|Message RestrictionsPage 1 of 33 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33)|
|I've noticed this, too. Apparently, POF no longer allows men to write to women more than 19 years their junior. You can't search on anyone more than 19 years younger than you are. I'm 54 and if I attempt to run a basic or advanced search for the 18-99 age range, the search and results are reset to 40-99. I can manually change the minimum age to 35 and that will stick, but if I set it at 34 or younger, it defaults again to 40.|
I suspect that POF got a lot of complaints from women hearing from much older men, and put these restrictions in place. I'd be curious to know if the same restrictions are in place for women seeking men, men seeking men, and women seeking women categories.
Given the fact that POF gives users the ability to set age restrictions upon who may write to them, with people outside their age range unable to even see their ads when logged in, there's no legitimate reason for this to be put in place.
A better option than putting these restrictions into place would be to require all users to select a preferred age range, with those outside the age range unable to write to a person or see their ad when logged in (in other words, the same process which is in place for those who opt-in to setting an age range). That way, anyone who doesn't want to hear from someone above or below a particular age, won't hear from them, without restricting people who don't mind or prefer a significant age difference from reaching out to one another.
Posted: 5/19/2013 10:02:32 AM
I'd be curious to know if the same restrictions are in place for women seeking men, men seeking men, and women seeking women categories.
I just tried, and got a youngster age 23, so I guess not. That said, I can't even imagine doing it seriously, lol!
After my first marriage ended, some forty odd years ago, I belonged to a number of different dating/parents groups, and in *every single one of them* the older guys after the young chickies was a major problem. There were only three final outcomes: either the group broke up into and elder/younger pair of groups, they found some other way to largely keep the older guys out (had to have a child living at home, etc.) or the group died because all the women under 40 left.
But it seems to me that all this will lead to is even more guys lying about their ages. . . .
Posted: 5/19/2013 10:06:36 AM
|This is probably worthy of a red text highlight, moderators, as this is a MAJOR change. Perhaps the biggest one in the site's history!|
I can't test the "19 years your junior" theory (aka POF's new "Romeo & Juliet" rule), but I can tell you that I can no longer search for women under the age of 21 IF I am logged in. So if you're close to my age, apparently either the cut-off age is 21 or it is somewhere around 14 years your junior. It will require a lot of different aged people testing this to figure out exactly what's going on.
Now I can still search for 18-20 year-olds if I am logged out, but as I don't really want to freak out an 18-year-old with an email, I haven't tested whether I can send one of them an email after finding their profile while logged out, then logging back in to send the email, but I'm guessing Quantum knows what he's talking about and I probably can't. (There also appears to be no upper limit -- if I search for people 30 years older, they show up in my searches.)
What's most interesting about this change is what the OP is suggesting: that possibly even AFTER you have already established communication with someone, you still aren't allowed to message them if they aren't within POF's age guidelines for you. I would VERY much like to hear if anyone else can verify that is the case, because that's just nuts if someone outside POF's enforced age ranges can email you and you can't email them back. This will definitely have a strong negative impact on forum friendships.
And speaking of which, it will also be interesting to see if women have the same restrictions we have (if not, that's a whole other can of worms!). And what if moderators aren't exempt -- how will we communicate with them about issues we are supposed to contact them privately about?
Obviously this is all part of Markus' plan to "clean up POF" -- which apparently has now taken the step of becoming a fully fledged nanny state and is protecting people against their own "ignorance" about the site's functionality, but obviously, once again just like with the "date review" crap in the other active thread, the innocent are being swept up with the supposedly guilty. And in this case, I think he might well be shooting himself in the foot because you seriously think there won't be a rebellion if consenting adults can't communicate with people they choose to communicate with? I definitely agree with Quantum's last paragraph -- there are much better ways to deal with whatever Markus thinks is a problem than secretly implementing his own age restrictions against everyone's will.
EDIT: I just read Wooby's post -- I suppose that means WOMEN don't have these new search and email restrictions -- just men. Like I said, another can of worms! Can others verify this?
