Slashdot Mirror
AI Reality Check In Online Dating
mikejuk writes "Researchers have developed an online dating system that not only matches you with partners you'll find attractive, but who are also likely to find you attractive too. The researchers at the University of Iowa have addressed an underlying problem of online dating sites. There's no doubt that such sites are ever increasing in popularity, and have good algorithms taking into account the reported likes, interests and hobbies of the person looking for a partner to come up with a potential match. What's less well catered for is the trickier aspect of the reciprocal interest – you may think person x looks nice, but will they find you equally attractive? The problem here is that if you are Average Joe and try asking out Supermodels Ann, Barbara and Cheryl, you're unlikely to get a reply. Well, not a printable one, anyway. So coming up with yet another supermodel for you to sob over isn't a lot of help.Instead, the researchers add a note of reality by analyzing the replies you get, and use this to work out how attractive you are. This is a scary thought for many of us, and one we may well not want an honest answer to. The results are used to recommend people who might actually reply if you get in contact with them. Fortunately for the attractively challenged, the research is still just that – research. However, given the fact the online dating market is worth around $3 billion a year, chances are someone is going to make use of this. We have been warned."
The /. summary is straight from the blog, and really, the only interesting part of the blog post.
Here's the actual paper (PDF): http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1311/1311.2526.pdf
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
We analysed 137463434 online profiles and found these most suitable* matches for you:
1) your right hand
2) a goat
3) bigboobs.jpg
Do you wish to send a message?
*) actually the only ones that won't laugh hysterically at mere thought of dating you
i wonder if the algorithm is smart enough to offset male attractiveness based on bank account balance
I'm honestly surprised people still use online dating sites. At least the traditional ones. I remember when I gave that idea a go and found I generally sent out tons of emails but rarely got any responses.
At that point I decided I was either A) attempting to contact women that just weren't interested or b) Maybe there profiles were fakes put up by the website to get men to sign up with delusions they might meet someone.
While I have met people online, I've definitely found my chances are significantly higher in person, face to face.
If I were to be single again, I'd go for online dating as a complete last ditch effort, and that's mostly because of B) How do we even know these profiles are real?
Is anyone else suffering a forced redirection to this seriously crappy Slashdot Beta when visiting the main Slashdot website ?
The previous format was _way_ better (and that's saying something. :-()
Slashdot is supposed to be a discussion area, not a bloody series of forum style posts. :-(
(Oh, and it looks like you need Javascript enabled, because Preview Comment didn't do anything with NoScript in operation).
Not that similar ... but http://okcupid.com/ already does a good job in matching people.
Also: this supermodell example is utter bullshit. Enough men just like an ordinary woman and enough women just want an ordinary man. How helpfull is a supermodell that is womitting twice a day and only wants sex once a week or a month?
There is much more to matching than just simple attractiveness.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
> if you are Average Joe and try asking out Supermodels Ann, Barbara and Cheryl, you're unlikely to get a reply.
This sounds funny.
From my experience many people I consider being quite above average visual attractiveness are attracted to decent Average Joes/Janes - if they are interesting, do stuff, learn interesting things, are caring, etc pp...
Even musicians, actors/actresses and models.
However, (Miss|Mister)-US-Of-Dumbnut may be only attracted to each other, but that's natures way keeping the carnage to the gene-pool low.
You claim, you are a 7, (eightish)
After the de-photoshopper ran its course, our algorithm has determined that in reality you are a 3 (twoish)
If you are certain that this is not correct, please upload a different photo.
Dating sites want better match for better satisfaction, but they never want to find optimal matches. Sub-optimal matches ensure a returning customer.
Can't keep score in kid's soccer games. Can't give stupid kids bad grades. Have to give every single kid a trophy - which means it's worthless.
And now when someone comes up with a way to figure out who's ugly enough to make a train take a dirt road it's a Slashdot story.
Lordy, too many coddled pussies need to be slapped in the face with the dead rotten fish of reality.
