Online Dating

Galvasean

parker kent wrote: »

Wouldn't it be a bit annoying and a let down to get mail on a dating site and for it to be somebody saying "Not Interested!". Imagine the stages you'd go through:

Oh look an email...yah!
Oh it's from Miss X, she seemed nice
Oh.....she's not interested

This. I'm sure it's much better to simply not have your mailbox filled with, "Sorry I'm not interested" responses. It would make for grim reading at a later date.

edit: FWIW, I don't think I've ever received a 'not interested' type reply from anyone on a dating site and to be honest I'm probably better off. When they don't reply you can just assume to yourself that they've fallen in love with someone or something as opposed to just didn't like the look of you.

Mrmoe

cantdecide wrote: »

Generalisation alert:

For every girl who complains about getting spammed by creeps, there's a guy complaining about not getting replies. Men will do a "hi how are you" mail-shot. Women will ignore en-mass.

You could have a copy-and-paste response. "Hi. read your profile. you seem nice but I'm not sure you're for me. Sorry".

If you get an angry reply, just copy and paste again. That'll learn 'em.

This is the right approach to take. I think it is only common courtesy to reply to someone. If someone is getting so many mails, they can have a generic response that you mentioned. If they are abusive you don't have to reply. I can't see what is so time consuming that someone can not do this. It seems a bit lazy and inconsiderate, but thats just me I guess.

Galvasean

Two very contrasting opinions on the whole 'do you reply saying you are not interested?' angle. Some would rather be told straight up. Some would rather you didn't waste their time with such a mail.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

liah

Think it's interesting that it's basically all guys saying they want to get messaged back (they want to be rejected face to face instead of rejected from a distance) and all girls saying it doesn't seem right to do so (rubbing the rejection in, or provoking further unwanted contact-- or simply not having time to reply to each and every one.)

Perhaps some guys should set up a girl profile for awhile and deal with replying to each and every message you get.. maybe you'd understand then :pac:

Can I just ask why it's so imperative to get a rejection message back? In all fairness? Like, you're getting rejected either way, and won't have dealings with this person ever again anyway. What difference does it make if they do it to your face or just let it slip away?

I get that you think because you put effort into emailing her she should be required to dignify you with a response, but I don't think that's fair-- she didn't ask you personally to message her, so why should she feel obligated to respond to you despite not having interest? It's not like real life where you're walking up to a person and just getting blanked (because that's obviously rude!), it's a different environment entirely with thousands of other potential people a couple clicks away, just move onto the next! I don't get why guys take it so personally..

Mrmoe

Galvasean wrote: »

Two very contrasting opinions on the whole 'do you reply saying you are not interested?' angle. Some would rather be told straight up. Some would rather you didn't waste their time with such a mail.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Well the way I look at it , any reply would be the lesser of two evils. You don't even have to say that you are not interested. You can say that you are currently seeing someone else and thank them for sending a message. In a crude way it is like applying for a job interview and hearing nothing back. I am sure if an employer received many job applications it would be a pain the ass to send rejection letters to every unsuccessful applicant. However, is this not a better scenario that not hearing anything at all?, wondering what is going on.

I think one of the reasons why people use on line dating is that they are tired of the usual reponses that they would get in a pub/club and would expect a higher standard or at least a friendlier approach. I am sure there would be many girls who would get chatted up by several men on a night out and are so sick of being chatted up that they will blank some poor unsuspecting bloke the next time he comes up to say hello.

The chicken and the egg scenario would apply in this case. Some guys would get very frustrated with the lack of response they get and this probably takes it's toll and they may start to become bitter and disillusioned about the whole process. If all it takes to curb this is to send a nice friendly generic rejection I would be all for it. By doing this it might encourage a guy to put more effort into the initiation mail.

liah

Maybe I'm just weird but if I applied for a job and didn't hear anything back I'd just figure I didn't get hired and look for another job I just don't get the need to dwell on it unless you've set your heart on ONE job and refuse to accept any others. I mean like.. so what if they didn't get back to you? The result is still the same. You still need to look for another job, and they've still rejected you. I don't understand the need for extra closure in that kind of scenario-- you just apply for the next job, or in this case, you just message the next girl.

