Slashdot Mirror
Why Nobody Wants You On OKCupid
Hugh Pickens writes "Social awkwardness has the most opportunity to shine in your very first message to a potential sweetheart, write Andrea Bartz and Brenna Ehrlich at CNN. Bartz and Ehrlich enumerate and humorously describe seven types of message senders: the generalizer, the autobiographer, the 'eccentric,' the creeper, the gusher, and the wordless wonder. Our favorite: the generalizer, whose typical first message may be 'hey, wuts up?' Why does no one want the generalizer? 'You're probably stupid. Or possibly illiterate,' write Bartz and Ehrilich. According to OKTrends, bad grammar and bad spelling are huge turn-offs in a first message. 'Our negative correlation list is a fool's lexicon: ur, u, wat, wont, and so on. These all make a terrible first impression. In fact, if you count hit (and we do!) the worst 6 words you can use in a first message are all stupid slang.' Other tips from OKTrends' analysis of successful keywords and phrases from over 500,000 first contacts on OKCupid: Avoid physical compliments, bring up specific interests, and if you're a guy, be self-effacing."
Speak intelligently.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
I'm marrying the sexy librarian I met on OkCupid next May. They're out there guys, just rarer than diamonds.
Self-effacing? Won't that make you go blind?
I'm not on OKcupid and I'm not looking for dates, but I read OKcupid's statistics blog regularly with a lot of pleasure. The guys who run the site have fascinating insight and great data analysis skills. And they are also good at explaining things simply. Well worth reading for geek minded people. Especially if they don't have a mate yet !!!
Non-Linux Penguins ?
Too soon.
Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
is your weight. If you are overweight online dating will not work. In person dating might work if you carry yourself well, but in the online world where the next profile is a click away you less of a chance than a snowball in Hell.
http://xkcd.com/55/
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
It's not arrogant to make assertions that are backed up by data. It's even less arrogant to make those assertions in a humorous way.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
women complain men are obsessed with t&a but women are exactly the same: if you're not tall, it doesn't matter if you are a CEO and run 3 charities: she'll pick the tall guy who still lives with his mom
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
After all my time spent in online dating this looks like everything that I know, but what I'm really interested in is 'what works'. I'm guessing that the reality is that 'winning' submissions as often exhibited one or more of these mistakes, yet still were acted on. To me, based on what I might call my 'successes', it's timing more than anything.
The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
I can't comment on the homosexual side of things, I presume that there is less nagging and hormones in general
Aha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Wrong, 'cos gay or straight, you're still in a relationship!
Summation 2
I agree, but what does that have to do with running a spellchecker on your message before you send it to someone on OKCupid? :)
Hey, I liked your message.
Don't you find that changing how you communicate is different from changing who you are? I think all communication is very much a game with rules. Breaking the rules does get you sent off the field in any game.
How would you feel about a footballer who doesn't want to play his best game because it would change who he was? (Scoring goals is too mainstream, it's just not me! ) I'd call that player a fool, but maybe that's just me.
Let me know what you think,
Alex
I'm in the UK, not exactly in the middle of nowhere (a medium sized town) but not exactly London either. There are virtually no women on the site within a reasonable distance of me.
It helps to live near New York or Los Angeles.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
Its not about changing who you are. Its about displaying basic human competence to get past the first few filters to actually meet someone to finally get a chance to show them who you are. If "who you are" can be adequately described in an email that says "whuzz up" you should find a hobby. Even that won't change who you cause you'll hopefully like the hobby and maybe even have something to talk about. Which actually lets you be MORE of who you are. Unless, at your core, you as a person above all else are a lame email writer...don't write lame emails. (and yes, those described in the article are lame emails)
No, don't change who you are. Unless you are actually a meathead, in which case, OKCupid probably isn't the right place for you. Maybe Myspace? That's what all the meatheads at the gym seem to enjoy.
But the idea is, I think, to try to highlight the non-moronic facets of your personality in a first greeting. What seems "catchy" or "witty" when you are alone in your basement, it turns out, is not landing properly on the recipient. I can say "yoh, wutz upxxor" to my brother, because he knows me and can imagine me saying it and hopefully get the intended reaction. A stranger cannot.
diorcc;
I got the impression ( from my superficial slashdot skimming ) that all the authors are advising people to do is to run a spellchecker on their messages, avoid "pig l33t" ( u R so funny! lol ) and talk to other people like they are people ( versus sex objects, etc ).
That is hardly being someone you are not.
