What9Thousand

Dec 18, 2012

As far as I'm concerned, the system is working just fine. Intelligent and personable men and women don't have problems finding dates on OkCupid. Morons and autists might have problems, but that's how it's supposed to be. Nothing can fix that except for people to improve themselves or lower their standards, and OkCupid can't do that for them.

CampAnawanna_

Dec 18, 2012

yeah, there's a lot more men on OkCupid than women

However, by being on the forums, you already have an advantage over those other douches

There's only a fraction of guys on here (in my area) that I have to compete with. The rest are assclowns, with bad profiles and poor messages.

 

Sushibitch

Dec 18, 2012

^^^ Oh, right; well, men don't seriously outnumber women here, for a start; I forget the exact figures but OKC looked into this, and while the ratio isn't 1:1 it's not far off. It's also not true that the traffic is one-way; lots of women message men, although just as 90% of men are messaging 10% of women, so 90% of women are messaging 10% of men. So obviously most people don't get as many messages as they'd like, or as they send.

So basically, the whole thing is biased; the idea that women sit on high, receiving and reviewing applications from men and simply taking their pick is gender-biased nonsense.

amp-here

Dec 18, 2012

(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.

Firstly, #1 is complete overkill...if you're going that route more like 5 would make a lot more sense. 

    The problem this is supposedly trying to solve is the issue of women getting flooded with two many messages and/or men not getting messages read because they get flooded out by other men.  Let me suggest

#1.2) Let females on the site cap the number of messages they receive per day to their own chosen level and when men go to their profile and they've hit their maximum for that day, display a message "inbox full (maximum number of messages received for today), try again tomorrow".

#2)  Same issue: let the women decide how many maximum messages they WANT to receive per day.

#3)  Solve #1 and #2, and unread messages won't pile up in the first place. :-)

CampAnawanna_

Dec 18, 2012

If you think there's too much competition on OkC, you're really overestimating those other guys

I wouldn't give them the credit

Sushibitch

Dec 18, 2012

^^ Why would women want to cap the number of messages they receive?

pseupseudio

Dec 18, 2012

because it's intimidating to have to deal with a lot of messages all at once, and then you get people complaining you haven't responded.

What9Thousand

Dec 18, 2012

^^ seconded. The sheer volume of the messages is not really the problem, as I understand it. It's the signal to noise ratio, which cannot be changed by any sort of cap on messages received.

Sushibitch

Dec 18, 2012

^^ It's not particularly intimidating to get lots of messages, to be honest; you can just ignore the ones you don't like. If someone is getting loads of messages, the biggest problem is going to be that most of them are rubbish, so a numerical cap isn't the answer; rather, a filter of some sort is. For example, I think a lot of people would be happy to use a word-limit filter, so that one-word messages (I have no idea who thinks that sending a message which simply says "Hi" is going to lead to, well, anything, but people do) don't get through, or indeed so that multi-screen monologues (when sent as a first message) are automatically deleted. Keyword filters might be good too; they would get rid of some of the "Wanna fuck" and "Nice boobies" type messages.

Obviously the smarter users would figure out how to get around the filters, but that would at least be a small improvement.

(I have to say, I'm kind of entertained by the number of men coming up with really weird ideas of what the female experience is like!)

OctoberTens

Dec 18, 2012

Anawanna, 

It's not that I think if it in terms of me competing against others because I believe geographic distance limits how many persons are actually available. Instead, the question, initially was aimed at changing the rules to encourage thoughtful profiles and messages and deter "douchey" profiles and messages.

I feel, this is thread is more of a thought or proposed experiment, than a plea for help.

Amp,

Changing the volumes and numbers is interesting. I wonder if there is a number of messages where women are inclined merely skim the profile and the message.

aliments

Dec 18, 2012

(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.

 

90% of messages would be sent at midnight, on the mark.  

people who don't check this site desperately would have no use for it.  

SillySmartie

Dec 18, 2012

(I have to say, I'm kind of entertained by the number of men coming up with really weird ideas of what the female experience is like!)

Seconded.

amp-here

Dec 18, 2012

^^ Why would women want to cap the number of messages they receive?

   Not sure (ask them) but, looking at the number of complaints by women about getting too many messages on the board and taking too much time to sort out quality ones, there is definitely an issue.

 

It's the signal to noise ratio, which cannot be changed by any sort of cap on messages received.

    Right, it is the signal to noise ratio.  But, think about it...capping the number of messages forces a guy to put effort into a few messages rather than send out a ton of quickly written ones hoping the sheer volume will ensure at least one response.  It becomes like going to a club and trying to grind with several women figuring at least one will "give in" (e.g. often one who is simply more slutty than the others)...which, sadly, is a pretty common tactic: if you're not a guy jumping in for the grind, chances are you'll be overtaken by an (often dumber) guy who is and said woman won't even know you're there.