This looks like an improvement over the previous bullshit, but it still doesn't really address the bigger problems.
Dating sites are for people who don't already have a date, and are actively looking for one. Those people are overwhelmingly male.
If you're a male, looking for a date, this sort of sausage-fest is the last place you'd want to look.
Most of the few females either have serious problems, or are posting in bad faith, and aren't really looking for a date.
The summary talks about "how attractive you are" and "supermodels". I hope the study doesn't look at it that way, because that's incorrect. The correct question is "to whom are you attractive?"
Chris Brown dated a superstar. Is he attractive? I'm a total nerd, and not particularly good looking. My wife married me and finds Chris Brown revolting. So who is more attractive, Chris Brown or me? Neither, we attract different women. On the other hand, my wife thinks Pavarotti is extremely romantic. Is Pavarotti more attractive than Lil Wayne? Each is more attractive to some some women.
If I were single, I'd date Alyssa Milano for sure. Miley Cyrus, I take pity on. I wouldn't sleep with her, I'd suggest she put her clothes back on.* So which is more attractive? A good system would match pairs likely to find each other attractive, not assign a single attractiveness score.
* okay so maybe I'd pity her AND sleep with her before I suggested she put some clothes on.
The problem here is that if you are Average Joe and try asking out Supermodels Ann, Barbara and Cheryl, you're unlikely to get a reply. Well, not a printable one, anyway. So coming up with yet another supermodel for you to sob over isn't a lot of help.
This assumes that the goal of the dating site is to find you a mate. It isn't. The goal is to get you to pay as much as possible in subscription fees, or view as many ads as possible so they can make money. If you find a mate, you quite subscribing and quit visiting the site, so that's no good. What keeps you on the site is the illusion that you've got at chance at that supermodel. The optimal situation for the dating site is to give you hope without success.
Go to a site like Match.com. Want to look around to see if there is anyone you would want to date? No problem, just create an account -- it's free! Of course, when other people see your account they will have no idea that you haven't paid the subscription fee and won't be able to read any of the emails they send to you unless you pay. So Match.com has new profiles popping up to give their subscribers hope, but the emails those subscribers are wasting their time sending aren't even seen. Perfectly OK to waste your time as long as it keeps you paying.
Hi, my name is Werner Brandes. My voice is my passport. Verify Me
1. "Alpha males" are more likely to get women. That doesn't mean they're more likely to enjoy a decent relationship, however. So don't worry about competing - just be yourself, and wait for someone decent to come along;
2. In particular, don't be a "nice guy" to people you want to fuck. Everyone can see through this. There is nothing "nice" about being "nice" to someone just to increase your chances of fucking them. Just be yourself, and wait for someone decent to come along;
3. These sites are all primitive pigeon-holing nonsense: they are designed for people only looking for one or two things, and they match based on weighted points systems - but interesting relationships come out of various physical, intellecual and emotional connections formed over time, not superficial measures. You won't find a computer algorithm which can achieve this for you. Just get to know lots of people, and wait for a good friendship to develop, perhaps into a relationship. In particular, DON'T go by first impressions;
4. Did I mention to just be yourself? A dick will only get a dick.
This is a solution to a solved problem(as much as it can be solved with today's tech). Having worked at a dating site, I will tell you that we used an approach eerily similar to what these researchers are doing. We also had other methods in place to select for mutual attraction. The real problem with this method, and the one we used, was that you may have different opinions on people depending on the circumstances where you meet. Maybe meeting a guy who loves football would be somewhat endearing when you meet him at a game of a team you both like, meeting him online while his team is on a skid? Not so much perhaps. It's your environment, mood, surrounding circumstances, and many more things as much as it is your profile picture and elevator speech.
Most dating sites have a reply rate of less than 5%. The men message women they would never approach in real life. The women create accounts with no intention of replying or dating; they only want some form of attention. Even if you're good looking, muscles, rich, and have the best personality they will not reply to you. I've spent about 9 years on dating sites and never got anywhere. I only sign up for them just to look at local women's faces. Sad I know.
