How Machine Learning Can Transform Online Dating

First time accepted submitter hrb1979 writes "Thought I'd share an interview with Kang Zhao — the professor behind the machine learning algorithm which could transform online dating. His algorithm takes into account both a user's tastes (in an approach similar to the Netflix recommendation engine) and their attractiveness (by analyzing how many responses they get) — enabling the machine to 'learn' and hence propose higher potential matches. His research was recently covered in both a Forbes' article and the MIT Technology Review, though this interview provides more depth and color."

Comments

Not the algorithm we need

[russotto]

All the algorithms in the world aren't going to help when the intersection of "people you'd care to date" and "people who'd care to date you" is empty. What we need is an algorithm to convince people to lower their expectations when they're unattractive, boring, unmannerly, old, poor and/or cheap, have baggage, etc.

Re:Not the algorithm we need

[TheloniousToady]

What we need is an algorithm to convince people to lower their expectations when they're unattractive, boring, unmannerly, old, poor and/or cheap, have baggage, etc.

Don't they already have that algorithm up and working here at Slashdot?

Re:Not the algorithm we need

[gstoddart]

No kidding. I've known a few people who aren't exactly the best catches who refuse to date anybody who looks anything less than a supermodel.

If you're 80 pounds overweight, or a raging nerd, or whatever, and you refuse to date someone who isn't perfect ... you're going to be single and lonely for a long time.

I've known way too many people with their own defects (and who among us doesn't have them, especially here) who looked at potential partners and turned up their nose for stupid reasons -- a little overweight, wears glasses, curly hair.

Not saying you need to date the ugliest person you can find, but having a realistic expectation of what you might actually get goes a long way.

Don't be the Comic Book Guy saying "Oh, I've wasted my life" and passing up opportunities. If you're a 5, don't shoot for a 10.

Re:Not the algorithm we need

[CastrTroy]

I think the issue is that nobody is perfect. There is no single "ideal" person, male or female. Somebody who comes from a society with arranged marriages explained this to me, and why those relationships often end up working out better. Because both people going into it know that it is something they are going to have to work on, and that not everything about their relationship will be perfect. I'm not saying that arranged marriages are the right answer, but going into a relationship with the expectation that you'll have to work through difficulties can help a lot. So many people give up at the first sign of a problem. They want everything to come easy, be it with relationships, school, jobs, and any other aspect of life.

Re:Not the algorithm we need

[CubicleZombie]

What we need is an algorithm to convince people to lower their expectations when they're unattractive, boring, unmannerly, old, poor and/or cheap, have baggage, etc.

Someone already wrote that in Perl. It's called Craigslist.

Re:Not the algorithm we need

[gregski]

this is exactly the problem this algorithm attempts to solve:

"They also analyze the replies you receive and use this to evaluate your attractiveness (or unattractiveness). Obviously boys and girls who receive more replies are more attractive. When it takes this into account, it can recommend potential dates who not only match your taste but ones who are more likely to think you attractive and therefore to reply. "The model considers a user's "taste" in picking others and "attractiveness" in being picked by others," they say. "

Re:Not the algorithm we need

[Alopex]

Some people would rather be single than date someone who is considered an even match, which is a perfectly fair decision. Also, consider hypergamy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypergamy), which is already quite common.

Re:Not the algorithm we need

[gweihir]

Looks are pretty much unimportant, or rather if you are halfway sane you do not want to date anybody looking like a "supermodel". It either comes with neuroses or a huge ego not justified by anything. One the other hand, people dating on looks may just get what they deserve.

Re:Not the algorithm we need

[Gothmolly]

What we need is an algorithm to convince people to lower their expectations because they're unattractive, boring, unmannerly, old, poor and/or cheap, have baggage, etc.

FTFY. Nobody is a supermodel, or terribly interesting.

Re:Not the algorithm we need

[tomhath]

an algorithm to convince people to lower their expectations

I suspect that's exactly what his algorithm does.

enabling the machine to 'learn' and hence propose higher potential matches

Re:Not the algorithm we need

[gstoddart]

I agree with you, but I've also known someone who is 100+ pounds overweight who outright refuses to date women who are also a little on the heavy side. It's hard not to think "have you really looked at yourself in a mirror?"

Some people just have completely unrealistic expectations about who they might potentially be able to date.

Me, I figure find someone you can get along with and have things in common with, and the rest is just details.

Re:Not the algorithm we need

[Grishnakh]

What we need is an algorithm to convince people to lower their expectations when they're unattractive, boring, unmannerly, old, poor and/or cheap, have baggage, etc.

The problem here is that there's no way for an algorithm to know these things about someone. No one puts on their online dating profile, "I'm a cheap-ass, I have terrible manners, and I still have issues about my ex-wife even though we divorced 15 years ago." They only put the good parts. They even dress up the photos, like showing only their face in particular artful poses if they're obese, so you can't easily tell that from the photos.

Re:Not the algorithm we need

[Grishnakh]

Looks are pretty much unimportant, or rather if you are halfway sane you do not want to date anybody looking like a "supermodel". It either comes with neuroses or a huge ego not justified by anything.

There's a big difference between only dating supermodels and refusing to date someone who's extremely unattractive (for instance, morbidly obese). A lot of men avoid overly-attractive women as they assume they're "high maintenance", and look for women in the next tier down (the "girl next door" type); they want someone who's attractive, but not so beautiful that they're going to be a PITA and have those neuroses you talk of (and demand he spend all kinds of money on her so she can have weekly spa treatments, ridiculously expensive designer clothes, etc.). This doesn't mean they're willing to date a woman who's 300 pounds.

Looks are important: if you're not at all physically attracted to someone, you're not going to have an easy time maintaining a romantic relationship with them. For men, you may have serious problems "getting it up" if you don't find the woman at least somewhat attractive.

Re:Not the algorithm we need

[Sique]

I don't think you got it right. There are people who are not much into dating at all, and while they might not say no to a supermodel, most other people to them are just not worth the hassle. They don't put much effort into dating at all, and if they refuse a date, it's not because they think they could do better, it's because they simply aren't interested. Not everyone boosts their self-esteem by trying to score as many dates as possible.

I for once never was much into dating at all, and I don't think I ever made a big effort into courtship. I'm married now, and I have two children, but the proposal was some way that has nothing to do with romance or even with a diamond ring (as I am not an U.S. american, diamond rings are out of question anyway). When my then-future wife was renting a van, we noticed in the contract conditions that family members with a driving license were allowed to drive the rental van too, and because a bride or groom count as family, we decided to call this a proposal and share the driving.

Yes, there are people who overestimate themselves and are thus unsuccessful at dating, but I don't think this happens very often or for a longer time. If the need arises, most people adjust their expectations automatically. Often they have some acquaintances anyway they hang around with, and then a date just happens, and later on both will tell everyone that the mate they found was not what they initially searched for, but proved to be a perfect match anyway.