The reason is because honest self-effacing shows a cool confidence. Making a show of confidence, however, actually shows insecurity. It's not what you say, it's what you display.
I disagree, I believe that people should be constantly evaluating and giving consideration to all information they take in. After making decisions about who they want to be, they should change themselves to become the person they want to be.
Example: If you don't think you're a douchebag, but everyone is telling you that you are, then maybe you should consider the possibility that you really are a douchebag and you just didn't know it. Assuming that you are in fact a douchebag, you should consider whether it's worthwhile to change that characteristic.
The involvement of integrity implies that change is inherently unethical or immoral. That's just not true.
Nerd will use 3 or more of those at a time.
There is a difference between changing who you are and better showing off your good points. The thing is, we all have good and bad points about ourselves and first impressions are important. If someone's bad points come through right at the beginning, it's hard to see past them and since relationships are hard work, people don't want to waste their time.
It's no different than having a polished CV. A piece of paper doesn't change who you are, you'll still be the same person no matter what you write on it, or how you write it, but if you spend a little extra time and make sure it's as perfect as possible, you'll get a lot more interest. In fact, I'd even go so far as to say that 95% of the rules of that "first message/first date" apply to job interviews.
I do agree though that you shouldn't change who you are, if you try to pretend you're something you're not, you're only going to end up with someone who's incompatible with yourself. I always found that being openly honest about yourself gets much better results anyway. "Hi there, my name's neoKushan, I'm not the best looking guy in the world, but I'm honest, somewhat intelligent and I have a big willy".
+1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
self-effacing (s lf -f s ng). adj. Not drawing attention to oneself; modest.
Yes, be self-effacing because women don't like successful, rich, powerful, well-known, flashy guys. That is why rock stars, movie stars, professional athletes, etc. find it so hard to meet women and get laid.
/sarcasm
Hey, OKCupid, why don't you do a study about the physical characteristics of those who get the most messages and most replies? Say, height, weight, body type, fitness level, rated appearance, and apparent income level. And, you could include a "rate yourself" and use it in the study. I am sure it would be an eye-opener.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
According to the tips, I get the following text would be perfect:
How's it going. I'm sorry I'm an cool atheist, but I noticed that your name pretty much shows a good taste, haha. I also apologize that my favourite movies are awesome. I'm think vegetarian zombie metal bands are pretty good, but grad school physics literature is kinda fascinating, too. I'm curious what pretty awkward tattoos you probably won't mention, lol.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
I try to be self-deprecating, but I suck at it.
The aggressive, self-confident girl of XKCD is _not_ looking for love online.
That depends on their situation. The smart, "aggressive, self-confident" girl who has just moved to a new area might find OKcupid an efficient way to meet new people.
Even the women that are "aggressive" and have an outward air of self-confidence, aren't usually like that on the inside. Most people have insecurities of some form.
which is totally what she said
It's more like: that guy who goes to an interview in shorts, tie-dye t-shirt, long hair in a pony-tail, scraggly beard, socks and sandals because "Hey if they don't like me for who I am, I don't want to work there" and wonders why he can't get a job despite having a PhD in Computer Science. For better or worse, people judge you and make their opinions of you based on their first contact with you, within the first minute.
If you believe in God, great, but your first contact with someone shouldn't be: "Hey! I really really love God! Maybe we could go to a prayer-meeting sometime?". Even if the other person believes in God too, they'll probably think you're a tad weird. Similarly, if your first contact is: "hye thr saw ur profiel n u lk rly hot", it doesn't matter whether you are the most kind-hearted, baby-kissingest, puppy-lovingest charity worker ever to volunteer at a soup-kitchen, you'll come across as a shallow dummy who can't even be bothered to spell the most basic words correctly.
tl;dr No-one's saying you have to change who you are, they're just offering tips on how to present yourself.
If xkcd has taught me anything, it's that webcomics don't have to be funny.
The author is single ;)
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
I love your mind, am fascinated by everything you say, and think your interests are amazing. And also, I suck, and am not worthy of someone as amazing as you. And yes, I *do* agree that that bitch at work has no business talking shit about you behind your back.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Besides, trolling for sex in a place that advertises relationships isn't very honest.
From what I've been told, OK Cupid is very much used by people of both genders, looking for low commitment hook-ups.
Though not exclusively -- a friend of mine married someone he met on OK Cupid.
I'm an ugly bugger. Now I know better.
