Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 36,981,862 times
Reputation: 40635
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by stepka
Esp for older men, their response rate will probably go up if they message women closer to their own age as well. When I look at men's profiles and see what they put for age limits, I don't even bother with them if they put a range of ages that starts at 20 or more years younger (and sometimes ends at 5 years younger than themselves) even if I'm within that age range.
Maybe, but it is a catch 22. The guys are looking for younger women, and many many women put an age on their profile 10 years younger than they really are, so it should even out!
Esp for older men, their response rate will probably go up if they message women closer to their own age as well. When I look at men's profiles and see what they put for age limits, I don't even bother with them if they put a range of ages that starts at 20 or more years younger (and sometimes ends at 5 years younger than themselves) even if I'm within that age range. Also, maybe this isn't fair, but I don't bother with them if there's a convertible in the photos--I may be mistaken but I tend to sense that he's looking for a younger woman when I see that. Also, as women get older the number of messages they get goes way down--I think I'm moderately attractive but I've certainly never been besieged by messages and my rate of replies is probably less than 30% and I don't just go for the most attractive ones either--after all, they are the ones who are looking for much younger.
Also, the last tip? When I first sign on is when I get the most interest--my mailbox is never as full as it is on the first week. Believe me, OLD has done nothing to inflate my ego! It's deflated it a few times, but fortunately no one has ever said anything really mean to me on there.
Now, another thing you said: "due to the feedback I have been given." Given by whom? Ya know, I'd probably pad the numbers too in conversation b/c I wouldn't want my friends to know that I'm not desired, but on here I'm totally honest about these things and your friends may be exaggerating their popularity. Or, they're a lot younger than me. And I can guarantee that if a woman does get 5-6 messages a day, half of them will be too stupid to even consider, like "hay thur."
And, I don't give a sh*t how tall he is. Who cares? It helps that I'm only 5'3" but my dad was shorter than me and no less a man for it.
As to the OP: I go back and forth--sign on for a little while, go on a few dates, quit in disgust. Wait a few months till I get desperately lonely and/or things aren't working out IRL and dive back in.
I would get so annoyed when I was doing online and how many men wanted much younger. I understand of course the cream of the crop wanting younger because these guys could get anyone (talking the handsome well off men). However it seemed even the mid range and below men were picky on this then would complain no women wanted them. Saw this on the religious sites where men were on for years and complaining the good women were bypassing them. Yes, the 20 something women are not interesting in 40+ men (and quite a few were in their mid 50's). Meanwhile the women in their 30's and above, including some very pretty women would complain because the men were rejecting them. If these men had been realistic and pursued women their age both would be happier.
Online really upset me last time. I am attractive and never had problems with online before but this time I did. I got responses but very few were quality. I got a lot of illiterate men, much older, dads (though my profile stated no dads), perverts and much younger looking for cougars/sugar mamas. I got a few meeting my qualifications, I met most of them and there was nothing there romantically (though stayed friends with a few). I didn't care about his height or his income and quite a few guys I met were shorter and/or poorer than me.
Maybe, but it is a catch 22. The guys are looking for younger women, and many many women put an age on their profile 10 years younger than they really are, so it should even out!
Which is bad for me b/c I put my real age on there. But then believe me, plenty of men lie about that too so they can get younger women. So I guess the men assume I'm 10 yrs older? I cannot imagine lying like that--I can't even knock 2 years off but I figure they'll learn it soon enough and then I'd be embarrassed.
Moderately attractive male 35, S, never married, no kids, and I've had "luck"-well, in terms of meeting people anyway. Some of the dates/people kind of sucked, but so far in 2.5 months I have met seven different women and currently have three "in the chamber", so to speak. I have also been moderately selective with who I date (no single mothers).
Male, using Match.com. Elements for success:
1. Even if you are attractive, you will still be lucky to get a response rate of any higher than 15-20% from the women you send emails to (see number 4). FYI- women get about 3-4x that amount of attention, based on the feedback I have been given.
2. If you are trying to get a decent woman, don't in any way be overly flirtatious, mention sex, past partners, how hot she is, or any of that nonsense in your emails and texts.
3. If you are not physically attractive, you need to be grounded in reality and not bother with those out of your league. If you are an 8, go after 8's. If you are a 5, go after 5's.
4. Persistence, especially if you are male. It's a numbers game and the odds are stacked against you. Even average looking women on the sites are getting emails from 5-6 different guys a day.
5. If you are male, be 5'10" or taller.
~~TIP: Search by the newest members first, especially if you are a male looking for a female. When they are new, they haven't been bombarded with emails by every John Doe in the next three counties, thus they are less likely to have the over inflated egos that the women that have been on there for two-three months have.