Re:Not the algorithm we need

[DigiShaman]

Nature vs. Nurture. At the end of the day, relationships may not last because people are just too different. While there's adaptability, the rate in which people culturally change slows as they get older. Also, the brain is hard-wired for certain predispositions. Sometimes the natural behavior of one person will never compliment that of another. In some cases, enough cultural change will be enough to offset that persons natural behavior. It really is a balance between nature vs. nurture that determines the overall compatibility between two people. Sometimes it works out, other times it does not; no matter how hard you try.

Re:Not the algorithm we need

[Connie_Lingus]

since it's slashdot, here is a very sensible algorithm for dating...

take a hard honest look at yourself and all your pluses and minus, and rank yourself 1 to 10. its important to be realistic...

now, give yourself a range of +1.5 to -1.5 and only go after others who fall in that range.

so for example, if your a 7, your range should be 5.5 to 8.5...

it really isn't the dumbest thing ever.

Re:Not the algorithm we need

[gweihir]

I think the problem is more that these people have a complete unrealistic self-image. For tech people, you can observe that regularly in forums: The ones claiming the highest authority are typically somewhere from clueless to mediocre. I think this is the same effect at work. On the plus side, this means far less likelihood of these idiots reproducing, so I do not believe "fixing" this is desirable.

Re:Not the algorithm we need

[gweihir]

You are talking about criteria for an one-night-stand, not for a relationship or for founding a family. Maybe that is the reason so few relationships keep these days: Wrong selection criteria.

Re:Not the algorithm we need

[Sique]

Actually, it's not so easy, as a 1..10 scale is not really covering anything. I would for instance have a problem dating a devout, pious woman, though she might be attractive by most other criteria. On the other hand, if she appears bookish and has excellent verbal skills (or even be bilingual), I could be very interested. For some reason I seem to fall for some quirks in the personality of people. I am really bad at estimating other people's intelligence, but I like it if they appear to think strategically or be at least very tenacious at the things they are working to achieve. Try to express that in a 1..10 scale!

Re:Not the algorithm we need

[dragon-file]

There's a name for that. Bell curve I think.

Re:Not the algorithm we need

[Nephandus]

Attraction is still a criteria. Otherwise, sex isn't getting involved since some of us aren't whoring out for farces like "family" or a "relationship" for the sake of saying you've got a "relationship". That's a fuck up situation where you put up with someone you don't want to play house...

Re:Not the algorithm we need

[DutchUncle]

Sounds like "realistic expectations" to me. Another comment from a similar colleague: Arranged marriages (at the level his family expected) were more like business partnerships put together by VCs. The families and/or their agents/matchmakers were looking for good combinations who would not have met by chance - even if they went to the same school or trade show (if only because genders are carefully polite in their culture).

Re:Not the algorithm we need

[Zibodiz]

This. However, I will add something: Having similar goals and work ethic is important. I think, ultimately, people can work through almost any differences with a positive outcome, as long as their religion, work ethic, and life goals are similar. Pretty much the 'big picture' stuff. Of the girls I dated before marrying my wife, I can honestly say that I *could* have made it work with any of them, with the exception of those points. Religion is, frankly, flexible enough that it doesn't seem to need to be an exact fit unless one of the people involved is totally consumed by their religion; the two real important points, though, is whether the two people are going in the same direction.
One of my former girlfriends was extremely lazy. She wound up marrying a guy who fits her perfectly; a disabled vet (dare I call him that? He was in the Army for 1 year before being medically discharged, never got deployed), and they now live on welfare while neither of them works, instead spending their foodstamps on alcohol & cigarettes, and their time making babies.
Another girl I dated was headed through college with the goal of becoming a middle manager for a large corporation. I'm not sure where she is today, but last I knew, she was getting married to a guy who didn't really have a career goal; seems like a perfect fit to me, since it seems most middle managers need to relocate a few times.
Now, for contrast: My goals were to become self-employed and start a chain of electronic shops. Early on, that meant many 16+-hour-days with very little pay. I'm now past the really hard part of starting a business, and am well on my way to opening my second shop. The girl I am proud to call my wife is a perfect fit. She's a hard worker, her life goal was basically to spend as much time with family as possible, and she's good at seeing 'the big picture'; we've been married for almost 6 years now, and there's no question that we're a perfect match. When we first met, our interests, tastes in music, hobbies, food preferences, culture, families -- they were all pretty different. Of course, in the past decade or so, we've gradually become more alike, but ultimately it all really had no bearing on our happiness. The only thing that mattered was that we were going the same direction.
Also worth noting: we met on the Internet and became friends before we met in person or really got a good idea of what each other looked like. We didn't base our relationship on physical attraction, but rather on friendship.

Re:Not the algorithm we need

[Nephandus]

That doesn't actually work on humans. I'm not homosexual, so self-rating's not possible, and my libido's not anyone else's as their's isn't either. I'm rarely attracted to supposed 9's and 10's of others. As a rule, someone says "hot". I probably don't find her attractive. The one's I find adorable don't usually score that high on most other gynophiles ratings. Besides, anything less than strong attraction fizzles. Compatibility isn't a factor without attraction, so there's not else to speak of.

Re:Not the algorithm we need

[Nephandus]

Jackpot or jackshit?

Re:Not the algorithm we need

[cayenne8]

Looks are pretty much unimportant, or rather if you are halfway sane you do not want to date anybody looking like a "supermodel". It either comes with neuroses or a huge ego not justified by anything. One the other hand, people dating on looks may just get what they deserve.

Err, I dunno. Like the old saying goes:

Beauty is skin deep

Ugly is to the bone

Beauty always fades away

But ugly holds it own....

:)

But on a serious note...attractions begins, especially with men...visually.

You never walk into a bar and look around and say "Wow, I gotta meet that woman over there, I'll bet she has the best personality!!".

No, you look around and see the ones that are good looking and fit your image of a good looking chick, and go chat her up.

Sure, if you want something to be a longer lasting relationship, you do have to get to know them and be compatible, but that's not the first thing you look at when hunting a mate.

And also, if you're in it for the long term...are you going to be happy fucking someone that isn't attractive to you? Are you going to be happy being naked with her for long term...and not be wanting to stray outside that relationship for someone better looking?

Looks does matter. It isn't everything, but it is a LARGE thing in a relationship.

Re:Not the algorithm we need

[StripedCow]

Huh? Of course if you're heavy you are looking for a slim counterpart. You don't want your offspring to be super-heavy, right?

Re:Not the algorithm we need

[cayenne8]

No kidding. I've known a few people who aren't exactly the best catches who refuse to date anybody who looks anything less than a supermodel.

If you're 80 pounds overweight, or a raging nerd, or whatever, and you refuse to date someone who isn't perfect ... you're going to be single and lonely for a long time.

I've known way too many people with their own defects (and who among us doesn't have them, especially here) who looked at potential partners and turned up their nose for stupid reasons -- a little overweight, wears glasses, curly hair.

