One of the reasons most women put little/no effort into online dating is because the median quality of men is generally so low.
There are ways of differentiating, like anything else, but it's become much worse in the last 3-5 years.
There are ways of differentiating, like anything else, but it's become much worse in the last 3-5 years.
It works both ways. It's just the majority of women don't respond to the majority of men, regardless of crafting of the message.. though I must say that I've gotten more thanks but no thanks type responses than actual interest, which is still less than 1 in 15 messages out for any kind of response.
Of course the buffet effect works both ways... people tend to see the options, and gravitate towards a level of attractiveness and features they like, which removes most of the pool on that alone.. now, if you aren't in that attractiveness block, your options for matches won't work as well.
I think that OK Cupid does better than most at matching similar attractiveness levels in terms of who you even see. If you happen to get any response from more attractive people (even a thanks, but no thanks) you'll see a shift in the matches coming up all around.
Then again, I'm a bit of an odd duck who tries to read the profile before seeing a picture too closely. So will usually respond if something catches my interest in the writing.. and unlike most men and women, I'm perfectly happy making new friends. Getting serious with someone I met about a year ago via Facebook... All dating site experience for me in the last 5 years has been pretty bad all around.
Would think it would be cool if you had a short (300-500 character) block to write about yourself, where you pick matches on picture and words... so you either see a blurb, or a picture... if there are two matches (either you like both, or both of you like one or the other) then you can communicate and see the full profile. Would probably be a more effective matching strategy at least.
I'm not sure if it's all about the "crafting" of the message. A lot has to do with who you are and what you're trying to communicate.
I'm not a woman, nor have I pretended to be one on dating sites, but I've looked through lots of m4w personal ads, and if their emails are like their ads (which is very likely), they're super boring and generic.
This is really one of the biggest stumbling blocks, for both men and women (whose ads, on the whole, are just as boring as the men): their ads, profiles, and emails are way too much just like everybody else's.
If you can't differentiate yourself from everyone else, there's little reason to pick you over anyone else just like you, and even less reason to pick you over someone who can distinguish themselves.
I assumed the quality would be pretty even.
> women have less trouble finding
> partners irl
Men have the sexual discernment of rabbits, but are pretty choosy about who they're willing to actually commit to. There's a non-trivial proportion of men who are only in their current relationships for easy access to sex.
Men complain to their friends about not being able to get laid, women complain to their friends about not being able to find a good man. Women complain that men don't want to be "just friends", men complain that women want commitment they're not willing to give yet.
I think you're limiting yourself to productive relationships with only half the world's population.
A. Don't find them attractive. B. That is not your sexual orientation. C. You're already with someone much higher on your list.
My point here is, an attractive female with a lot of guy "friends", are not her friends, because she has a good personality. That's just a fact of life, no matter what anecdotes you present.
Women, on the other hand, usually have little trouble in at least meeting and dating prospective partners. That critical first step is a lot harder for many men.