Under 25 is the only time wasting reason to be on here for reasons we've discussed; way easier to get lucky that she wants older and/or ... just younger and all that comes with it

(04-16-2016 07:07 AM)godzilla Wrote:  I try not to use the superlike on really hot girls. You're just feeding narcissism at that point. Those type of girls get whatever they want. I usually go for a girl 6.5-7.5 range who fits a look that I like, or maybe a short term tourist since it puts you up top. So far, I think its been pretty effective tactic

I do the exact same thing for Super Likes.
I also dial down the distance to a max of 10 miles or so for logistics.

What would be a good way to answer girls who try to screen you for a fake profile?

A recent match ended up like this, and I'd rather # close ASAP. I don't know if I should prolong it given that she's busy this week. I can see how a chick would be suspicious if your photos are that much on point — which I'm finding hard to believe, as I haven't got a landslide of matches yet.









On that note, how much do you guys stretch out Tinder conversations and the resulting text exchanges? These days, I'd much rather wrap things up quickly . . . the text exchange is mainly used for arranging the meet. I recall that my first ever Tinder date in late 2013 proceeded a 4 day heavy text banter that probably would've boyfriend-zoned me. Ironically, another Tinder convo around the same time centred around logistics arranging from the get-go, I imagine because our photos had had all the work of attraction.

I'm in Ireland but have switched my GPS to NYC.

In the past 24 hours I've matched with about 30 girls (nothing less than a 6 as I've been picky with my swiping). I've also been SuperLiked and have also been opened by a few of them (which never really happens in my own city). I have a lot of downtime in the next month and a half and was wondering if it's worth my while checking the city out for a while. It's cheap-ish to get to (and quick; 6 hours), but I'm fully aware that NYC is a ridiculously expensive city...

I have matched with attractive girls but always tend to ruin it with my incredibly poor, overly wordy game that I think become too difficult for girls to engage with because it requires too much effort from them.

I write 3-4 sentences per message and can't quite figure out how to do punchy one liners.

It's incredibly frustrating having a girl that super liked YOU not replying.

(04-17-2016 07:35 AM)JWLZG Wrote:  What would be a good way to answer girls who try to screen you for a fake profile?

A recent match ended up like this, and I'd rather # close ASAP. I don't know if I should prolong it given that she's busy this week. I can see how a chick would be suspicious if your photos are that much on point — which I'm finding hard to believe, as I haven't got a landslide of matches yet.









On that note, how much do you guys stretch out Tinder conversations and the resulting text exchanges? These days, I'd much rather wrap things up quickly . . . the text exchange is mainly used for arranging the meet. I recall that my first ever Tinder date in late 2013 proceeded a 4 day heavy text banter that probably would've boyfriend-zoned me. Ironically, another Tinder convo around the same time centred around logistics arranging from the get-go, I imagine because our photos had had all the work of attraction.

Eh. Once she moved away from your attempt to meet to wanting to exchange Tinder experiences....I knew she was an attention whore who just wants to kill time and be entertained. And if you send her more entertaining messages than the average schlub, that's exactly what will happen.

Let me know if you ever get to meet her.

How do you guys summon that kernel of "energy" to be entertaining to a .jpeg? I sit there unable to think beyond "how's your Sunday".

I don't have an issue texting girls I meet from real world approach, as the face-to-face always gives me SOMETHING to go off of and strike into, banter-wise, when sending a text for the first time (after texting them my name).

My cynicism is probably self-fulfilling; theoretically what's the difference? I find that I don't have to "think about it" when the girl I'm texting for the first time is one whose number I got in person. My thin-slicing of them at initial meet eliminates any need to get meta when I want to reach out.

How did Tinder change the algo again?

I just made a new account last night:

-40 or so matches from girls who swiped me first.
-2 matches from me swiping a lot of girls

Is the new strategy apparently to just not swipe at all? And wait for girls to like you...?

(04-18-2016 06:13 PM)NextStop100 Wrote:  How did Tinder change the algo again?

I just made a new account last night:

-40 or so matches from girls who swiped me first.
-2 matches from me swiping a lot of girls

Is the new strategy apparently to just not swipe at all? And wait for girls to like you...?

I noticed this aswell, if I swipe to the max I get 2-3 matches in a 24h period. Sometimes none or just 1. Yet if I leave my account and don't swipe the matches seem to build up and then I swipe and the first 10-20 girls I swipe are matches.

In my experience if you create a completely new account, tinder will put you early in the line of the swiping girls.

As for waiting some time and then swiping resulting in more matches makes complete sense. Tinder want you get something out of the app when you use it, but if you swipe every single day, there will be less matches because otherwise you will drain the pool of girls. At least in a medium city like where I live (1 million pop.)

I'm in NYC and have been swiping away and using super likes and have been getting no matches.

All of my matches are from girls who liked me first or super liked me and I swiped them and got the instant match.

I'm going to not swipe for a day or so and see what changes.

