[DrewP]

Scrolling through OKCupid has become a terrifying experience. I'm usually the one arguing with guys to reign in their standards and be more reasonable, but even by relatively lax standards, it takes a miracle to come across anything better than a 3/10 while browsing OKC (NOTE: this does not apply to hot spots such as NYC). I don't remember it being this bad a couple years ago; has anybody else noticed sharp quality downgrade on OKC as well?

My theory is that all the non-hideous-beast chicks have flocked to Tinder, Coffee Meets Bagel, and the like. I see plenty of talent on those two. I predict that in 5 years, all dating sites that are actual websites will cater to specific niches; meaning all "mainstream" online dating will consist of smartphone apps that allow for quick yes/no judging based on a photo. This is definitely not a positive development for those searching for compatible LTR material; but then, what recent cultural development has been?

[floor7]

(12-20-2014 07:21 PM)DrewP Wrote:  

Scrolling through OKCupid has become a terrifying experience. I'm usually the one arguing with guys to reign in their standards and be more reasonable, but even by relatively lax standards, it takes a miracle to come across anything better than a 3/10 while browsing OKC (NOTE: this does not apply to hot spots such as NYC). I don't remember it being this bad a couple years ago; has anybody else noticed sharp quality downgrade on OKC as well?

My theory is that all the non-hideous-beast chicks have flocked to Tinder, Coffee Meets Bagel, and the like. I see plenty of talent on those two. I predict that in 5 years, all dating sites that are actual websites will cater to specific niches; meaning all "mainstream" online dating will consist of smartphone apps that allow for quick yes/no judging based on a photo. This is definitely not a positive development for those searching for compatible LTR material; but then, what recent cultural development has been?

Agreed - also Tinder and CMB have validation through social-circle (FB). As someone who doesn't have FB due to work (and otherwise wouldn't want to have one regardless), OKC is my online pipeline.

You aren't wrong - in my major NE city, the quality has degraded (though still bearable). In the much smaller town I grew up in the NE, the quality fell off a cliff.

[Mister X]

I need someone to tell me what the benefits of using OKC/POF/etc are now that we have apps like Tinder.

Most girls seem to understand that Tinder is a hookup app. Look at the Tinder thread or the just had sex thread to see how many first and second date lays guys rack up on Tinder. Whereas with legit dating sites, you have to weed through girls who are there for relationships and exclusivity and all that. So from a quantity perspective, Tinder will likely yield you more results, at a faster pace.

It's a lot easier to write 2-3 sentences in your Tinder profile, than it is to try to make a carefully worded online dating profile that tries to make you look interesting, or fun, or funny, or whatever.

Swiping on Tinder is a breeze and getting matches assures you that you at least have a shot if you have game. As opposed to writing individual openers and sending them to girls, or if you're one for canned openers, still takes longer to do it girl to girl than it does to swipe and only be able to open up girls you matched with.

And you also don't have to put anything in your profile that can rule you out automatically. Religion, height, income, profession, education, whatever. I mean if she's really hard up on some of those preferences you may get ruled out...but if you can run sufficient game before she starts asking what you do, or how tall you are, or whatever, then again, you have a puncher's chance.

Not to mention the social aspect of Tinder using Facebook integration. It feels safer and more casual.

Sites like Okcupid and Plenty Of Fish were already flawed -- shit, online dating in general was and still is pretty flawed, but apps like Tinder and Happn and whatever new one will come out next week, in my opinion, tilt the scale a little bit in our favor. Certainly more so than traditional sites.

[kmhour]

(12-20-2014 07:53 PM)Mister X Wrote:  

Most girls seem to understand that Tinder is a hookup app. Look at the Tinder thread or the just had sex thread to see how many first and second date lays guys rack up on Tinder. Whereas with legit dating sites, you have to weed through girls who are there for relationships and exclusivity and all that.

Tinder started out as a "hookup app" but as it became mainstream it has become the de facto dating app for 20somethings. It's the first flavor of online dating that is socially acceptable. Always assume the sale, but I wouldn't assume every girl on it is necessarily looking for a hookup anymore.

