Is It Worth it To Get Professional Pics Done for Online Dating?

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by Hivemind31

I could be misunderstanding, but my impression was that the OP was having trouble finding dates at all.

Maybe, but are having one and done dates all that much better than no dates at all?

I dunno.

That said, lucky me, I have the relationship I wasn't looking for... she's sick as a dog and pissed her 4 day weekend is ruined, and I'm going over there to be a footrest and rub her feet while watching movies. Way to party on a Friday. Woo.

Originally Posted by reneeh63

It most CERTAINLY is a numbers game. Out of a hundred people online are you saying that 90 of them are suitable so if only 1 responds to you you have good odds of hitting it off?

Or is it more the case of only 10 people are reasonably similar to you so you'd do better to try with all of them to get 1 or 2 that might actually go somewhere?

It is not. The numbers game idea is about a scatter shot approach. Wrong way to go. Write very few people you really have a chance with and take a break. I might do 1-2 a week out of maybe 20k people within 5 years of my age in a big metro area. Its rare to find more than that that interests me.

Target YOUR PEOPLE, not anyone that might work

[Hivemind31]

Originally Posted by timberline742

Maybe, but are having one and done dates all that much better than no dates at all?

I dunno.

That said, lucky me, I have the relationship I wasn't looking for... she's sick as a dog and pissed her 4 day weekend is ruined, and I'm going over there to be a footrest and rub her feet while watching movies. Way to party on a Friday. Woo.





It is not. The numbers game idea is about a scatter shot approach. Wrong way to go. Write very few people you really have a chance with and take a break. I might do 1-2 a week out of maybe 20k people within 5 years of my age in a big metro area. Its rare to find more than that that interests me.

Target YOUR PEOPLE, not anyone that might work

I'm glad you put it this way because, while accurate, it'll help me try and better explain my thoughts on the matter.

I'm of the opinion that in an environment where one is the pursuer rather than the pursued (which is how I'd describe dating in general for men, and exaggerated even further online), it behooves you to create an environment such that YOU can do the selecting from those that are already interested in you, and not the other way around. (it's for this reason that I advocate that all men using Tinder simply swipe EVERYONE right, and then choose from the women that swipe back).

Obviously, motive is a big factor. You're less likely to find the proverbial "one" this way, obviously, but the alternate result doesn't necessarily have to be at the opposite end of the spectrum (i.e. a "one and done" date). I've had plenty of flings and short term relationships that worked out great from this. And nothing's stopping you from putting a more appropriate level of thought/time/effort into the women who respond back that you're really into.

The traditional "write a detailed, well thought out message" approach (to me) is akin to modern online job applications, where you spend a ton of time and effort to message someone where you'll receive very little chance of response. I'd rather simply message everyone, see who bites, and THEN put the effort in. Lazy? Sure. Effective? Absolutely.

I certainly suppose I'd have a different view if my biological clock was ticking and I wanted to get married, if only for the idea that my future wife might gloss over my spam and we end up never meeting. But again, I didn't get that impression from the OP.

And for what it's worth, I only advocate this approach in lieu of the more accepted approach because I've done both and I've had FAR more success with my way. Obviously, YMMV. (or, in other words...target everyone, and then look for YOUR PEOPLE from among those who respond)

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by Hivemind31

I'm glad you put it this way because, while accurate, it'll help me try and better explain my thoughts on the matter.

I'm of the opinion that in an environment where one is the pursuer rather than the pursued (which is how I'd describe dating in general for men, and exaggerated even further online), it behooves you to create an environment such that YOU can do the selecting from those that are already interested in you, and not the other way around. (it's for this reason that I advocate that all men using Tinder simply swipe EVERYONE right, and then choose from the women that swipe back).

Obviously, motive is a big factor. You're less likely to find the proverbial "one" this way, obviously, but the alternate result doesn't necessarily have to be at the opposite end of the spectrum (i.e. a "one and done" date). I've had plenty of flings and short term relationships that worked out great from this. And nothing's stopping you from putting a more appropriate level of thought/time/effort into the women who respond back that you're really into.

The traditional "write a detailed, well thought out message" approach (to me) is akin to modern online job applications, where you spend a ton of time and effort to message someone where you'll receive very little chance of response. I'd rather simply message everyone, see who bites, and THEN put the effort in. Lazy? Sure. Effective? Absolutely.

I certainly suppose I'd have a different view if my biological clock was ticking and I wanted to get married, if only for the idea that my future wife might gloss over my spam and we end up never meeting. But again, I didn't get that impression from the OP.

And for what it's worth, I only advocate this approach in lieu of the more accepted approach because I've done both and I've had FAR more success with my way. Obviously, YMMV. (or, in other words...target everyone, and then look for YOUR PEOPLE from among those who respond)

I understand where you are coming from, but a couple of things. I'm not necessarily looking for the one or have a clock, but I do want to meet people I make a connection with whether that results in a couple of dates, a hook up, a relationship, or a friendship. If I messaged everyone I'm fully convinced that the people I do connect with I'd never meet at all. My people don't respond to short emails, cookie cutter messages, etc. They just don't. I, at this point, don't view success in number of responses or dates, but in connections made per the effort put in.