I don't get guy logic at all.. :pac:

Kevin Duffy

I'm a bloke who prefers the no response approach. I can do some mental trickery on meself and say "ah well, I'm sure she gets lots of mails" and feel ok about it and not take it personally.
In contrast, I have had some rude, nasty, critical responses (and I don't just mean "no thanks"). Definitely prefer the simple no response. Just to clarify, I have also had some good responses

The idea of women responding to say "no thanks, I'm seeing someone" has been raised. No way. I'll bet me wages now that it be will be almost universally greeted with "what the fúck are you doing on a dating website?", or less mild answers.

stupidusername

yeah I kinda get the idea of not being rude about it, and replying, but I more agree with no expecting the person to reply if they're not interested. like the job analogy, it's not a matter of putting all your hope into this one job, as unromantic as that sounds, but I mean the numbers about it just mean that it'd be silly to be waiting on a rejection letter from every interviewer (girl). I wouldn't even remember the guys that i'd email. heck I don't even remember to write back to the guys I talk to regularly! :pac:

If the guy has gone to significant effort in his email or approach I feel bad, and I respond, saying blah blah blah but not interested. I think once I've gotten a good response. mostly nothing.

parker kent

liah wrote: »

Think it's interesting that it's basically all guys saying they want to get messaged back (they want to be rejected face to face instead of rejected from a distance) and all girls saying it doesn't seem right to do so (rubbing the rejection in, or provoking further unwanted contact-- or simply not having time to reply to each and every one.)

Perhaps some guys should set up a girl profile for awhile and deal with replying to each and every message you get.. maybe you'd understand then :pac:

Can I just ask why it's so imperative to get a rejection message back? In all fairness? Like, you're getting rejected either way, and won't have dealings with this person ever again anyway. What difference does it make if they do it to your face or just let it slip away?

I get that you think because you put effort into emailing her she should be required to dignify you with a response, but I don't think that's fair-- she didn't ask you personally to message her, so why should she feel obligated to respond to you despite not having interest? It's not like real life where you're walking up to a person and just getting blanked (because that's obviously rude!), it's a different environment entirely with thousands of other potential people a couple clicks away, just move onto the next! I don't get why guys take it so personally..

I'm a guy (last time I checked!) and wouldn't be that into the rejection replies. I think there are just a few more vocal males in favour of getting the replies, not that more guys actually want them. I dunno really why that is, maybe if you are getting replies from other girls you are less likely to care about the ones that don't respond. I just know that I'm not that gone on getting emails that say "Sorry I don't like you".

I've got 2 rejection emails and it was worse than not getting a reply. One girl was really nice about it so wasn't her fault, she was just trying to be nice but it just a bit disappointing. Like Galvasean says, if everybody did that, you;d get an inbox full of rejection emails, which would be pretty awful. The other rejection email was a bit rude and just made me glad she didn't like me! Didn't realise that emailing somebody 2 years older than me was going to make her feel like she was "robbing the cradle :pac:

cantdecide

mood wrote: »

...Instead of blaming women I think you should blame the creeps who give the rest of the nice guys a bad name!...

Ah now. This is having it both ways. As an individual, I can't be responsible for the trends experienced by both men and women and the generalisations that ensue. Why don't you set up a blokes profile and see how you feel about nothing but tumbleweeds. Women are in a position of power on dating sites, IME.

Galvasean wrote: »

...I'm sure it's much better to simply not have your mailbox filled with, "Sorry I'm not interested" responses...FWIW, I don't think I've ever received a 'not interested' type reply from anyone on a dating site and to be honest I'm probably better off. When they don't reply you can just assume to yourself that they've fallen in love with someone or something as opposed to just didn't like the look of you.

That's what delete buttons are for.

'Thanks but no thanks' = closure, IMO. I've been 'read-deleted' and 'unread-deleted' numerous times on POF. The same profiles are there month after month, year after year. When you get 'read-deleted', it means they didn't like the cut of your jib. Simples.