[Ensam]

Dating sites and apps are fundamentally social phenomena and thus are at the whimsy of whatever impulses drive fads. The cool kids never wants to hang out with the crowd so they're constantly looking for the next edgy thing. In the early 2000s people used craigslist to hook up. It was cool, edgy and a possibly a little dangerous. Then Nerve came along and everyone moved over to that. Then OKC. Now Tinder. And in another year it'll be something else. Before the internet there were singles bars and whenever a new hip bar opened up all the talent would go there but pretty soon the word got out and the talent had to find some place else. It's really no different now that it's online. You can't get comfortable and rest on your laurels. As soon as you find a space where it's easy to get laid you better be looking for the next one because pretty soon everyone's going to show up and the talent is going to move on.

[The_CEO]

I signed up recently for OKC to see what it was about.
After doing just one search for matches, I was repulsed and deleted my account (in under sixty seconds).

[tallandblonde]

Each dating app is a fad that lasts for a while until something else with a minor improvement replaces it.

[DrewP]

(12-20-2014 07:53 PM)Mister X Wrote:  

I need someone to tell me what the benefits of using OKC/POF/etc are now that we have apps like Tinder.

Most girls seem to understand that Tinder is a hookup app. Look at the Tinder thread or the just had sex thread to see how many first and second date lays guys rack up on Tinder. Whereas with legit dating sites, you have to weed through girls who are there for relationships and exclusivity and all that. So from a quantity perspective, Tinder will likely yield you more results, at a faster pace.

It's a lot easier to write 2-3 sentences in your Tinder profile, than it is to try to make a carefully worded online dating profile that tries to make you look interesting, or fun, or funny, or whatever.

Swiping on Tinder is a breeze and getting matches assures you that you at least have a shot if you have game. As opposed to writing individual openers and sending them to girls, or if you're one for canned openers, still takes longer to do it girl to girl than it does to swipe and only be able to open up girls you matched with.

The easiness of Tinder comes with a curse... it's much tougher to separate yourself from the average boring, inarticulate moron. On OKCupid, I can send out individualized messages + write a creative/interesting profile, and that will at least make me stand out enough to be carefully considered by every girl I message. When the quality was reasonable I managed to carve out a niche with highly educated/intelligent girls this way.

With Tinder, on the other hand, girls just swipe left rapid fire and go right once in awhile on a guy they find exceptionally hot. It's a boon for guys in the top 10% in terms of looks, but shit for the vast majority of guys. I use a main photo that hardly ever lost on that MyBestFace thing (a non-selfie that shows off muscles is gold), but I still find matches pretty tough to come by.

tl;dr - Unless you're outrageously good-looking, Tinder's style will kill your chances.

[Tactician]

(12-20-2014 10:58 PM)The_CEO Wrote:  

I signed up recently for OKC to see what it was about.
After doing just one search for matches, I was repulsed and deleted my account (in under sixty seconds).

I did that too.

(12-21-2014 01:11 AM)DrewP Wrote:  

The easiness of Tinder comes with a curse... it's much tougher to separate yourself from the average boring, inarticulate moron. (...)

Yeah that's true. The abundance of choice leads women (little girls?) to be picky.

But, even if you don't have my dashing good looks, you can still rock a Custom Suit™, or show off your affluent environment, zebra, etc.

Dashing looks aside, it's about putting in the effort to create visuals that show the value you want to display. Edit: and the average boring, inarticulate moron won't do that.

[Mister X]

(12-21-2014 01:11 AM)DrewP Wrote:  

The easiness of Tinder comes with a curse... it's much tougher to separate yourself from the average boring, inarticulate moron. On OKCupid, I can send out individualized messages + write a creative/interesting profile, and that will at least make me stand out enough to be carefully considered by every girl I message. When the quality was reasonable I managed to carve out a niche with highly educated/intelligent girls this way.

Yeah but in the time it took you to do those things I would have gone on to swipe at least 200 girls in my area.

Tinder = less time spent + larger audience reached.

If you're sending individualized messages, you're working on one girl at a time, which is fine if quality is what you're looking for. However, there's still a 50% chance she ignores your message, or never even sees it because it's buried under all the other messages.

With Tinder, your odds of a response are better since you guys both matched so at some level, both of you found something attractive about the other.

Quote:

With Tinder, on the other hand, girls just swipe left rapid fire and go right once in awhile on a guy they find exceptionally hot. It's a boon for guys in the top 10% in terms of looks, but shit for the vast majority of guys. I use a main photo that hardly ever lost on that MyBestFace thing (a non-selfie that shows off muscles is gold), but I still find matches pretty tough to come by.

tl;dr - Unless you're outrageously good-looking, Tinder's style will kill your chances.