Posted: 5/19/2013 10:26:01 AM
|It seems to be about 14 years difference for me. It's not a major drama as frankly I'd expect very few young ladies younger than that to have much in common with me... Saying that, it does seem a bit draconian to impose this in the way it has been and frankly as it's an over 18 site I am disappointed that the assumption by POF seems to be that we don't deserve to be treated like adults.|
Posted: 5/19/2013 10:33:21 AM
|Does this mean that the little teeny boppers can no longer message me? I'm all for that but... I don't think it is a decision that should be made for a person. If a person wants to impose age restrictions we already have that tool in place. I removed mine ages ago when I became a "forums only" user. When I had a for dating profile I had a one liner about only being interested in men close to my own age. |
I really don't see the reason why the site would want to restrict contact and views. I thought "clicks" were the bread and butter around here.
Posted: 5/19/2013 10:39:43 AM
|It's nice to see a lady who also feels it's not really a sensible move. |
I've checked and it has now blocked a couple of existing friendly conversations I was having... All in all a very disappointing move from the powers that be.
Posted: 5/19/2013 11:02:15 AM
|if you are are looking for women the youngest you can search for is your age -14 this rule is only in effect if you search for women under 35. Women 18 to 21 can only be contacted by men under 30. (not fully implemented yet)|
Women who are 18 come to the site to find people to date, they don't come here to find "friends" with men in their 50's. Over all for young women its just a horrible user experience as for some of them over half their messages are from men double their age. This change only effects 1.7% of first contacts between users on the site but it will make a huge difference in terms of female perception of the site.
Posted: 5/19/2013 11:21:54 AM
|Still a very heavy handed implementation given that it has cut off existing conversations with zero warning.|
Posted: 5/19/2013 11:52:12 AM
|Not only does this cut off existing conversations, but if a woman outside of a man's POF allotted age range sends him a first contact message in the future, he can never reply to her (which I suppose in your world is for her own good). Basically, you're treading on women's rights and treating grown women like children who can't be trusted to make their own decisions -- what is this, the Taliban?|
I'm not saying you don't have a "big problem" that you're trying to get a handle on, but Quantum's suggestion made a lot more sense: FORCE ALL users to choose an age range in mail settings just like you have forced so many other "mandatory" questions on us. You obviously must think the primary issue is that many young women don't realize they can set an age range in mail settings and that's why they're getting a lot of unwanted attention from older men, so just MAKE them set an age range, and if even after that they still choose 18-99 or whatever, then that must mean they really don't care what ages contact them and aren't just ignorant of mail settings. Wouldn't it be better to let women make their own choices about who they can communicate with? Or at least be fair about it and don't allow cougars to contact young men either. The way you're going about this seems EXTREMELY sexist and quite 1950s-ish (or, again, modern day Middle East-ish).
This doesn't really have a lot of effect on me because I rarely first contact any woman outside of my "allotted POF age range," but several women who first contacted me (most by way of the forums) were outside of my "allotted POF age range" and I think I would have been a little annoyed to not be able to answer their questions, particularly the one that was originally from my hometown area -- I'm not quite sure if you know what you're talking about when you say some didn't come here to find "friends" (despite having a category on the dating side just for that). But then again, you obviously know the women on this site better than they know themselves.
On an interesting sidenote, I suppose this means all women under 30 who have forum issues that need to be discussed privately with a moderator can only contact miss allison, since Trapped can no longer respond to them.
Posted: 5/19/2013 12:44:29 PM
lightstar1 - I wonder if this works both ways...
I just messaged you and it went through.
We've been in touch with one another before but as the OP said, he was being blocked from those he was already in contract with, I wanted to see if that would stop me. It didn't despite an age gap of more than 19 years. I haven't tried writing to anyone 19 years younger than me.
Posted: 5/19/2013 1:46:32 PM
|I was contacted by a younger girl who lives in my neighborhood and we weren't even talking about dating... and she initiated the contact. Granted, I am 37, and she is 20, however now I can no longer contact her. Not even a 23 year old!|
That's ridiculous honestly. I am a "upgraded" member too and I WILL NOT be renewing this garbage.
I have a feeling younger girls will be lying about their ages more now than they already have... and men will start lying about their ages too.
A BETTER FEATURE would be to prompt the user to ask what age ranges they want to talk to max and min. And tell them they can adjust these settings.
Also, maybe another SUGGESTION that isn't so harsh, make messages OUTSIDE the range show up in a "FILTERED" folder so the user can still look if they desire.