I don't use the mail-shot method. I always chose who I would contact very carefully and deliberately and in small numbers. I've never mailed anyone that I didn't have a lot in common with. Personally, I don't see how 'thanks but sorry' is worse than silence.

liah wrote: »

...they want to be rejected face to face instead of rejected from a distance) and all girls saying it doesn't seem right to do so..

liah wrote: »

... provoking further unwanted contact-- or simply not having time to reply to each and every one.) Perhaps some guys should set up a girl profile for awhile and deal with replying to each and every message you get.. maybe you'd understand then...

Most guys would love to have more women than they can handle throwing themselves at them, I'd wager. If I were in that position, I wouldn't abuse the power. Good manners are good manners after all. If a girl can clock up thousands of posts on discussion boards, I'd say they can find time to copy and paste a generic reply and block a couple of hardliners in minutes flat.

liah wrote: »

......I get that you think because you put effort into emailing her she should be required to dignify you with a response, but I don't think that's fair-- she didn't ask you personally to message her, so why should she feel obligated to respond to you despite not having interest?...

liah wrote: »

...It's not like real life where you're walking up to a person and just getting blanked (because that's obviously rude!), it's a different environment entirely with thousands of other potential people a couple clicks away, just move onto the next! I don't get why guys take it so personally..

I disagree with you. If I were rude to you on this thread, you might get a little upset about it. What's different about dating sites? A little empathy is appropriate, surely. You might be dealing with peoples feelings after all.

The idea is you sign up and you mingle. You contact. You are contacted. The risk of unwanted contact is a risk for everyone. IMO, it's a very terminal attitude to take that someone takes the time to write (let's put the 'Hi how are you?' thing aside for a minute). it's worthless and only warrants being dismissed because they don't conform to your standards? These are some mother's sons. It's not their fault they're not the right combination of tall, dark, handsome, rich, brainy, fun or whatever.

Mrmoe wrote: »

...In a crude way it is like applying for a job interview and hearing nothing back...

liah wrote: »

Maybe I'm just weird but if I applied for a job and didn't hear anything back I'd just figure I didn't get hired and look for another job....I just don't get the need to dwell on it unless you've set your heart on ONE job and refuse to accept any others. I mean like.. so what if they didn't get back to you? The result is still the same. You still need to look for another job, and they've still rejected you. I don't understand the need for extra closure in that kind of scenario-- you just apply for the next job, or in this case, you just message the next girl...

I don't entirely accept this. Everyone will pin their hopes and dreams on a particular job. If you did, and you were perfectly well qualified, experienced and passionate, I dare way you would be crestfallen if you heard nothing back and found out the job was gone.

As I've said above, I think that women have a position of power on these sites. IMO, I think the modern liberated woman mightn't give too much consideration to men's feelings. IMO, it's possible that women think that men should harden the **** up and get over it.

Personally, I'm an emotional person. I like being an emotional person. When I see someone I like on a dating site, I invest in them. It's how all of us work, whether we like to admit it or not. If you see the absolute perfect guy for you on a dating site- you will invest yourself in him, too. I can understand that not most girls won't want to reply, I can accept that. When I come across the attitude that I should harden up and move on in this context of love and dating, the quote that comes to mind is "But I, being poor, have only my dreams; I have spread my dreams under your feet; Tread softly because you tread on my dreams."- William Butler Yeats

liah

I wouldn't expect a guy I liked the look of to return my message simply because I like the look of him and think he has to because of it-- if he doesn't wanna reply, fair enough, he's not suited to me, I feel a little disappointed, but there's literally thousands more people on these websites and I'm bound to find someone who is. And I'd feel worse with my rejection rubbed in my face.

The lack of reply is my closure, it allows me to move on from someone who isn't suited to me and it allows me to continue my 'search.' It's just not verbal closure, but it doesn't mean it's not a clear message.

Like, I appreciate where you're coming from-- I really do!-- I just think it's a matter of perspective and how you want to look at it I guess.

cantdecide

parker kent wrote: »

...I think there are just a few more vocal males in favour of getting the replies...

If that's the case, I'm genuinely intrigued. I would have thought I was part of the majority

liah wrote: »

I wouldn't expect a guy I liked the look of to return my message simply because I like the look of him and think he has to because of it...but there's literally thousands more people on these websites and I'm bound to find someone who is...I just think it's a matter of perspective and how you want to look at it I guess.