I'm not in the top 10% of looks and I do well match wise. Well...depending on location. Which, plays a bigger role to me than anything else when it comes to Tinder. I've mentioned before how when I drive into the city I get multiple matches within the hour, but go back home to the burbs, I get zero, after days of swiping. I seriously doubt the burb girls are all that different, and more than likely it's the app + my location or my service when I'm home or whatever that is taking me off the grid. That's a location problem. If I lived in the city, I would be getting significantly more matches. And again, I'm not a "wow this guy is super hot I have to swipe right on him!" kind of guy. I have my main pic set to a classy suit shot, and I have a funny profile. That's it.

[Phoenix]

My biggest problem is not with matching, it's that they never go anywhere. I have a massive list of matches in all the dating apps I've used, and almost none of those matches actually resulted in a bang. I've had more success on standard dating websites, since the girls there are generally more serious about meeting someone (lot of just-curious/validation-seekers on tinder), and since it's faster for me to right-click+T a large set of girls into new tabs, do a quick due diligence on each tab, then send a copypaste mesage. I'll do a burst of this every few days, and if there are any bites I'll try and get them out. Tinder just seems clumsier and slower, perhaps because you have to use a phone instead of having a full browser and keyboard at your disposal.

(12-21-2014 02:32 AM)Tactician Wrote:  

or show off your affluent environment, zebra, etc.

Lol I'm adding this to the "If you had fuck-you money" thread.
Incorporating a Zoo company which complies with regulations and successfully procures a license to own exotic animals, and then to buy one, and then make it your tinder profile picture of you riding it in your living room, would surely equal continuous pussy.

[PastTense]

(12-20-2014 07:53 PM)Mister X Wrote:  

I need someone to tell me what the benefits of using OKC/POF/etc are now that we have apps like Tinder.

Most girls seem to understand that Tinder is a hookup app. Look at the Tinder thread or the just had sex thread to see how many first and second date lays guys rack up on Tinder. Whereas with legit dating sites, you have to weed through girls who are there for relationships and exclusivity and all that.

Because a significant number of women who think they only are interested in exclusive relationships can be gamed and will fuck you.

Different sites will have differing success rates depending on location as well as your strong points--and the best strategy is to try all the reasonable possibilities--and then drop the ones you have zero success with--rather than simply assuming Tinder is the only successful one.

[El Chinito loco]

(12-21-2014 03:50 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

My biggest problem is not with matching, it's that they never go anywhere. I have a massive list of matches in all the dating apps I've used, and almost none of those matches actually resulted in a bang. I've had more success on standard dating websites, since the girls there are generally more serious about meeting someone (lot of just-curious/validation-seekers on tinder)

I have noticed in the past couple of years that it's definitely gotten worse for % of flakey matches. I do bang off tinder but the followup can be a chore.

The obvious question is..why women just don't jump on instagram and post some pics if they want instant validation. When they swipe right with no intention of meeting it becomes the ultimate time waster.

Another problem that's somewhat particular to asia is that on tinder there are a high percentage of very americanized/westernized asian girls on there. It's not an optimal selection from the local talent pool.

[Avarence]

Tinder is really the only thing online that I fuck with these days. Honorable mention to Hot-or-Not.
Browsing through profiles on OKCupid here in South Florida is like navigating a character selection screen in an MMORPG.

[roberto]

(12-21-2014 02:12 PM)Avarence Wrote:  

Tinder is really the only thing online that I fuck with these days. Honorable mention to Hot-or-Not.
Browsing through profiles on OKCupid here in South Florida is like navigating a character selection screen in an MMORPG.

Classic!

[Quintus Curtius]

Basically, yes.

The heyday of the regular online apps like Match and the others is long gone.

I'm in Rio this week and I am nearly rubbing the fingerprint off my index finger doing Tinder swipes. The options are incredible. I nearly need a spreadsheet to keep track of all the conversations and meetup plans...we'll see how it goes.

[RexImperator]

Looking through OK Cupid here I'd say it's 75% 5s and below, 20% 6s, 5% 7s+. I know my libido is lower than most, but honestly I can't see the point in wasting time with it, given the low response rate men have to deal with. Plus, the girls will probably look worse than their picture in person. You really have to have the mentality of "All I need is a crease!" as Chris Rock says, to put up with that.