I vote to revert to old site until these changes are made more clearly. Also, you should warn the users already in conversations that this change was made by the admin and NOT the user doing this.
Do I have to make a "younger" account so I can re-connect with this girl? I don't want her to think I've blocked her or stopped responding. I think it's plain RUDE!
Posted: 5/19/2013 2:29:33 PM
|I agree that much older men who pursue women young enough to be their daughters - maybe granddaughters - is a little creepy. I'd love nothing more than to censure such behavior, because I know that people are tired of being annoyed and harassed by people much younger or much older (this is why we have the age filters). However, the choice entirely belongs to the young women, receiving and sending the e-mails, to contact whom they wish. |
The presumption is that people over 18 have the legal right to make their own decisions.
IMHO, I don't think of this a a woman's rights issue, per se. Of course, it's clearly ageist (at least where the women are concerned), it's censorship, and it makes the filters the users may choose to engage useless, if not eliminated at all. I'm guessing that they'll equally resent much older admin making their social decisions, for them -- that's if it has anything to do with the aforementioned issues. I could be wrong.
Posted: 5/19/2013 2:48:13 PM
|Another thing I would say is that the majority of young people use the POF app exclusively, rather than the website. On the app (as far as I know) there's no way to set messaging restrictions|
Posted: 5/19/2013 2:49:39 PM
|What's to stop the old guys from using fake accounts with a bogus age?|
Posted: 5/19/2013 2:59:28 PM
|I just checked and I can't see where you can adjust the age filter (or any filter) on the phone application, either. If one creates a profile on the app, is there no way to set the filters, once off, on it? I don't know.|
As for the fake accounts, people have always fudged their ages, anyway. They won't stop much in the same way people looking for unsuspcecting booty calls won't stop from misrepresenting what they're looking for in terms of relationships, to get them.
Posted: 5/19/2013 3:04:43 PM
What's to stop the old guys from using fake accounts with a bogus age?
Nothing. I expect we will see this become an even larger problem. Men and women will lie about their ages more than ever before.
Posted: 5/19/2013 3:23:21 PM
Nothing. I expect we will see this become an even larger problem. Men and women will lie about their ages more than ever before.
It would be very clever is they only allowed one profile per IP address, and they had recorded all IP addresses before they made the change.
Likely too clever to have been done.
Posted: 5/19/2013 3:28:45 PM
|If an over sixty guy wants to "lie" enough to get him an 18 yo, he'll have to leave his pics off, or use *really* old ones, or fakes in order to pass as 29, lol!|
Posted: 5/19/2013 3:35:04 PM
So are we...
is it just males who can no longer message younger women regardless of the age range they set or is it women too?
It appears males can not contact women who are younger than 14 years their age, and under 35.
if it is only males,has turning this feature on negated any conversations already in place?
Cut Off completely, out of luck. I just had this girl message me back and asked why I am not responding.. thanks POF!
if the female was to write to the man again ,would it work like the other restrictions placed that prevented people mailing others who would be able to reply if they were written too first? or has pof decided that only people within specific age ranges can now talk to each other?
POF has taken all the choice away. If an 18 year old wants to talk to a 38 year old man, she can write him but he can't reply. Pretty stupid.
Posted: 5/19/2013 3:41:17 PM
|Ezme75 ~~ I'd put a message on my profile telling her she can send either her phone or email, but you can't respond on POF.|
ETA: I see you're ahead of me. Smart man.
Posted: 5/19/2013 3:43:57 PM
Ezme75 ~~ I'd put a message on my profile telling her she can send either her phone or email, but you can't respond on POF.
Posted: 5/19/2013 3:47:10 PM
|Just make it mandatory to set an age range - simple as that. Let users control it by making it mandatory. No need for these system contact restriction based on your idea of what's appropriate or not.|
What's the bigh objection to that?
Any site related question not answered via the HELP link, then email CSR@POF here || Site Rules Here || Posting Clarifications Here || TOS ||
Posted: 5/19/2013 4:10:20 PM
if you are are looking for women the youngest you can search for is your age -14 this rule is only in effect if you search for women under 35.
@ Import (msg # 22) Yes, Impy you would have been able to contact Lightstar because you're older than 34. :)
If I'm reading the above correctly, there is no age difference limit for those of us 35 and older and .........
you're reading it wrong.