I'm glad you compared it to a job search. There are tons of similarities. The absolutely wrong way to search for a job is to just apply for everything. The response rate and efficiency is horrendous; it is like messaging everyone in OLD. The effort is put in the front end. I don't think I've applied for more than 5-6 jobs ever without receiving and offer because I don't play the scattershot approach. I don't load my resume or cover letter to some Taleo system and cross my fingers. I target, plan, and execute the plan. Playing inefficient games that are rigged against you and just increasing volume to get a hit is incredibly wasteful. Don't play the game everyone else is playing. Do what works to your advantage.

And I do the selecting based on who is interested in me, in many respects. That is why I, when I might find 20 people I'd be interested in meeting, only message a fraction of those. Why? Because it is clear that I'm not what they are looking for. If the profile is well constructed (and I'm not interested in those with short / vapid / cliche ridden profiles) I can determine this before I even write. When I'm sincere and careful about doing it this way, well more than 50% of people write back and I almost always get at least a fling out of the 4-6 dates I have in a period of trying OLD. Sometimes I hook up or date half, sometimes none (sh*t happens), but it is uncommon to not find a fling/lover/STR out of each time I give it a shot. Sometimes more comes from it.

[Hivemind31]

Originally Posted by timberline742

I understand where you are coming from, but a couple of things. I'm not necessarily looking for the one or have a clock, but I do want to meet people I make a connection with whether that results in a couple of dates, a hook up, a relationship, or a friendship. If I messaged everyone I'm fully convinced that the people I do connect with I'd never meet at all. My people don't respond to short emails, cookie cutter messages, etc. They just don't. I, at this point, don't view success in number of responses or dates, but in connections made per the effort put in.

For me, personally, the underlined is the only aspect I lament about my strategy, because I don't doubt that it's true.

Originally Posted by timberline742

I'm glad you compared it to a job search. There are tons of similarities. The absolutely wrong way to search for a job is to just apply for everything. The response rate and efficiency is horrendous; it is like messaging everyone in OLD. The effort is put in the front end. I don't think I've applied for more than 5-6 jobs ever without receiving and offer because I don't play the scattershot approach. I don't load my resume or cover letter to some Taleo system and cross my fingers. I target, plan, and execute the plan. Playing inefficient games that are rigged against you and just increasing volume to get a hit is incredibly wasteful. Don't play the game everyone else is playing. Do what works to your advantage.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree here; I see what you're saying, I've just had more success with alternate angles. I take a (roughly) similar approach with jobs....I DO load my resume on Taleo and cross my fingers. There are, of course, exceptions about job prospects that I'm particularly excited about (as is the case with women) and in those instances, I'll do the research, take the time, etc....but in both cases, they are VERY few and far between. It's strange that it seems we both agree strongly with your last couple of sentences here, but, at least to me...it seems that my method is what works to my advantage, and is contrary to the game everyone else is playing (particularly on Tinder). I'm willing to chalk that up to a differed perception.

Originally Posted by timberline742

And I do the selecting based on who is interested in me, in many respects. That is why I, when I might find 20 people I'd be interested in meeting, only message a fraction of those. Why? Because it is clear that I'm not what they are looking for. If the profile is well constructed (and I'm not interested in those with short / vapid / cliche ridden profiles) I can determine this before I even write. When I'm sincere and careful about doing it this way, well more than 50% of people write back and I almost always get at least a fling out of the 4-6 dates I have in a period of trying OLD. Sometimes I hook up or date half, sometimes none (sh*t happens), but it is uncommon to not find a fling/lover/STR out of each time I give it a shot. Sometimes more comes from it.

This just simply hasn't been my experience. I don't doubt that it's true, but I feel there's a STRONG difference between "careful selection" (that's me paraphrasing your method of messaging, I don't mean any offense) and "obvious interest" (which is me paraphrasing MY method of screening messages I receive). Using careful selection, it may feel that (in a way), you're selecting based on who's interested in you....but I don't agree. When enough of one's well-crafted, genuine messages go ignored, they simply have to chalk up the failure to one of many things: inability to read the person well enough, not writing a good enough message, or something else. It would appear that you haven't had enough of those experiences to dissuade you from continuing to use that method (whereas I certainly have). I don't mean that to imply that you haven't had them at all, but rather, it's possible that I simply give up sooner than you, or you happen to be a better gauge of personality, or any of a million other possibilities.

I simply don't have to spend as much time (which, until I know someone is interested, feels like work) when I know the woman is already interested enough to respond to my message. At that point it reverts back to simply "being myself". Were I to do things your way (and I have) I'm certainly more likely to find a quality person, but WAY WAY WAY less likely to meet anyone at all. Since I pursue dating as more of a hobby, I prefer the former.

It's more a matter of interpretation than I would have originally believed. Suffice to say, I've had little to no success by writing messages that women want to read, and a TON of success by sending out generic messages and then screening the women that respond. I wouldn't say it's "better"; it's simply worked better for ME. It could even be as psychologically base as "I want to be the chooser, and not the chosen". Even then, it's good enough for me

[kmlstar]

As a woman with experience dating online, I agree--profiles are important! I will give a picture a chance by reading the profile. Pictures are important, but you can get a feel of the person behind the pic by what they say about themselves and who they're looking for!

[FBJ]

I feel that a professional photo is not doing much is the person is not that much of a looker