[ConfidentMan]

While my native reflex is to join the ranks of players deriding OP for whining and self-victimizing, I very recently came face to face with this harsh reality.

After my move to the countryside, one of the relatively few dates I got was with an OK-looking girl, perhaps a 7 or 7.5 tops. For one of the less attractive girls I dated since I started gaming, she was very iffy and flaky before the date. When the date did happen, it went very well, yet she was strangely non-committal, then flaked from the next date and nexted me.

I wasn't sure why it happened. A couple of weeks later, I realized online is fairly popular in my new location, so I went online, and ran across her profile in one of the popular dating sites. She has good pictures that hide her flaws and emphasize her strengths, upgrading her looks to 8-9. I could tell she was very popular there, getting a ton of messages from attractive guys every day. Mystery solved.

The truth is that OP is right, at least to an extent. Seduction is based on the exploitation of inefficiencies: guys don't approach enough, so an 8-9 can't get her equal, because her equal doesn't have the balls / gumption / resolve to approach her. So she goes with the less attractive guy who did.

Inefficiency presented opportunities for us less attractive guys to get laid far above our level of attractiveness, both qualitatively and quantitatively.

Online makes the dating market efficient, so the girl above doesn't have to settle for a less attractive guy. She can have her pick of guys at her own attraction level, or even higher if she is willing to settle for pure sex - which is exactly what most of us are after.

It's especially a problem for players like me, who get laid purely on balls, because balls mean nothing online. You don't need balls to send a message, so me and a guy who can't say hi to a stranger offline are put on equal footing. My advantage has been effectively neutralized. Online makes dating much easier for good looking guys, and cancels the advantage of ballsy guys who approach.

[DrewP]

(12-21-2014 03:03 AM)Mister X Wrote:  

I'm not in the top 10% of looks and I do well match wise. Well...depending on location. Which, plays a bigger role to me than anything else when it comes to Tinder. I've mentioned before how when I drive into the city I get multiple matches within the hour, but go back home to the burbs, I get zero, after days of swiping. I seriously doubt the burb girls are all that different, and more than likely it's the app + my location or my service when I'm home or whatever that is taking me off the grid. That's a location problem. If I lived in the city, I would be getting significantly more matches. And again, I'm not a "wow this guy is super hot I have to swipe right on him!" kind of guy. I have my main pic set to a classy suit shot, and I have a funny profile. That's it.

I live in the burbs too, and I actually think the market is quite different out here. Hot, high-brow girls flock to the city in droves in a way that men do not (isn't New York like 60% female?), and the vast majority of Americans in the country/burbs are fatasses. These factors lead to a favorable market for men in the city, and an unfavorable market in the suburbs. I think that explains your success discrepancy. When I recently played around with Tinder in a major US city (not NY), I found the same thing you did; it became much easier to match with cute girls. Guess it's the price we pay for living in one of the most comfortable environments this planet has to offer.

[DrewP]

(12-21-2014 04:02 PM)ConfidentMan Wrote:  

Online makes the dating market efficient, so the girl above doesn't have to settle for a less attractive guy. She can have her pick of guys at her own attraction level, or even higher if she is willing to settle for pure sex - which is exactly what most of us are after.

In non-urban areas of the US, OKCupid is roughly a 70%-30% split between guys and girls (I've researched this). With that kind of lopsidedness, believe me- girls are not settling for anything at their own attraction level.

[ConfidentMan]

(12-21-2014 04:55 PM)DrewP Wrote:  

(12-21-2014 04:02 PM)ConfidentMan Wrote:  

Online makes the dating market efficient, so the girl above doesn't have to settle for a less attractive guy. She can have her pick of guys at her own attraction level, or even higher if she is willing to settle for pure sex - which is exactly what most of us are after.

In non-urban areas of the US, OKCupid is roughly a 70%-30% split between guys and girls (I've researched this). With that kind of lopsidedness, believe me- girls are not settling for anything at their own attraction level.

Yes. To further formalize: it's the gender imbalance you have in plain old nature, reincarnated in this high-technology form.

The new point of balance might well be a bunch of 9-10 guys, each with a harem of 7-10 girls. The girls will be satisfied, because once every 1-2 weeks they get fucked well and hard by an experienced guy they find very hot. The guys are obviously satisfied since they get to fuck a different cute girl every day of the week. Guys who are 7 or lower get nothing.

