SadandConfusedWA Posted August 28, 2010 Posted August 28, 2010 So I decided to put my pictures through this and see what happens. Some of the results are kind of surprising. At first everything looked fine. The picture that I thought was my best picture was also selected as the best. Groups of people that found me most attractive were nerds closely followed by geeks I thought this was great as they are my target audience. Now for the surprising part. When it came to the age breakdown, men that found me most attractive were aged 18-22 followed by 22-31 and lastly 31+ WTF? I am 31 years old. I feel like I should re-take my pictures now
WintersNightTraveler Posted August 28, 2010 Posted August 28, 2010 Groups of people that found me most attractive were nerds closely followed by geeks I thought this was great as they are my target audience. Now for the surprising part. When it came to the age breakdown, men that found me most attractive were aged 18-22 followed by 22-31 and lastly 31+ WTF? I am 31 years old. I feel like I should re-take my pictures now One run through doesn't present a large enough sample size for stable results on the breakdowns. I think you get about 100 votes, which is probably enough for the overall score to settle in but I don't buy some of the breakdowns, since I ran it three times and sometimes the breakdowns were different, although the pictures themselves *overall* varied no more than 10 points and didn't shift in order too much. I also wouldn't be surprised if younger men just rated pics higher than older men did, across the board. I am not sure if they normalize for that. That's the problem with any of these silly little online things if you know much about stats and math, there are always problems with the validity of the approach. I do find OKC is better than most though along these lines.
WintersNightTraveler Posted August 28, 2010 Posted August 28, 2010 Actually it's preference based, not like they pick a numerical scale. So scratch the bit about normalization for age. I'm still suspect of the sample size though. I recall on one run through the Christians loved me, and in another, not so much.
Author SadandConfusedWA Posted August 29, 2010 Author Posted August 29, 2010 Sample size of 100 is reasonable enough I think. BTW Christians seem to hate me
meerkat stew Posted August 29, 2010 Posted August 29, 2010 I can't imagine mature adult men taking time to play some face rating game on a dating site, explaining why the respondents are mostly kids. Don't change your pics.
MrNate Posted August 29, 2010 Posted August 29, 2010 I guess since I'm 22, I fall into those stats. I don't mind at all
Art_Critic Posted August 29, 2010 Posted August 29, 2010 When it came to the age breakdown, men that found me most attractive were aged 18-22 followed by 22-31 and lastly 31+ WTF? I am 31 years old. It isn't surprising to me.. men 31+ are looking for younger women and the younger guys are looking for older.. Don't worry about the age groups not hitting right for you.. worry about whether or not you use the right pictures that rate the highest and throw out the ones that score low.
Pink Cupcakes Posted August 29, 2010 Posted August 29, 2010 I don't know what this is, but if you are getting upset about this, you are taking the whole dating thing as all about looks. It's not.
WintersNightTraveler Posted August 29, 2010 Posted August 29, 2010 Sample size of 100 is reasonable enough I think. How about 33? B/C that's what your getting with the age divisons. Or more likely 50/30/20 even, due to younger people being more common on the internet. I can't imagine mature adult men taking time to play some face rating game on a dating site, explaining why the respondents are mostly kids. Don't change your pics. Yes, imagine that, grown adults spending time non constructively on the internet. Nahh, could never happen... Agreed re don't change the pics though. As someone else noted, this is best used as a tool to help order the pics.
Author SadandConfusedWA Posted August 29, 2010 Author Posted August 29, 2010 I guess it's the same thing with types (geeks, Christians etc). Even taking into account that a person can select more than one type - sample size takes a nose dive and the results are less accurate.
somedude81 Posted August 29, 2010 Posted August 29, 2010 Pictures? I want to see what is attracting freaks and geeks
WintersNightTraveler Posted August 29, 2010 Posted August 29, 2010 I guess it's the same thing with types (geeks, Christians etc). Even taking into account that a person can select more than one type - sample size takes a nose dive and the results are less accurate. It's probably worse than that in fact - smaller samples. I would love to see their data. It might even be there is no strong correlation between ratings and self association with one of the groups they let you choose. It should be that any significantly sized sample of geeks rate you the same way, if geeks really do rate similarly to each other. Likewise Christians, jocks, whatever. But do they? And are the correlations strong than if you just randomly picked a similarly sized sample? I wonder if they have done a second pass analysis on their data to see if their original choices of groups were meaningful ones. I do think those guys are sitting on a gold mine. Match et al are chugging away on a subscriber model, meanwhile these guys are collecting data with huge marketing potential. Bleh whatever enough rambling. I'm sure your pics are good anyway. I'm sure your problem is not that you aren't getting enough messages or page views on OKC.
