Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Why Nobody Wants You On OKCupid

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the resemble-that-remark dept.

Social Networks 473

Hugh Pickens writes "Social awkwardness has the most opportunity to shine in your very first message to a potential sweetheart, write Andrea Bartz and Brenna Ehrlich at CNN. Bartz and Ehrlich enumerate and humorously describe seven types of message senders: the generalizer, the autobiographer, the 'eccentric,' the creeper, the gusher, and the wordless wonder. Our favorite: the generalizer, whose typical first message may be 'hey, wuts up?' Why does no one want the generalizer? 'You're probably stupid. Or possibly illiterate,' write Bartz and Ehrilich. According to OKTrends, bad grammar and bad spelling are huge turn-offs in a first message. 'Our negative correlation list is a fool's lexicon: ur, u, wat, wont, and so on. These all make a terrible first impression. In fact, if you count hit (and we do!) the worst 6 words you can use in a first message are all stupid slang.' Other tips from OKTrends' analysis of successful keywords and phrases from over 500,000 first contacts on OKCupid: Avoid physical compliments, bring up specific interests, and if you're a guy, be self-effacing."

cancel ×

473 comments

Slashdot; (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37203830)

I love you!

Re:Slashdot; (2)

Cryacin (657549) | more than 2 years ago | (#37203918)

Too soon.

Re:Slashdot; (1)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 2 years ago | (#37204042)

Wat?
U cry?

Boom, your mind just exploded.

Re:Slashdot; (1)

ZeroExistenZ (721849) | more than 2 years ago | (#37204158)

"I have 500 men admiring me on my profile and trying to get my number or a date. I have no time for your tears."

Let me be the first to say... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37203832)

.... duh?

Alright, I know how to be now. (1)

diorcc (644903) | more than 2 years ago | (#37203836)

I would never suggest to anyone to change who they are just to find a date. That would be losing all integrity, and that's not someone I would choose to date. Unless you just want to play the game. Of course there can be a middle ground, but I'd rather find that than abuse this info.

Re:Alright, I know how to be now. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37203894)

I would suggest that if you need to change who you are to find a date, perhaps you should change who you are on general principles...

Re:Alright, I know how to be now. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37204002)

Three things that women will be looking for; your personality, your financial situation, and your looks. In my experience, you must have two of the three to entice a woman especially for a long-term relationship.

So to your point; you can be true to yourself; as long as you got a lot of income or are hot as hell.

Re:Alright, I know how to be now. (2)

assertation (1255714) | more than 2 years ago | (#37204036)

I agree, but what does that have to do with running a spellchecker on your message before you send it to someone on OKCupid? :)

Re:Alright, I know how to be now. (1)

diorcc (644903) | more than 2 years ago | (#37204068)

I'm all in favor in actually putting in the effort to communicate properly. But this doesn't mean I'm ok with appearing to be someone else to get the date. At some point you'll have to reveal how/who you really are - might as well start this way: honestly.

Re:Alright, I know how to be now. (2)

assertation (1255714) | more than 2 years ago | (#37204176)

diorcc;

I got the impression ( from my superficial slashdot skimming ) that all the authors are advising people to do is to run a spellchecker on their messages, avoid "pig l33t" ( u R so funny! lol ) and talk to other people like they are people ( versus sex objects, etc ).

That is hardly being someone you are not.

Re:Alright, I know how to be now. (1)

corbettw (214229) | more than 2 years ago | (#37204230)

One of the points in the summary was to bring up specific common interests. That's about as far away from telling someone to be different as you can get.

Re:Alright, I know how to be now. (4, Insightful)

lxs (131946) | more than 2 years ago | (#37204056)

Hey, I liked your message.
Don't you find that changing how you communicate is different from changing who you are? I think all communication is very much a game with rules. Breaking the rules does get you sent off the field in any game.
How would you feel about a footballer who doesn't want to play his best game because it would change who he was? (Scoring goals is too mainstream, it's just not me! ) I'd call that player a fool, but maybe that's just me.