From a pragmatic standpoint, I think it's a lot like a sales gig. You have to put your best face forward. It can be difficult (for a guy) to write multiple thoughtful emails, due to the amount of effort required to find someone compatible who will hopefully turn into a date. A friend commented on this the other day. Lets say after 3 weeks of a start of a "cycle" you'd end up with 10 women who you've chatted with. Out of those 10, 3 lost contact and most likely found something more interesting/ eyecatching (due to the overwhelming number of men on the site), 3 would not be ideal candidates for whatever reason, 3 lost interest in you, and you'd be left with two first dates.
Hopefully one of the two would be a compatible match, but for whatever reason it's not always the case. I think overall it can be difficult to keep up the positive and personal persona of first emails. It can be a bit disheartening as well, but sometimes it does pay off. I met my girlfriend of 2.5 years on that site, and my friend has been dating for about 6 months now.
So if you look at the odds stacked against you, it's very important to write a thoughtful, proper introductory email. There's always someone better looking than you on there, so sending out poorly thought out emails only works if you're a male model.
Saying they want their report back. Mindless rehashing of something OKcupid themselves already published 2 years ago is not journalism.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
I'm a leet misanthrope, you insensitive clod!
Also: first time on /. for a good while - what's with all the spam?
This is what you fail to understand: Religious people look very stupid and somewhat insane to the non-religious. How can anyone be expected to form a serious relationship with someone they view as stupid and insane? This is not a troll or a dig but simply a statement of fact. Whether it is fair or not, that's the way non-religious people feel.
Bye, bye karma!
"Liechtenstein is the world's largest producer of sausage casings, potassium storage units, and false teeth."
Here's the thing: when you tell people not to change who they are to impress others, the presumption is that they're decent people in the first place.
An arrogant fatass who is barely literate and unable to form a single coherent thought into a full sentence, who only comments on boobies, and who doesn't show any interests other than in boobies and himself?
That dude needs to change, not to impress some lady but simply because he's a fucking awful person.
... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about.
I can tell you what has worked with me (a reasonably typical actual geek female) in the past:
- As TFA suggests, communicating well. If you don't care enough to express yourself well then why should I care enough to listen?
- Don't be an egotist (again, the TFA suggests this). If you're wonderful, I'll figure it out; don't brag to me.
- Be interesting, not generic. By this I mean why say, "I like to read books" - well, no shit, Sherlock, but what books? Why?
- Don't be cynical. "This probably won't work/this is probably a waste of time/you're probably not a real person" - then why try? We all know that it's statistically unlikely, and we all know that there are spammers and bots out there. Why start with a negative?
- Do be employed, don't live at home. I neither want nor expect a man to pay my way, but I expect him to be a functioning adult in society, not a manchild. I know with the economy the way it is now that many people are unemployed - that's fine, but I'm not going to date an out-of-work guy and I think he probably shouldn't be dating either as he has bigger problems to work on than being dateless.
- Do be in reasonable shape. If you don't take care of/care about yourself, why should I care about you?
Basically, if I get a message from someone that fails any of that, it'll go into the bin.
As far as past that - yes, part of it is timing, part of it is just that spark that does or doesn't happen, and part of it is luck. The point of my post, and the larger point of TFA, is that without getting past that first part you can't get to the part that involves timing, spark or luck.
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
I don't think the writer knows what self-effacing means
I don't think you do (hint: efface != efficacy).
...two theories from e-dating users. They're somewhat contradictory.
1) The gender balance is skewed, leading to women shopping from a large pool of available men. This makes sense, as it seems to follow typical mating behavior in American culture (ie, men solicit women, women choose which man to accept) as well as following a sort of larger skew of technology use.
It was also thought that younger women (under 35?) of average or better appearance generally have more real-world dating options than men do as they are more likely to be solicited by men than women in day-day life, thus reducing their interest in online dating.
The first opinion came from a friend of mine who'd I'd describe as generally attractive and in great physical shape but overly picky. I think he used match.com and e-harmony. I think if he had been less picky, or had taken profile answers with a grain of salt (ie, assuming that some answers may have been weakly held preferences instead of assuming they were zealously held beliefs, cast in stone) he might have had a bigger pool to draw from.
2) Once you get outside the pool of women looking for a husband (ie, over 35-40, with white-collar careers and either never married or divorced, the chances of getting dates goes up significantly.
The theory behind this is that this pool of women are (no longer?) interested in the fairy tale of husband, kids, house in the suburbs, etc and are more interested in general companionship, casual dating, etc. They have good paying jobs and are generally comfortable in their single status and don't "need" a man for economic and social security. They're also on the declining side of physical attractiveness, and thus are less likely to believe they can be picky, especially if they are competing with women 10 years younger. I've heard this theory before and it makes some sense.