I think I've summarised my feelings fairly well above so I'm not going harping on but I would add that I'd take a dim view of anyone that mailed someone based on their looks alone. I don't think you would. I don't think all men do. I think some women might use this belief and similar beliefs as a useful excuse to mistreat genuine yet unsuitable guys. It's hard to always be one of the "frogs" we read so much about.

Yes. It really is a question of perspective. It's famine vs feast and I know which side I'd chose to be on. If you have "thousands" of people for you to consider, lucky you. I bet you hardly have to mail anyone at all. I, like most men on dating sites, never had the luxury of those kinds of numbers.

liah

cantdecide wrote: »

I think I've summarised my feelings fairly well above so I'm not going harping on but I would add that I'd take a dim view of anyone that mailed someone based on their looks alone. I don't think you would. I don't think all men do. I think some women might use this belief and similar beliefs as a useful excuse to mistreat genuine yet unsuitable guys. It's hard to always be one of the "frogs" we read so much about.

I figured it was obvious by "like the look of" in the context of online dating I was referring to their profile, not just their looks, so I have no idea how any of that applies tbh.

Yes. It really is a question of perspective. It's famine vs feast and I know which side I'd chose to be on. If you have "thousands" of people for you to consider, lucky you. I bet you hardly have to mail anyone at all. I, like most men on dating sites, never had the luxury of those kinds of numbers.

Again, I figured it was obvious by "thousands" I mean there's literally thousands of people on dating websites and one rejection means nothing in the grand scheme of things. Never said anything about them all being suited, the majority of people aren't.

And you're right, I don't 'have' to mail anyone, but I didn't choose it, in fact it's pretty tough being contacted by a ton of people you know you'd not be suited to (and never the ones you would be) who feel like they're entitled to you just because they're interested in you, and then get pissy and abusive with you when you turn them down or ignore them. In the absolute best case scenario, I'm seen as a bitch. What am I supposed to do? Seriously? I cannot win, so I take the path of least resistance and least possibility of hassle or hurt.

Tbh it sounds like you're taking a serious 'grass is greener' approach-- both sides have their pros and cons, believe me. But it's certainly no reason to be bitter, and imo it's unhealthy to take every online rejection so personally or to expect every single girl you message to reply. You can't force people to give you attention, the world doesn't work like that. Unrequited attraction sucks but it's certainly no reason to get bent out of shape or to start considering women who may not reply bad people, you don't know what their reasons are or what's going on in their life, and you're not entitled to theirs (or anyone else's) time just because you think you should be-- and neither are they to yours.

I don't get the mindset of 'if I message you, you OWE me a reply, and if you don't reply, you're mistreating me.' She had no control over you messaging her in the first place, why is she obligated if she knows you're not suited?

It just makes no sense (to me) to think like that and take things so personally when the world doesn't work like that, nobody owes you anything just because you think they do, and it doesn't make them bad people, either..

cantdecide

I'm not bitter and twisted, I just think it's a bit rude not to reply. Not replying for whatever reason just wouldn't sit right with me. I can't understand why it goes on to the extent it does.

Another example. I sold a car recently. I stuck it on a car sales website with a buy me price on it. It's a popular car and it was a good deal. Between emails and calls, I had over 30 enquiries! Some people were anxiously looking for one so were quite insistant that I gave them the next refusal. The car was sold in 24 hours. I sent a generic text and email to everyone telling them it was gone and thanking them for their interest. Most people replied and thanked me for letting them know.

Maybe I'm just old fashioned...

Kevin Duffy

cantdecide wrote: »

Between emails and calls, I had over 30 enquiries! ...

Apparently, on some sites, this would be a portion of the daily correspondence for women.

donfers

cantdecide wrote: »

I'm not bitter and twisted, I just think it's a bit rude not to reply. Not replying for whatever reason just wouldn't sit right with me. I can't understand why it goes on to the extent it does.

Another example. I sold a car recently. I stuck it on a car sales website with a buy me price on it. It's a popular car and it was a good deal. Between emails and calls, I had over 30 enquiries! Some people were anxiously looking for one so were quite insistant that I gave them the next refusal. The car was sold in 24 hours. I sent a generic text and email to everyone telling them it was gone and thanking them for their interest. Most people replied and thanked me for letting them know.