Let me know what you think,
Alex

Re:Alright, I know how to be now. (2)

CaptainLard (1902452) | more than 2 years ago | (#37204152)

Its not about changing who you are. Its about displaying basic human competence to get past the first few filters to actually meet someone to finally get a chance to show them who you are. If "who you are" can be adequately described in an email that says "whuzz up" you should find a hobby. Even that won't change who you cause you'll hopefully like the hobby and maybe even have something to talk about. Which actually lets you be MORE of who you are. Unless, at your core, you as a person above all else are a lame email writer...don't write lame emails. (and yes, those described in the article are lame emails)

Re:Alright, I know how to be now. (2)

swalve (1980968) | more than 2 years ago | (#37204170)

No, don't change who you are. Unless you are actually a meathead, in which case, OKCupid probably isn't the right place for you. Maybe Myspace? That's what all the meatheads at the gym seem to enjoy.

But the idea is, I think, to try to highlight the non-moronic facets of your personality in a first greeting. What seems "catchy" or "witty" when you are alone in your basement, it turns out, is not landing properly on the recipient. I can say "yoh, wutz upxxor" to my brother, because he knows me and can imagine me saying it and hopefully get the intended reaction. A stranger cannot.

Re:Alright, I know how to be now. (2)

Kelbear (870538) | more than 2 years ago | (#37204222)

I disagree, I believe that people should be constantly evaluating and giving consideration to all information they take in. After making decisions about who they want to be, they should change themselves to become the person they want to be.

Example: If you don't think you're a douchebag, but everyone is telling you that you are, then maybe you should consider the possibility that you really are a douchebag and you just didn't know it. Assuming that you are in fact a douchebag, you should consider whether it's worthwhile to change that characteristic.

The involvement of integrity implies that change is inherently unethical or immoral. That's just not true.

Re:Alright, I know how to be now. (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 2 years ago | (#37204226)

Looks like I don't do any of the "bad" stuff anyway. And the last few people I've chatted to on OKcupid have contacted me first. By the sounds of what they say to me, most of the other guys on OKcupid are rather sleazy or boring.

if you're a guy, be self-effacing (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#37203838)

"if you're a guy, be self-effacing." Like we didn't already know that women want men who believe they're greater than we are. Maybe I like women who aren't threatened by my knowing what I want...

Re:if you're a guy, be self-effacing (1)

lynnae (2439544) | more than 2 years ago | (#37203864)

i believe it's more, don't talk about how big your house is, how important your job is, or that you need to be at the gym in 26 minutes. However, if that's just who you are, then yeah, you do need to weed out the people who don't like that pretty early.

Re:if you're a guy, be self-effacing (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#37203910)

Pretty hilarious. You can be confident and have shit to do without talking about all the shit you have, although the fact that you can't tell the difference makes me chuckle.

Re:if you're a guy, be self-effacing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37204006)

But I'm writing this from my iPad while sipping a $15 coffee at starbucks while worrying about how I'm going to keep up the payments from my BMW...

Only the nouveau riche brag about the shit they have. Most of them don't have it for long. My gf only found out that my family and I had serious money 3 months into the relationship, and only because after a while it becomes hard to hide this little detail. The house in this country. The apartment in that country. The cars everywhere. But she will never know exactly how much money.

Re:if you're a guy, be self-effacing (1)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 2 years ago | (#37204076)

My house is comparable to my ID or ego, my job makes me king of the world, or at least the IT portion of my company. You want to go to a website? SUCK IT, I have the power of greyskull!
Whoops, gotta go to the gym in like 26 minutes. And when I say Gym, i mean grocery store. Nothing like carrying 10 bags of 2 ltr Mt Dew to your car every day.
Hax you later baby, for one day I will learn the code to those soft cotton panties with the lace trim. *wink*

Re:if you're a guy, be self-effacing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37203902)

Every guy on OK Cupid knows what he wants, and so do the women, that's why you have to play the game.

Re:if you're a guy, be self-effacing (3, Funny)

wjousts (1529427) | more than 2 years ago | (#37203906)

Self-effacing? Won't that make you go blind?

Re:if you're a guy, be self-effacing (1)

Dog-Cow (21281) | more than 2 years ago | (#37204096)

It's OK. Without a nose, you couldn't wear glasses anyway.

Re:if you're a guy, be self-effacing (1)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 2 years ago | (#37203996)

Maybe I like women who aren't threatened by my knowing what I want...