The problem here is that if you are Average Joe and try asking out Supermodels Ann, Barbara and Cheryl, you're unlikely to get a reply.
The problem here is that a lot of girls think they're supermodels, when in reality they're just average Jane themselves. Then they label a guy 'creepy' just because he's not very attractive and girls are assholes.
Look where all this talking got us, baby.
Your reasoning sounds logical. When I actually tried it, I had conversations with many women, went on dates with over a dozen, including one who looked liked a supermodel, and eventually found my AWESOME wife on mate1.com.
I'm a scrawny nerd who isn't handsome, but I did some things right, like posting action photos. There was me in my jetski, me on horseback, etc. I guess women seeing those photos consciously or subconsciously saw that dating me would mean doing fun stuff like jetsking and horseback riding, etc. Also I suppose those pics suggest I may be financially stable. Women like stability, security.
I told him to accentuate his large bank account. After that he found a nice girl looking for a sugar daddy. He gets regular sex, and she gets to go shopping. Laugh all you want, but they are both happy.
Why bother with a "dating" site if all you want is a hot chick for a steamy fuck? Just go to Backpage.com or Craig's List, or the back pages of whatever "alturnative" weekly your city has, and schedule a "date" or a "massage" ...
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Read, be enlightened. Why you should never pay for online dating, a blog entry from the founder of OKCupid (via the wayback machine since it was pulled when they got bought out by for-pay dating site match.com):
http://web.archive.org/web/20101006104124/http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/why-you-should-never-pay-for-online-dating/
Dude! That's not the right Werner Brandes quote to use in a discussion about online dating.
"Shall I phone you, or nudge you?" <--- That's the one you want to reference. ;)
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Since most people's profiles are lies, intentional or not, on-line dating will always be pure luck, hit or miss.
The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
Dating obviously is not solely based on attractiveness. I'm pretty sure almost everyone has witnessed a beautiful woman with everything to offer, dating or married to a guy with seemingly no redeemable qualities.
Separately, as a single guy, I was rated by the community as being in the top 5 or 10% of the site's most attractive users, and even that did not help me get more replies. (I'd say roughly 3 out of 20 responded seemingly regardless of what I wrote)
Conversely I rated over 2,000 profiles and I gave about 112 yeses to 1,888 nos. Maybe I should contact all of them and hope for a few decent matches?
(Yes I really did rate over 2,000 profiles. I think it only took about two nights after work. Ended up meeting a girl with nearly everything in common except for one major major issue that killed it for us.)
People may say I'm too picky but given maybe a billion girls in my demographic, there's bound to be at least ten who are a great matches. I refuse to settle just for the sake of having a relationship.
Side note: my captcha is "frisky"
The algorithm doesn't try to analyze the profiles based on their content. All that is required is that the women reading the profile are able to detect the picture of a Porsche and that they find it more attractive than not on average, leading to an increase in pressing the "yes, I want to have more contact with this man" button.
Online dating seems to contain the following people:
So far as I can tell "Actual average people" occupy only a small percentage of the total of this list.
I've even tried paywall-protected online dating, with similar observations to the above. You might say that I just had a bad experience, but in the past I tried this time and again, with the same results. My conclusion? Online dating is a waste of time and money at best, and a total scam at worst. Not worth your time, money, and emotional energy. Meet people the "old fashioned" way: in person, local to you, in social settings, or at your church (if you're so inclined), or in college, or in the workplace.