Depends. If you're a guy who knows how to talk to women, and has a pretty good 'game', you can definitely date and bed women that most would think were "outside of your league", and no, you don't have to be wealthy.

You see it all the time, large guys, not that ugly...with hot women. I even occasionally see and have known, some really good looking guys, that were almost model like on the outside, but were too shy and didn't know how to talk to women.

Thankfully...women aren't quite as visually oriented as we guys are, but you do have to be able to speak to them in a confident manner, and be able to read their signs and push the right buttons, and talk about things THEY will respond to. Sure, most of the time it is bullshit, but you say what they want/need to hear, and you can bag them. If you like them for more than a bit of sex a few times, you can dig into a deeper relationship, but even then, you need to learn, know and use a bit of knowledge on human female behavior.

Some guys have the gift naturally, but most of us don't...self included.

But it can be learned and it isn't that hard. First thing, get over being afraid to talk to women...ANY woman. Go try to hit on the best looking woman, but know how to do it. And hey, sometime it doesn't work...play the numbers, women are a dime a dozen and go after the next one, etc.

Practice, practice, practice...any time I'm out during the day and I see an attractive young lady...I will at bare minimum strike up some sort of casual conversation, you never know where it will end up...her or maybe a friend of hers...etc.

Re:Not the algorithm we need

[Half-pint HAL]

I think the problem is more that these people have a complete unrealistic self-image. For tech people, you can observe that regularly in forums: The ones claiming the highest authority are typically somewhere from clueless to mediocre. I think this is the same effect at work. On the plus side, this means far less likelihood of these idiots reproducing, so I do not believe "fixing" this is desirable.

That may be a different issue: the Dunning-Kruger effect. Unless social grace can be considered an "expertise", which is an interesting philosophical notion.

Re:Not the algorithm we need

[Seumas]

I'm not sure what the problem is, there?

What is better, to settle and be potentially unhappy for years or not to settle and be alone, but without the garbage attached to being with someone who doesn't do much for you? I mean, just because you're poor or you're fat or you're driving a crappy car doesn't mean your taste changes. Unfortunately, this *is* what leads to so many unhappy relationships in the world and so much endless drama. People are so desperate to not be "alone" that they will eventually grasp at anything and anyone.

Also, if you're a five, shoot for a ten. You'd be amazed that the fives that land tens, either because the other supposed tens that ten spends their time with are actually awful people or because the five that landed them has other valuable compensations that appeal to someone.

Seriously, though, don't settle. Be alone rather than settle. All the miserable people I've known in my life are those who were so terrified of being by themselves that they settled.

Re:Not the algorithm we need

[Half-pint HAL]

A marriage without chemistry is going to be difficult. Even in arranged marriages, chemistry is considered -- the mothers are looking for someone who will make their offspring both happy and secure, and will accept and be accepted by the rest of the family. (Of course, this ignores marrying-for-money and political marriages, but these are not the norm!)

Re:Not the algorithm we need

[LifesABeach]

It also appears to be very accurate. lol

Re:Not the algorithm we need

[StripedCow]

Women, on the other hand, need only a scale with two degrees of freedom:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uN_sSXKbzHk

Re:Not the algorithm we need

[pr0fessor]

People are complex, I would likely get no hits if I joined a dating site. After reading about my career you would think either the photo is a fake or the profile description. I don't fit with how Hollywood portrays the computer nerd as a matter of fact most of the people I work with don't.

My wife and I have a running joke, I'm her husband the nerd but when her new friends or coworkers meet me they are surprised by my long blond hair, jeans, and t-shirt because I'm a regular guy, I hit the heavy bag, I like motorcycles and classic cars, I do my own lawn work, like to BBQ. As soon as the part comes in I have bike that needs an ignition coil and another I need to rebuild the top end.

I expect that most of the people on /. are more than just one thing

Re:Not the algorithm we need

[cayenne8]

You are talking about criteria for an one-night-stand, not for a relationship or for founding a family. Maybe that is the reason so few relationships keep these days: Wrong selection criteria.

Err....that's how relationships start....a guy looks to get laid, goes through a number of women till one he finds is a "keeper".

One night stands/dating, is the audition....

Re:Not the algorithm we need

[CubicleZombie]

The men who have figured out that game know how to spot the women with low self esteem. Women with low self esteem need the sex to feel desired to feel good about themselves.

Re:Not the algorithm we need

[cayenne8]

The men who have figured out that game know how to spot the women with low self esteem. Women with low self esteem need the sex to feel desired to feel good about themselves.

Of course, low esteem women definitely present a "target rich environment", but I'm not talking just about that...if you know how to come off as confident in yourself, have a bit of a sense of humor, and KNOW how to get in a womans head, you have a very good chance of getting her into bed, and more if you want it.

It isn't all about getting laid and sex, but that initially is the audition for a guy looking for women in his life. If you know how to fearlessly approach women, and get them to talk (hell, has there EVER been a woman that complained after a date that all she got to do was talk about herself too much??)....you listen to what they say to get clues as to interest and feeling she has about things. If she mentions family things...then you know that when your turn to talk, to work in some things with pleasant memories and feelings in a story in your life (real or made up)...and use that to push her buttons.

Learn a bit about body language, you can often read a woman on how they're feeling about you and whatever is being talked about from their body language, and you can do things like compliment their body language, etc....things like that help you to establish connection and keep their interests.

It isn't rocket science....

And too...as a guy, you can NOT let rejection stop you or lower your self esteem. It is also a numbers game...there's a TON of women out there, keep trying on all of them you find attractive, you'll get bites and land many of them.

But it isn't just low esteem women. Sure, they're easy to get laid with, but eventually most guys want a bit more...and you want a woman that has it together. These same methods work on them too.

I make it a point to try to speak with at least 1-2 VERY attractive women every time I am out and about in public. I'll approach, if for nothing else, to ask the time, or directions to somewhere around...anything to make contact. It is good practice even if you aren't on the hunt...just to keep your approach and verbal skills up and honed. It hurts you NONE at all if you get blown off or rejected, but it does give you constant practice and chances to learn more female behavior...and who knows, maybe even a date or more.

Its a big world, you never know who you're gonna run into next...

Re:Not the algorithm we need

[Grishnakh]

That won't work: it requires too much honesty and information from all the participants. People are famous for lying on online dating sites: men always say they're 2 inches taller than they are, and women always minimize how fat they are (by calling themselves "curvy" instead of "obese") and lie about their age. If the dating site can't even get honest information about peoples' physical characteristics and ages, how do you expect to get honest feedback about dates from participants? The guy who stood up a woman is going to lie about it and say she didn't show up, while she says she was stood up; which one is the dating site supposed to believe? If the guy says the woman was neurotic, and she says he was arrogant and abusive, who do you believe? And then there's the whole liability angle: if you get feedback from participants, and then post this ("1 previous date says this person attempted to rape her"), you're just asking for a libel lawsuit.

Re:Not the algorithm we need

[cranky_chemist]

In the immortal words of George Carlin:

"I've never fucked a 10, but one night I fucked five 2's, and I think that oughta count."

