Online dating

maudgonner

J Mysterio wrote: »

So you're saying I need to put effort in?

Yup, sorry. Unless you look like George Clooney. In which case I'd think:

A) WTF is George Clooney doing on internet dating? He's meant to be married, the scumbag.
I bet that guy has stolen George Clooney photos for his profile. The scumbag.
or
C) Jeez, George Clooney is boring and unoriginal. I bet he thinks he can skate by on looks alone, the scumbag.

Foxtrol

tomwaterford wrote: »

Bit harsh??

Though I always figured folks included the most random pics so as people would have somewhere to start

Or else people seem to think pics of them cycling/sweating after a marathon etc is attractive and are misguided if so

Without such pics like that people would end up down the pure rabbit hole of talking about the weather (who wants that!!)

Probably but only as harsh as those questioning the conversational skills, intentions, etc of people writing short initial mails.

Obviously you could use their pics as a starting point but conversations are a two way street. You’d swear from here that it was only on the person who initiates the conversation to bear the brunt of it and if you don’t start off well the other party cannot bother.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Foxtrol wrote: »

The other person could have come out of that conversation with the very same opinion about your conversational skills as you had of them.

Yes, that did sound very self important but somewhat understandable.

The problem is there’s a risk/reward issue with messaging on the likes of POF. You could look in detail at every profile you come across and then craft a detailed message which could be missed or ignored by the person you write to or in the same amount of time you could message a generic mail to dozens of profiles that you like the look of from a quick glance. The risk in the latter is that your message is ignored but I’d say it’s not that worse than the chance the former will be ignored. Many will send those out just to test the waters and then will have a proper conversation if they get a response.

That sense of self-importance makes people want to feel instantly special, that the other person went out of their way to contact them rather than anyone else. I’m sure there are examples of this (and I’m sure plenty of people lie to their otherhalf about this) but it’s a rarity that a person who is actively looking isn’t in touch with several people on these apps. By wanting to be engaged instantly you’d be ignoring a massive population of people you could be perfect for (95% of people I’ve matched with in my case).

As special and self-important as the folks who get all salty that the two letter message, identical to twenty others someone's gotten that week doesn't guarantee that someone pays attention to them?

Chain Smoker

Foxtrol wrote: »

Probably but only as harsh as those questioning the conversational skills, intentions, etc of people writing short initial mails.

Obviously you could use their pics as a starting point but conversations are a two way street. You’d swear from here that it was only on the person who initiates the conversation to bear the brunt of it and if you don’t start off well the other party cannot bother.

Ultimately, you're not entitled to a response, I don't get why anyone would think they are. If this is tinder and you've matched, odds are they were just as aimlessly swiping through them on a purely intuitive basis as you likely were so I wouldn't put too much weight in matching.

Not responding, if they're not interested sounds better for everyone involved in comparison to receiving a rejection letter too.

Foxtrol

maudgonner wrote: »

You've had multiple women on here say that 'Hi' messages get automatically ignored. While I'm not suggesting that we speak for all women who do OD, surely that would indicate that the risk related to one-word messages is very high.

Again, I’ll say that women are as bad, if not worse, than men in this regard. The difference is that men don’t appear to have the same hang ups about needing mental stimulation/need to feel special from the first interaction. I’m not sure which sex that says more about.

Again, I don't think anybody is suggesting that you need to compose poetry individually tailored to each woman. There's a middle ground that you seem to be discounting completely.

There are plenty of posts that state how they want to be asked something tailored specifically to their profile. It might not be poetry but they want effort to be put in which likely will never receive a response.

The only people who have discounted anything are those who expect that sort of treatment or they write the other party off.

Personally I haven’t discounted anything, I’ve specifically stated that I’ll respond to any message once I like their profile. If the conversation ends up being one sided after a while then I’ll reassess.

I think ‘Hi, how are you?’ or similar is a plenty open enough start to a conversation.

thattequilagirl

Foxtrol wrote: »

Again, I’ll say that women are as bad, if not worse, than men in this regard. The difference is that men don’t appear to have the same hang ups about needing mental stimulation/need to feel special from the first interaction. I’m not sure which sex that says more about.



There are plenty of posts that state how they want to be asked something tailored specifically to their profile. It might not be poetry but they want effort to be put in which likely will never receive a response.

The only people who have discounted anything are those who expect that sort of treatment or they write the other party off.

Personally I haven’t discounted anything, I’ve specifically stated that I’ll respond to any message once I like their profile. If the conversation ends up being one sided after a while then I’ll reassess.

I think ‘Hi, how are you?’ or similar is a plenty open enough start to a conversation.