Maybe I'm just old fashioned...

but ain't that the problem with internet dating and even discussion forums like this?

you get a lot of people with big opinions and big aspirations but essentially they are faceless (and sometimes spineless) people hiding behind keyboards, living their lives remotely or virtually.

Why anyone would be bothered that some faceless creature they've never even engaged with on any tangible level "rejected" them is beyond me? You haven't even heard the tone of their voice or seen the twinle in their eye...at most you've seen a bit of pretentious or populist waffle on their profiles and a photo that is probably as far from truly encapsulating the person as you can imagine - why do people always go for the goofy/absurd photo or one from a strange angle or strange facial expression or someone who is overly "made-up".

Honestly I believe that internet dating is a minefield that you should not put yourself through, it's like choosing to eat your hand when there's a fine feast of food at the table, why not go out an actually engage with people? many people i have met and liked in a real world environment, well these people I probably wouldn't have given a second glance to if they were on an internet dating site...their warmth and character and "light" really shines through face to face and restricting your choices to the virtual environment is insane in my opinion, fine, try it out, see if it works for you but honestly it's a million miles away from the great organic way of getting to know some random person in some random place - it is far too artifical and clinical for me, people scanning through profiles waiting to find some manufactured pic they are attracted to (making sure there are no red flags in the profile), then sending a few awkward mails and finally arranging a meet, I just find the whole thing so self-consciously preposterous, that is just my opinion of course, many people swear by it but give me the real thing any day of the week, we are all human beings, we are social animals and should aspire to develop our social skills, we have this wonderful gift of communication and we can do it much better without technology if you ask me and have much better fun doing it.

so to all the guys sending off mails propositioning girls online and not getting a response, I'd say find a better more productive way of meeting people, clubs, societies, gyms, pubs, clubs, sports teams, walking the dog, weddings, parties, workmates, neighbours etc etc etc. in these real life situations you will get a real impression of a person and real feedback...honestly i'd urge you to leave aside what I consider to be the headwrecking introspective soulless robotic arena of internet dating

i tried it for a few months about 7 or 8 years ago, just to see what it was like (during this time it had more of a stigma) and even though I had "success" in terms of dates etc etc. I felt the whole thing was rather pointless and lacking the beauty of spontaneity

Disclaimer: this is all one man's opinion, if you think internet dating is great and wonderful then I am happy for you, we all choose our own roads

Mrmoe

I'm curious (and a little jealous:p), how many mails/replies would a lady get in a day/week?

I think one of the reasons why women get so many is because of the drift netting approach that guys would have to take. They would see it as a numbers game, email 100 women and get maybe 0 replies back. You multiply this by however many guys are on line and it can seem like a deluge.

In an alternative scenario a guy mails 100 girls he likes and gets some replies and rejections. Hopefully the penny will drop that he should tailor his approach a bit more. He no longer emails 100 plus women, women no longer get inundated with guys looking for them.

I never think that there is an onus on any girl to reply to anyone, it just would be a lot nicer if they did. I personally would never take the scatter gun approach, I prefer to be the master fisherman, letting the worm dangle and hoping that blue fin tuna bites:D.

Kevin Duffy

Mrmoe wrote: »

I'm curious (and a little jealous:p), how many mails/replies would a lady get in a day/week?

One of the posters in this thread said she got 100+ within 24 hrs of registration.

LucyLearnsOD

donfers, I see your point but as a woman, I'm "putting myself through" online dating becaue other forms of "engaging" just haven't worked so far...

Anyway, on to my question. To post a profile photo or not to post a photo? While I've more than accepted the fact that I'm online dating, I'm a private person and really don't want work colleagues, the former love of my life and his friends etc to know that I'm online dating. Call it silly but there you go.

So as a result I don't have a photo up. Now while I'm not in the running for America's Next Top Model, I'm no minger but several times I've gotten into a corrrespondence with a guy, getting on great, then we agree to swap photos and I never hear from him again. Honestly , it's the most awful kind of rejection - I've read this thread and heard guys giving out about girls not responding but let me tell you, when you stop hearing from a guy once they've received your photo; it's hard not to take it very, very personally.

Would welcome any views/similar experience on this...

