Finally made it through the 60+ likes on Hinge. It would be cool if it seemed like guys didn’t like every possible woman on a dating app but actually read profiles and matched thoughtfully. Women might actually use apps more.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Man see boobs, man happy

Man no read, boobs

Man will read most intently if words are on a t-shirt covering boobs.

Cannot deny

We do like reading

I just started giggling when I realized that this would mean some girls can get men to read a novel, while others can only pull off a novella.

#MaleBrain

lol 😆

😂🤣

🤣

I’ve distorted the writing on a shirt before, so you’d have to make semicircle to read it. Also had guys super confused because they’re only getting the middle part of the t-shirt message 🤨 That was their excuse anyway.

It’s only stupid if it doesn’t work.

Statistically speaking, I believe if men were half as picky as women (on average) on dating apps, the odds of getting a match would effectively be zero.

This is facts. The cast net must be wide

I disagree.

I think that theres some data about that: 50% of likes from men were given to 25% of women, but 50% of likes from wemen were given to only 15% of men.

This vid is somewhat simplistic but tries to model and understand various factors https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=x3lypVnJ0HM

The study I was reading had it closer to 80%, but same concept.

I kinda thought you might. Personally, I have issues with the entire process. I would probably automatically discard all women who have a presence on dating apps from my potential dating pool. I certainly did not meet my wife that way, and I’m glad I didn’t.

I’m curious why you think it wouldn’t make matches go down though. Women tend to reject about 80% of profiles. If both sides did this, it would seem to reduce the pool to a very small number. This would seem like a good thing, until one considers almost none of the criteria used in dating apps are indicators of success in a relationship.

It’s ok if the quantity of the matches goes down if the quality of the matches is good. I’m only looking for that one. My experience of dating apps is that I get inundated with likes or matches. Get discouraged by the large amount of bad matches. Panic delete the app rather quickly. I don’t think I’ve ever kept a profile active for more than like a week and a half. I never even kissed a guy I met through an app until I met someone I dated for a few months this year. I think I first used an app in 2008.

I see what you’re saying, but I think the criterion for dating apps is not conducive to your desired effects. It’s just an opinion, not a fact. But apps tend to focus on very superficial qualities that don’t seem like high quality indicators of compatibility to me.

Apps could focus on different criteria. What do you think are the most important things to focus on?

Something based on a clinically validated personality test, like Big 5, maybe Meyer-Briggs, love languages, and life goals/values.

Even then it’d probably be more miss than hit, but it would probably be better. It’d also take hours to set up your profile.

How about an app, where guys would have to make some sort of effort before being allowed to chat with women? E.g., to sing a song chosen by a woman, to make a video about something, or to answer questions related to women's profile... ;D

If a man had to answer a question about a woman’s profile I might have had 3 likes tops. It’s a great idea in my opinion.

I probably would’ve asked “What is my age?” I’m 38. The number of under 23’s and over 55’s was insane.

There were also like 3 profiles of guys saying they were in their 40’s but looked older than my Dad in his late 60’s. The differences in aging are wild.

Haha, maybe that's fine, you would have a singer, a writer, and someone who is interested in you in your pool.

I actually did this! I had a question at the bottom of my profile and clearly stated I screened based on whether they answered it or not because it indicated whether they had actually read my profile through. Anyone who didn’t answer was immediately passed.

That’s a good idea. I wouldn’t have thought passing a reading comprehension test would be necessary for dating. But here we are.

But the justification of this decision was deviant and corrupt.

If because offended i’m sure, & 👊🏻 because a deviant and sick mind

But great idea. Tight is a #mainvolume concept.

🎚️

Then how getting that looper wring assuming ignorance is a shared attribute.

Simply wrong and moves in.

Also needed for recruiters on LinkedIn.

I spent quite a bit of time on the apps, and I can tell you, from my experience, getting even so much as a match is a numbers game for us. Then, to get a reply, more numbers games. Carry a conversation? Good luck. Actually get to meet someone? More rare. I was lucky enough to meet one or two in person, one was a relationship that lasted almost a year. The amount of no responses was highly frustrating. The amount of stereotypical profiles was frustrating. The amount of “don’t just say hey, catch my attention!” In the profile that was otherwise the same as any other IE “probably just liked you for your dog” was sickening lol

60? 👀

Best of luck to you. I firmly do not believe apps are a good way to meet people. They can work for some but I think there are better ways.

I’m open to suggestions