Re:Not the algorithm we need

[Immerman]

Actually not - from what I've heard the research suggests that as a rule guys tend to have a pretty good idea what we're looking for before we ever get involved with a woman. If we're looking to get laid, the relationship probably won't develop any further than that. If we're looking for something more, then we'll tend to stick around at least until it becomes clear she's not the one.

Re:Not the algorithm we need

[cayenne8]

Actually not - from what I've heard the research suggests that as a rule guys tend to have a pretty good idea what we're looking for before we ever get involved with a woman. If we're looking to get laid, the relationship probably won't develop any further than that. If we're looking for something more, then we'll tend to stick around at least until it becomes clear she's not the one.

Yeah, but after the usual period, if she's not giving you any...you're not gonna hang around much longer to find out anything else.

Re:Not the algorithm we need

[LordNacho]

"That may be a different issue: the Dunning-Kruger effect [wikipedia.org]. Unless social grace can be considered an "expertise", which is an interesting philosophical notion."

I think it is. Among all the people I know, the really smart ones tend to be the humble ones. You almost have to drag it out of one of them that he got a top (they rank you numerically) degree at Oxford and a robotics phd from Cambridge. One of those guy's who'd be able to teach you a new concept after the two of you had just read the same few pages. Once the cat is out of the bag though, he gets the dual benefit of being super smart as well as being seen as a humble guy.

I reckon people who really are intelligent will follow this strategy. Because sooner or later, if you work with someone, you are going to ask them about their background. If you're credentialed, people will find out, and they will know that you were confident they would be impressed.

Less smart/credentialed people will need to rely on how people generally think:
1) In polite conversation, it's wrong to shoot down someone you've just met. So the idea that you're smart needs to at least be entertained even without the creds.
2) Social proof/bluffing. Someone going around claiming how smart they are has probably been told so by a lot of people, otherwise they'd be humble. So maybe other people have done the hard work, and the assessor can rely on that. Right? :-)

Anyway, rambling on a bit, I tend to take note when someone claims they are good at something. Particularly if they claim high intelligence. Unfortunately of late I've been right. Or Dunning and Krueger have been.

Re:Not the algorithm we need

[jemmyw]

as I am not an U.S. american, diamond rings are out of question anyway

I'm interested: I'm not an american but I'm pretty sure I can buy diamonds if I wanted, they don't check your nationality. What gives?

Re:Not the algorithm we need

[Connie_Lingus]

yeah..well a 1..10 scale can pretty easily handle all sorts if independent variables...

it's all in the ranking of the beholder...it certainly isn't absolute it's quite relative.

Re:Not the algorithm we need

[ImprovOmega]

I have to tell you that if the woman who wants to be a housewife isn't herself a hard worker then it's never going to work out. Maintaining a house takes a lot of effort. Now if a woman wants to be well kept then you need to start involving servants to maintain the house and that's a whole different prospect. But your implication ('more ambitious') that a housewife doesn't have to work very hard is fairly insulting to the many good women (and some men) who choose that path in order to make their families the best they can possibly be. It's noble work, and hard, and a perfectly valid choice if one partner makes enough money to allow it. But it is absolutely not for the lazy.

Re:Not the algorithm we need

[antdude]

Yeah, I am one of them who was born with multiple disabilities. I am still single, can't reproduce due to defective genes, disabled, can't drive, never had a date before, almost 40 years, etc. :(

Re:Not the algorithm we need

[AmiMoJo]

Problem is that's all you get on dating websites. A photo, probably airbrushed. Some generic interests, maybe a paragraph written by the person. You have to be willing to contact a lot of people to find ones you might really get on with.

Re:Not the algorithm we need

[antdude]

Yeah, I am one of them who was born with multiple disabilities. I am still single, can't reproduce due to defective genes, disabled, can't drive, never had a date before, almost 40 years, etc. :~(

Re:Not the algorithm we need

[kmoser]

I've dated people the algorithm would consider too attractive for me, which is why I will continue to avoid algorithms when dating.

Re:Not the algorithm we need

[Optali]

here at my office if you don't knew where you were you could think that it was the redaction of Metal Hammer \m/

Re:Not the algorithm we need

[Optali]

I've known way too many people with their own defects.

I only know people with hired ones, as ownership tends to be very expensive.

Re:Not the algorithm we need

[pr0fessor]

Most of the people in my office are very aware that sitting at a desk 9-12 hours a day is bad after one of our younger coworkers managed to go to the hospital for a back problem because he sneezed. Small portable exercise equipment is not uncommon.

We have a lot of musicians also, there used to be a couple bands that worked in our Tier I helpdesk, a 60,70,80,90s rock/metal cover band and a metal core band. They would bring their guitars in and have them setting up in their cubicles. {can't leave them in the car they would get stolen or the temperature would mess up the neck} They used to try and stump me with questions after they found out that I have more credits in applied music than cs.

Re:Not the algorithm we need

[TranquilVoid]

No, you look around and see the ones that are good looking and fit your image of a good looking chick

Everyone is attracted to looks somewhat, but I think it depends on your outlook. Your stereotypical sexist pig may do exactly what you describe, but for most people the image is deeper than physical attractiveness - i.e. the way someone moves gives an indication of their personality, as do their facial expressions. This is what grabs people, rather than bone symmetry and breast size.

are you going to be happy fucking someone that isn't attractive to you

Someone you love is going to be attractive to you.

Dupe

[Anonymous Coward]

His research was recently covered in both a Forbes' article and the MIT Technology Review

It was also recently covered on Slasdot.

Profiles Not Everything

[Anonymous Coward]

This doesn't take into account chemistry, which is where feeling love comes from. If you want the logical mate, then sure you can probably create something like this. If you want a real match, you'll also need to send in hormones and blood samples for testing. It would probably also help if people didn't lie so much online.

Not for me

[Sigvatr]

Somehow I get the feeling that I won't have any success with this. I'm a typical Slashdot user.

Re:Dating Algorithm Corollary

[sinij]

This is where evolution backfired. It used to be the case that physical characteristics highly correlated with reproductive success, so we are hard-wired to look for them. Sometimes this takes strange detours into fetishes-obsessions, but most of the time we just looking for "good looking".

I prefer this formula; it's more honest

[tekrat]

The perfect formula for matchmaking:

Males: Enter income.
Females: Enter attractiveness.

Match up most attractive to highest earners.

Re:I prefer this formula; it's more honest

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot height, since every woman online has a binary filter rating anyone under 6' unacceptable.

Re:I prefer this formula; it's more honest

[LookIntoTheFuture]

Males: Enter income and Insanity Level Limit.
Females: Enter attractiveness and Insanity Level.

I went ahead and fixed that for ya.

Re:I prefer this formula; it's more honest

[AmiMoJo]

Reminds me of that Fix TV show where a woman married a millionaire sight unseen. When they got home she found and ordinary house with a discarded toilet in the back yard, she found an ordinary looking woman under the heavy studio make-up.