Author SadandConfusedWA Posted August 29, 2010 Author Posted August 29, 2010 Oh I agree OKC has a far superior model than any of the other dating sites. I would actually love to work for OKC just so I can get to play around with their data. BTW are you a statistician or similar?
Author SadandConfusedWA Posted August 29, 2010 Author Posted August 29, 2010 I would love to see their data. It might even be there is no strong correlation between ratings and self association with one of the groups they let you choose. It should be that any significantly sized sample of geeks rate you the same way, if geeks really do rate similarly to each other. Likewise Christians, jocks, whatever. But do they? And are the correlations strong than if you just randomly picked a similarly sized sample? I wonder if they have done a second pass analysis on their data to see if their original choices of groups were meaningful ones. I seriously doubt that they have looked into it in depth. My feeling would be that there is most likely no strong correlation between ratings and the groups people pick.
WintersNightTraveler Posted August 29, 2010 Posted August 29, 2010 BTW are you a statistician or similar? No, but my math-fu is strong for a layman. It comes in handy for all the computer and engineering stuff, and I work with lots and lots of data sometimes. You don't really need graduate level insight to have fun with this kind of data. I seriously doubt that they have looked into it in depth. My feeling would be that there is most likely no strong correlation between ratings and the groups people pick. Yes, they probably just picked whatever they felt would seem most appealing to their members, or just some set of "common sense" groups that someone felt was good enough.
dispatch3d Posted August 29, 2010 Posted August 29, 2010 what were you rated? I think as long as you're getting dates+interest from guys regularly your fine where you stand. Doesn't mean you can't improve, just that you are at some minimum which is all that's really important. You probably don't actually want to be really attractive fwiw.........
bayouboi Posted August 29, 2010 Posted August 29, 2010 Sample size of 100 is reasonable enough I think. BTW Christians seem to hate me I'm a Christian, what am I supposed to hate about you? How do you find out that information anyhow hehe?
Author SadandConfusedWA Posted August 29, 2010 Author Posted August 29, 2010 what were you rated? I think as long as you're getting dates+interest from guys regularly your fine where you stand. Doesn't mean you can't improve, just that you are at some minimum which is all that's really important. You probably don't actually want to be really attractive fwiw......... I am not telling But, yeah no problem getting interest and dates - it's just mostly from men I feel are unsuitable for me.
RustyCage Posted August 29, 2010 Posted August 29, 2010 This might be off-topic, but, thanks to whomever might read this who actually had something constructive or not completely negative to say in that other pic thread, which I'm assuming was deleted for whatever reason because I can't find it. I guess it was probably silly to go looking for validation from total strangers, most being much older than I am, and I should just do my own thing and not worry about people who might judge me based on superficial shallow qualities. I'm too young to worry about this stuff, I need to just worry about being a kid.
zengirl Posted August 29, 2010 Posted August 29, 2010 Sample size of 100 is reasonable enough I think. BTW Christians seem to hate me You can't take it too seriously. A sample size of 100 people, all just rating because they want to get their own ratings back, simply looking at 1 picture does not tell you much. As I remember, you don't have a lot of trouble getting fellows in your age range to contact you, do you? Then, why start fussing about it. Make sure your pictures are cute, interesting, and look like you. Use the tool for what it IS -- a fun way to see what your best face is -- not what it isn't. It isn't an in-depth survey about your overall date ability.
dispatch3d Posted August 29, 2010 Posted August 29, 2010 I am not telling But, yeah no problem getting interest and dates - it's just mostly from men I feel are unsuitable for me. why are they unsuitable? How are you chosing the guys you should date? Why do you think this is resulting in x-kind of stereotypical guy? Both better questions than which picture makes me look slightly better. Getting 20 messages a day from guys who you suck at screening for things you like isn't any better than getting 5 messages a day. Mind you if it was 4 messages/month as opposed to 4 messages/day then maybe I'd agree...... which is why I asked that question.
Recommended Posts