  What I've heard on these forums is guys often will write overly short/"dumb" messages on purpose after learning longer/thoughtful (not creepy long, but actually taking 3-4 sentences to make a joke concerning something on someone's profile and say something interesting about yourself relative to them) ones often get a TLDR response (none). Then such men find their short "hey, what's up?" ones do just as well.

  This makes sense when women supposedly have hundreds of messages to sort through...they don't have time for in-depth ones if their skewed (by the volume of messages) goal has become to scan through as many "suitors" as possible.

Sushibitch

Dec 18, 2012

Not sure (ask them

Um.... I _am_ a woman...

looking at the number of complaints by women about getting too many messages on the board and taking too much time to sort out quality ones

Can you show me some examples of these complaints? I don't remember seeing any...

But, think about it...capping the number of messages forces a guy to put effort into a few messages rather than send out a ton of quickly written ones hoping the sheer volume will ensure at least one response.

Capping the number of messages a guy can send might do that; capping the number a woman can receive wouldn't.

OctoberTens

Dec 18, 2012

My ideas about the female experience may, indeed, be really weird. They may be wrong, too. But, I see no fault in asking for clarification.

Regarding Noise/Signal ratio: sure there is a lot of noise. The thought behind the rules addressed letting the senders of the signals know -- "hey, you may want to do more than say hi".  By limiting the availability of messaging, would the care invested to deliver a better message increase? So far, if I understand the posts above, most say it would not.

OctoberTens

Dec 18, 2012

I think if it were true that 20% of the profiles received 80% of the messages, something along the lines of the proposed rules would make for a more efficient system of matching couples (though, may be not a more enjoyable system).

But whether or not the premise is true, I don't know.

Sushibitch

Dec 18, 2012

My ideas about the female experience may, indeed, be really weird. They may be wrong, too. But, I see no fault in asking for clarification.

Sure; it's just that generally, guys don't ask for clarification, they make assumptions, spin stories based on those assumptions, and then, in at least some cases, respond with outrage when women go "That's not actually what it's like for us". You haven't done the latter, for which we women thank you.

By limiting the availability of messaging, would the care invested to deliver a better message increase? So far, if I understand the posts above, most say it would not.

Doesn't matter; the problem this is designed to address is the signal to noise ratio experienced by the people who get "too many" messages (where by "too many" what we really mean is "loads of crappy ones"). Some people will always send crappy messages, no matter what. May as well just filter those out, right? (Or at least, give users the ability to filter them out if they wish.) After all, the role of a dating website is not to teach crappy daters how to have more success; it's to maintain enough of a success rate to hook people in, but not so much that they lose their client base. So it would work well for them to have the better users more able to find each other, while the crappy ones continue to fire off crappy messages into the abyss.

I think if it were true that 20% of the profiles received 80% of the messages, something along the lines of the proposed rules would make for a more efficient system of matching couples (though, may be not a more enjoyable system).

How would it be more efficient? I really don't think limiting the number of messages sent or received would help in any way at all, and I don't see why you would think that it would.

OctoberTens

Dec 18, 2012

Sushi,

I agree. A suspicion that the system benefits from ineptitude and confusion was part of the genesis of the initial proposal. With that in mind, the question was how to change the rules to improve the quality of the signal.

Sushibitch

Dec 18, 2012

With that in mind, the question was how to change the rules to improve the quality of the signal.

I'm not sure you _can_ improve the quality of the signal being sent, unless you screen your members (which is not really in OKC's interests), so filtering the signal received seems like the best option. I dunno, would people object to the idea that their message might not be getting through people's filters? Would it change the messages people send? Would it be better, if filters were implemented, to leave the sender in the dark about whether their message passed or not, or would it be better for them to receive a one-liner saying "Sorry, this user filters out one-word messages" or "This user has opted not to receive messages containing the word "sexy"? I suspect there'd be a certain amount of butt-hurt backlash if a bounce-back were sent, which would kind of defeat the object.

OctoberTens

Dec 18, 2012

Sushi,

At the beginning, I didn't think a proposed rule limiting the messages a woman could receive was a strike against women.

Rather, I thought a person can only filter so much information at one time; the rest being ignored. And, the ignored messages would eventually be more than could be reasonably be filtered, creating a "log-jam". By limiting the volume of messages, I thought (mistakenly), that these log-jams would be avoided. 

The efficiency would be a product of messages and profiles of better quality and fewer "log-jams". The idea was to address 90% of the guys messaging 10% of the girls --- most unsuccessfully and even out the distribution of messages both sent and received.

That was my thinking.

 

Post a comment

Add a photo to:

Stay fresh with Instagram

Are you sure you want to delete this album?

Where's your photo?

Drop it like it’s hot

Photos must be at least 400 x 400px
Edit thumbnail
Add a caption

You look fantastic!