It is exactly this attitude that the fine article addresses. By demanding that the woman concede to that huge demand (don't be threatened by $something) right at the first message, you are automatically pushing away a large portion of women many of which may be able to concede to that demand later.

The aggressive, self-confident girl of XKCD is _not_ looking for love online.

Re:if you're a guy, be self-effacing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37204150)

"The aggressive, self-confident girl of XKCD is _not_ looking for love online."

It's true. If xkcd has taught me anything, it's that she is either on the subway, a balloon, or in a play room full of plastic balls.

Re:if you're a guy, be self-effacing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37204080)

Well, considering that "Game" players are on to something (And, yes, they ARE onto something...there's base behaviors involved with it...) Being self-effacing might get you the date off of the site, based on the quality of the women on there in the first place. However, you will not be with them long- nor will it be overly pleasant unless you like being a doormat all the time. Much of the women on the site are laboring under the delusion that they're living up to the feminist ideal- which is all well and good, but it runs counter to how men and women actually tick.

Re:if you're a guy, be self-effacing (4, Insightful)

swalve (1980968) | more than 2 years ago | (#37204206)

The reason is because honest self-effacing shows a cool confidence. Making a show of confidence, however, actually shows insecurity. It's not what you say, it's what you display.

Why is this on /. again? (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 2 years ago | (#37203848)

We've got no chance , no matter how much theory we know.

Re:Why is this on /. again? (1)

advid.net (595837) | more than 2 years ago | (#37203886)

Why is this on /. again?

We've got no chance , no matter how much theory we know.

Just because on /. we have so much faith in science...

And watch out the obligatory xkcd reference coming soon !

Re:Why is this on /. again? (3, Funny)

TeknoHog (164938) | more than 2 years ago | (#37203934)

Re:Why is this on /. again? (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 2 years ago | (#37204014)

Obviously it won't work. He's only taking one part of two pi roots. That's like ordering a salad.

Re:Why is this on /. again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37204210)

http://goatkcd.com/55/ [goatkcd.com]

Re:Why is this on /. again? (1)

Carewolf (581105) | more than 2 years ago | (#37203964)

I am more concerned about the 'again' part. This story is a 2 year old blog-post. I am pretty sure it was linked too the first time around too.

TIME TO UNLOAD YOUR POSITION IN AAPL !! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37203852)

Come back next week and be glad, or cry like a baby !! Your choice !!

Re:TIME TO UNLOAD YOUR POSITION IN AAPL !! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37204088)

The market always behaves the opposite of what you expect, which makes you a sucker and me rich. You should have bought it at $350/share and sold it at $376 last night in after hours. Oh wait, your broker doesn't let you do after hours trading, does he? By the time the market opens, Apple should fall initially then see a nice short squeeze possibly all the way up to $400 again. Sell your stock at the open and enjoy the ride as you kick yourself for selling it 5 minutes later. Or leave it to your broker and get the worst possible price. Apple is going up. The slide will happen at some point in the future, possibly when the next product is released and earnings aren't as good.

Re:TIME TO UNLOAD YOUR POSITION IN AAPL !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37204262)

How about I just cry now and get it over with? It's over, that much I know.

The Green Lurchers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37203870)

Looking at the stats for the most interesting words its telling me I need to start a vegetarian zombie metal band. I think I'll call it "The Green Lurchers".

To summarize: (3)

Stumbles (602007) | more than 2 years ago | (#37203884)

Speak intelligently.

Re:To summarize: (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37203942)

LOLWUT ?

Re:To summarize: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37204182)

Don't date online

Re:To summarize: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37204282)

To be specific, use words like "nuclular".

Re:To summarize: (1)

pasv (755179) | more than 2 years ago | (#37204298)

Right on the money buddy. If you're trying to attract intelligent and stable partners it should only be obvious you should present yourself like that as well. Common sense right? But some people can't figure out what they want.

Says you... (2)

jdigriz (676802) | more than 2 years ago | (#37203898)

I'm marrying the sexy librarian I met on OkCupid next May. They're out there guys, just rarer than diamonds.