I saw these things you talk about first hand. I have decent game now in real life. I couldn't get a date with a 5 online. I messaged like crazy, and for hundreds of messages, couple of 5-6s replied, all uppity and condescending, as if I should kiss their ass for sending out a bitchy reply. When I wasn't impressed, they moved on. Not pretty.

The main concern is that there will be enough 8-10 looking guys messaging all the 7-10 girls to keep those occupied. In the past, players - especially those with less than 8 looks - relied on the fact that a lot of guys in the 8-10 group didn't have game. But you don't need game to send a clever message online and rely on your pictures to do the rest of the work.

The concern is that online is going to negate the advantage of game, especially stuff like the ability to boldly approach. It's going to be all about the pictures, and maybe some clever text. That's a legitimate concern, in my opinion.

[DrewP]

^I agree with pretty much everything you said, but I have to wonder... you said you just moved to the countryside, so where would you go to pull off in-person approaches?

[Mister X]

(12-21-2014 04:48 PM)DrewP Wrote:  

I live in the burbs too, and I actually think the market is quite different out here. Hot, high-brow girls flock to the city in droves in a way that men do not (isn't New York like 60% female?), and the vast majority of Americans in the country/burbs are fatasses. These factors lead to a favorable market for men in the city, and an unfavorable market in the suburbs. I think that explains your success discrepancy. When I recently played around with Tinder in a major US city (not NY), I found the same thing you did; it became much easier to match with cute girls. Guess it's the price we pay for living in one of the most comfortable environments this planet has to offer.

Well for me I feel it really is something technically related.

Back in September, I made a new Tinder, and did pretty well. Better in the city, as I would swipe less girls but get more matches. But even still, I could get about 20 matches a week in the burbs.

But now, if I swipe 500 girls in the burbs, it's 500 swings and misses. I even installed a mass swiping app. After 1380 swipes, I had 0 matches. There's simply no other explanation. Especially given that, at a previous time, I was getting some matches here.

I don't know what it is or how to fix it, but whatever.

But anyway, yeah, the better your location, the better your match rate will be. I don't subscribe to the belief that only the very good looking men can kill it on Tinder.

The only problem I have with Tinder (and I guess in my romantic life in general at the moment) is quality. I'm at a point now where if the girl doesn't excite me, I'm not interested in pursuing her. Out of all the girls I've seen on Tinder that I said "wow, I hope I fucking match with this chick," I've gotten none of them.

[ConfidentMan]

(12-21-2014 05:54 PM)DrewP Wrote:  

^I agree with pretty much everything you said, but I have to wonder... you said you just moved to the countryside, so where would you go to pull off in-person approaches?

Conventional wisdom dictates that a higher population means a more active dating life. More options means more dates right?

Except men are the initiators. And women are as choosy as their options. A woman in San Francisco may get 10 messages per day. A woman in Boise, Idaho may only get 1 message per day.

Since the average girl in San Francisco has an inbox flooded with guys messaging her, this makes it harder for the average guy in San Francisco to land a date. Meanwhile an average guy in Boise may have an easier time getting a date because there are far fewer men to compete with.

Bigger population means more choices for women AND men, but it's ultimately men who Ask and women who decide Yes/No (mostly).

A woman can't possibly date all the men who message her and ask her out, so she naturally must be more choosy.

Meanwhile, a woman in a small city/town may only get a handful of messages. She might give a guy a chance because she doesn't have many other prospects lined up.

[eradicator]

(12-21-2014 04:55 PM)DrewP Wrote:  

(12-21-2014 04:02 PM)ConfidentMan Wrote:  

Online makes the dating market efficient, so the girl above doesn't have to settle for a less attractive guy. She can have her pick of guys at her own attraction level, or even higher if she is willing to settle for pure sex - which is exactly what most of us are after.

In non-urban areas of the US, OKCupid is roughly a 70%-30% split between guys and girls (I've researched this). With that kind of lopsidedness, believe me- girls are not settling for anything at their own attraction level.

These numbers are somewhat skewed. There is a lot of bad game out there on the online sites. A lot of the women join the site for a week or 2, meet a guy and get off the site after starting to date a guy, even if it hasn't progressed into a relationship just yet.

IF you are in a big city, okcupid can be a goldmine, just do searches for women who have joined in the past week. even that is no guarantee of anything.