Thornz2000

Apr 16, 2013

All last year I was cranking out message after message.

All my messages I took great time to think what I had to say and mention things about the other persons profile so they knew I did read it.

I'm at 400:1 that was for 2012. Yup, got 1 reply... was "No thx, you live to far away" and that was it.

This year sent out 10 messages and no reply's.

So anyone men getting replies back?

Think women got it much easier when it comes to online dating.

 

 

Sushibitch

Apr 16, 2013

All my messages I took great time to think what I had to say and mention things about the other persons profile so they knew I did read it.

There's a lot of advice over in the Profile Advice forum about sending good messages; a lot of guys feel like they're sending very personalised thoughtful messages, but they can be improved a great deal.

Thornz2000

Apr 16, 2013

I live in Seattle.

Right there is the problem.

You can google Seattle Freeze. Its pretty real.

The Seattle area is a Sausage Fest any how.

DiscoJer

Apr 16, 2013

The further away someone lives from me, the better the response rate. Everyone who has lived on another continent has replied to me. In my own city? 0 out of like 150 or so.

Julicious4u

Apr 17, 2013

2

What9Thousand

Apr 17, 2013

I usually get replies.

Tenon

Apr 17, 2013

You're doing it wrong.

When I had a real profile and actually put some effort in, my reply rate was about 50%.

Invisible_Hand

Apr 17, 2013

Jesus Christ, dude, how can this be real? 1 for 400? I can somewhat understand someone like Jer who lives in the middle of nowhere. 

Siva23

Apr 17, 2013

So all 400 of those messages were personally handcrafted? And the one that lit up your mailbox, of those 400 the one that was like for you "finally! A response!" The one that sent your email address a simultaneous message saying "Thornz2000, you have received a new message from so and so" the only one that responded only messages you to say "No thx, you live to far away"?

 

 

That, is. fucking. sad. :'-(

Nyamuk

Apr 17, 2013

You probably need to examine your target demographic.

Adorable dog though. 

LukeSkyCan

Apr 18, 2013

Bro, my friend has the same problem, we found the root cause, the messages are not being sent! To test it he sent me an message, i didnt receive it! But when I send it, he receives it. Cause 1 in 400 is ridiciously low, most girls reply out of politeness, so worse case scenairo it should be like 1 in 10

Happyness4Evar

Apr 18, 2013

When I'm actually using this site? Probably 75% of the time I get some form of reply.

asudevil16

Apr 18, 2013

I probably would have stopped after about 0 for 50. Good job for sticking with it this long.

Thornz2000

Apr 18, 2013

On 2 other single sites sent out close to 600 on them last year as well and few replies.

Had a few replies which they vanished, but 1 reply and the day before we was going to meet she said "I need to reschedule" and never replied back with me. Oh well.

I used to think the saying "There is a gal for every guy and a guy for every gal." was a load of crap.

Thinking deeper on it I realized that it is a true statement due to how big the world is.

No one ever said your match is within walking distance.

So I keep pressing on.

 

Nyamuk

Apr 18, 2013

Who is it that you're messaging? I'm genuinely curious. 

Thornz2000

Apr 19, 2013

Women from Washington, Oregon, Idaho to S. Calif.

 

LukeSkyCan

Apr 19, 2013

For ugly girls its 90%

For ok looking its 50%

for hot girls its like 10% or so

Isceream

Apr 19, 2013

=( I can relate to this

et_theextraterr

Apr 21, 2013

It doesn't shock to me to have such a poor response ratio.

For at least some demographics and age groups, I suspect that women receive a humongous number of messages. How could they handle it? The same way Lucile Ball did in the chocolate factory when the conveyor went out of control. They can't respond to all these messages, so they become selective, very, very selective. I believe it's the the case that some women get more messages in a day they could even meet in the pre-online dating era in a whole year.

There's effect from this. What if the next guy is better? It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. And then women find themselves online not to date, but simply to bask in attention. Ironically, online dating, which brings the potential of relationships to a new height by providing a virtually unlimited number of candidates actually shoots itself in the foot by providing a virtually unlimited number of candidates.

If you look at the other free dating site, it goes beyond not getting a response. Many women just delete the messages they get and they do that without even reading them! Possibly, the "deleted, unread" response became so notorious, they now only show if you pay for it. Perhaps they are checking out the profiles of the senders, but it's possible they are simply deleting the messages because of the sheer quantity. This is obviously a problem that a "good message" can't solve.

I think the dating sites can address the issue of the overwhelming messages.

First, they must require complete profiles. Many people leave their stats blank. But stats matter, at least to a point. By doing this, members could filter emails. For example, if you don't want a person with children, you could filter that and then a person with children would not be able to email this person at all.

Second, I propose a new mechanism for handling online dating email. In this system, there are five mailboxes. When a mail comes in, it goes to the pending queue and then it's immediately forwarded to the inbox if the inbox is empty. The inbox may contain only one message at any one time. The recipient must read this message and handle it. If the recipient chooses to reject the message, the message is moved to the rejected box and the sent message is moved to the rejected queue of the sender! So the sender knows that the message was received and rejected. There is no doubt! If the recipient takes no immediate action, the message is moved to a pending inbox where it stays for a month until is automatically rejected. This gives the recipient a month to decide on this person's message. If the recipient wants to start a conversation, she replies and the message moves to the conversation box.

Now say a woman gets 50 messages in a week. She only knows about the one in the inbox, not that are 49 more messages waiting. It dramatically curtails the inbox overload effect and it also affects how they respond to that one message. It makes it way more personal.

There are many other issues relating to online dating that the dating sites could improve on, but this is one of them and my proposed solution.

What do you think?

Sushibitch

Apr 21, 2013

^ Why would women sign up to a system which so radically limits their options, rather than one which allows them to see all their messages?

Seriously, every six months or so, some guy comes up with a suggestion like this, and it always boils down to the same thing; change the system in a way which will make the site less female-friendly. And of course OKC isn't going to do that; at the moment, OKC apparently has one of the best male:female ratios, while a lot of other sites have far more men than women, so obviously the last thing OC should do is drive women away to their competition.

The answer is not to limit the number of messages people can receive; it's to send better messages and thus increase your individual chances of getting a response, and improve your profile so that you receive messages too.

Actually, thinking about it, it wouldn't solve the problems you think it would; if you message someone and you don't hear back, is that because they're thinking about it, or because you're in a "wait" pile, behind forty-odd other messages? Wouldn't you be just as frustrated as you are now? At least at the moment you know your message has gone through; if you don't get a response, you can safely assume she's not interested and move on. How many messages would you send if you had no way of guaranteeing they would _ever_ be seen, because they might be in the queue behind dozens of others? What if you've sent a great message, but the person you've sent it through got four crappy ones in a row and has given up in disgust because she didn't get to see the good ones?

These suggestions have never been thought through; they generally seem to be aimed more at punishing people who receive lots of messages than actually improving anyone's experience.

 

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!