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'm taking the thread to be about the efficacy of copy paste messages and not anecdote as it doesn't serve the O.P.
To that point, I recall the data showing only partially negative keystroke-to-character ratios as the most effective in garnering replies, which would point to boilerplate being more effective to just a ctrl-v and send approach. Basically, semi-personalize it.
I think if you gave them a multiple guess/mad libs style boilerplate with your answer circled or bolded or whatever, and the multiple options were suitably ludicrous and witty, you might get somewhere. But you'd have to be on top of your game.
If it helps you feel better, I never got dozens of likes or hi's or anything like that. I still had to do most of the messaging. And I did online dating on and off for a few years. But I still ignored the "hi's" I got as worthless because they were. I spent a lot of time reading profiles and only messaging a few. About half ignored me, a few more wrote to me but fizzled, but I would say I had about a 20% success rate of first dates (and even few 2nd and 3rd dates... but I got them). In the end, I met someone on line and have a budding relationship now. They were only online one week too (I'd been online for a month at that point). Interesting thing was, the first date, I knew I found the right one. Can't explain how, but I did.
Don't let lack of success bring you down. If I had, I never would have met someone... the right someone. It takes a lot of trying and effort to find the right person (online or offline). Anything worth it usually does.
. Thanks. Helps a bit... up until the 50% response rate (and 20% first date rate). I'd cut off one of my less critical toes to get a 5% response rate.
To be honest, I've pretty much given up on messaging as a means to success altogether. I've gone on about one date a year for five plus years now (crap, it's going on two since the last one), and only one woman I messaged first... all the rest contacted me initially.
I'll keep up the effort and not shotgun every compatible single lady with a ctrl-v'd "Sup?", so I can posit to you all that at least one of us "men" is making a concerted effort. Enjoy deleting my efforts.
It's 4 laughing faces from an I phone responding to your last post saying you were a girl lol
Honestly you can't see them???
No, I see squares with numbers in them. Maybe you need to use the smilies that come with the forum instead of your phone emojis.
Anyway, glad you find it amusing that I'm a woman. FWIW, I've seen profiles by men who said they would rather someone say something that shows she read the profile, if only to prove that she's not a hooker bot.
I'm just curious, does every guy message that many girls seeking a shot? You're really blasting like all of us? All of ya playing the "numbers game?"
Are you actually attracted to that many women on OLD?
And really, if a guy had an approach to making contact with me like "uggghhhh....I really want a shot at this chick, she's kind of hot...but wordddsss....so much work...don't want to actually have to talk to her first...ugggghhh...work..." Ya know, please, just don't bother. If speaking to women is "work," if it taxes you so badly, then you're really not my type anyways. And you should go lay down before reading this forum makes your eyes cross or something. Jeez.
But a guy need not sink his heart and soul into a novel or a sonnet to start a conversation either.
I would respond to this:
"Hey! Dr. Who, Lovecraft, Red Dwarf and Pathfinder! Me too! We should talk!"
In fact I have responded to similar openers. But don't try to fake it, because a girl like me will expect you to be able to back it up by having those interests. If you have no interests in common, you should maybe leave that one alone. Because "I'm not your type but I think you're hot" is just not going to get you anywhere.
I think if you gave them a multiple guess/mad libs style boilerplate with your answer circled or bolded or whatever, and the multiple options were suitably ludicrous and witty, you might get somewhere. But you'd have to be on top of your game.
Actually, nowhere near that. Like I said, at worst, messages that were cut-and-paste / boilerplate were 75% as effective as entirely personalized ones. Ones tailored better, and/or sent by more appealing individuals, clustered up as being just as effective. Rudder said he was blown away at how rampant this type of messaging was, and equally taken aback on how often it worked.
As for those ladies and gentlemen here who say you're not fooled by the practice, you can't know you were fooled or not... well... because you were fooled. That's how it works.
I'm just curious, does every guy message that many girls seeking a shot? You're really blasting like all of us? All of ya playing the "numbers game?"
First, you're assuming no women do the same. Maybe very few do, but for the sake of parity, let's not make it a man/women thing. Also, LGBT people use these sites as well. C-D seems to pretend they do not exist in these conversations.
Second, just a suspicion on my part, but I think it's more a matter of 'generate contact first, vet the candidates after". It's a lot less work this way. Taking the time to write and send messages (even boilerplate) is just the half of it, if you're also combing through profiles on top of it. One finds out who's willing to talk to you, then qualify that pool. Honestly, this is the only way to do Tinder, IMO.
This stuff really becomes sensible with high initial messaging disparities. Like I said, I don't do anything but personalized messages, but it's very tempting when the reply rates and contact rates from others are so abysmally low. On Tinder, I did go to 'swipe right everything'. When you get from zero to one match in literally thousands, it just is a numbers game. You have an idea how to fix that?
Actually, nowhere near that. Like I said, at worst, messages that were cut-and-paste / boilerplate were 75% as effective as entirely personalized ones. Ones tailored better, and/or sent by more appealing individuals, clustered up as being just as effective. Rudder said he was blown away at how rampant this type of messaging was, and equally taken aback on how often it worked.
As for those ladies and gentlemen here who say you're not fooled by the practice, you can't know you were fooled or not... well... because you were fooled. That's how it works.
Actually, there is a way to tell: Embed a question in the profile, right in the middle of a paragraph (not at the beginning or end), that asks the person a very specific question to answer when writing to you and say that if the person doesn't answer the question, you'll assume the message is from a bot.
Quite a few not only answered mine, but were amused that we had the same sense of humor and used it as a jumping off point. Can't make it any easier for someone than that.
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.
. Thanks. Helps a bit... up until the 50% response rate (and 20% first date rate). 
I'd cut off one of my less critical toes to get a 5% response rate. 