Re:Says you... (4, Interesting)

nschubach (922175) | more than 2 years ago | (#37204086)

They may be out there, but the unfortunate part is that none of them initiate the conversations. I don't consider myself an unattractive person, but I've never had a woman wink/poke/etc. or initiate conversation. It's like they all just post their profile and hope someone picks them. I may as well go out to a bar with that sort of "dating". As usual, it's always up to the guy to start the conversation and the woman gets to weed out the candidates.

It's not like I don't start conversations. I've had many on these sites and sometimes we meet up, other times we call it before. It's mainly that I have to do all the legwork to get things rolling. For once, It would be nice to have someone else start the ball rolling.

Re:Says you... (1)

MrCrassic (994046) | more than 2 years ago | (#37204184)

That's the way it is everywhere; get used to it.

Re:Says you... (1)

swalve (1980968) | more than 2 years ago | (#37204224)

It would be nice if women did that, but they don't. It isn't in the genetic mating handbook.

Re:Says you... (1)

corbettw (214229) | more than 2 years ago | (#37204268)

As usual, it's always up to the guy to start the conversation and the woman gets to weed out the candidates.

That's human nature. Get over it, or get used to being alone.

Re:Says you... (1)

Grygus (1143095) | more than 2 years ago | (#37204160)

That's easy to believe. Many, many things are rarer than diamonds.

Impressive stats (4, Interesting)

dargaud (518470) | more than 2 years ago | (#37203908)

I'm not on OKcupid and I'm not looking for dates, but I read OKcupid's statistics blog [okcupid.com] regularly with a lot of pleasure. The guys who run the site have fascinating insight and great data analysis skills. And they are also good at explaining things simply. Well worth reading for geek minded people. Especially if they don't have a mate yet !!!

The only number that really matters (2, Interesting)

dmgxmichael (1219692) | more than 2 years ago | (#37203920)

is your weight. If you are overweight online dating will not work. In person dating might work if you carry yourself well, but in the online world where the next profile is a click away you less of a chance than a snowball in Hell.

Re:The only number that really matters (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37203972)

Snow balls have a pretty decent chance in hell then.

no: height (4, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 2 years ago | (#37203992)

women complain men are obsessed with t&a but women are exactly the same: if you're not tall, it doesn't matter if you are a CEO and run 3 charities: she'll pick the tall guy who still lives with his mom

Re:no: height (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37204078)

Men are damn picky.

Look, just go for two of the following: Tits, Arse, Legs, Face.
And two of the following: Voice (accent, etc), Personality, Wit, Cooking Skills.
And all of the following: Matching personal beliefs, Beowulf Cluster in the bedroom, full bookcase including Knuth, Understanding of Perl.

Looking for everything? The guy that goes to the gym every day whilst holding down a decent job will get in there first.

UNLESS YOU CAN COOK AWESOME FOOD. This is a hook for women, but one that's usually discovered later on.

Re:no: height (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37204214)

Speaking as a very short guy with an even shorter girlfriend, this is very accurate.

I'm fit (just got back from my evening jog!), subjectively speaking fairly attractive, university educated, gainfully employed for like three years now (since I got out of uni)...

But yeah, when I was younger I had a lot of women trouble. I've been dating the same very cool girl for about five years now, but for almost all of my life I've had the same trouble. The irony is that I did very well on internet dating sites because I could angle the shot to make me look taller.

Re:no: height (4, Funny)

Cowclops (630818) | more than 2 years ago | (#37204256)

And I am that tall guy that still lives with my mom! VICTORY!

Re:The only number that really matters (1)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 2 years ago | (#37204236)

What the fuck are you talking about? My wife and I are both overweight and we met each other just fine.

It's a waste of time (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37203922)

After weighing up my options on an online dating site, I chose the more expensive option of allow other members to message me even if they didn't have a subscription. In my opinion, you're more likely to get a response if the other person doesn't have to pay anything.

I wish I hadn't bothered.

Currently I'm talking to 5 women and it's going nowhere beyond small-talk. Weather, plans for the weekend, and how your week is going. As soon as I ask them if they'd like to meet up, they go quiet and never message me again. <PotKettle>It's clear to me why these people are on a dating website, they have no personality</PotKettle>.

Has anyone actually had any luck with this, because at the moment I've paid £90 for 3 month's worth of pen-friends.

