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 amused by your use of the word "traditional" to describe online dating services. From my point of view, that's still newfangled. Get off my lawn!
My wife and I were actually one of the first online romances. Back in the days of 300bps dialup, there was a service in Houston that had a bunch of phone lines running into multiple modems on a single computer, so a smallish group (probably 16; I don't remember) of people could chat together. One of the oldies radio stations advertised it, so I plugged the phone number into my Hayes terminal program and met a few people including a lady type person (yes, a GIRL who owned a computer... even though it was just a TRS-80). Within three days of chatting we had started to discuss how many children we would like in our hypothetical family, and we had already started seriously considering marriage before we ever met in person. We married five weeks after we met online.
That's what is missing from these algorithms. What about those who are attracted by some other factor than physical appearance? What attracted me and Mrs. Esophagus was our shared values and interests. Which is good, since I was rail-thin, covered in zits, and, like any good computer geek, only heard of personal hygiene as a long-forgotten myth from distant lands.
As for "how do we even know these profiles are real?" -- limit yourself to people you can meet in person, which may mean restricting your search to people within your own city or less than {x} miles away. Don't commit time, money, or yourself until you have both had a chance to do a little snooping by way of facebook pages, google searches, whatever. Hint: If the facebook page appeared only after you make contact, you are right to be suspicious.
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.
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/
I've used online dating sites, and found them quite effective. My girlfriend of over 2 years and I met on an online site. A close friend of mine met his wife on an online site. So, they do actually work.
I remember when I gave that idea a go and found I generally sent out tons of emails but rarely got any responses.
This probably means your emails sucked. Did you send a one-sentence email? Something like: "I saw your profile and you seemed interesting so I thought I would say hi." Where was your effort? If you want to meet someone, you need to demonstrate you are interested. Did you point out your similarities, common interests or things you both enjoy? You need to show that you aren't just some random guy spamming a hundred girls to see what will work. Does she have a cat or a dog? Even if you don't have one, you can mention that you used to, or you've wanted one, or ask how much the darn thing sheds. Just something showing it's personalized and, most importantly that you read her profile.
While I have met people online, I've definitely found my chances are significantly higher in person, face to face.
Again, that's probably because your emails sucked. There is no tone of voice, no body language or dimension to an email, so you have to do it all with words. This isn't easy, and a lot of people suck at it because they've never had any practice. However, most people (although not all) have a lot of practice interacting with people in real life - even if it is just to order something from Starbucks - making them better at communicating in real life than in an email.
If I were to become single again, I would be back online right away. It's a fast way to find people who are interested in similar things, and to meet a lot of people that you wouldn't in your regular routine. (When was the last time you went to a coffee shop on the other side of town just to see if you could meet someone new?)
Reading code is like reading the dictionary - you have to read half of it before you can go back and understand it.
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!
I did - from my (now) wife.
24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
if you have trouble getting dates without online dating, you will probably have trouble online too.
Exactly, it's the modern day equivalent of a "dance hall", somewhere you go to meet the opposite sex. I started dating my first wife at a 1970's disco (I already knew her but not socially), I met my current lady friend in 2001 on a chat site.
;)
A chat site gives you hints (in the persons profile) as to what you might use to start a conversation, but it takes away all the physical senses, the perfume, the eye-candy, the rubbing of thighs and butts on the dance floor. We old farts enjoy that stuff too, it's just not as attractive for spectators!
So when I found myself single again at 40, a web site was preferable than an "over 30's" Friday at a mega-pub. Also a lot more physically comfortable, since those places usually have the heaters turned up high to make the punters thirsty (also makes old farts sweat like a pigs). If you (male or female) can hold a conversation via text without coming across as desperate or depraved then there's no reason to be dateless on the weekend if you start typing on Thursday night..
My "wife" still chats to friends on the net, now that I have a partner the chat sites have served their purpose I'm about as interested in chat sites as I am sweaty discos, the only site I "chat" on these days is Slashdot, and I'm unlikely to meet a lot of women here
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.