OctoberTens

Dec 17, 2012

Regarding increasing the quality of messages and likelihood of response, what do you believe would result if the following rules were adopted:

(1) men can send only one message per day to a new contact;

(2) women can receive only two contacts per day from new contacts; and

(3) unread messages are automatically deleted after two days.

--users would have the ability to designate/undesignate "new" status" and/or blocking messages

Of course, these hypothetical rules may be adjusted for LGBTs.

Side note: Ordinarily, I would think that restrictive rules would hamper communication; however, I wonder if simplification would accelerate the process of selecting persons to message and respond to. 

 

user458

Dec 17, 2012

No

Sushibitch

Dec 17, 2012

People on this site generally don't want restrictions, and it's not in OKC's interest to add restrictions. If you want someone else to limit your options, you choose a site like Match.com which claims to have precise metrics to match people (at least, if you believe that they actually do...), you don't come here. So no, wouldn't work.

In any case, it's a terrible idea; one existing problem is that people tend to over-invest, spending hours trying to write the perfect message and then feeling outraged if they don't get a response. If they were only allowed to send one message a day, they'd feel even more entitled to a response. Similarly, people get fed up with crappy messages; if those crappy messages prevented them from receiving other, potentially better, messages, that would make them give up and leave the site.

SillySmartie

Dec 17, 2012

(1) men can send only one message per day to a new contact;

So then instead of agonizing over what to send, he agonizes over who to send to? He may have to send one message a day for 30 days to get one response. Why would this be beneficial?

(2) women can receive only two contacts per day from new contacts; and

Sometimes I get 5 messages in one day from people I'm not at all interested in. What makes you think narrowing it down to just 2 contacts means she will like/choose one of the two?

(3) unread messages are automatically deleted after two days.

So if I'm on vacation, out of town, or busy over the weekend, my messages get deleted without being read? How does that benefit anyone?

--users would have the ability to designate/undesignate "new" status" and/or blocking messages

What "new" status?

Side note: Ordinarily, I would think that restrictive rules would hamper communication; however, I wonder if simplification would accelerate the process of selecting persons to message and respond to.

How so? You really think response rate has a lot to do with the woman is so overwhelmed she can't possibly choose? I'm pretty sure that's never been a complaint. As far as I can tell, even women with loaded inboxes manage to choose guys to date.

What9Thousand

Dec 17, 2012

(1) men can send only one message per day to a new contact

No. That's annoying; sometimes I'm in a message-writin' mood and I send several new messages, each a masterful craftwork of communicative perfection in its own right, to different people. I don't want to have to wait a bunch of days to send them just because OkCupid said so.

(2) women can receive only two contacts per day from new contacts

No. How does that help? You're SOL; the one guy (who is also SOL, btw) trying to send you a decent message can't do it, because your two for the day already got taken by two of the other 400 guys sending shitty messages.

(3) unread messages are automatically deleted after two days.

No. What is even the point of this?

user458

Dec 17, 2012

I pretty much covered it with "No"

OctoberTens

Dec 17, 2012

I agree there would be fewer total contacts. The idea goes to the quality of contacts rather than quantity.

For guys, ordinarily the ones to initiate contact, spamming the same message or message type to x number of women would be impracticle. Having few messages to send might incline men to read women's profiles and specifically tailor their messages to each woman. 

On the other hand, women either wanting more messages or more quality messages are not prevented from contacting men. In turn, guys with well written profiles would be more likely to receive initial messages from women.

Side note: rules 2 & 3 address guys, who presumably will prefer to message "9's" and "10's", from queing at the 9's and 10's; also, rule 3 encourages diligent filtering of the few messages men are permitted to send under rule 1.

Please note: this thread is merely a thought and not a threat to the status quo.

Sushibitch

Dec 17, 2012

rules 2 & 3 address guys, who presumably will prefer to message "9's" and "10's"

But it also means any woman who isn't a 9 or a 10 will get no messages at all (because the few messages men are allowed to send will go to the top few women), so they'll leave the site. And the 9s and 10s won't start sending messages, they'll just get fed up of getting two crappy messages a day; they'll leave too.