The second theory was from a guy who I would describe as of below-average appearance -- moderately overweight, and neither a snappy dresser or well-groomed. He seemed happy and said he went on "first dates" every couple of weeks and occasionally second and third dates but said he was more interested in having fun than finding a life partner.
My guess is that if you choose from the right pool and aren't overly picky, you'll do OK. It probably sucks to be 29 and trying to use online dating as I think the expectations of young women are really unrealistic.
I disagree, the first makes me want to cut out my eyeballs to not have to read that drivel, the second makes me realize the person sending it is a psychopath.
Both would end bad if you met up, but the latter is clear, concise and legible as compared to the former being written by a 5 year old or a mental patient who can barely communicate over shouting his own name as a reply.
... and I start all my messages the same way: "I put on my robe and wizard hat..."
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
For those who do not wish to breed, life is a whole lot simpler (and more interesting), if you stay single.
Seriously, if you don't spend the greater portion of your free time obsessing over someone else, you can instead study a wide variety of topics, exercise and train in a variety of physical disciplines, do a lot more hobby programming (or other creative hobby), watch more movies/shows, devote more time to your spiritual practices, and so on.
Basically, the whole world opens up. Sure, you can do any of that while dating, but not nearly as much. You wind up spending significant amounts of time and money doing stuff for/with the other person that normally you wouldn't care about at all. The best part: if you stay single, you can *still* get laid. Prostitution is actually the safest sex you can have if you are doing it in a state where it is legal and properly regulated. And, depending on your frequency of indulgence, it can be cheaper than dating too. Also, if you have the cash (which you likely will since you have more time to devote to money-making), you can have sex with much hotter women than would normally date you. It is a win all-around.
So why are people so insistent on dating? Partly because of social pressure, and partly because people have bought into the lie that they cannot possibly be emotionally self-fulfilling. People believe that they *need* someone else in order to be complete. But remember, every emotional experience you have ever had was created by your own brain.
As the 14th dalai lama so elegantly put it, "when you make someone else responsible for your own happiness, you set yourself up for suffering."
Own your soul.
It is ok to be single.
Women wants:
- I want someone, right or wrong, to start a family with now now NOW NOW NOWNOWNOW.
- He must be making at least above median salary for a professional in the area.
- His hobbies must exactly parallel my own.
- He must be as much a dogmatized zealot as I am.
- He must be athletically built and be "smart, witty, and able to surprise me". (this is usually in conjunction with three or more of the other wants as well).
- "I want a man who knows what he wants." I've actually seen it spelled out that plainly, and all I can think to say is "no, no you don't"I still don't know what it means, because women who have said that have absolutely come to hate me for expressing my expectations honestly.
- HE MUST LOVE BASEBALL AS MUCH AS I DO. (note, this means watching professional baseball, not actually PLAYING a sport. No, that would be interesting and show some character of the person.)
My wants:
- I want someone technically minded that I can communicate with, on even a simple level. I don't expect the person to be able to read circuit diagrams or understand packet captures, but PLEASE at least understand to check to make sure the mouse is plugged in before complaining that "it's broken".
- I would prefer someone who can read and speak at a level above that of an eighth grade junior high school student.
- At the risk of being superficial, I would prefer to not be able to wear her jeans and they be baggy.
And I'm not even stereotyping, I mean, I am, but this is literally how it is. Half of them appear to be looking for at immediate meal ticket/family man, and the other half are looking for the male lead from their favorite romantic comedy. I just want someone who will at least nod, smile, and pretend to care when I'm talking to them about my day, who can figure out how to change the remote batteries on her own, and who isn't cutting off the circulation to my legs when she's on top. If those are huge demands, then I guess I'm just an misogynistic, judgmental asshole.
My big realization was that, due to societal norms, there's maybe 1% of the female population out there that fits my criteria. That's one of the reasons why I stopped going to bars for women and started trying the online thing. I figured I could expose myself to a larger pool of candidates. I should have guessed that there was a very specific type of people that have to resort to such measures.
The aggressive, self-confident girl of XKCD is _not_ looking for love online.
True, but she's not looking for love in bars either. She would have already found hers long ago.
Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
Do be employed, don't live at home.