Re:It's a waste of time (1)

assertation (1255714) | more than 2 years ago | (#37204074)

Don't be hard on yourself. I read a lot of blogs from dating experts and many people have experiences similar to yours. You are actually handling things quite well by asking these women out and putting an end to pointless pen palmanship ( or giving a chance for something to happen ).

Re:It's a waste of time (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#37204122)

You are talking to bots. Ask them to send you a picture of them putting a shoe on their heads and see what happens.

Re:It's a waste of time (1)

Dr. Spork (142693) | more than 2 years ago | (#37204188)

Probably not bots, but dating websites have been known to deliberately make fake profiles to social engineer more payments from customers. Why not just stick to OkCupid, which is free and doesn't place any restrictions on messaging?

Re:It's a waste of time (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37204246)

I've had very decent luck with ok cupid free, I also did plenty of fish (website is horible to use, poor gui ect) and a "free" account on eharmory that just tells people to goto one of my unpaid sites.
even in the butt f**k end of the berkshires there was alot of people near by I was interested in. I had been messaged by them a couple of times but mostly the guy needs to initiate. The thing you have to remmeber is there are an amazing amout of assholes on these sites so the lady's guard is almost alwayse up. However if you can get a response from them, typicly that means they are willing to meet assiuming you dont push them away in subsequent messages. dont ask thme out right away either, give it a couple of messages or see if they want to move to aim, or a phone call or something. If you like where its going and get a good feel from her see if she'll go out. go with what you feel is comfortable, i typicly do a dinner/movie thing unless there is a situational date that would go over better, took one girl to a casino once. bout 5 meetings in or so i found one that hit it off with me well and we've been going out for a year now, met here about a year into the expierece.

Surprisingly Arrogant (1)

NoSleepDemon (1521253) | more than 2 years ago | (#37203928)

I get the impression the article was written by someone who thinks they're "quite good" at understanding this whole e-dating concept. The fact that they make fun of religion (despite it apparently affecting your reply rates negatively) on a dating site comes across as quite arrogant:

"But ideally you should just disbelieve the whole thing. It can help your love life, and, besides, if there really was a god, wouldn’t first messages always get a reply?"

I suppose they had to end the article in an edgey way though. They're a little too cool for me, I'll just have to stick with the one wife.

Re:Surprisingly Arrogant (2)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 2 years ago | (#37203956)

It's not arrogant to make assertions that are backed up by data. It's even less arrogant to make those assertions in a humorous way.

Re:Surprisingly Arrogant (1)

NoSleepDemon (1521253) | more than 2 years ago | (#37204102)

And here I was thinking that relationships were all about compromise and opening yourself up to another persons world view. Ideally I should disbelieve the whole thing, might improve my love life.

Re:Surprisingly Arrogant (1)

royallthefourth (1564389) | more than 2 years ago | (#37204018)

I'll just have to stick with the one wife.

How do you start with atheism and end up at polygamy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy#Religion [wikipedia.org]

Re:Surprisingly Arrogant (1)

slim (1652) | more than 2 years ago | (#37204066)

Non-sequiturs seem to be rife when religious people talk about this kind of thing.

An acquaintance the other day, apparently parroting his minister, jumped straight from the subject of homosexuality, to that of paedophilia, as if they were inherently related.

Re:Surprisingly Arrogant (0)

NoSleepDemon (1521253) | more than 2 years ago | (#37204178)

Well, say what you will about religion, but I simply don't believe that it should factor into dating that heavily. Ignoring someone simply because they are religious is extremely snobbish and sort of goes against what a lot of atheists apparently believe in (free speech and all that). By the way, are you autistic?

Re:Surprisingly Arrogant (1)

NoSleepDemon (1521253) | more than 2 years ago | (#37204120)

Implying I must have done something right, if you take another gander at the post you may detect a hint of sarcasm.

no humor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37203938)

The problem is that no one on a dating site realizes that they are on a dating site which is absurd to begin with. This site has a bunch of online dating letters that don't work because they are funny/creepy.
http://www.aguidetoselfsabotage.com/ [aguidetoselfsabotage.com]

They forgot "the nerd" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37203954)

seven types of message senders:
1) the generalizer,
2) the autobiographer,
3) the 'eccentric,'
4) the creeper,
5) the gusher,
6) the wordless wonder

Re:They forgot "the nerd" (2)

swalve (1980968) | more than 2 years ago | (#37204286)

Nerd will use 3 or more of those at a time.