And you're perfectly entitled to hold that opinion. And women are perfectly entitled to interpret it as low effort and not reply to you. You can't have it both ways.

thattequilagirl

Essentially what you're saying is, "I want women to be interested enough in me to reply to my messages, but I don't want it enough to write interesting messages. They should know that somewhere down the line I'll show it."

The Backwards Man

I'm waiting for a woman to track me down in rural Donegal, negotiate her way past Lucky and then tell me she's been lookin for me her whole life. Any woman that doesn't do this is a bitch.

maudgonner

The Backwards Man wrote: »

I'm waiting for a woman to track me down in rural Donegal, negotiate her way past Lucky and then tell me she's been lookin for me her whole life. Any woman that doesn't do this is a bitch.

And any woman that does is a crazy stalker.








(Actually she may well be a crazy stalker, lock your door!)

The Backwards Man

maudgonner wrote: »

And any woman that does is a crazy stalker.








(Actually she may well be a crazy stalker, lock your door!)

Lucky has a great screening system, if they have only two legs they're not good enough for me.

tomwaterford

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Lucky has a great screening system, if they have only two legs they're not good enough for me.

Looking for a middle leg?? :pac:

The Backwards Man

tomwaterford wrote: »

Looking for a middle leg?? :pac:

I wouldn't dangle it in front of her if I was you

maudgonner

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Lucky has a great screening system, if they have only two legs they're not good enough for me.

I've heard rumours about the creatures Donegal men bring into their beds, but I thought it was just talk. The poor animals! :eek:

dev100

thattequilagirl wrote:

I could, but I wouldn't want to. To me, it screams "I can't be bothered to make an effort" so he just sends me the same message he's sent 50 other girls in the last few hours.[/quote

A man can spend many hours writing out messages with substance in them and get no responses. It's simply a pure numbers game for a man. You need to contact as many girls as possible to get a hit. All that effort and no response. Bet low and in large quantities lol

thattequilagirl

dev100 wrote: »

thattequilagirl wrote:

I could, but I wouldn't want to. To me, it screams "I can't be bothered to make an effort" so he just sends me the same message he's sent 50 other girls in the last few hours.[/quote

A man can spend many hours writing out messages with substance in them and get no responses. It's simply a pure numbers game for a man. You need to contact as many girls as possible to get a hit. All that effort and no response. Bet low and in large quantities lol

Yeah, and going by what the men here are saying, that tactic isn't working. So the ladies here are offering an alternative option. Better to send six or seven well crafted messages than twenty poor ones.

thattequilagirl

The Backwards Man wrote: »

I'm waiting for a woman to track me down in rural Donegal, negotiate her way past Lucky and then tell me she's been lookin for me her whole life. Any woman that doesn't do this is a bitch.

I'm on my way!

KomradeBishop

I really wish the point I made hadn't got stuck on the short-messages issue - personally, I think expecting someone to put a reasonable minimal effort into a message and reading a profile, is ok to expect.

The problem with the discussion getting stuck on the short-messages issue, is it's trivializes the wider point that was made - and makes it very easy to bat-down.

The kind of thing I was talking about - the impression I have that such websites impart a hyper-judgemental attitude to some people, which can extend to offline interactions as well - goes well beyond (and doesn't really include) being irked by short messages.

BlondeMoment

armaghlad wrote: »

in fact I was one of them I had c.2000 matches on tinder the first time I had it after I split with the ex. That's when it was actually a bit of fun to use it, now it's riddled with bots.

Just curious as to what you mean by bots? What do their accounts consist of?
Im on Tinder but I dont think ive noticed any bot profiles (as a girl looking at guys accounts) so im geniunely curious. Please and thank you

Cathy.C

thattequilagirl wrote: »

And you're perfectly entitled to hold that opinion. And women are perfectly entitled to interpret it as low effort and not reply to you. You can't have it both ways.

I don't think they were trying to have it both ways.

Just because someone is entitled to do something, doesn't mean that it understandable when they do it. Complaining about how someone acts doesn't equate to saying that they are not entitled to act that way either, but yet that's the implication of what is being said to Foxtrol tbf.

I have used a few dating sites and find them okay. My issues with them is that you can never really tell much from photos and chatting. I much prefer to meet people in the real world where I can see the whites of their eyes and the subtleties of their personalty. You can discover some of these things online of course but I just feel it takes much too long in comparison and I find it all a bit tedious if I'm honest.

Ints

Registered in POF and o my there are actual people lol ... Took advice advise not to use just HI and it works... One girl send me just Hi first and i am not that picky so i responded to that as well ...

armaghlad

BlondeMoment wrote: »

Just curious as to what you mean by bots? What do their accounts consist of?
Im on Tinder but I dont think ive noticed any bot profiles (as a girl looking at guys accounts) so im geniunely curious. Please and thank you

It's something girls don't get from what I gather. They're basically fake accounts targeting guys. If you match them they'll send a generic message like "hi, tinder has given me a virus, but if you go over to xxx.com we can chat there, my username is fakey mcfakefake..."

