|Weird RealizationPage 2 of 2 (1, 2)|
|Op, it's not weird. It's the norm. And that's because most of what goes on in dating sites is bogus or games or some form of psycho.|
Posted: 3/2/2016 4:15:14 AM
Is OK, I get lots of messages there, but again, mostly from guys I dont want to meet. That's why I love Tinder, puts you in total control who gets to message you and who doesn't.
Have you thought about Bumble? It's just like Tinder with the exception being there are no limits on likes and the women are the ones who have to message first, so if you get match with another guy then you have 24 hours to send him a message if you so choose the guy could give you more time by extending but I haven't done that yet, I'm not sure if that feature is free or not, I figured 24 hours is plenty of time for a woman to make up her mind to say "Hi" or not.
So you have even more control on Bumble then you do Tinder though I haven't had any success on Bumble whatsoever, I joined 3 weeks ago and only matched up with 5 girls and only received two messages so far.
Posted: 3/20/2016 12:33:26 PM
|It makes sense for men to do better on OKC than on here if you believe girls tend to prefer a "badass" approach over a "nice guy" approach.|
Because OKC has more nerds and introverts, a guy who is average on POF will seem like a badass on OKC compared to other guys on there. Just one of the guys here, big fish in a small pond there.
I would guess the men on Tinder are more bold than on here, so my messages on Tinder might seem like a "nice guy" relative to other guys on there.
Last year I met 3 girls from POF, 2 from Tinder, 0 from OKC (they're easier but I had fished out the site). Longest term was a gal I met in real life, not from a site. Each site had several gals where we took communication away from the site to texting or phone and sometimes scheduled a date, but ended up not meeting.
Where I live, OKC is the hipster, gentrified, limousine liberal site, nearly 100% white. They list "My iPhone" and "NPR" in their "6 things I can't do without". A high percentage list their Myers Briggs letters. POF is the "redneck", "ghetto", conservative, working class, diverse site. POF has more users over 40, more Harley riders, more parents, much more black users.
Tinder profiles I've seen also on POF or OKC tend to have the same photos and a concise version of the same text as on the other sites.
Some women have a different age on OKC than on POF. Perhaps both ages are a lie.
Posted: 3/20/2016 8:07:06 PM
|Go to a night club.|
Can you get a dance?
If not, then your success with OLD will be no different.
Posted: 3/21/2016 7:24:04 AM
|“Go to a night club. Can you get a dance? If not, then your success with OLD will be no different.”|
That’s not entirely accurate. I’ve never successfully gotten a woman to dance with me at a club unless I already knew her, but I’ve met a couple dozen women from OLD (mostly the types of women who don’t club and aren’t big into dancing – which is something you didn’t take into consideration with your statement).
I’m a good writer and a mediocre talker so theoretically I should do better in OLD than real life since OLD starts off with written interaction. But it really depends on a whole lot of factors beyond simply “OLD” vs. “real life.” For example, the vast majority of my meetings have come from OLD sites that don’t have height information or searches (similar to Tinder) – those circumstances are far superior to “real life” scenarios like clubs where my height is obvious upon first look, but on an OLD site like POF with height information and searches, I am actually at a disadvantage vs. real life where I am more than just a bunch of statistics, despite my mediocre talking abilities.
Of course, that’s true for my personal peculiar situation – I would think with the “typical” guy, his club vs. OLD success ratio would probably be more similar as well as more similar across OLD platforms, because OLD really is the equivalent of an area-wide club or bar, since unlike most other real life dating starts, all you get in both cases are an image, some stats and a quick pitch.
On Match vs. free sites: I do think very attractive people will probably get better, or should I say, more efficient results on free sites. What’s the point of paying to play when you’re going to get a lot of attention for free anyway? But when you’re unattractive, it’s another story entirely. Prior to my paid upgrade, I got nearly no attention on POF or OKC, because they just don’t care and it’s survival of the fittest, whereas Match and eH actually try to get me some attention, plus there is far less competition than on a paid site, so just for that reason alone I got more interest. Last year I went 6 consecutive months without an organic view on POF, whereas I’ve been getting 5+ organic views a week during my latest Match subscription. Since I got the POF upgrade, suddenly I'm getting a bunch of views on this site as well -- because now that I'm paying them, they apparently care what happens to me. I'm sure attractive people probably get more attention with a paid upgrade as well, but the increase is not really noticeable -- for me, going from zero views a week to 5 a week is definitely noticeable, but going from 100 views a week to 105 views a week is probably not noticeable. So I can understand why attractive people think pay sites and paid upgrades are a waste of money.
Posted: 3/21/2016 7:15:47 PM
|It's common, but I'm still trying to figure it out.|
I get almost no response on this site at all. THE SAME EXACT GIRL will respond to me on the other site I use, but wanted nothing to do with me on POF.
Posted: 3/24/2016 2:42:36 PM
Anything that people have to PAY for attracts more serious minded folks.
Not necessarily. Match used to send out fake messages in order to tempt people to pay for membership. After getting burned several times like that, I realized that the site was just another scam. I understand the whole 'buyer beware' concept, but it was just too cruel to prey on the lonely folks and screw us out of our cash just because they could. They may have the highest # of successful matches, but that's only because they had the most people joining for quite a while, and, of course, keeping people there because once they've paid, they feel they have an investment in keeping a profile up on that site. It was just like real life; if you're not good looking or rich, you basically have zero chance of finding a mate.
Posted: 4/18/2016 8:06:00 PM
|I'm more likely to reply to guys on OKC because the 200+ questionnaire gives me more info & insight to their character and sexual inclinations. POF just gives me dry stats.|
Posted: 4/18/2016 8:11:49 PM
|Watch out for those OKC questions.|
Pay attention if you marked them as PUBLIC or PRIVATE.
I had a gal message me saying she thought my response about masturbation was funny.
I was like, wtf?
So, I went back and found my answer to a question I forgot to make private.
The question was how often I masturbated.
I answered as long as my profile was visible....
Posted: 4/18/2016 8:44:01 PM
|^ You masturbate while looking at your profile?|
Better than self loathing, I suppose.
Posted: 4/18/2016 11:17:31 PM
|OKC really ?I would have thought you were talking about AFF!|
Posted: 4/19/2016 2:45:51 PM
|I think I’m up to 5 or 6 hundred questions answered over on OKC. And not a single one is marked PRIVATE. If they go to the trouble of looking, let them know what they will be getting. And if they don’t like it, well then we weren’t a match anyway.|
One of my favorite ploys is to hit them, in an opening message, with comments about one or more of their answers. Or how some of their answers seem to contradict each other.
I sent an opening message last night,
Hey, how are you this evening? I liked your pictures, so I looked through some of your answers. I am most impressed that you correctly answered STALE is to STEAL, very few ever get that one right. But “6 or more dates”? Really?
She answered me within an hour, saying that was just to scare off the “horn dogs”.
Now you might think that was very risky, putting that in an opening message. But I had inside knowledge. How, you ask? I read her answers, and she was very obviously open about her sexuality, except for that one answer. Which led me to believe that it was not an honest answer, and that she would probably admit it if asked. Which is exactly what happened.