Re:I prefer this formula; it's more honest

[cthulhu11]

This. It takes a bunch of $ to get past that. When I was dating I saw multiple women around 5'0" who wouldn't even talk to someone 6'.

Professor Frink says

[serviscope_minor]

Frink: Well, theoretically, yes. But the computer matches would be so perfect as to eliminate the thrill of romantic conquest. Mw-hurgn-whey.

Learn to lie

[Anonymous Coward]

Kind of like job interviews. It's not that hard, really: if they don't like you after you're in the door, you've still gotten out of your mom's basement for a day and had a chance to steal some pens. It also gets you a chance to talk to the people who actually *work* at the company, who know what department actually needs your real job skills. Same with "si8ngles" dating. Even if the "single" is a real brown bagger, she may have friends who are interesting to meet and will "rescue" their friend by distracting you.

Nothing gets them wanting to go out like seeing that their friend is out with you. Think I'm kidding? Just watch them at a good party.

Re:Dating Algorithm Corollary

[serviscope_minor]

This is true even though a homely spouse makes for a much more attentive husband/wife.

Do they? Ugly people are just as capable of obnoxious behaviour as attractive ones.

Re:GIGO

[sinij]

For people downvoting above - the reason you are still single is because you have unrealistically high opinion of your own charm, attractiveness, generosity, and achievements. Relationships are about getting along and building trust, not about putting yourself on a pedestal with a puffed-up profile. Unlike job interviews, it hurts relationships to over-sell yourself by introducing inevitable disappointment and distrust at the very early stages of it.

Dating Sites

[Bigbutt]

Being recently divorced (last year), I started poking around at the various dating sites. Let's see, I don't smoke, I effectively don't drink alcohol (one beer a year doesn't make me a "drinker"), I'm a gamer (you'd be amazed at the number of women who think gamers are "childish"), and I'm not into sports (lots of women who go to football/baseball/hockey games). I do like going hiking in the mountains, snowshoes, skiing, I like bicycling. But I'm not a fitness fanatic which also eliminated quite a few women. I'm not religious which eliminated a few more.

After eliminating the mis-matches, I started paring down the other issues. Based on profiles, I got down to about 60 women in the area who might be an match based on shared interests. I received no replies to my e-mails but I did receive three unrelated emails. One from a women in Australia. One from a woman in Texas who had pictures of her daughter leaning on a car (which was a bit creepy). And one from a woman who plays guitars who appeared to be looking for a man in every city.

Amusingly on my birthday (hit 56), my match list dropped to zero. Every one of the women were looking for guys 55 or younger. So I expanded my search until I got to a couple of women in a 250 mile radius.

For some of us (a small percentage I suppose), the dating sites really aren't helping. And since women receive all the emails, they have the choice of who to go out with.

Humorously I was chosen to moderate pictures on okcupid for a bit. The guys do send some very suggestive emails (and some not so suggestive!).

[John]

Re:Dating Sites

[BringsApples]

Sorry to hear that. Being alone sucks, it's as simple as that. The best thing that you can do is act like you have a shit-ton of money (somehow) and more than likely, you'll get some 20-something-yo chick.

Happiness is something that's you can achieve however, and it has nothing to do with other people. Best of luck either way.

Re:Dating Sites

[Grishnakh]

Being recently divorced (last year), I started poking around at the various dating sites. Let's see, I don't smoke, I effectively don't drink alcohol (one beer a year doesn't make me a "drinker"), I'm a gamer (you'd be amazed at the number of women who think gamers are "childish"), and I'm not into sports (lots of women who go to football/baseball/hockey games). I do like going hiking in the mountains, snowshoes, skiing, I like bicycling. But I'm not a fitness fanatic which also eliminated quite a few women. I'm not religious which eliminated a few more.

Some of this stuff varies a lot by region (or proximity to a major city), but I hear you. I'm the same way on much of it (except the gaming part, and I do drink a half-glass of wine now and then, though again nothing approaching drunkenness, so not much of a "drinker"), and I've always found it difficult to meet women and to keep them interested. There do seem to be an absurd number of women interested in sports online from what I've seen, and sometimes I wonder if they say that just to attract men who like sports. And yes, lots of women seem to be very religious, much moreso than men. I've heard before of churches where single women outnumber single men 10-to-1, with the single men being weirdos with handlebar mustaches, and the preacher telling the single women not to date outside that church or else they're "unequally yoked".

Amusingly on my birthday (hit 56),

This is probably part of your problem. I hate to say it, but you're too old for online dating: women in your age group aren't very internet-savvy, unlike the 20- and 30-somethings. The women you'd be interested in might use Facebook to keep up with their kids and grandkids, but that's about it.

Re:Dating Sites

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

This is probably part of your problem. I hate to say it, but you're too old for online dating: women in your age group aren't very internet-savvy,

Bingo. There may be plenty of fish in the sea, but they haven't been there long.

On the plus side for the OP, the older you get, the more the female:male ratio goes up in the real world.

Re:Dating Sites

[Grishnakh]

Actually, I just thought of something for you: have you tried Meetup.com? Around my area, there's tons of hiking/outdoor groups on Meetup, and a lot of people (of all ages) seem to use these hiking groups as singles mixers. You don't have to be single to go on hikes, but a lot of the people I meet on there seem to be. I've met lots of older (50+) women on the hikes I've been on.

Re:Dating Sites

[ThatsDrDangerToYou]

Hmm. OK, try this: - Go easy on the "I'm a gamer" thing. Women of a certain age will rarely "get it", so you can mention it in passing on your profile, but wait until you meet to fully divulge. - New hobby! I highly recommend yoga, not only for the exercise, but the m/f ratio is always going to be in your favor. - One thing that I discovered is that women really appreciate a guy who can hold a conversation and be interesting, interested, and not a jerk. Apparently this is not so common. So... try ToastMasters or something. "Girls want guys with skills.." - Napolean Dynamite Most importantly, don't give up if it's important to you. Try new things that bring you in contact with people you may want to meet. Volunteer. Start a band! Anyway, good luck, d

Re:Dating Sites

[Bigbutt]

Actually I'm pretty satisfied with where my life is right now. I hadn't intended on hitting the dating sites but was curious as that's where I met my ex back in '99. And honestly being alone is actually pretty good. I can sit at home and read a book without feeling guilty about not _doing_something_. Plus I've done a lot of work around the house and yard that were off limits in the past.

So really, I'm good right now. And I think that's what's important. Being good with yourself and eventually (or not) the right person will come along.

[John]

Re:Dating Sites

[Bigbutt]

I figured the women who like sports and dogs (where are all the cat girls :D ) are doing so to attract guys. I grew up with cats and have a bit of anxiety around dogs, mostly from a pretty good scare when I was a kid.

Yea, I came to the age conclusion too. I don't know how to "act my age". Much of what I find enjoyable is associated with the younger crowd. Heck, quite a few folks seem honestly surprised when they discover my age and estimate it at 10 years younger.

