thecrucible Posted November 9, 2015 Posted November 9, 2015 Just came across a video on TED where a woman called Amy Webb has written a book about how she "hacked" online dating to find her husband by devising an algorithm. Well she actually made a profile as her ideal man, worked what sort of women this fake man would get and then changed her real profile to reflect this. She also listed attributes she wanted in a man and used a scoring system: I figured there would be a minimum of 700 points before I would agree to email somebody or respond to an email message. For 900 points, I'd agree to go out on a date, and I wouldn't even consider any kind of relationship before somebody had crossed the 1,500 point threshold. She worked out that more popular profiles have an average of only 97 words in them. Other conclusions she came up with from her study were: Optimistic language matters a lot. So this is a word cloud highlighting the most popular words that were used by the most popular women, words like "fun" and "girl" and "love." The popular women on these online sites spend an average of 23 hours in between each communication. All of the women who were popular showed some skin. Would you try out her system? I might try the 97 words thing, for sure.
empresario Posted November 9, 2015 Posted November 9, 2015 (edited) I am a data scientist, and love figuring out ways to hack the system But, I am going on the record here to say that people are not a math equation. I had to learn that the hard way in my personal life. Sure, give it a shot, as sociology doesn't lie. But this isn't sociology. And people do not run via Algebra. Edited November 10, 2015 by a LoveShack.org Moderator 5
Ami1uwant Posted November 9, 2015 Posted November 9, 2015 This has been around for a while....I think the book came out (associated stories with this in magazines and morning news, talk dhows) in January 2013 1
Author thecrucible Posted November 9, 2015 Author Posted November 9, 2015 I think some of it makes sense and it's interesting to read about, but yeah I would take it with a pinch of salt. I don't think I'd be bothered to go to all the effort she does for the study. I would try out some of her tips just for fun. I realised it'd been around for a while but I hadn't come across it in our newspapers (I'm from Scotland). Just came across it the other day via Youtube. 1
Siquijor Posted November 10, 2015 Posted November 10, 2015 All this proves is there's someone for everyone. Neurotic authors included. 2
Zippy2000 Posted November 10, 2015 Posted November 10, 2015 No one can hack me.......My "fire" walls are up 1
KatZee Posted November 10, 2015 Posted November 10, 2015 23 hours between each communication? So what? He'd send a message and she'd take a day to write back? Lather, rinse, repeat? How exhausting is that. Just be authentic. Be yourself. 1
Els Posted November 10, 2015 Posted November 10, 2015 I watched that before (someone linked it on FB), and while I think it was a well-delivered, fun talk... I'm not so sure I'm a fan of it. Sure she has found the guy she wants (supposedly) and has the family she desires - good for her - but so have lots of other people who didn't spend hundreds of hours making fake accounts on OLD and going through profiles with a fine-toothed comb and calculator. You can't reduce genuine love and connection to an equation. 2
PegNosePete Posted November 10, 2015 Posted November 10, 2015 If she had spent less time making algorithms and "hacking", and more time meeting guys she liked the sound of, she would probably have found her ideal man much, much sooner. 2
Michelle ma Belle Posted November 10, 2015 Posted November 10, 2015 Sorry but this makes me sad. To think we have reduced ourselves to hacking websites and cracking codes and then tacking together bits and pieces of truths and lies all in an effort to snare an unsuspecting partner is just shameful. Is this really what dating and mating has come down to? Call me old fashioned but I'd rather be single than have to play Frankenstein in order to find a partner. 2
Gaeta Posted November 10, 2015 Posted November 10, 2015 I don't believe one word of this. You can hack and statistic all you want if the man doesn't like your pictures he won't reply to you. End of story. Just like I won't reply to a man if I don't like his pictures. He can change and twist his profile all he wants to me he still won't be interesting.
