I don't really know if it's fair to criticize the online dating community of "shallowness". It's not easy to get a lot of depth from those online profiles. I mean, if everyone is saying how they love long walks on the beach, cuddling, puppies, their family, etc. then how are you supposed to differentiate between them besides pictures, income, etc. When I was doing a lot of online dating, I consistently passed over the "fatties" because there were plenty of thin girls for me to choose from. A fat chick might have a great personality and give fantastic head or have some other quality that makes up for the fact that I'm not as attracted to her as I would be to a skinny girl, but unless I can tell that by reading her profile, she's going to get passed over. That's life.
That said, I think if you feel like you're being passed over for guys who are smarter, richer, taller, or better looking than you, then maybe it's time to redo your profile. Put yourself in the girl's shoes and read your profile. Is there anything special in there to differentiate yourself or make a girl really want to get to know you better? It's not shallow of her to make her decision based on the limited information available to her. Put more personality into your profile and pictures, and maybe the ladies will see the depth of your personality that makes you such a catch.
I've done a lot of online dating in my day, and I agree with your diagnosis of the major problems with it. The mass mailings problem is the most serious in my opinion because I think the mass mailings lead to the second problem you list, because if tons of guys are doing mass mailings, then most of the decent girls are getting way too many emails to be able to realistically respond to them all, so they just start ignoring the vast majority of them.
That's why I prefer eHarmony for online dating. Since you can only communicate with people you're matched to, and you have to go through their predetermined stages of communication, it tends to raise the signal to noise ratio. Guys can't send out emails to 100 random girls per day because they only get 3-5 matches per day. Girls will typically also only get 3-5 matches per day, meaning that they're receiving communication from 3-5 guys per day, which is a manageable enough number for them to actually read everything they get sent.
As for the lying, I think there is a percentage of people who lie on their profiles, but I think the bigger problem is that people inadvertently misrepresent themselves because they see themselves differently than they actually are. In fact, I've found that the girls who say that they're not into drama and game playing are often the worst girls to date when it comes to drama and game playing. I've also found that the girls who say that they're not looking to just hook up are the easiest to get into bed. People have a really hard time evaluating themselves honestly because they're often describing how they wish they were rather than how they really are.
I've tried most of the mainstream sites, but eHarmony has always worked best for me. I've had one night stands, short term exclusive relationships, short term open relationships, etc. from all of the sites, but the highest success rate has always been with eHarmony. Also, I met my fiancee on eHarmony, so it works for the long term stuff too.
This may be offtopic, but why is it that big business is all in favor of globalization when it comes to getting cheap labor from other countries, but resists the consequences that globalization will have on their intellectual property to do more liberal copyright/patent laws in other countries?
And why are so many others against globalization when it comes to losing their jobs to cheaper guys in India or China, and yet willing to take advantage of the fact that other countries like China don't protect IP the way the US does so that they can continue to pirate intellectual property from content providers.
I'm all for being pro business or pro labor or anti piracy or anti copyright, but let's get some consistency. Globalization is going to have consequences both positive and negative for everyone, and I think that everyone needs to take the good with the bad. Big Business can't have it both ways, and neither should labor expect to.
Skype and Google Talk are not the issue
on
Vonage IPO
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
To all the people who think that Skype and Google Talk are going to put Vonage out of business, you have to realize that Vonage isn't selling VOIP... they're selling Primary Line Replacement. Their customers expect their Vonage phone service to work exactly like their regular phone service, so they absolutely need to be able to terminate to PSTN, as many Vonage customers will be replacing their primary phone service with Vonage. This is why 911 was such a big deal for VOIP not that long ago... because for many VOIP customers, their VOIP phone line was going to be their ONLY phone line.
I work for a VOIP company, and I would say that the biggest threat is the big Telecoms that can squash VOIP either by messing with the packets that travel over their wires to destroy QoS, or by pushing the goverment to regulate VOIP out of business. Actually, this is one reason why the company I work for is glad that a big company like Vonage is around to look out for the interests of VOIP companies.
Vonage is bleeding money in marketing and practically giving away their service (including the VOIP devices that they give to their customers -- which I guarantee is not cheap), and it's questionable whether they'll ever be profitable, even if they tailor back their marketing efforts.
I would stay away from Vonage as an investment opportunity, for no other reason than VOIP is fighting an uphill battle against the telecoms. Even if VOIP can survive the war with the major telecoms, there are a lot of companies trying to break into this market, and Vonage may find themselves paving the way for another company to claim dominance over the VOIP world, especially if they can't find a way to make themselves profitable soon.
