A Quantitative Analysis of Online Dating 283
imjustatomato writes "Never before has something so human and primitive as dating been reducible to such discrete values. A study analyzes the data of an online dating service. When do you like someone like yourself? Among online dating members, "marital status" and "wants children" are the two most influential characteristics to match. Other interesting findings are: men initiate 73.3% of messages, but their initiations are 17.9% less likely to be reciprocated; 78.2% of messages are never responded to."
RTFA? (Score:5, Informative)
Anyhow, none of the numbers seem all that surprising, except that 55% of active members are women (63% of all members were men).
okcupid (Score:5, Informative)
Re:More studies like this? (Score:3, Informative)
An important part of research is to first be aware of the existing body of knowledge, in order to avoid duplicating work done elsewhere, or, worse, of coming to conclusions debunked elsewhere.
Most papers have a part called "state of the art" whose purpose is to reference previous work done in the area.
Re:Geographical distance (Score:3, Informative)
Re:This surprises me not one bit. (Score:2, Informative)
On OKC, I think all of my messages except one have received a response, and most of those responses from single women within my geographical range were receptive to the idea of meeting up for a date. I'm sure the fact that the site is free helps a lot in that regard. It may not also hurt that it's also a blog site of sorts, that's not just about dating, so people have at least some compulsion to log on and check their messages, even if they're not feeling super lonely.
Done before (Score:3, Informative)
Re:my observation (Score:5, Informative)
Too many women (and probably men) are putting up unrealistically flattering photos, which means an unpleasant suprise in person. My wife unintentionally put up fairly unflattering photos and when I saw her in person, I had to check the room again, as I was so pleasantly suprised. I told her that her photos didn't do her justice and that was the beginning of a beautiful relationship.
Just remember that dating websites only kinda solve one part of the problem. They get you introductions to people you would never otherwise meet. If they're honest on their profile, you also get some early answers to important questions, but there are no guarantees there. You're still going to have to go through all of the work of really seeing if the relationship makes sense and then putting in the work to build that relationship into something significant, with all of the joys and difficulties that will bring.
As for the income thing, match equates "don't want to answer" with "less than $25k/year". My wife didn't want to date the unemployed and put "at least $25k/year" as a filter and only saw me because I had recently made my income visible. So my wife wasn't being a gold-digger, but wouldn't have seen me if I hadn't put my income out there. Match.com's decision-making on this question is particularly questionable.
Regards,
Ross
and men love a woman.... (Score:3, Informative)
from grandparent post:
From my limited experience on Match, I think the most important thing women were looking for was income range. I initially had that on my profile and got swamped with replies, after hiding that bit they slowed way down.
As a woman I can make a reciprocol evaluation: From my experience, the most important thing men were looking for was looks. I initially had a photo up and got swamped with replies, after removing the photo they slowed way down.
Want responses? Try a fee-based service (Score:2, Informative)
I had quite a bit of luck when I was using a fee-based service: had a steady flow of dates, dated for several months on a few occasions, and met my present girlfriend. With the fee-based service, you had to buy credits to send messages (instant or mail) but 'smiles' were free. You'd log in and either find responses to the few emails you sent out the day before or at least a couple of new 'smiles' to pursue. It was easy-peasy.
When I tried a free site, my response rate dropped to about 1% compared to about 50% on the fee-based site -- it was a complete waste of time. Why? It turns out the women were bombarded with hundreds of mail a day (compared to 5-10 with the fee-based services). A few of my prior-dates-now-chat-buddies and I talked about this and confirmed it -- they just couldn't keep up with all the mail, most of it being half-assed attempts to get them into bed or have webcam sex.
My conclusion? Since the service was fee-based, and each message costs you money, you have to think twice about sending pictures of your wee-wee to "IWANTHOTSEX69" and the "LONELYHOUSEWIFEWHOJUSTWANTSATTENTION" and "IM18ANDGIGGLY" types are much less likely to dominate the population.
Re:Geographical distance (Score:2, Informative)
The most important thing however is to have a plan/goal that you can work together towards. (if its a serious one, the first should be getting closer geographically).
Re:okcupid (Score:4, Informative)
I've found the free sites generally better than the pay sites, too. Never met anyone from okcupid, but I met my current g/f on PlentyOfFish [plentyoffish.com], and met a previous g/f there as well.
In about three years of online dating I've observed that:
1) Almost everyone lies, generally about age, appearance and relationship history. Lieing about appearance is the one that I haven't been able to make sense of. I've observed it myself in women, and according to many women I've dated lots of men do it too. One women described a guy she met as being, relative to his online picture, like the "before and after" of some terrible and ravaging disease. Lieing is a showstopper for me, so I have tended to drop a lot of women gently after a first meeting.
2) Even on the really skanky sites, women are either looking for a relationship or are really messed up. I've never dated anyone from such sites, but poked around out of curiousity. Really.
3) Free sites are better than pay sites. Lavalife is the best pay site I've used.
4) Different sites have different geographic representations. I live in a small town, and some sites have far more women in my area than others. I have no idea why.
5) By far the best strategy is to "meet early, meet often." After a couple of e-mail exchanges I ask if she wants to meet for coffee somewhere. If not, that's the end of it--life is too short to waste time on electronic interaction when five minutes face-to-face will tell you more than five months online.
Overall, online dating is a very good thing if people go into with reasonable expectations and treat it as an introduction service rather than a magic filter that will find them "the One" without any hard relationship-building work on their part.
My two bits (Score:1, Informative)
Simple system - it only costs you $ to send messages, and if you're crafty, you can occasionally bypass that altogether.
Anyways, I went on more then a few dates. Most were good - just women in a similar boat as me - just wanting to meet someone, see where things go. I still talk to a coupel of them as they're good friends.
I also got married this past summer to the last woman I dated from the site.
Just a few bits I've picked up from my time on an online dating service:
1. Be honest. If you're 5'2", say so. Some women want a man taller then them, and that's their issue to deal with. Don't try and change their mind. They'll already think you're a liar when you first meet if you haven't been up front about it.
2. Post a pic. Esp. important for me, but I'll get to that in a moment. Seriously - it's easier for someone to say "I wan tto meet that person" if they know what you look like.
3. Guys - be prepared to pay. Most women (at least on lavalife.com) expect men to make first contact, and that means it's the guys putting up the cash to pay for that first message.
Re:Geographical distance (Score:2, Informative)