Nah... (1)

Paladin114 (2438004) | more than 2 years ago | (#37203958)

Just keep doing what you're doing, and you'll find the girl who appreciates your slang, lack of grammar, and poor typing skills. You'll deserve each other.

Good luck.

So you're not wont to get responses... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37203976)

If you are wont to use the word 'wont'?

Re:So you're not wont to get responses... (1)

msk (6205) | more than 2 years ago | (#37204028)

I was wont to make a U-turn along the way to Angkor Wat while seeking the Book of Ur.

Oddly everyone can tell you how not to get a girl (2)

rednip (186217) | more than 2 years ago | (#37204000)

After all my time spent in online dating this looks like everything that I know, but what I'm really interested in is 'what works'. I'm guessing that the reality is that 'winning' submissions as often exhibited one or more of these mistakes, yet still were acted on. To me, based on what I might call my 'successes', it's timing more than anything.

Re:Oddly everyone can tell you how not to get a gi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37204052)

what works:

http://www.reddit.com/r/seduction

Re:Oddly everyone can tell you how not to get a gi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37204250)

It's quite simple: Take care of yourself and your needs. If you need something in your life, go get it. If something needs fixing, fix it. If you don't believe that something will ever do any good to you, get rid of it. Don't let your environment put you in a box - you might need some months off on your own to try new things. Whenever you do something, ask yourself whether you are doing it because you love it or think that it will make you feel good - if you believe in it, go for it. Sometimes that won't work, but such is life. Whatever you do, you have to rely on your own judgement, not the judgement of others - sticking out your neck once in a while is the best confidence boosts you can ever have.

The funny thing is that I am just some computer science student that lives in my mothers basement, but I am having a really good time with women (including sex), even if that is the first thing I tell them. It doesn't matter.

Consider working on your body - it's actually really fun. I'm focusing mostly on diet and things that boost my testosterone levels. Taking good care of your body is a nerdy hobby, really. You don't have to lift heavy weights - but while you're at it, you might aswell attend some dancing classes. It might be frustrating as hell in the beginning because you're not used to using your body like this, but it pays off in the long run. I liked the "4 hour body" and the blog "chaos and pain" as a starting point. The latter has a quite rough writing style and appearance, and you might really disagree with his views, but the science is solid.

When you've done all these things that you want, make sure to let your dating profile reflect it. Also get some new pictures - your face and appearance can change dramatically when going from a dull life to a happier life.

Lastly, that self-effaction thing can help you, as long as it honestly reflects how you feel. And, talk with people whom you want to involve in your life about what you're doing. This might be both men and women whom you respect. They will want to be involved if you're doing something good for yourself. But don't let anyone take the upper hand - I made that mistake, and I lost a over a year being confused because I was doing it all wrong. In the end, it is your judgement and your way of thinking that matters, so start using your intuition to get it sharp. If not, it's just gonna be dull forever.

There's a pain period. You're going to be confused. Eventually you'll be looking back at your life, and it will be undeniable that you have been enriched with something positive since you started challenging yourself. Good luck!

what about photos? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37204010)

linkedin photos says a lot of things too: http://lasfinge1969.wordpress.com/2011/08/18/linkedin-game/

Re:what about photos? (1)

SmurfButcher Bob (313810) | more than 2 years ago | (#37204198)

Yes, congressman.

Women - better in theory than practice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37204012)

As someone in a relationship, I cannot see why people would want to go through all the nagging, barking madness, and second guessing that a relationship brings, not when you have a lovely computer and/or cats to spend your time with instead.

Oh yeah, sex and possibly gaining offspring that will theoretically support you in your old age and make you think that there might have been a real reason to life in the first place. Still, what a waste of beer tokens!

Want to meet a woman? Get some friends and go out with them a lot. Make sure they're not twats. Don't talk about your personal JRuby project when you finally interact with a woman unless she brings up her geeky side.

Dating sites are a pile of toss designed to extract money from lonely people. You'd be better off browsing tube8.com for half an hour every evening and then getting on with more important things like that Z80 retro programming project you've been thinking about.