Els Posted November 10, 2015 Posted November 10, 2015 Sorry but this makes me sad. To think we have reduced ourselves to hacking websites and cracking codes and then tacking together bits and pieces of truths and lies all in an effort to snare an unsuspecting partner is just shameful. Is this really what dating and mating has come down to? Call me old fashioned but I'd rather be single than have to play Frankenstein in order to find a partner. Right. To be honest, I think this entire thing is most likely a publicity stunt. I just hope she really does love the man she ended up with and isn't using him as part of the stunt. 1
Ami1uwant Posted November 10, 2015 Posted November 10, 2015 I don't believe one word of this. You can hack and statistic all you want if the man doesn't like your pictures he won't reply to you. End of story. Just like I won't reply to a man if I don't like his pictures. He can change and twist his profile all he wants to me he still won't be interesting. If looks are all that matters...just use tinder
PegNosePete Posted November 10, 2015 Posted November 10, 2015 If looks are all that matters...just use tinder Who said looks are all that matter? You need good pictures and a good profile to get success on OLD. 1
BlueIris Posted November 10, 2015 Posted November 10, 2015 Just came across a video on TED where a woman called Amy Webb has written a book about how she "hacked" online dating to find her husband by devising an algorithm. Well she actually made a profile as her ideal man, worked what sort of women this fake man would get and then changed her real profile to reflect this. She also listed attributes she wanted in a man and used a scoring system: She worked out that more popular profiles have an average of only 97 words in them. Other conclusions she came up with from her study were: Would you try out her system? I might try the 97 words thing, for sure. Ha! I like her! “Men who drink scotch reference kinky sex immediately!” lol And I thought the same thing she said- there have been algorithms and people have matched up this way forever. I have and had no qualms about match-making and matchmakers. Why not? In fact, I was told by a matchmaker years back that I wasn’t picky enough- just what she discovered. But anyway, I think she’s absolutely right. It’s primarily about how honest we are with ourselves about ourselves and that we write our own algorithms, consciously or not. I did OLD on and off for a long time and at times set aside my preferences in order to be more open-minded (not picky enough), all on the theory that chemistry trumped supposedly superficial things like education, religious and political inclinations, family background, parenting and even looks. It never worked. And really, it felt kind of mean after a while, dating people that I was pretzel-twisting myself to give a chance to so that I could believe that I was fair and nice… and then foreseeably not mesh with and have to stop seeing. That’s not nice or honest. In the end my BF has the traits I’d originally sought. The pretzel-twisting was a waste of time for all concerned.
Author thecrucible Posted November 11, 2015 Author Posted November 11, 2015 Ha! I like her! “Men who drink scotch reference kinky sex immediately!” lol And I thought the same thing she said- there have been algorithms and people have matched up this way forever. I have and had no qualms about match-making and matchmakers. Why not? In fact, I was told by a matchmaker years back that I wasn’t picky enough- just what she discovered. But anyway, I think she’s absolutely right. It’s primarily about how honest we are with ourselves about ourselves and that we write our own algorithms, consciously or not. I did OLD on and off for a long time and at times set aside my preferences in order to be more open-minded (not picky enough), all on the theory that chemistry trumped supposedly superficial things like education, religious and political inclinations, family background, parenting and even looks. It never worked. And really, it felt kind of mean after a while, dating people that I was pretzel-twisting myself to give a chance to so that I could believe that I was fair and nice… and then foreseeably not mesh with and have to stop seeing. That’s not nice or honest. In the end my BF has the traits I’d originally sought. The pretzel-twisting was a waste of time for all concerned. Yes she did have some good points. I didn't believe she followed it to the letter, just found a method which worked for her. She also acknowledged the fact that someone could tick all the boxes but not be into her and didn't seem to mind messaging people herself, which is refreshing to hear as well. I still wouldn't spend as long developing a method as much as she did. It might take some of the fun away from dating. However she was quite smart about what dealbreakers were for her, and which were just the kind of thing it would be nice to have. For me, I realise the importance of finding someone with a similar background to me in terms of education, lifestyle, religion (I'm not religious at all), and having similar world views and life goals. I think these categories are more important than any others in terms of feeling a connection with someone. I've tried to be more flexible with this before but I wasn't really being honest with myself. If I turn anyone down, it's not for superficial reasons. I'd rather not waste a man's time if we are not going to be a match.
Author thecrucible Posted November 11, 2015 Author Posted November 11, 2015 Also, she had a point about not making your profile like your CV and not writing too much.
Recommended Posts