Newsite

cantdecide wrote: »

Ah now. This is having it both ways. As an individual, I can't be responsible for the trends experienced by both men and women and the generalisations that ensue. Why don't you set up a blokes profile and see how you feel about nothing but tumbleweeds. Women are in a position of power on dating sites, IME.



That's what delete buttons are for.

'Thanks but no thanks' = closure, IMO. I've been 'read-deleted' and 'unread-deleted' numerous times on POF. The same profiles are there month after month, year after year. When you get 'read-deleted', it means they didn't like the cut of your jib. Simples.

I don't use the mail-shot method. I always chose who I would contact very carefully and deliberately and in small numbers. I've never mailed anyone that I didn't have a lot in common with. Personally, I don't see how 'thanks but sorry' is worse than silence.





Most guys would love to have more women than they can handle throwing themselves at them, I'd wager. If I were in that position, I wouldn't abuse the power. Good manners are good manners after all. If a girl can clock up thousands of posts on discussion boards, I'd say they can find time to copy and paste a generic reply and block a couple of hardliners in minutes flat.






I disagree with you. If I were rude to you on this thread, you might get a little upset about it. What's different about dating sites? A little empathy is appropriate, surely. You might be dealing with peoples feelings after all.

The idea is you sign up and you mingle. You contact. You are contacted. The risk of unwanted contact is a risk for everyone. IMO, it's a very terminal attitude to take that someone takes the time to write (let's put the 'Hi how are you?' thing aside for a minute). it's worthless and only warrants being dismissed because they don't conform to your standards? These are some mother's sons. It's not their fault they're not the right combination of tall, dark, handsome, rich, brainy, fun or whatever.





I don't entirely accept this. Everyone will pin their hopes and dreams on a particular job. If you did, and you were perfectly well qualified, experienced and passionate, I dare way you would be crestfallen if you heard nothing back and found out the job was gone.

As I've said above, I think that women have a position of power on these sites. IMO, I think the modern liberated woman mightn't give too much consideration to men's feelings. IMO, it's possible that women think that men should harden the **** up and get over it.

Personally, I'm an emotional person. I like being an emotional person. When I see someone I like on a dating site, I invest in them. It's how all of us work, whether we like to admit it or not. If you see the absolute perfect guy for you on a dating site- you will invest yourself in him, too. I can understand that not most girls won't want to reply, I can accept that. When I come across the attitude that I should harden up and move on in this context of love and dating, the quote that comes to mind is "But I, being poor, have only my dreams; I have spread my dreams under your feet; Tread softly because you tread on my dreams."- William Butler Yeats

I think you're taking it way too seriously dude. It's the internet after all! I for one would get no satisfaction in getting a rejection reply from a female - nuff said if you don't get a reply like! I actually had two girls email me but I didn't fancy them...so I didn't reply. I mean, maybe I should have but what do I say 'I'm sure you're really nice but I'm not interested, sorry'. I can't see how anyone wants to read that.

Focus on the positive and move on from anyone who doesn't reply - there are loooads of people out there and plenty of them will be for you. Take online dating for what it is - another avenue to meet people, but certainly not the only avenue and not to be taken too seriously.

Newsite

LucyLearnsOD wrote: »

donfers, I see your point but as a woman, I'm "putting myself through" online dating becaue other forms of "engaging" just haven't worked so far...

Anyway, on to my question. To post a profile photo or not to post a photo? While I've more than accepted the fact that I'm online dating, I'm a private person and really don't want work colleagues, the former love of my life and his friends etc to know that I'm online dating. Call it silly but there you go.

So as a result I don't have a photo up. Now while I'm not in the running for America's Next Top Model, I'm no minger but several times I've gotten into a corrrespondence with a guy, getting on great, then we agree to swap photos and I never hear from him again. Honestly , it's the most awful kind of rejection - I've read this thread and heard guys giving out about girls not responding but let me tell you, when you stop hearing from a guy once they've received your photo; it's hard not to take it very, very personally.

Would welcome any views/similar experience on this...