____________________________________________________________
A note to the "moderation trolls", doubtlessly with their fingers, as always, hovering over the keyboard, ready to mod this down: See the disclaimer at the beginning of this comment. Disagreeing with or disliking my opinions of this subject does not constitute me being a "Troll" or "Flamebait" or anything else derogatory in nature; it merely means you don't like it, so get over it and move on.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
who is Chris Brown
As you suggest "how attractive" is more nuanced than a 0-10 score on a linear scale. As I see it, this is no different than other recommendation systems. e.g. Netflix knows what you watch, knows what other people watch, and can make recommendations based on commonality in patterns. But each person is unique, and recommendations can take on this nature as well. Some users of the site may be relatively insensitive to physical appearance, while others might respond preferably to individuals with certain characteristics that can be quantified by a statistical model (whether this slice looks like Chris Brown, Pavarotti, or both). I'd also expect that this type of analysis will become increasingly common in dating sites, but elsewhere too. Anywhere that there are quantifiable measures that can be attached to people, and commonality established between people, there is the potential for "intelligent" recommendations to be made. Whether this works well in practice is another story, but time will tell. It's also the case that the devil is very much in the details for this type of work, so it's not as though this study means that this "problem" is solved.
Is Pavarotti more attractive than Lil Wayne?
Yes. Have you seen Lil Wayne? Have you heard his 'music'?
The problem here is that if you are Average Joe and try asking out Supermodels Ann, Barbara and Cheryl, you're unlikely to get a reply.
And don't judge a book by its cover. Supermodel appearance - ignoring fashion and grooming - tells almost no story, except that someone won some part of the genetic lottery. Sure attraction matters, but perhaps many people focus on the wrong things - or too specific things - and many of *those* things matter very little and/or may not last over the long term, which is a shame because all the *other* things can make for a very good relationship.
I was very lucky when I met Sue - way back in 1985 - when I was 22. She was 41 and, quite frankly, out of my league in many ways. (I'm reminded of this quote from The Librarian: Quest for the Spear:)
Nicole Noone: Hey, let's stop for a moment, and consider. I'm way out of your league. Way out. If your league were to explode, I wouldn't hear the sound for another three days. So for everybody's sake, let's just enjoy a companionable silence.
Okay, perhaps we weren't *that* far apart, anyway... She was very attractive (see photo at bottom of: http://remembersue.tumblr.com/ ), and also smart, funny and educated with a BA/MA in English and many hours over that. For whatever reason, I was ultimately what she wanted/needed and we were very happily together for 20 years until she died in January 2006. Sue will be a tough act to follow, if/when I ever start dating again. (and I don't know if I have the right to be so lucky twice, when many aren't that lucky once)
Just my $0.02.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
True, and look at all the gorgeous models who date Lil Wayne:
http://m.whosdatedwho.com/p3413/lil-wayne/
Taste is hard to quantify, I suppose.
I blatantly put that I am an overweight female couch potatoe, who does not want kids, and interested in male with similar interests.. There is never anywhere to say my religeon is Wicca, and that my biggest imterests are science ficton and technology.
The responses are always from men claiming to be highly athletic, catholic, men who like chic flicks and want lots of kids, and they said they were looking for catholic women who want lots of kids. Why would I care if they find me attractive if they don't match what I want?
Just because these guys put out a press release proclaiming their brilliant innovation doesn't mean that OKCupid isn't already quietly doing this.
unless tehy r lesbo its in there biology to always choose teh alpha male dew to inate hypergamy. being beta aint bad, just u wont get ne girls. betas and omegas, or sum call nice guys r teh whiners w/ week genes so tehy aint got nuthin to offer a girl for breeding. alphas, or "jerks" and "douchebags" as teh week gened nice guys call us, r teh winners w/ the strong genes sutible for passing onto teh next generation and teh girly nice guys cant handle that. oh girls change once tehy reach 30 or 40 and their used up. tehy change there tune by saying tehy want a nice guy to settle down with and even secretly want a male w/ exp so tehy can land a nice guy. well nice guys gues what, only teh jerks will have exp so u nice guys will keep losing out while those girls will still keep giving us alphas plenty of pussy. but all is not lost u nice guys can turn gay and get each other. but if u dont like that you can either be happy being perm virgins or just kill urselfs, theirs no girl out there for ya. lmfao
Oh, they also need to take initiative because frankly don't read people very well. Yes, I'm in tech R&D, why do you ask?