The problem with any suggestion for a web site which comes from a solely male-centred point of view, and tries to solve men's problems without considering the female experience, is it is almost always really really crappy from the point of view of women. Which means that implementing it would alienate female users, and render the whole site useless. You'd actually be better off trying to resolve women's problems here than men's, given the way you've expressed the issues here.

SillySmartie

Dec 17, 2012

^ That. Plus why would men stick around with such restrictions? Either sex for that matter?

OctoberTens

Dec 17, 2012

That's a fair point. Do you think that guys would rather not send a message if they couldn't always initiate and a first contact to a 9 or 10?

I would think, they would be just as likely to send a message to the not-9s and not-10s because guys would still practice "spreading a wide net" to receive some response. I could be wrong, no doubt.

SillySmartie

Dec 17, 2012

^ I just think people don't like being told what to do. I also know for a fact that even when guys can message 9s and 10s, they still message girls like me. Personally, I feel better knowing that there are women who are far better looking than me and still some men choose to message and go on dates with me. Who wants to be the "safe bet"? I don't.

Sushibitch

Dec 17, 2012

I would think, they would be just as likely to send a message to the not-9s and not-10s because guys would still practice "spreading a wide net" to receive some response. I could be wrong, no doubt.

You can't really spread a wide net if you've only got one message per day; so they'd work their way through the 9s and 10s first, and then they'd get sick of never getting a response (because 80% of the messages wouldn't even be seen, due to the limit you've placed on women receiving messages). So if they did get round to sending messages, by that point they'd be burned out and feel that they were having to take a huge step down from the 9s and 10s (who are all bitches who never reply). Whihc wouldn't do a lot of message quality, I suspect.

pseupseudio

Dec 17, 2012

i let messages sit for a week or more because i'm not in the mood.

this would not please me.

OctoberTens

Dec 17, 2012

I also agree that people don't like restrictions. I have no objection to liberty. Rather, I question whether there may be greater efficiency, knowing that the price is diminished liberty. Can coupling be improved?

As a bit of a sceptic, I wonder if dating sites actually benefit from inefficient random coupling --- more couples means fewer singles means diminished demand for a dating site. There is an advantadge in failed coupling. More singles.

OctoberTens

Dec 17, 2012

Sushi,

Wouldn't having fewer messages to send, incline a guy to quickly move on to a different woman if she did or was likely to not respond to him? Having fewer messages, I believe, would deter a man from harping on an uninteresed woman.

Sushibitch

Dec 17, 2012

Dating isn't really a matter for efficiency, particularly not on dating sites. An awful lot of people have tried to come up with some perfect formula for matching people, but people just aren't very cooperative in terms of who they fancy. The heart and loins want what the heart and loins want, no matter what restrictions we try to place on them.

pseupseudio

Dec 17, 2012

guys seem to tend towards wanting more efficiency. that doesn't mean it's a good or workable idea.

Informavore

Dec 17, 2012

In a scientific sense, it'd be fascinating to see how people would best target their messages to get the best possible mate in this scenario.

In a practical sense, everybody would move on to some site that didn't have such a silly restriction.

OctoberTens

Dec 17, 2012

I tend to agree on all the counter points, save one.

If such a system came into practice, not necessarily the one I've described, rather than be silly or unduly burdensome, the fact that it accomplished, with minimum effort, the goal of faciliting otherwise random couplings would make it desirable by dint of results produced. 

What9Thousand

Dec 17, 2012

Having few messages to send might incline men to read women's profiles and specifically tailor their messages to each woman.

It wouldn't likely matter. There are enough people who honestly believe "Hi, how are you?" is a good opening message that even if nobody copy-pasted spam to women, there'd still be issues with having your two messages for the day both be "Hi, how are you?".

Post a comment