The tell tale signs are usually in the name and the pictures, for example it will have pictures of some thai beure called Maisie frollicking in her bikini on a beach in florida; whereas her bio will say her name is Majella, in her second year at Maynooth and does nets in camogie and drinks Buckfast...

yourdeadwright

Been on Tinder since Janauary and had 7 dates , everyone girl meet has been normal and really nice ,
Just not that spark with a few of them or a few had a few kids and that not my thing, I'm only single after 8 years so why not meet as many people as you can ,

Cupcake_Crisis

I got a great example of an opening message on tinder last night. Said hello, asked how my weekend was and referenced his dogs. It showed that he bothered to read my profile and wasn't just sending out generic Hi messages. Conversation has been flowing since!

armaghlad

Cupcake_Crisis wrote: »

I got a great example of an opening message on tinder last night. Said hello, asked how my weekend was and referenced his dogs. It showed that he bothered to read my profile and wasn't just sending out generic Hi messages. Conversation has been flowing since!

I always use emojis. It's a bit more personable. Also use proper grammar. Sometimes complement them if they're looking ridey

Foxtrol

Wow, this place became strawman town while I was away.

Zachariah Swift Marrow wrote: »

As special and self-important as the folks who get all salty that the two letter message, identical to twenty others someone's gotten that week doesn't guarantee that someone pays attention to them?

Firstly, I never promoted a two letter message.

Secondly, I never said that anyone should be guaranteed to be paid attention to.

Chain Smoker wrote: »

Ultimately, you're not entitled to a response, I don't get why anyone would think they are. If this is tinder and you've matched, odds are they were just as aimlessly swiping through them on a purely intuitive basis as you likely were so I wouldn't put too much weight in matching.

Not responding, if they're not interested sounds better for everyone involved in comparison to receiving a rejection letter too.

I don’t get why anyone would think they were either, as again I never said anyone was entitled to a response.

thattequilagirl wrote: »

And you're perfectly entitled to hold that opinion. And women are perfectly entitled to interpret it as low effort and not reply to you. You can't have it both ways.

I never said people weren’t perfectly entitled to not reply, note I’m using people rather than your use of women as women are just as likely to give short, basic intros when they are put in that situation.


Since the start my issue has always been the mindset of many posters with their sense of ‘self-importance’, that they are somehow superior to those who send short introductions. It might give them a nice little ego boost to think that way but if they’re incapable of getting a conversation going from a short intro, it says just as much about them as it does about the person sending the short intro.

BlondeMoment

armaghlad wrote: »

It's something girls don't get from what I gather. They're basically fake accounts targeting guys. If you match them they'll send a generic message like "hi, tinder has given me a virus, but if you go over to xxx.com we can chat there, my username is fakey mcfakefake..."

The tell tale signs are usually in the name and the pictures, for example it will have pictures of some thai beure called Maisie frollicking in her bikini on a beach in florida; whereas her bio will say her name is Majella, in her second year at Maynooth and does nets in camogie and drinks Buckfast...

Ah I see, thanks for that!
Yeah, cant say ive ever seen bots but there are the odd joke accounts, like Simon from the Inbetweeners for example! I wouldnt imagine theres any malice in those though.

Chain Smoker

Foxtrol wrote: »

Since the start my issue has always been the mindset of many posters with their sense of ‘self-importance’, that they are somehow superior to those who send short introductions. It might give them a nice little ego boost to think that way but if they’re incapable of getting a conversation going from a short intro, it says just as much about them as it does about the person sending the short intro.

Jeez man, it's not self importance, and a long response is probably worse tbh (looks mental, I'd say, speaking from experience). You were complaining about why no one responds to natural conversation starters, a heap of people tell you the reason people don't respond to "hi, how are you?" and your response (seemingly) is "nah, you're wrong, self important gits; I'll keep doing what I'm at, thanks"

What am I missing here?

Mister Vain

Cathy.C wrote: »

I much prefer to meet people in the real world where I can see the whites of their eyes.

Ye wha? Are you looking for a date or hunting prey?

armaghlad

BlondeMoment wrote: »

Ah I see, thanks for that!
Yeah, cant say ive ever seen bots but there are the odd joke accounts, like Simon from the Inbetweeners for example! I wouldnt imagine theres any malice in those though.

Tinder is riddled with them. Also I've noticed a trend of gay guys popping up. I can only assume they've changed their gender on Facebook so they show up as "female" on tinder. Can't imagine why they think they'll get any luck.

Leic

Hi is not a good opener to use, but it is a million times better than no opener so you can't really complain of someone says hi to you and you said nothing. They put more effort in than you did.