I think this one you're just going to have to roll with...I'll wager that if Brad Pitt himself was in the same position there'd be at least one woman who wouldn't reply! Obviously an extreme example but the point still stands that not everyone is gonna fancy you. Just move on! It's really a risk you take on though if you don't post a photo up-front Best bet is prob to reveal your photo as soon as you start chatting...

Mrmoe

Kevin Duffy wrote: »

One of the posters in this thread said she got 100+ within 24 hrs of registration.

Is that a bad thing? Isn't the whole point that you get to meet/find someone. Better 100+ replies than 0.

Kevin Duffy

Mrmoe wrote: »

Is that a bad thing? Isn't the whole point that you get to meet/find someone. Better 100+ replies than 0.

I mentioned that in the context of the debate on whether to reply to all messages or not. Part of my argument (and others) for saying no is the sheer volume.

Mrmoe

Kevin Duffy wrote: »

I mentioned that in the context of the debate on whether to reply to all messages or not. Part of my argument (and others) for saying no is the sheer volume.

Probably not all of these would be worth replying to, I guess many would be looking for a **** buddy etc but there will be a certain sizeable proportion that would be genuine decent replies. While it probably wouldn't be feasible to reply straightaway to all of these, I can't see a problem in doing it over the course of a couple of days, easily done in under an hour.

parker kent

Just reading some of the questions in recent days makes me wonder why more people are not reading the whole thread. Think everything that can be asked or answered has been at this stage!

Kevin Duffy

Mrmoe wrote: »

While it probably wouldn't be feasible to reply straightaway to all of these, I can't see a problem in doing it over the course of a couple of days, easily done in under an hour.

If the volumes mentioned are accurate, or even roughly close, even allowing for the ratio of "deserving" of a reply to not would take it well beyond an hour.
If anyone is replying to mails over a few days, what are they going to do with the mails that are building up over those few days?

seenitall

IMO as a woman, liah would most definitely not be getting dozens of e-mails daily/weekly if she weren't exceptionally good looking (as well as articulate on her profile as she is on boards? ), so from this I am also surmising that the other girl who said she's receiving this amount of messages is also very good looking.

The reason for my suppositions is that I have never ever been in receipt of that amount, or even close to that amount of mail on dating sites, (although I do consider myself well above average in the looks department, BUT I am on the "wrong" side of 35 and a single mother, so obviously, things will be different in those kind of circumstances). I have been using dating sites for quite a while now and I think that it is fair to say without getting anyone's back up too much, that it is first and foremost about photos and looks. After that, and coming a close second, are the individual circumstances, tastes, lifestyle choices, compatibility, "baggage" etc. A beautiful, young, commitment-free girl is bound to be the top of the heap in desirability stakes, it's only natural. Hence the deluge of messages.

My advice to LucyLearns would be to send them your pic ASAP, don't even wait for them to ask for it. Funnily enough, in my case, on the one site I am using now, where I don't have my picture up (for reasons similar to yours, but also I just don't feel like I need my photo up there any more, as I am looking to connect with guys who will be more interested in what I'm saying - which naturally reduces my Inbox intake to close to zero weekly but I don't care!:D) and so have to mail it to guys, I have had the most fulfilling dating experience to date. Remember to not take rejection personally. Even if some people are beautiful to almost all, everyone is beautiful to someone, just the matter of finding them. Don't get discouraged by rejection in such early stages of exchanging messages, it will get you nowhere. You have to develop a bit of a "persistance" mentality with the internet dating. A thicker hide, if you will. There ARE good experiences to be had out there, but the right frame of mind is essential, ok? (I myself dip in and out the right frame of mind frequently, but what can ya do? :pac:)

I had to post this, but feel it'd perhaps be more appropriate in the Ladies' Lounge Online Dating thread (which has been locked ), apologies.

stupidusername

I dont get 30 mails a day

HavingCrack

One thing about the picture thing I think people forget is that it's a bit similar to real life. While personality and shared interests are clearly very important pretending that looks aren't at all is a bit ridiculous. In order for me to approach a woman I have to have some physical attraction from the off before I start talking to her. So I presume it'd be similar on a dating site. If a woman's pictures just don't do it for me it doesn't matter what's in the profile. Call me shallow if you will but that's my perspective on it.

parker kent

stupidusername wrote: »

I dont get 30 mails a day

29? :pac: