U.S. gender ratios by metro, ages 20-34
getdatingphotos.com
getdatingphotos.com
The truth is I came up with this a few years ago because I wanted to try living in a different city and wanted to make sure it didn't have a worse gender ratio than the one I'd been living in. I'm a man so it made sense to find one that has more women than men. I know some people find it weird to use statistics for dating purposes. Well, I can't seem to not be a weird person no matter how hard I try, so I'll just own it. Anyhow, one thing that my project did that this one doesn't seem to is break down the numbers by people who are unmarried vs married, education levels, etc. It also included corrections based on data from Gallup in regards to what percentage of single people are interested in dating vs wanting to remain single. I remember there were some cases where a place looked like a sea of women but if I adjusted the numbers to exclude married people then the resulting gender ratios were way less skewed.
Ultimately, I think culture matters more than gender ratios. I'm not gonna say where it was that I was loving for a while (which was influenced by my analysis), but I will say that I in part chose it for having a highly educated population; I found that I was definitely judged harshly for being a self taught person with no degree. Where I'm from very few people care that much. My point being you can move somewhere with lots more single women than men and end up no more successful at dating, if not less.
Isn't there a married man for every married woman, meaning that the gender ratio of single people shouldn't be affected by the marriage numbers? I guess the only explanation would be that there's lots of women aged 30-34 married to men 35-39 in a given county?
> It also included corrections based on data from Gallup in regards to what percentage of single people are interested in dating vs wanting to remain single
There isn't granular data for this question, unfortunately - and the estimates vary widely from survey to survey. If you know of a data source that can provide at-least state level data for this, let me know!
I believe you have forgotten about the existence of gay marriage.
edit: In case I must spell it out scoring people like this is weird. Also his own photo is terrible. I'm rarely so negative but seriously guys please save your money.
Yeah for two thousand dollars a person could go on a trip and bring back an interesting story, or get therapy, or a puppy. Could probably do all three, actually.
It would not be weird though, for example, to visit The House on the Rock and take pictures while you’re there.
Thanks for the feedback, I've replaced my own photo with a good one.
> I'm rarely so negative but seriously guys please save your money.
You can do it all 100% free per the guide which describes the process end-to-end: https://nsokolsky.substack.com/p/how-to-take-a-perfect-datin...
D:
Nooo! Please read.
Your before and afters are good. It's clear you have good qualities, but you can present and pitch them better. The stringent objective approach to your value-add is doing you a disservice. You allude to the fact that it's an art that takes time to get right yourself already.
It's like unit tests vs integration tests. It's easy to think you're testing one thing when you're actually testing another.
You present this as the idea that you understand what objectively makes a portrait flattering (true/verifiable), and the objective evaluation by women using a scoring rubric lends an air of ostensible credibility that suggests the kind of profiling you might see in an integration test named "Good Dating Profile Photo". I think what you have instead is unit tests for acceptability, inoffensiveness, and presentability plus your uniquely gathered insight into their personality. Fluoride makes toothpaste work, not the fact that 4 out of 5 dentists agree. Your learned insight is the fluoride. I guess maybe the men respond to the "4 out of 5" statement already, but it's so easily refutable.
Using your photo as an example, I can see your face clearly now, but I also can't see where you are, your full profile, why you might be there, who you're with, or what you're doing. You also don't seem quite at ease. It's completely sterile. I wouldn't blink if I saw this on your LinkedIn or GitHub profile. On there all I'm trying to verify is that it's you! But on a dating profile I'm looking for a sense of you. I want to see your best qualities, which aren't always visually straightforward in men, presented in a flattering light. You help people find that! By the way, your other photo did have those qualities. I just couldn't see you!
For the target audience this is about 5-10% of a month's income, and so is more like a reasonable optimization.
> to meet me
To improve the distribution of dates, which is more valuable than any single one.
A good candid is much better. It conveys something of who you actually are: what you like to wear, what you like to do, and ideally looking sincerely happy.
Women are generally less appearance-focused than men like to believe about them. Looking "fine" suffices for most women. Men are convinced that it's their appearance scaring off women, but in fact it's their personalities -- and an over-reliance on appearance is a strong indicator of an unpleasant or boring personality.
(I give similar advice to women, who are more likely to focus on their own appearance. And that's unfortunately expected of them. But at least for me, a good candid is better than a studio shot. Since the custom is usually for men to open the conversation, it helps a lot to give me an opportunity to lead with something more insightful than "Gosh you're pretty.")