---- The above post was generated by the Turing Institute. Maybe.
As someone who has had a great deal of success with a variety of amazing women (too much success, perhaps, but I love my kids) I must say: online dating is a fucking scam. While in a slump, a friend recommended me OKCupid. The idea of using an algorithm to match people based on interest seemed solid. In fact, going in I thought it might even be better than "real life", since I had so many issues finding women whose interests paralleled mine. Oh how wrong I was. Of all the messages I sent, maybe 1/10 at most got responses. Of those, all conversations tapered off into nothingness, and I never met a single girl in person. Eventually my effortful posts turned into one liners; after all, what's the point of writing a novella if it's going to yield nothing? After canvasing essentially every attractive female in the vicinity and getting the same results, I gave up. Perhaps I am ugly, or maybe my messages weren't wordy enough. While I found the women I messaged attractive, most of them certainly weren't super models, and that's fine. What's not fine, however, was the continued sense of rejection I experienced. It was degrading and so far off from what I experienced in real life I was absolutely dumbfounded.
If you're shy and have had little exposure to women, do not use your experiences on dating sites as a basis for the type of women you are capable of getting. I repeat, do not use your experiences on dating sites as a basis for the type of women you are capable of getting. You, as a human being, are much more than can ever possibly represented by some shitty pictures and bullshit text. It's tough, but get off the computer, and work out if you don't already. Do it for yourself, because it will make you feel better. Break out of your shell. That doesn't necessarily mean becoming a bar star, but get out, even if that just means going to a friends house and hanging out for a bit. You never know who you might meet, and when you do meet someone you're interested in, don't be be shy. Pull the fucking trigger. After all, what do you have to lose? What are you risking? Rejection? Who fucking cares? Life is too short to worry about that bullshit. Get out and engage the women that you are attracted to, even those who you think you don't have a chance with. Who knows? Your brazen, but cordial, advances might win her favor, leaving you pleasantly surprised and very much not alone. It's our responsibility to ensure that Idiocracy doesn't become a reality, and right now we're losing the fight.
On a related note, while I've never met a woman from a dating site, I actually met several from MySpace when it was new. They all turned out to be absolutely nuts, but fun was had. In fact, the most supermodel-esque woman I have been with (not that physical appearances are top priority) was met through MySpace. I'm not sure if such results can be replicated now that social media has caught on, but it's still interesting.
Posting as AC due to still being so embarrassed over it, but I tried OKCupid, and after entering my profile I got a standard response of what kind of person they classed me as. I don't remember everything written there, but they said I "like to play with fire" and that I should go find some other service.
The only women who are attracted to me are high, spun, and drunk AT THE SAME TIME. No exceptions. Between these two fact and a few more like how many more males are born than females to assist with natural selection pressure, it got me thinking: there has to be an end loser. With more males than females, there MUST be some that are left out in the cold, just like with any other mammal (and probably birds and reptiles, too)--and I'm clearly one of them. NO female of my species finds me attractive unless her senses and mind are FUBAR.
So tell me, in the second decade of the 21st century (or whatever scale you prefer to use), what is someone like me to do? I'm asking seriously here, because I honestly see no hope.
The overwhelmingly dominant failure mode is "no response". If you are actually getting enough responses to analyze algorithmically then you are pretty successful and don't really need the analysis.
This will obviously lead to "satisfied hot model" service where Debby the hot model accepts your invitation, waits a couple of days, then writes you about how great you were. All of this, for only around 60 cents per positive review, and you can enter the world of dating hot models.
There is never anywhere to say my religeon is Wicca
Well, it's already implied by
I am an overweight female couch potato
There's nothing exciting or complex about this idea. I imagine it's being done in many, if not most, any dating sites.