I've seen a few images like these posted by girls on Twitter and Instagram the last little while.






Those are some crazy numbers. The girls who are posting these are mostly average looking.

(04-19-2016 03:22 PM)Nemausus Wrote:  I've seen a few images like these posted by girls on Twitter and Instagram the last little while.
PICS
Those are some crazy numbers. The girls who are posting these are mostly average looking.

The thirst is real.

What annoys me is that these average looking girls will get so much validation and ego boosting from guys on tinder that after a while they actually think that they are worthy.

A lot of girls use Tinder the same way they use Facebook and Instagram, that is to collect likes/matches, compare it with other girls, then they feel better and actually believe that the saggy tits they gained from eating too much french fries are good looking.

Have you guys found that the 5% that actually hold a conversation with you (obviously that you think aren't total dogs or else you yourself wouldn't continue) are totally down? I've even encountered what I thought were normal "wholesome" girls who after time I got to talk about sex

Typically I go for quick close but sometimes that's not realistic. I had a one screen close (5 total messages between both of us) 2 days ago, though. 22 year old, too.

As for the numbers above, I wonder how they even decide who to message, or if they even bother. Do they just act like all dudes aren't swiping right to continue to imagine they're hot?

(04-19-2016 03:50 PM)Andre Wrote:  

(04-19-2016 03:22 PM)Nemausus Wrote:  I've seen a few images like these posted by girls on Twitter and Instagram the last little while.
PICS
Those are some crazy numbers. The girls who are posting these are mostly average looking.

The thirst is real.

What annoys me is that these average looking girls will get so much validation and ego boosting from guys on tinder that after a while they actually think that they are worthy.

A lot of girls use Tinder the same way they use Facebook and Instagram, that is to collect likes/matches, compare it with other girls, then they feel better and actually believe that the saggy tits they gained from eating too much french fries are good looking.

Seriously the game is fucked up. On top of that, these average looking girls are wearing tons of makeup and using photo filters. They're really living in a fantasy land and really just want the instant gratification. These same girls will be on the same sites in their 30's and 40's wondering where all the good men are.

Said "future milf" in her bio; decided to mess with her in the opener.

The thrist is real. The amount of ego validation they get via tinder is analogous to a man constantly fapping away to thousands of porn starlets online, always trying for a new high. Men and women have their respective drugs, but neither is healthy for society in the long run.

True. It would be interesting to see how the sexual/relationship norms will be in 100-200 years. Maybe I should freeze myself when I get older and then post a datasheet for 2150 vs. 2010s when I wake up.

(04-19-2016 10:41 PM)goonies Wrote:  

(04-19-2016 03:50 PM)Andre Wrote:  

(04-19-2016 03:22 PM)Nemausus Wrote:  I've seen a few images like these posted by girls on Twitter and Instagram the last little while.
PICS
Those are some crazy numbers. The girls who are posting these are mostly average looking.

The thirst is real.

What annoys me is that these average looking girls will get so much validation and ego boosting from guys on tinder that after a while they actually think that they are worthy.

A lot of girls use Tinder the same way they use Facebook and Instagram, that is to collect likes/matches, compare it with other girls, then they feel better and actually believe that the saggy tits they gained from eating too much french fries are good looking.

Seriously the game is fucked up. On top of that, these average looking girls are wearing tons of makeup and using photo filters. They're really living in a fantasy land and really just want the instant gratification. These same girls will be on the same sites in their 30's and 40's wondering where all the good men are.

I've matched with a number of Super Likes I've given of reasonable looks. Maybe 6 in my city, around the same each at different locations in Europe.

Though suffice to say, I guess if you match with a Super Like that you've given to a 7 or over, in the Anglosphere, you've hit the Tinder jackpot.

WTF it keeps happening. Girls stop responding when I tell them I live in Jersey. These are mainly stuck up Brooklyn girls that think the world revolves around them. They will only date guys that live in Brooklyn or Manhattan. Even though I'm literally right across the river and closer to them than some people who actually live in Manhattan. And Queens is adjacent to Brooklyn but they don't care. They're just caught up in the labels. Should I start lying?

I'm tired of these spambot bitches that "wanna skype". Fucking annoying

Tinder can be cool for the occasional hook up but it's really something I give 2 shits about. I'd rather be the dude who scooped the girl at the club in real life and fucking her brains out while a bunch of thirsty betas blow up her phone

When should I stop being the first one to text?

Got her number, texted her first (obviously) the next day, took the next day off, texted her first the next day, and today will be the third time. Should I lay off for a few days or a week and see what happens?

I just want to find a good balance between pressing and not seeming thirsty/needy/too easy to access.

^^^ Are you sending back to back texts? If she was the last one to respond, I don't think it's a big deal for you to keep initiating the next day.

^Yeah, back-to-back texts. She's usually the last text and then I'm the first text the next day.

I guess that makes sense, I just feel that there's a point where you need to stop initiating to see if she does to have some control. Maybe to not be so predictable too.