Clean living :)

[John]

Re:Dating Sites

[Bigbutt]

I actually have considered it. I'm a co-organizer for probably the biggest gaming Meetup site in our area (almost 900 members :) ). So I'm familiar with meetup.com. One of my friends is a member of one of the sites. I think part of that problem is they are _hiking_ meetups and not 'strolling' meetups. While I do like to hike. I'm not good with 20 milers :) I am checking out the others though to see if there's a less strenuous one.

[John]

Re:Dating Sites

[Bigbutt]

I don't think I was over the top with the gamer thing. What I did was check out the questions and answers on okcupid. One of the questions was about gaming and if the answer was "childish", I clicked the 'not interested' filter. Since gaming (board gaming, role playing, miniatures (not warhammer though), and cards (not Magic/etc)) is probably the defining thing in my life, it pretty much becomes the gatekeeper to asking someone out. If gaming is 'Childish', then we'll do nothing but argue about the number of games and how much time I spend gaming. I had that with my Ex and really do not want to repeat that.

The band comment was interesting as I've been learning to play guitar and bass for the past 3 years and the guys at work have come over a few times to play. So perhaps I can attract a few groupies :)

[John]

Re:Dating Sites

[Grishnakh]

No, if you want to meet single women, you have to find the "beginner's" or less-strenuous hikes. You're probably not going to meet many women at the advanced, technical hikes. I don't like the 20-milers either; 5 miles is good for me, 10 is the absolute max. People don't go on the fast-paced hikes to chit-chat and meet people. Just join all the hiking (or general outdoors) meetups in your area, and ignore the hikes that say "no beginners", "fast paced, no sweeper", "advanced", have a huge elevation change, etc. Here in NJ, there's a bunch of groups that are "hiking" groups but don't do anything very strenuous.

Re:Dating Sites

[floodo1]

Network. It's the only way to get anywhere in life, other than luck.

Re:Dating Sites

[russotto]

I figured the women who like sports and dogs (where are all the cat girls :D )

They're at home with their 1001 cats. Stay far away.

Re:Dating Sites

[Anti-Social Network]

This issue has been addressed here previously on slashdot.

I can say the above link matches very closely my own experience: having attempted the e-match thing myself once upon a time, I saved myself some major depression by giving up on it. Seriously, it truly is a soul-crushing experience if you aren't the lucky 10% or so of most-attractive contestants looking for the "typical" match. Also note that not everybody is comfortable with doing deeply personal things on the internet, for good reason (see: almost every Facebook story ever) - some of the smartest people won't be found online.

My recommendation: expand your interests a little, and get out somewhere that you are exposed to new people. Take up Tai Chi. Join a book club. Take a course or two of something new at a community college. Sure, there can be some money involved here, but you're likely to get a much higher class of results. Most importantly, keep in close contact with the better people you know. I met my current SO at a friend's house out of the blue.

Re:Dating Sites

[starless]

As somebody who became single in his mid-50s I strongly second the recommendation for meetup groups.
They aren't exclusively for single people, but singles are very "over-represented".
Obviously you want to choose the groups with a large number of people of your favorite gender group.
For me (looking for a woman) the hiking and the arts related groups were good.
Even if you don't find dates, you'll likely have a good time and meet new friends.
Meetup groups give you a low-stress way (because they're not primarily dating in general) to interact with many people
face-to-face.

Also, in response to a different comment. I think that lots of women in their 50s are actually rather
computer literate. (At least the educated women around the major city I live close to.)

(My personal experience is that I met someone via a meetup group, but I wasn't ready for something
as serious as she was looking for at that time. Shortly after that I met someone on OKC and we're still
together 2 years later.)

Re:Dating Sites

[ThatsDrDangerToYou]

Yeah, agreed on the gaming thing.

So dude! You are ready to roll with the band! I don't know your tastes, but there is a well worn path to attractiveness for we "geeks". DEVO is a best example I can think of. You don't have to be good, just willing to roll with it. Put together an hour long set and start gigging. You will meet people, guaranteed. Even if your music is shite, :-)

Above all, be interesting.

Re:Dating Sites

[Bigbutt]

Gaming Convention reference, sorry :)

[John]

Re:Dating Sites

[BringsApples]

Yeah I find it hard to take dating sites seriously, but they seem to be fine for some folks. It may be because in the past, I hooked up with some chicks and it always turned out to be odd.

Sounds like you're heading in the right direction. All the best!

Re:Dating Sites

[Anonymous Coward]

i've spent a single week on OkCupid, and i've had two(quite pretty) women initiate conversation with me, as well as having another ten message me back.

but, i'm in my mid-twenties, articulate and i'm not ugly or a deadbeat, but i also indicated that i'm an occasional smoker and also do drugs.

effect?

i've written off all the prudes and the religious, and i'm only hearing from the open minded cute girls.

dating sites aren't for everyone, but some definitely are better than others. have i had any success with POF? zero. fucking zero.

Re:Dating Sites

[Grishnakh]

Sorry, but this is BS. While I don't deny there may be some scamming going on, what you're suggesting is akin to saying, "don't use the internet, it's 100% spam" because you get some spam emails from Nigerians once in a while.

I've been on dozens of Meetup hikes and other events. None of them were "spam", organized by real estate agents, or anything of the kind. Did you look to see how long the groups you joined had been in existence? Did they have any comments posted by other members? Most decent groups have been around for years, have dozens or hundreds of members, tons of comments about the hikes (or other events), lots of information to go along with the events (such as GPS coordinates of the trailhead, tips including what to bring or not to bring, whether pets are allowed or not, etc.

Sounds like you're just really bad at spotting scams. And why would you even stick around for 30 minutes of a salesperson's spiel if you thought you were attending a free hiking event? Did you meet at a trailhead? Your entire post just sounds ridiculous.

Re:Dating Sites

[Grishnakh]

You obviously have severe psychological issues, and I encourage you to seek professional help immediately.

Re:Dating Sites

[Grishnakh]

Now you're acting like multiple people, responding twice to my post in quick succession, even though you're obviously the same person. Again, I encourage you to seek psychological help as soon as possible.

Re: Dating Sites

[Bigbutt]

So you'll probably not read this reply as you're an AC, however if you do, check out the Denver RPG Group. Over 800 members and the calendar is full of gaming events from local stores to individual groups. We (the organizers) are very _very_ picky about who we let join the group. Heck, we've given away the free swag we got from companies like Wizards of the Coast plus we created a dice run commemorating our 1,000th game.

So no, not all Meetup groups are spam havens.

[John]

Re:GIGO

[Antique Geekmeister]

> the reason you are still single is because you have unrealistically high opinion of your own charm

As opposed to " the reason you are still single is because you don't try"? Arrogance, which is what you're describing, can actually help. It can provide the confidence to actually ask out potential dates, to believe that you're worth spending time with, and get you past failures. Never trying is guaranteed failure, and it's too common.

