preference filters at all as these self described filters will be used differently by different genders.
 ThePigIsHereForEternity
Joined: 7/19/2015
Msg: 341
Profile errors, height, values, and the kitchen sink.
Posted: 8/12/2015 5:03:03 AM


Men pursue, women choose. Most of us all agree this is the norm, I think so also.


Years ago, maybe. Today? It's down the middle, I would say.

Furthermore, doesn't the one pursuing "choose" the target to begin with??

Oh, and Hawk, the holidays will be here before you know it, and that would be a great time to have a new profile.

As for these last few posts, my God, too many f*cking numbers. Just get down to business and hope for the best.
 SLAFFA
Joined: 8/13/2007
Msg: 342
Profile errors, height, values, and the kitchen sink.
Posted: 8/12/2015 5:56:33 AM
Why not use some #s of "serious" Fish people if one finds it important to compare ratios of M/F on this site? Any reason the ratio might be any different in other towns?

I just picked the Florida singles event that currently sits at the top of the list. Of course no way to know how many might show up. At least you know they are alive and active enough to have seen the thread since it posted.

https://forums.plentyoffish.com/datingPosts16425919.aspx
 south_city
Joined: 10/12/2013
Msg: 343
Profile errors, height, values, and the kitchen sink.
Posted: 8/12/2015 6:44:19 AM

Men pursue, women choose. Most of us all agree this is the norm, I think so also.


There are still some women that want a man to make first contact because they are shy, afraid of rejection, have "traditional" values etc. However the majority of any success I had with OLD ( in terms of getting emails and dates ) came from women that contacted me first.
 Witnesstomythoughts
Joined: 7/27/2015
Msg: 344
Profile errors, height, values, and the kitchen sink.
Posted: 8/12/2015 6:50:07 AM

the majority of any success I had with OLD ( in terms of getting emails and dates ) came from women that contacted me first.


Ditto, I rarely bother sending msgs anymore. Seems futile.
 HawkingJr
Joined: 4/16/2007
Msg: 345
view profile
History
Profile errors, height, values, and the kitchen sink.
Posted: 8/12/2015 8:21:41 AM
Dragon: The ratio of men to women on this site (at least in my specific area) is almost exactly the same for Clooney and I. I’m sure that would be the case with your numbers, too, if you had included Clooney’s age range (it is almost true with NG’s numbers – it rounds to 2 to 1 almost any way you look at it prior to about 55+). So the extreme differences in our first contact emails received has to be something besides ratios.

Of course, even though I live in the middle of a relatively large metro, Clooney lives in the second largest metro in the country, more than twice the size of mine, far more densely populated and many times younger, so undoubtedly that also contributes to him getting many more messages than I do. But the difference shouldn’t be that substantial just due to population sizes alone. Roughly estimating, he should probably have about a 5 to 1 advantage. Instead he has a hundreds to zero advantage over the past year.

Obviously the 2 to 1 ratios do not jibe with the actual number of available members of the population, as single men and single women are nearly equal all the way up to the 60s (when men start dying earlier). Either women are substantially less inclined to use OLD and/or many men have multiple profiles and/or a significant number of “unavailable” (married) men are on the site. All of which we know are true. So the more interesting question becomes: why do male-female ratios even out on the site at retirement age? Do men eventually just give up trying to game the system or with maturity one no longer has interest in doing so? (With POF being free and full of shenanigans, it would be interesting to be able to examine ratios on a fully paid site - -not even Match, because they allow for unpaid membership. eH would be a good one, but you can't see all membership on it, and only the gender you seek.)

BTW, how do you reconcile with your ratios theory the fact that I actually did semi-regularly get first contact messages during my first 6 years on the site when I was in even more competitive age brackets? My messages should have INCREASED since I was in my 20s, according to your theory.

Are you better off with a 1:1 ratio when there are only 120 women in an age bracket (which is how many 57-year-old women there are within 5 miles of me on POF) or are you more likely to receive messages when the ratio is 2:1 but there are 611 women (the number of 27-year-old women within 5 miles)? I can tell you from having lived in a very small rural area for the first 18 years of my life that actual mass numbers matter a lot. Even if there had been 2 girls to 1 guy there, I’d still have been dateless, because there were only a few dozen girls, with no diversity of dating philosophies (or really even personalities) whatsoever. Had I gone to a school with 1000 girls (like my best friend’s daughter), there would have been a much larger diversity of personalities and dating philosophies. 611 women (the 27-year-olds in my area on POF) at least presents the possibility that a few of them will “think outside the box” dating-wise and search beyond the top 10% of men or have different ideas about what’s most meaningful to them when it comes to dates. With only 120 in the 57-year-old group, it's much more likely they will be homogenous in their thinking. And you’re also talking about a group that statistically should not be single, whereas 27-year-olds statistically should be single – completely different philosophies toward dating.