Ahh Chico... known best for Sierra Nevada and Bidwell Park. Not to mention consuming 99% of the nation's alcohol and having a law against detonating a nuclear device within the city limits (a $500 fine). Yes, I went there too.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't really know if it's fair to criticize the online dating community of "shallowness". It's not easy to get a lot of depth from those online profiles. I mean, if everyone is saying how they love long walks on the beach, cuddling, puppies, their family, etc. then how are you supposed to differentiate between them besides pictures, income, etc. When I was doing a lot of online dating, I consistently passed over the "fatties" because there were plenty of thin girls for me to choose from. A fat chick might have a great personality and give fantastic head or have some other quality that makes up for the fact that I'm not as attracted to her as I would be to a skinny girl, but unless I can tell that by reading her profile, she's going to get passed over. That's life.
That said, I think if you feel like you're being passed over for guys who are smarter, richer, taller, or better looking than you, then maybe it's time to redo your profile. Put yourself in the girl's shoes and read your profile. Is there anything special in there to differentiate yourself or make a girl really want to get to know you better? It's not shallow of her to make her decision based on the limited information available to her. Put more personality into your profile and pictures, and maybe the ladies will see the depth of your personality that makes you such a catch.
I've done a lot of online dating in my day, and I agree with your diagnosis of the major problems with it. The mass mailings problem is the most serious in my opinion because I think the mass mailings lead to the second problem you list, because if tons of guys are doing mass mailings, then most of the decent girls are getting way too many emails to be able to realistically respond to them all, so they just start ignoring the vast majority of them.
That's why I prefer eHarmony for online dating. Since you can only communicate with people you're matched to, and you have to go through their predetermined stages of communication, it tends to raise the signal to noise ratio. Guys can't send out emails to 100 random girls per day because they only get 3-5 matches per day. Girls will typically also only get 3-5 matches per day, meaning that they're receiving communication from 3-5 guys per day, which is a manageable enough number for them to actually read everything they get sent.
As for the lying, I think there is a percentage of people who lie on their profiles, but I think the bigger problem is that people inadvertently misrepresent themselves because they see themselves differently than they actually are. In fact, I've found that the girls who say that they're not into drama and game playing are often the worst girls to date when it comes to drama and game playing. I've also found that the girls who say that they're not looking to just hook up are the easiest to get into bed. People have a really hard time evaluating themselves honestly because they're often describing how they wish they were rather than how they really are.
I've tried most of the mainstream sites, but eHarmony has always worked best for me. I've had one night stands, short term exclusive relationships, short term open relationships, etc. from all of the sites, but the highest success rate has always been with eHarmony. Also, I met my fiancee on eHarmony, so it works for the long term stuff too.
This may be offtopic, but why is it that big business is all in favor of globalization when it comes to getting cheap labor from other countries, but resists the consequences that globalization will have on their intellectual property to do more liberal copyright/patent laws in other countries?
And why are so many others against globalization when it comes to losing their jobs to cheaper guys in India or China, and yet willing to take advantage of the fact that other countries like China don't protect IP the way the US does so that they can continue to pirate intellectual property from content providers.
I'm all for being pro business or pro labor or anti piracy or anti copyright, but let's get some consistency. Globalization is going to have consequences both positive and negative for everyone, and I think that everyone needs to take the good with the bad. Big Business can't have it both ways, and neither should labor expect to.
To all the people who think that Skype and Google Talk are going to put Vonage out of business, you have to realize that Vonage isn't selling VOIP... they're selling Primary Line Replacement. Their customers expect their Vonage phone service to work exactly like their regular phone service, so they absolutely need to be able to terminate to PSTN, as many Vonage customers will be replacing their primary phone service with Vonage. This is why 911 was such a big deal for VOIP not that long ago... because for many VOIP customers, their VOIP phone line was going to be their ONLY phone line.
I work for a VOIP company, and I would say that the biggest threat is the big Telecoms that can squash VOIP either by messing with the packets that travel over their wires to destroy QoS, or by pushing the goverment to regulate VOIP out of business. Actually, this is one reason why the company I work for is glad that a big company like Vonage is around to look out for the interests of VOIP companies.
Vonage is bleeding money in marketing and practically giving away their service (including the VOIP devices that they give to their customers -- which I guarantee is not cheap), and it's questionable whether they'll ever be profitable, even if they tailor back their marketing efforts.
I would stay away from Vonage as an investment opportunity, for no other reason than VOIP is fighting an uphill battle against the telecoms. Even if VOIP can survive the war with the major telecoms, there are a lot of companies trying to break into this market, and Vonage may find themselves paving the way for another company to claim dominance over the VOIP world, especially if they can't find a way to make themselves profitable soon.
I don't care which franchise they use, as long as there's a part for ROB.
Ahh Chico... known best for Sierra Nevada and Bidwell Park. Not to mention consuming 99% of the nation's alcohol and having a law against detonating a nuclear device within the city limits (a $500 fine). Yes, I went there too.