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?
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.