Women 18 to 21 can only be contacted by men under 30. (not fully implemented yet)
....so a maximum age difference of 8 years for under 22 year olds.
As Lightstar said, do both of these restrictions go both ways? Interesting......
I also agree its a bit harsh on fellow forumites who like to contact each other and now in some circumstances we / they can't anymore. :(
EDIT: Good point Wolftxusa.......
Posted: 5/19/2013 4:19:12 PM
|On one hand, I'm kind of giddy that POF finally did something to tick off the site apologists. But it's certainly starting to make more and more sense why the forum link got taken away a few weeks ago -- Markus obviously does not care for feedback on the two bombshell decisions of the past week. After the site was overrun with angry posts to the point that he had to relent following the "pay for views" incident a couple years ago, it makes perfectly good sense (in his mind) to limit the feedback on these equally controversial changes. Nevertheless, I seriously don't see how you can continue to make such decisions without changing the help section to explain to puzzled users how the site works now. 99% of POF users have no idea what's going on, since there is no forum link with the explanations in this thread. I would babble on again about this is not a professional way to run a site... but I will not bother as per the second half of my second sentence in this post.|
* * *
Certainly, I cannot speak for admin, but as he has already spoken for himself and it's questionable as to whether he will again, as far as I can tell:
"you are are looking for women the youngest you can *search* for is your age -14 this rule is only in effect if you search for women under 35"
means this applies only to searching, while:
"Women 18 to 21 can only be *contacted* by men under 30. (not fully implemented yet)"
is the only statement he made about actual CONTACT. So a 35-year-old woman and a 50-year-old man should be able to communicate with no restrictions, because the contact restrictions only apply to women 18-21, and the 14-year difference only applies to searches (if your lower age limit in the search is below 35). Women over 21 should not have any issues communicating with any men, if we take his statements literally. But a 50-year-old man now cannot search for a 25-year-old woman, though if he finds her in the forums or while logged out, he should be able to contact her... right?
I could be wrong, but no one has posted any proof counter to that -- several people in this thread seem to have confused the 14-year search statement with the 18-21 contact statement.
"Of course, it's clearly ageist (at least where the women are concerned)"
How is this not sexist? Restrictions are only in place for one gender and not the other. That's pretty much the definition of sexism. Of course, we all know this site has long been sexist -- there are several features only for one gender and not the other, but it's one thing to give women an extra set of "tools" they can decide whether or not to use -- it's quite another thing to MAKE women do something against their own wishes. Which is not to say I don't agree that it isn't also ageist -- but pretty much every court has decided that YOUNG ageism is allowable (hence you have to be 18 to be on this site -- but that's for BOTH genders, so there are no legal or ethical issues there). It's much more sexism than ageism: young adult women don't know what's good for them, young adult men do.
"Another thing I would say is that the majority of young people use the POF app exclusively, rather than the website. On the app (as far as I know) there's no way to set messaging restrictions."
Well, that's just bad app programming -- which isn't surprising considering the main site also has very bad programming. However, now it makes sense why I have seen so many profiles (from all ages) that have a line like "If you aren't between XX and YY, please don't message me" yet no age restrictions at the bottom -- yeah, I could see a low percentage of ignorant women completely missing the mail settings area, but I've seen way more than a "low percentage" that have said that and now I know why. I'm not sure how much of a flaw that is for the nearly universal suggestion that all users be forced to select an age restriction instead of what admin is doing. How do those other mandatory questions work on mobile? Obviously, the app needs to be fixed so that ALL mail settings can be changed, but until then, the age range could be a mandatory question on the main inbox screen, like all the other mandatory questions are. Obviously, once you have set it, you can't un-set it through smartphones until the app is changed, but that's just the way things would be with bad app programming.
However, I'm sure that's admin's excuse for NOT doing what everyone in this thread is suggesting, and likely the reason why this has become such a big problem that he felt the need to act to begin with. So instead of fixing the app, he just overrides many women's choices? Nice.
BTW, admin, you say that this only affects 1.7% of the site's communication -- that sounds like a niche' to me. I thought you didn't make drastic changes for niche' users? I am in a 1% niche -- you've certainly never had any interest in helping me, just piling on, really.
33 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33)