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.
Agreed. Given the amount of work already done by the author of the study, it would be useful to see what happens if (1) the men start messaging women, (2) percentage of men's messages that receive a reply, and (3) percentages of online exchanges that result in acceptance of a proposition for a real-life date.
OKCupid actually has done those results as well, and they're even worse.
blog.okcupid.com
There's a lot of reading there, but the general summary is nothing new. OKC is known for doing a lot of crossover-averaging in their studies, but here's some quick summaries, most of which have a huge "duh" factor:
Men do 90% of the messaging, but are less successful than women at getting a response.
The hotter people are, the more messages they get, and the more successful their messages are at getting responses. The one exception is the hottest women (OKC has a "rating" of 1-5 of attractiveness). Women that are 5's get the same amount of messages as women that are 3's.
Women rate the "average" guy a 1.5.
The less attractive the person you message, the more likely you get a response. Exception: When super hot guys message less than attractive women, their success rate takes a NOSEDIVE. (consider that when lamenting that "men only message the attractive women")
For women: More skin = more messages.
For men: Not looking at the camera = more messages.
Women: The cliche "top down" camera angle = WAY more messages (as in, 7x more successful than others). This success distribution INCREASES as they get older.
Men: Cliche "headless bathroom shot" = WAY more messages (as in assuming you're rated a "5"). This DECREASES as they get older.
As for the "chance a message leads to anything", it's HIGHLY dependent on the pictures. It's more likely if you're
Doing something interesting
With an animal
Travel photo
...and less likely if
drinking
with friends
"top down" angle
there's tons more data in there, this is all I had the attention to type right now.
OKCupid actually has done those results as well, and they're even worse.
blog.okcupid.com
...
It's good that you've brought these studies to the attention of the Forum. I've seen a smattering of them, and frankly, they baffle me. It's to be expected that more attractive people receive more attention. The world works that way. It's nobody's fault, save for the programming by evolution. But the cliches, the cleavage-shots and bathroom poses and embraces of animals... I marvel at people's cupidity.
My own criteria for messaging are starkly different. I'll message essentially any woman who writes in her profile that she does not have children, and does not wish to have any. Whether she is obese, strikingly unattractive, too old, too young, too far away, mired in a dead-end job, unable to string two sentences together, complaining of a litany of problems.... for me the go/no-go criteria hinge entirely upon the question of reproductive choice. Sometimes I don't even look at the photos - at all.
An interesting idea, but what you'd find is people "initiating contact" with "hi" and never responding back. Some sites are trying certain concepts to get around the gender imbalance.
I applaud those sites for trying a different approach. Perhaps algorithms to determine if the sent message was a simple "Hi" would work.
OKCupid actually has done those results as well, and they're even worse.
blog.okcupid.com
There's a lot of reading there, but the general summary is nothing new. OKC is known for doing a lot of crossover-averaging in their studies, but here's some quick summaries, most of which have a huge "duh" factor:
Men do 90% of the messaging, but are less successful than women at getting a response.
The hotter people are, the more messages they get, and the more successful their messages are at getting responses. The one exception is the hottest women (OKC has a "rating" of 1-5 of attractiveness). Women that are 5's get the same amount of messages as women that are 3's.
Women rate the "average" guy a 1.5.
The less attractive the person you message, the more likely you get a response. Exception: When super hot guys message less than attractive women, their success rate takes a NOSEDIVE. (consider that when lamenting that "men only message the attractive women")
For women: More skin = more messages.
For men: Not looking at the camera = more messages.
Women: The cliche "top down" camera angle = WAY more messages (as in, 7x more successful than others). This success distribution INCREASES as they get older.
Men: Cliche "headless bathroom shot" = WAY more messages (as in assuming you're rated a "5"). This DECREASES as they get older.
As for the "chance a message leads to anything", it's HIGHLY dependent on the pictures. It's more likely if you're
Doing something interesting
With an animal
Travel photo
...and less likely if
drinking
with friends
"top down" angle
there's tons more data in there, this is all I had the attention to type right now.
LOL. I never took the time to over analyze on-line dating that much. Just went online, and dated. Who didn't like me, etc. was never a concern. Nor were picture angles or any other nonsense.
__________________ ____________________________________________
My posts as a Mod will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS
And check this out: FAQ
Moderator: Relationships Forum / Hawaii Forum / Dogs / Pets / Current Events
LOL. I never took the time to over analyze on-line dating that much. Who didn't like me, etc. was never a concern. Nor were picture angles or any other nonsense.
Most women say they hate that. A lot say it in their profiles.
That's the irony. In the link I posted, the author was hoping to see the same result. Just like you see guys posting how sick they are of the top-down angle on women. And yet...results.
Edit: from the article: "a journalist was visiting our office recently, and when we told her we were researching user photos, the first thing she said was “please tell me people hate it when guys show off their abs.” We hadn’t finished running the numbers yet, so we confidently reassured her that people did. The data contradicted us.
Of course, there is some self-selection here: the guys showing off their abs are the ones with abs worth showing, and naturally the best bodies get lots of messages. So we can’t recommend this photo tactic to every man. But, contrary to everything you read about profile pictures, if you’re a guy with a nice body, it’s actually better to take off your shirt than to leave it on. We would never suggest to a Fitzgerald or a Dave Eggers to limit his profile to 100 words, and so why should guys with great bodies keep their best asset under wraps?"
It's also worth noting that men who took this kind of shot were literally the ONLY category of profile for men that received more messages than they sent.
Note that the older the guy/girl is, the less effective that particular shot is.
Also this, for a lot of reasons that I don't have the energy to explain right now...so I'll just second the notion
Edit: To clarify: Pay attention, just don't base your actions on what you hear. The discrepancies are important.
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.