I’m just saying, a 27-year-old male may have much more competition than a 57-year-old male, but he also has a 5 times as many possibilities that could be sending him messages. It is impossible that a 57-year-old male could even get more messages than a 27-year-old male (not a specific 57 y/o and 27 y/o, but the overall maximum amount). In a static universe in which you could only write someone your age (to simplify things), the maximum number of emails the 57-year-old could receive is 120, but the maximum number of emails the 27-year-old could receive is 611. Even if you factor in the ratios, the 27-year-old still has a 3 to 1 advantage in the number of possibilities that might send him a first contact email. So I ask you again: is the typical guy (much less a negatively atypical guy) better off with a 1:1 ratio when there are only 120 women in an age bracket or are you better off when the ratio is 2:1 but there are 611 women?

“Why not use some #s of ‘serious’ Fish people if one finds it important to compare ratios of M/F on this site?”

There are 341 women who are 37 years old within 5 miles of me, only 60 of them have been “online this week” and 75 of them “online this month.” Out of 650 males, 135 of them have been “online this week.” Still essentially 2 to 1 ratio, but in reality less than 20% of women (and men) in the database are worth contacting. Not that I ever contact women with older last log-ins than "online this week."

“However the majority of any success I had with OLD ( in terms of getting emails and dates ) came from women that contacted me first.”

This is actually true of me, too. Even though I have initiated 99%+ of the first contacts I’ve been involved with on OLD, over 50% of my eventual meetings have come from the woman contacting me first (I’m including all OLD, not just POF, here – I got much higher quality interest on some other sites). Which is why no views in 4 months and no messages in almost 2 years is more concerning than an under 5% response rate.

MaleFeasance: “misanthropic, clinically depressed troll” is not a searchable characteristic, which is what we’re currently discussing. Try to keep up, dear.
 InnerGorilla
Joined: 4/1/2014
Msg: 346
Profile errors, height, values, and the kitchen sink.
Posted: 8/12/2015 8:26:51 AM

t is impossible that a 57-year-old male could even get more messages than a 27-year-old male (not a specific 57 y/o and 27 y/o, but the overall maximum amount). In a static universe in which you could only write someone your age (to simplify things), the maximum number of emails the 57-year-old could receive is 120, but the maximum number of emails the 27-year-old could receive is 611.


You just proved the existence of the tooth ferry.

And every reason why you may never get laid.
 gtomustang
Joined: 6/16/2007
Msg: 347
the standard deviants.
Posted: 8/12/2015 8:33:01 AM
good gravy, its summertime--what the hell's all this math for?

as for chasing versus getting chased, all my relationships except for the last (I started as a friend, she let me know she wanted more) came about b/c the lady chased me. at a certain appearance level and population density, its best to wait for someone to show interest. its not a lot different from selling product--gas stations don't have a big advertising budge convincing people of a need to buy distilled petroleum, they have location. customers come looking for them, and maybe buy a beverage while there.

I concur, location is everything--the more singles in your area, the more possibilities.
 MaleFeasance
Joined: 3/13/2015
Msg: 348
Profile errors, height, values, and the kitchen sink.
Posted: 8/12/2015 9:24:28 AM
“misanthropic, clinically depressed troll” is not a searchable characteristic, which is what we’re currently discussing. Try to keep up, dear.
-----------
Apparently, you were discussing that, given that you made the comment about not knowing your type - twice. I haven't decided whether you are just trolling or you really believe your own bullshit. You remind me of Marvin the Paranoid Android from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YKd6ZxCEJdI
 adventurejoe70
Joined: 3/1/2013
Msg: 349
view profile
History
Profile errors, height, values, and the kitchen sink.
Posted: 8/12/2015 9:50:35 AM

^ Good Lord. How many women do you need?


Depends, how many you got?:)

Dragon/NG- As for the stats, I would like to see how many are registered in my city but when I tried your experiment with just one age (45) it came out over 700. It comes out over 700 every single age I tried. Just damn too many people here. Being within 5 miles of any zip is like million people.


Personally if I were dating and mostly waiting for people to contact me, I would just look at my email to see if there were any new contracts. And I might get online to look at the profile of someone that sent me a MSG, but not login to look at profiles. You can search for the username without login, and this way the person that sent you the MSG will never know you checked them out.


True, but part of the trick to get messages initiated is to be logging online so they do in fact see your profile. If you live in a small town/city perhaps it doesn't matter, but in a large city your profile gets basically hidden behind others a few seconds after you log on. A good app would be one that logs and signs out a profile every few minutes.:)
 Whatsamatterbaby
Joined: 5/6/2015
Msg: 350
Profile errors, height, values, and the kitchen sink.
Posted: 8/12/2015 9:55:18 AM
May the best trickster win!
Show ALL Forums  > Dating Experiences  > Profile errors, height, values, and the kitchen sink.