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/13/11/30/1637253/ai-reality-check-in-online-dating
Ha, like I am going trust computers especially my decades with computers including QA testings. My IRC AI bots can't even communicate correctly from the (record/logg)ed conversations. LOL!
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
It sounds like the model they are using of "attractiveness" is one dimensional based on how many approaches and responses each profile gets. I think a more complex model is needed to optimize matchmaking.
Rather than try to build an estimate of attractiveness of each man to all women and of each woman to all men, it seems like you could build a network analysis that works in a more personalized way. It's possible to build a database that categorizes women according to WHICH men tend to like them, not just how many, and the same for the men, then compute most likely reciprocal matches. Maybe that's what they're doing, but it didn't sound like it.
Combine that with biographical data subjected to the same sort of analysis and you might get much better success rates than any site out there.
unless tehy r lesbo its in there biology to always choose teh alpha male dew to inate hypergamy. being beta aint bad, just u wont get ne girls. betas and omegas, or sum call nice guys r teh whiners w/ week genes so tehy aint got nuthin to offer a girl for breeding. alphas, or "jerks" and "douchebags" as teh week gened nice guys call us, r teh winners w/ the strong genes sutible for passing onto teh next generation and teh girly nice guys cant handle that. oh girls change once tehy reach 30 or 40 and their used up. tehy change there tune by saying tehy want a nice guy to settle down with and even secretly want a male w/ exp so tehy can land a nice guy. well nice guys gues what, only teh jerks will have exp so u nice guys will keep losing out while those girls will still keep giving us alphas plenty of pussy. but all is not lost u nice guys can turn gay and get each other. but if u dont like that you can either be happy being perm virgins or just kill urselfs, theirs no girl out there for ya. lmfao
Oh wow, a twelve year old that thinks he knows everything about dating and females. I mean, this is the worst grammar and spelling I have ever seen on Slashdot.
Surely she finds Chris Brown revolting because of his public persona (anger management/domestic abuse). Also, there's a separate scale for celebrities, who are all expected to be attractive. However in terms of pure looks, she obviously thinks Chris Brown is much more attractive than you are. And if you were to become some sort of musical celebrity known for your looks and your dance moves, millions of women would be claiming you were ugly, including women such as your wife.
what is Google
... no more comment :-)
Trolling is a art!
I would debate whether they are hardwired to accept male authority, rather that they were culturally inducted into accepting it as most authority figures they encounter growing up were male.
Sara
Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
I was assuming it was posted ironically or something, anyone that stupid probably wouldn't have comprehended the gist of the conversation so far as to reply.
Sara
Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
They mostly got approached by either vain men they cared nothing about - or short men who had the guts to ask them out.
Women don't score attractiveness the way you do.
There - now stop whining.
The market could vanish shortly after someone got it right.
Imagine a world where on line dating found you an ideal match
quick as that...
No divorces, no repeat customers, no endless one night stands swapping ... just a big happy ever after world.
body fluids and diseases.
Utopia...
Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
The fundamental question is: Can the truth be sexism?
The fact, which political correctness advocates don't like to hear about, is that both sexes have fundamental behaviour patterns bred into them in the approx. 80'000 years the human race exists.
So is it sexism to speak about those?
And yes, there are exceptions. Just as there are men who like to date men, women who like to date women, men who like to where women clothing, women who ... wait ... you would not be able to spot women wearing mens clothing any more as there is no typical mens clothing any more.
Anyway: they are just that: exceptions.
I have been saying that for years: If you know how to lie you get laid.
Congratulations to having a very intelligent wife.
Lordy, too many coddled pussies need to be slapped in the face with the dead rotten fish of reality.
Unfortunately that fish is too often a herring and confuses people when they think it's red.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
I'm well aware that I'm not particularly attractive (I like to think I'm not hideous, but I'm no Prince Charming). They could ask that as a starting point, at least. Save some time. Or maybe they already do?