Re:Dating Algorithm Corollary

[Alopex]

I think there is some truth to this. I seldom see drop-dead gorgeous female engineers or scientists. On the other hand, female cheerleaders make me cringe and despair. You don't think there is a strong correlation between attractiveness and personal qualities/careers/etc.?

Re:Dating Algorithm Corollary

[serviscope_minor]

I seldom see drop-dead gorgeous female engineers or scientists....You don't think there is a strong correlation between attractiveness and personal qualities/careers/etc.?

Let us say that intelligence and attractiveness are uncorrelated.

The probability of being both at once is very low, since you're multiplying the two small independent probabilities associated with attractiveness and intelligence.

If, of course you chose any segment of the population not selected specifically for attractiveness, then the probability of any given member being attractive is low.

Drop-dead gorgeous female scientists and engineers are particularly rare because (a) female scientists and enigneers are rare and (b) drop-dead gorgeousness is rare. Even uncorrelated if you multiply those tow probabilities, a small number results.

If you have something where members are chosen for attractiveness then yes, the average member will be more attractive than the average.

Would I say that my fellow scientists and engineers are on average less attractive than a random sampling of the population? That's a hard call. There are whole segments of the population that I rarely mix with which makes such things hard to judge. I never have cause to visit grim, deprived, crime ridden former mining towns of the North for example. But I haven't noticed any particular difference. There's one guy in my office you could easily tell from the outside (long hair, overweight and wearing anime t-shirts is kind of a give away). The rest not so much.

Many uses

[nospam007]

"His algorithm takes into account both a user's tastes (in an approach similar to the Netflix recommendation engine) and their attractiveness (by analyzing how many responses they get) — enabling the machine to 'learn' and hence propose higher potential matches."

I'd send them a hiring offer for a Photoshop Job, but that's just me.

Could be helpful

[wcrowe]

So, in other words, the machine will tell you, "Hey dude, you might as well talk to this homely girl, because we've analyzed your interests and your apparent attractiveness and you're not going to do any better than this".

Re:GIGO

[Grishnakh]

Totally wrong. Arrogance and lying actually work really well for many men. Those men get laid a lot more than the honest and humble men. You can debate whether it's worth it in the long term or not (he might be stuck with multiple child-support payments in his 40s), but it is a winning reproductive and dating strategy.

Re:Dating Algorithm Corollary

[Grishnakh]

I seldom see drop-dead gorgeous female engineers or scientists.

That's because smart and gorgeous women know that those professions are underpaid and undervalued in Western (particularly American) society, so they avoid them (they also want to avoid all the sexual harassment). Instead, these women go into the medical field. I've met several nearly drop-dead gorgeous female physicians. And they certainly get better pay and better job security than I do as an engineer, while not being surrounded by creepy men or brogrammers.

Re:Dating Algorithm Corollary

[Anonymous Coward]

Ugly people are just as capable of obnoxious behaviour as attractive ones

True statement. But attractive people (especially women with large breasts) tend to be conditioned by society to think that they are more desirable and hence that they are entitled to be more demanding. Same with guys who are good athletes or have lots of money.

Re:Would be nice if it works.

[Grishnakh]

There's a couple of problems here. 1) OKC doesn't have any way of blocking or filtering out people with kids, which apparently you're not open to (which is fine, it's a valid choice as a single man, esp. if you're younger; it gets unrealistic as you get older). From what I've seen, they only let you block people's messages if they're too far away from you. It'd be nice if there were more controls this way to block out people with deal-breakers (smoking, etc.) 2) There's no way for OKC to tell if someone is financially/emotionally unstable that I can think of. I don't even know how you would tell this about someone before meeting them in person and getting to know them, unless they're brazenly hitting you up for money when they first message you.

Re:GIGO

[Connie_Lingus]

+1 spot on

Hello, miss.

[PPH]

That's a nice ${ANATOMICAL_PART} you've got there.

If you want to be Happy

[Guppy]

This is true even though a homely spouse makes for a much more attentive husband/wife.

Jimmy Soul - If You Want To Be Happy (1963)

If you wanna be happy for the rest of your life
Never make a pretty woman your wife
So from my personal point of view
Get an ugly girl to marry you

So here comes the SEO-like rush for attractiveness

[AlienSexist]

I'm guessing that Search Engine Optimization (SEO) techniques would come into play whereby geeks could artificially inflate their relevance/attractiveness to game the system. Once again the nerds get the supermodels... right?

Dating sites and age....

[King_TJ]

I'm in my 40's and married, but back when I tried seriously using a few of the dating sites (never was willing to pay for the commercial ones, but gave sites like PoF and OKCupid a shot) -- I ran across a general theme for the individual who'd find the most success there. Basically, the formula seemed to be:

1. Into sports
2. Posted at least one sexy/arousing type photo instead of only head-shots
3. Somewhere in the "under 35" age range
4. Liked to "go out for a few beers/drinks" (but not "drink heavily", of course)
5. Claimed to have some type of job people perceived as "successful"
6. Those under 25 who bragged about "420 friendliness" (marijuana) seemed to do well with others in that age range.

Older people definitely tend to be the "outliers" on these sites -- with relatively few peers using them for dating. Worse yet, I think some of the 50 and 60 somethings use them to troll for much younger dates, sometimes even lying about their age to get the first in-person meetup.

I tried to be pretty honest about exactly what my interests were (and weren't), but found that didn't get me many initial contacts. I think just as in "real life", there's still sort of an expectation that the man is supposed to make the first move. Women will put a profile out there and just let the emails rolls in. Men put one out there and it gets viewed a number of times, but winds up only serving the purpose of getting reviewed closely if he contacts a woman first and she's trying to decide if she wants to write him back or not.

I'll tell you another thing that might be worth doing, if you want a "reality check" about your level of physical attractiveness to the opposite sex. Find a couple of photos of yourself you feel represent you well/accurately and post them on one of those "Hot or Not?" sites. Come back a few weeks later and see what your average rating was. I did this once, and frankly, it was pretty brutal. I wound up ranked about a 3 out of 10 -- despite being a guy I'm somewhat regularly told is "fairly attractive". I tried to analyze it, and discovered a few things -- like much younger women rating me really low, simply because I was "too old for them". But at the end of the day, I think it's important to realize that a lot of people using these dating sites will be clicking through guys' photos and profiles with this same mindset. "Ick... he's wearing an ugly shirt! Next!" "Looks like he could be my dad or something. Ugly! Next!" So without letting it shred your ego, I think it does provide some perspective at least -- when you get mad that "There are 1,000 women on this site right now and not ONE wants to write me back!?!"

Re:GIGO

[DutchUncle]

This reminds me of the old story about college roommates going to a party. The guy who drove immediately walks up to a babe and whispers in her ear, and gets slapped. Walks up to another, gets slapped again. The other guy shakes his head and goes to get a beer and find a conversation. Later, having gotten nowhere and wondering about his ride home, he looks for the first guy and can't find him anywhere. Finally the driver reappears with a smile on his face, and in no mood to leave. "Why not? Aren't you getting slapped a lot?" "Yes, but I'm getting laid a lot, too."

