Mirages Posted August 11, 2014 Posted August 11, 2014 (edited) Title was supposed to be "Match.com vs Target" Anyhow... So I am in my 30's, and when browsing OKC, match, etc. for ladies. I find that I am attracted to perhaps 2% of candidates. By appearance I could be with maybe 5%, and half of those profiles have something among them that further reduces it. However IRL I have found that I can be attracted to a greater percentage, and just in department stores, certain ones, the proportion rises to 50%. Obviously I cannot fully evaluate shoppers, but I can see how they interact, dress, look, they are squared away. It becomes obvious that there is personality, intelligence, beauty there. Psycho's emit a slight effect that typically can be detected. So to the questions: 1) Why are profile photos so poor in quality, people deliberately using glare, off color lighting, etc to screw it up? I don't want a photographer, but hey, how about a B level photo? 2) Are they using low quality photos to reduce the "excess messages" that are reported to be going out to those who don't look like gnomes? I.e. any quality dates from characters with the crappy photos? 3) Are disappointments in the OLD field coming up as: Lies | Intelligence | Beauty | personality? Just thought I'd ask, typically people putting their best foot forward will blunder in less obvious ways than this; all new to me. Thanks. Edited August 11, 2014 by Mirages
Scales Posted August 11, 2014 Posted August 11, 2014 Title was supposed to be "Match.com vs Target" Anyhow... So I am in my 30's, and when browsing OKC, match, etc. for ladies. I find that I am attracted to perhaps 2% of candidates. By appearance I could be with maybe 5%, and half of those profiles have something among them that further reduces it. However IRL I have found that I can be attracted to a greater percentage, and just in department stores, certain ones, the proportion rises to 50%. Obviously I cannot fully evaluate shoppers, but I can see how they interact, dress, look, they are squared away. It becomes obvious that there is personality, intelligence, beauty there. Psycho's emit a slight effect that typically can be detected. So to the questions: 1) Why are profile photos so poor in quality, people deliberately using glare, off color lighting, etc to screw it up? I don't want a photographer, but hey, how about a B level photo? 2) Are they using low quality photos to reduce the "excess messages" that are reported to be going out to those who don't look like gnomes? I.e. any quality dates from characters with the crappy photos? 3) Are disappointments in the OLD field coming up as: Lies | Intelligence | Beauty | personality? Just thought I'd ask, typically people putting their best foot forward will blunder in less obvious ways than this; all new to me. Thanks. Simply put: girls don't need a great photo to get messages. A "D or C" level photo will do wonders. Also, a lot of photos are angled to hide being fat or off colored to cover up skin imperfections. Also I found this post a little strange. Only 2% online attractive, but 50% in Target are OK? I don't where you live but the girls at my target are Moms or teenagers with nothing to do. There aren't tons, but there are at least some decent women on OLD. 1
Author Mirages Posted August 11, 2014 Author Posted August 11, 2014 I certainly hear you, it probably related to insecurity of aging image. Well, I live in an area that is economically at the 40th percentile of the USA, so we have hope here, but this is no California. Yes the Target and Kohls store have about 50% of the shoppers in my age bracket that look like they are not missing a beat (the Walmart is also around 5%, Walmart's clientele is grungier). The point is I am not going to use Target as a dating club, no, just an observation of disproportionate kinds... I still don't get how crappy photos can be found on 70% of profiles! Even reading those, I'd say a lot of them are OK people, not my first pick, but it's like they thought "Let me get the sun in the lens and focus on the trees, yea! " And those with a cellphone to mirror job that shows the toilet in the bathroom, hmm, I don't think so. Finally there have been two who purport to be professional photographers, yet still have fully yellowed fuzzy photos, really? 1
insert_name Posted August 11, 2014 Posted August 11, 2014 I find this too, I am quite picky in the sense that physical attraction is very important to me, but that being said I am attracted to all sorts of girls not ones that would be considered conventionally attractive. Like you I find it strange that walking round the town centre where I live I find most girls I see attractive yet on OLD there are very few that I do. I find that, for me, there is no middle ground, there is a small pool of very hot girls and the rest are not very attractive at all. There are no girls I would consider to be average looking girls. And I have also found that they put no effort into their pics, which is annoying considering how guys are always being told that we need to have pics that socially proof us and make us look like we lead an amazing life while the girls can get away with posting selfies of them kissing their dogs looking like they just crawled out of bed. I understand that there is an element of 'accept me for who I am' but aren't you supposed to be selling yourself on online dating? If you can't put any effort into attracting a mate then to me it makes me wonder how much effort they will put in afterwards. Ah well, maybe that approach works for them, just narrows the field of eligible women for me even further when it was already small to begin with.
Recommended Posts