I can't comment on the homosexual side of things, I presume that there is less nagging and hormones in general, and maybe more drinking, music and sex.

Re:Women - better in theory than practice (2)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | more than 2 years ago | (#37204030)

I can't comment on the homosexual side of things, I presume that there is less nagging and hormones in general

Aha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

Wrong, 'cos gay or straight, you're still in a relationship!

Re:Women - better in theory than practice (1)

slim (1652) | more than 2 years ago | (#37204084)

As someone in a relationship, I cannot see why people would want to go through all the nagging, barking madness, and second guessing that a relationship brings, not when you have a lovely computer and/or cats to spend your time with instead.

So why are you still in the relationship?

Andrea Bartz and Brenna Ehrlich at CNN (1)

Speare (84249) | more than 2 years ago | (#37204022)

Andrea Bartz and Brenna Ehrlich are regular contributors to CNN - and every single one of their articles are this kind of drivel. A drinking game could involve their weak attempts at inserting every possible hipster keyword in every article. Their idea of snark is including the sentence 'Not.' at the end of a paragraph. Maybe I'm just getting old, but if this is what passes for humor with people their age, I'm not looking forward to the post-hipster generation one bit.

News? (1)

space_jake (687452) | more than 2 years ago | (#37204034)

While I too feel that bad spelling and grammar make me think someone is an idiot, wouldn't a professional writer expressing this be a little biased?

2009 called... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37204038)

They want their OKCupid blog post discussion back.

Self-effacing men may be more successful (1)

michelcolman (1208008) | more than 2 years ago | (#37204046)

but they'll have a lot less fun boasting about it!

This is news? Looks like something from maxim ffs. (1)

tehtest (995812) | more than 2 years ago | (#37204062)

wtf?

Missing info: Live near a big US city (2)

jez9999 (618189) | more than 2 years ago | (#37204082)

I'm in the UK, not exactly in the middle of nowhere (a medium sized town) but not exactly London either. There are virtually no women on the site within a reasonable distance of me.

It helps to live near New York or Los Angeles.

Re:Missing info: Live near a big US city (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37204234)

Perhaps OK Cupid isn't the site for where you live. It also depends what you mean by "reasonable distance".

I met some lovely people on a UK newspaper's dating web site, and eventually settled into a stable relationship with someone who lives an hour's drive away. It's not ideal, but it's worth it.

I do believe it's worth paying money for a dating site. It filters out many (though not all) of the timewasters.

Great way to get people RTFA (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 2 years ago | (#37204106)

Would it have been so hard to write "online dating sites" instead of "OKCupid" so everyone knows what this is about (not to mention that this is sort of product placement, given that there are definitely other such sites; heck, the article even mentions others!)?

Re:Great way to get people RTFA (1)

slim (1652) | more than 2 years ago | (#37204280)

.. but the OKCupid stats can't tell you about other dating sites.

Something's wrong cuz OkCupid works for me! (1)

Abuzar (732558) | more than 2 years ago | (#37204114)

Uh, what do you mean no one's interested on OkCupid? It's the one site where I do get connected. The other sites don't work, but I meet a decent amount of people on okcupid. Just sayin' !

On the other hand, everytime I post on slashdot, my posts get marked down as bad karma. People here seem to have a hate on for exploring diverse ideas. I never get ANY love from slashdot geeks and they're soooooooo rude, insensitive and inconsiderate.
That's why I'm mostly on okcupid these days. I get to meet all these nice smart and sensitive people, like the girl who's into Cognitive Neuroscience I met last month, another one who's a hairstylist 6 months ago, and one who's going to college also 6 months ago, and the one-time hookup deal with another person two weeks ago, and now we're developing a friendship, etc.

On slashdot, I just come here for the news (mostly interested in Quantum Mechancis), and then I just bolt. Something about too much Machismo, it's just not sexy.
Well, this is all the time I'm willing to spend on slashdot. I'm going to go check my okcupid account.

this is pretty basic stuff (1)

MrCrassic (994046) | more than 2 years ago | (#37204126)

From the last article referenced in the summary:

The site said that self-effacing men have greater success rates, with words such as "awkward, apologise, kinda" and "probably" likely to increase success because "appearing unsure makes the writer seem more vulnerable and less threatening".