Re:Yeah, but that's not always the case

[ebno-10db]

Being ... attractive ... [is] always subjective

Yes and no. When it comes to physical attractiveness, if you take someone, and then have N randomly selected other people rate their attractiveness, you'll get a mean and a standard deviation. Of course that's not the most important thing to you (or your possible partner) as only your opinion matters (though the mean will of course affect how much attention someone gets).

Ok, that part's obvious, but there is an interesting effect. I wish I could find a link to the study, but I can't right now. Basically, if someone is fairly attractive, the SD of opinion will be comparatively small. However, if you look at the people that a given person finds the most attractive, there will generally be a much larger SD for them. In other words, most people more or less agree on who is reasonably attractive, but who they find most attractive is likely to be someone of who that opinion is not widespread.

Often surprised by the contrary examples

[swb]

I'm always surprised when I run into the contrary examples of women dating men who are by most measures less attractive than they are.

The two examples that come to the top of my head are both good friends of my wife and I.

One woman is in top physical shape (runs like 25 miles a week), high end corporate job (director of a hospital) and her husband is an easy 75 pounds overweight and some kind of rank-and-file finance guy. In three major respects, looks, earnings, and "job status" he's at a lower level than she is, yet they get along great.

The other one is less of a mismatch in terms of jobs (he's a realtor, she works as an assistant to him on real estate), but she is very, very attractive -- very pretty. Without being too crude, a really amazing figure in all respects, even more so amazing in terms of the fact she's 40+ with two kids. Her husband is paunchy and not nearly as good looking as she is.

This happens often enough that I figure that simple "looks" is far less important to women than it is to men, and that many women are either willing to overlook some aspects of appearance or simply don't care.

Re:Often surprised by the contrary examples

[cayenne8]

This happens often enough that I figure that simple "looks" is far less important to women than it is to men, and that many women are either willing to overlook some aspects of appearance or simply don't care.

I call this the "Billy Joel Syndrome"...remember how he, as a short, kinda ugly dude, was banging (and later married for awhile) Christie Brinkley?

So, thankfully for us guys, women aren't as visually hung up as we are about our prospective mates. I mean, you DO need to be somewhat presentable....but if you are confident in yourself and at least look fearless when talking to women, that gives you a huge leg up on all the other potential mates.

Over and over...women polled say that the top things they look for in men are confidence, and sense of humor, those two consistently rank in the top traits they are attracted to....

Re:Often surprised by the contrary examples

[CubicleZombie]

This happens often enough that I figure that simple "looks" is far less important to women than it is to men, and that many women are either willing to overlook some aspects of appearance or simply don't care.

My wife and I participated in a couples group that focused on relationship and marriage. At one point, we were asked, "Are you turned on by your partner's looks?"

All the men said, "You bet we are!"

ALL the women said, "not at all."

Us guys were really surprised by this. It's not that they weren't turned on by their husbands, it's that it was other attributes that did it for them.

Re:So here comes the SEO-like rush for attractiven

[hoggoth]

I think this is relevant: How Amy Webb hacked online dating:

http://www.ted.com/talks/amy_webb_how_i_hacked_online_dating.html

Improvement? I think not.

[locrien]

If its going to be anything like the Netflix recommendation engine then I feel like online dating will probably take a step backwards.

Everyone will get recommended the same stupid people they don't want to see over and over again.

I could use this, since I'm a super picky guy

[NotSoHeavyD3]

My main criteria for a girl are

1. Can not be bat shit crazy.

2. Not a midget. (How the hell did I end up on a blind date with a midget? It was like going out with a child, I think my 7 year old niece is taller. Before anybody asks it's true, I've actually been on a blind date with a little person, I'm not being sarcastic about that.)

Apparently it's going to be difficult to find both of those in 1 girl.

It doesn't matter.

[jd]

As it stands, I only get replies from bots and eharmony has scientifically proven that nobody on the face of the planet is compatible with me. Yes, I am serious. Yes, this is the main reason I brew very strong, very high quality mead. Inside work, I'm a meaningless drone in a stagnant occupation. Outside of work, the only company I keep is a three gallon jar. It's not a good conversationalist but it has a greater capacity for thought than my co-workers, which is something.

The older I get, the more I realize that Marvin, the Paranoid Android, was an optimist.

Re:Dating Algorithm Corollary

[Nivag064]

Actually there is likely to be a positive correlation between attractiveness & intelligence, because we have evolved to look for healthy mates who are like to reproduce well. For example lack of symmetry tends (so there are plenty of counter examples, but they do not undermine the argument) to be associated with an underlying health problem. Also around the world men tend to consider women with a particular hip to waist ratio as being the most attractive - research found that more that women deviated from that ratio then the less likely they would be able to conceive, carry a baby successfully to term, or have a safe vaginal birth.

In the second world war the British found that the most effective way of determining if a young woman would be good at the job of evaluating reconnaissance taken by RAF planes was by looking at the girls's ankles - the work involved intense concentration for long hours. At the time they did not know why. I suspect now, it was because a shapely ankle correlate well with health and stamina - but feminists would be predisposed to jump to the wrong conclusions.

Certainly, when I was working at at with lots of PhD students, the girls seemed to be generally of above average beauty! (No I didn't attempt to date any of them, as I'm married and old enough to be their grandfather!)

Re:So here comes the SEO-like rush for attractiven

[ImprovOmega]

I pretty much came in here to say this. People already game the system in so many intricate ways, but those ways at least are social engineering techniques that mean you at least have to have a clue about how people tick (and thus in a social situation, like a date, you can reasonably hold your own/not suck at being a conversationalist). But if you're optimizing against a machine algorithm the sky's the limit. Make a few fake profiles and hit yourself up to increase your attractiveness score, or convince your friends to do the same in kind. Figure out what keywords get you more attractive girls/guys, and build your profile around that. Then you finally end up on a date and...*pfft* now your out of your element. Then the dating site loses credibility and gets washed back into the primordial ooze from which it crawled.

Re:GIGO

[cthulhu11]

There is much truth here. When I escaped my first wife at 38, I hadn't really ever dated (long, embarrassing story). I started out being a decent guy, and got little interest in the dating realm -- being 6' was a common reason for rejection. A friend at the time told me I was "too nice", which I initially dismissed. The turning point was when eHarmony matched me with a woman I was really into -- wicked smart, attractive, (and yes a bit overweight, as was I). After a couple of weeks she dumped me basically because I was treating her with respect. That hardened my heart and I started being a bit arrogant / a jerk, and the response rate from women skyrocketed. At one point I was in a coffee shop and overheard a couple meeting for the first time. The woman (who was okay looking, with a few extra pounds) for some reason was going on about how the last guy she'd met had wasted her time: "He was *TINY*, like 5'7"!"