The men were not liars. They looked like their photos. They were around my age. None pressured me for sex to early on (or none I actually went out with anyway).
But I just couldn't find anyone really compatible. I realized if I was going to find someone really suited to me then it would have to be "naturally". There was a reason I was not crossing paths with these men IRL - we had incompatible values/beliefs/goals. We had interests in common & our personalities might click to a point, but the other stuff caused gulfs as soon as the first date. Basically, men compatible to me don't seem to do internet dating.
I didn't bombarded with messages as a woman in my mid-20s (at the time) either, and I'm generally considered pretty with slender figure. I did not check "casual sex" options, only friend or relationship options, and I noted I am spiritual/religious, which likely weeded out a huge chunk on the net just looking for easy hook-ups. When I'd first sign-up, then I would get like 20 messages in few days. Then it would dwindle to 1-2 a week, and then maybe die off totally, especially if I did not update my profile a lot.
When I tried OKCupid, the more questions I answered, the more my percentage matches dwindled. I think I got to where no one was higher than a 60% match within the USA. eHarmony rejected me back in the day for not fitting into its neat little boxes - I never went back. PoF was the best site, as far as actually going on dates & meeting decent guys. But still, it always seemed clear why that person had never entered my life through more "organic" means.
I also found myself too caught up in the novelty & wondering of each new person, where I wanted to give anyone decent a "chance". It was not the right way for me to date. I need to be able to focus on someone who has high level of potential from the get-go, not constantly be exploring potential with people who don't really have long-term potential.
I use online dating on and off so far nothing really works. I was never matched with people in my country or anywhere close, not that I rule out the possibilities of LDR, since one reason I joined was to meet someone I otherwise would not have met in my life. Latetly, I had messages from a decent man that I responded to, though after some correspondences he never ask for my email or chat IM or my pic, which I find it kind of strange.. So maybe OLD doesn't work for me but its sweet to hear stories who met their other half through it.
The men were not liars. They looked like their photos. They were around my age. None pressured me for sex to early on (or none I actually went out with anyway).
But I just couldn't find anyone really compatible. I realized if I was going to find someone really suited to me then it would have to be "naturally". There was a reason I was not crossing paths with these men IRL - we had incompatible values/beliefs/goals. We had interests in common & our personalities might click to a point, but the other stuff caused gulfs as soon as the first date. Basically, men compatible to me don't seem to do internet dating.
I didn't bombarded with messages as a woman in my mid-20s (at the time) either, and I'm generally considered pretty with slender figure. I did not check "casual sex" options, only friend or relationship options, and I noted I am spiritual/religious, which likely weeded out a huge chunk on the net just looking for easy hook-ups. When I'd first sign-up, then I would get like 20 messages in few days. Then it would dwindle to 1-2 a week, and then maybe die off totally, especially if I did not update my profile a lot.
When I tried OKCupid, the more questions I answered, the more my percentage matches dwindled. I think I got to where no one was higher than a 60% match within the USA.eHarmony rejected me back in the day for not fitting into its neat little boxes - I never went back. PoF was the best site, as far as actually going on dates & meeting decent guys. But still, it always seemed clear why that person had never entered my life through more "organic" means.
I also found myself too caught up in the novelty & wondering of each new person, where I wanted to give anyone decent a "chance". It was not the right way for me to date. I need to be able to focus on someone who has high level of potential from the get-go, not constantly be exploring potential with people who don't really have long-term potential.
Really? Wow. I had high matches in every location I've lived, but not all were exactly compatible (too young, didn't want children, at different stages in life, etc). The majority of my high matches, high 90's, were in progressive/metro cities like D.C. area, NYC, Chicago, PNW, L.A., and the Bay Area. Even the 90's matches in my area of So Cal when I lived there weren't truly compatible for what I was looking for. DB has been my highest, most compatible match yet. At the time I contacted him we were a 96% match, and then I answered about 200 more questions and it got bumped up to 99%. I've seen a ton of 99s, but these weren't "matches" for me or what I was looking for. I spoke with DB about his experiences, and he hasn't gone out with anyone, including his exes, that were beyond the low-mid 70's.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I had high matches in every location I've lived, but not all were exactly compatible (too young, didn't want children, at different stages in life, etc). The majority of my high matches, high 90's, were in progressive/metro cities like D.C. area, NYC, Chicago, PNW, L.A., and the Bay Area. Even the 90's matches in my area of So Cal when I lived there weren't truly compatible for what I was looking for. DB has been my highest, most compatible match yet. At the time I contacted him we were a 96% match, and then I answered about 200 more questions and it got bumped up to 99%. I've seen a ton of 99s, but these weren't "matches" for me or what I was looking for. I spoke with DB about his experiences, and he hasn't gone out with anyone, including his exes, that were beyond the low-mid 70's.