Let's see how many guys put all of these words in their first messages! :)

From my experience with online dating (been using it mostly on-and-off for a few years), I don't think this is the biggest reason why some (many?) guys have problems finding anyone on these sites. Instead, I think the real issue is two-fold: bad (boring) profiles and bad (boring) pictures. Besides the fact that lots of guys online come off as horribly desperate or think a bathroom pic of their pecs/chest will land them something, there are very, very, very few profiles that are enticing or interesting enough to read through them. Additionally, not a lot of folks post pictures that make them really stand out; with most online dating sites having way more men than women (by design), this becomes a problem in the long run. First messages are definitely a problem as well; women I've met online usually tell me about the many guys that either say the stuff outlined in the summary ("hey baby," "what's up," "you look beautiful/really good") or send long messages about themselves that they've already covered in their profile!

My profile and messages were really boring and borderline desperate when I first started out; consequently, I wasn't very successful. I had a lot more success when I put pictures of me doing different stuff and changed my profile to better reflect my real personality.

It's not just the men that have work to do, either. Women's profiles start to become one in the same after a few minutes of looking, and many of them aren't very engaging in conversation either. (This is really a two-way street, though, so it's not fair to put that fault solely on them.) However, since women are the "commodity" on these sites, they generally don't have to worry as much. In fact, really hot women, like in real life, don't have to do anything at all if they're after attention; they'll get hundreds of messages a week without even thinking about it. (This is worse than it seems, though.)

Despite me having said all of this, I think it's better to find people in real-life. (I hate the term 'meatspace;' who the hell came up with this?) Your first impressions aren't bound to still moments or clever word choices, and it's the only way you can really capture someone's "energy" right then and there. People can definitely lie in this respect (clubs, bars and parties are great examples), but at least you know that guy isn't a 80-year old grandma or that woman isn't really 80 pounds more than she looked online.

It's because you're fat, stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37204128)

Seriously, I have looked through the women on OKCupid. Probably 90% are overweight. It's like the fat people matchmaking site or something.

No thanks, I need someone that I can go jogging with and doesn't have severe emotional problems.

and I thought facebook was creepy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37204136)

OkCupid examined thousands of "first contacts", or the first messages sent by users of the site, for the study and used a special programme to identify popular keywords and phrases and how they affect reply rates.

I used to work at a dating service (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37204200)

For men, the dating game online in the US basically (well, statistically) boils down to a person being white, not overweight, and moderately presentable. Grammar, hobbies, and all the other stuff that's in the filler profile is secondary, but it basically only paints a story around the guy in the picture. At work, we used to look at the men who were the most successful on the site and read their correspondence with women since we were mostly all single developers. Well one day, one of less attractive developers at work copied all the introduction methods (emails) that the best looking guy on the site used and modified them for his own purposes. His success rate was terrible, until he got into conversations and just started lying about his profession and wealth. He had some success from lying, but the success was with the sort of people no one would want to be associated with for more than ... uh ... a few nights at best. The article has some elements of truth to it, but in terms of maximizing success it's not about the correspondence -- particularly among less educated people.

If you're not white, I'd honestly not waste a dime on any paid dating services unless they're niche services targeting your particular ethnicity. It's not that you (as a minority) won't meet someone, it's just that the effort you'd have to put in to make the site worth your while is just not there (in terms of outbound contact vs. inbound responses.) I don't know what the legalities are, but for paid dating site, I'd give tiered pricing to minorities to increase their numbers and increase customer retention. For free services, I'd just advise minorities to write bots to do outbound correspondence and spray the sample set.

I met my wife on OkCupid :^) (1)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 2 years ago | (#37204228)

I highly recommend it. I did move to the US from Canada to be with her, so whether or not you can find someone who'll match you well within your city is questionable, but seriously, give it a try before pay sites like eHarmony. (Not to mention that just by its nature, it's far more geek-friendly; the people behind the site code a lot of C++ and are big math people.) Protips: Answer as many of the questions as you can, since that's how it matches you. More questions answered equals better matches. Ask questions when you message people, and mention something specific to their profile. And for God's sake don't mention sex in your messages for a while unless that's specifically what you're looking for, since you're likely to creep relationship-seeking folks out.

allow me to retort (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37204238)

laddertheory.com

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...