Ugh. I'm responding to this just because I've had this exact discussion with my girlfriend (full disclosure - I met her on a dating site). My question always is: I've been unemployed in the past. Sometimes for more than a few months. I've had shitty night-shift jobs to cover living expenses. Yet I'm apparently awesome enough that she sticks around. So why let a temporary situation that has nothing to do with who I am dictate whether to get to know me? The answer I got back was the same as yours - that the quality of the nest is an important part of women being attracted to men. Well, fine, but then don't go bitch to me about how there are no good men around. You're artificially reducing the pool of available men based on a criteria that is utterly temporary and is only marginally related to who that person is.
Furthermore, why stop at a man being unemployed? Why not just flat out say "He has to make at least 50K a year and own at least 800 square feet of home? Why not 100k? Why not a 2000 square foot home? Because those are just material things that are not important to a person? Yeah.... if that's your response, you're just papering over the fact that you have decided that someone like that is probably out of your league. You decided your price was employment and their own place, others decided that their price was 100k and 2000 square feet.
I'm not going to date an out-of-work guy and I think he probably shouldn't be dating either as he has bigger problems to work on than being dateless.
Really? The only thing he should be doing is to find a job? No social life, no meeting new people, no going out on a date in the park? You do realize that the only people who work like that are people who don't socialize to begin with, right? Not to mention that the social network is what keeps people going in tough times? And don't feed me the line that dating is different from socializing. Dating is just socializing with a different end-goal in mind.
The point of my post, and the larger point of TFA, is that without getting past that first part you can't get to the part that involves timing, spark or luck.
And my point to you is that I'm tired of hearing women complain about the lack of men, when their selection criteria contain items that have nothing to do with what makes a relationship successful. Unless, of course, your measurement of a successful relationship is the number of digits in your bank account.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
You think it's about numbers, it's not.
Having a job vs. not having a job is a phase change. Making 35k vs. making 350k is, to me at least, not relevant.
I've dated men who were poor - my most was a social worker who made 25k a year. To me, what's important is that they have SOMETHING gainful to do in their lives, and by "gainful" I mean useful, important, purposeful going on. Employment status is often - not always - but often - a good gauge of whether someone is an adult and whether they are the kind of person I, personally, am interested (read: motivated, adult, capable of supporting themselves). The level they can support themselves at isn't relevant to me, but rather that they are capable of it and that they are driven to do it.
I don't know about you, but I think someone's ability to function as an adult in modern society is an INCREDIBLY important aspect of a relationship with them, and like I said, employment status is not that bad a metric for determining that when one is faced with the prospect of hundreds or thousands of options.
And no, an out of work guy should focus on whatever else he wants to focus on - but *I* personally, am not going to be interested in dating him for the reasons I explained above.
tl;dr version: I would date a man who was employed flipping burgers rather than a man who is unemployed because to me, that says quite a bit about the person's character in most circumstances.
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
I showed up to my interview in shorts, t-shirt (though not tie-die), long hair and beard, and two years later I still work at the place. Then again this IS in santa cruz, hippy capital of the world, so that may have had something to do with it.
All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
And so you think that means women are "bitches and whores" - your words.
You want to go on a misogynistic rant, that's perfectly fine, but you should know that it makes you sound like a truly awful person.
Let me ask you this: What kind of women do you think those men who include their income information in their OKC profile are trying to attract? If that information is supposed to be irrelevant as you're trying to argue, then why would a man include it? If a man doesn't want to attract women who are interested in his income over his personality, why include it?
I don't post my measurements or any stats about my weight or height (though I do include adjectives like "tall" and "active") in my profile because I don't want to attract men who are superficial - they don't interest me. So if men are uninterested in the gold-diggers, why include the information that attracts them?
It takes two to tango, and by posting their income levels those men are emphatically inviting gold-diggers to the dance.
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
On the topic of sports, the most frustrating thing is that I LIKE playing sports. I enjoy playing soccer. I enjoy running around with a frisbee. I love the feeling of competition and being worn out after giving your all. I don't enjoy watching others play, especially when those others are 'roided up superhumans who are getting paid millions to stand around and look like they're giving their all. They're doing their job; nothing more, and I have no interest in watching someone do their job. In STL, you're looked at as some sort of social pariah if you're not a frothing-at-the-mouth Cardinals fan. The only thing worse is despising professional sports in general.
You'd THINK that the eagerness to be athletic would trump the eagerness to passively observe others do it like some kind of vegetable. The ones I've tried explaining this to some of the "sports fans" I've dated, they don't get it, and then it never lasts long after that. So don't sweat the inability to be athletic yourself: It won't count for much.
Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...