Post: #226

That app is a fucking joke. I am sorry but either 80% of the hot girl profiles are fake/in active or I am literally Quasimodo. I don't think the latter is the case because I pretty much get open by chicks every time I go out. In three months of using the app I matched with one Chinese girl that looked like a boy and one mediocre chubby Asian I didnt even want to bang (and I've got some serious Asian fever) and two completely disgusting fat black girls. I hear the new kid on the block is inner circle so if you want to get a head start on matching with complete gold digger type chicks that only care about your job get to work.

Post: #227

I get a good bite every now again. It's worth keeping my hooks in the water though. You can see when you have chicks who swiped you qued up in your messages at the top. I just go through until I've either matched or swiped left on the fatties.

Post: #228

(09-29-2017 05:23 PM)DimeBait Wrote:  You can see when you have chicks who swiped you qued up in your messages at the top. I just go through until I've either matched or swiped left on the fatties.

That's only if you pay up. I've tried it and it really, unfortunately, is a real litmus test of a guy's true RMV. Rarely do I see a woman who has swiped me before I swiped her that even passes the boner-test.

Post: #229

You can still meet and bang decent western chicks online if you’re a male 8. It is VERY time consuming though. And you deal with so much dumb bullshit.

In my opinion its only really KINDA worthwhile if you’re traveling solo and outside your social network. If you’re not doing hostels and not around other tourists then using online game can be good just to meet women socially.

Every once in awhile I’ll strike gold with an 8 who just broke up with her bf or is miraculously single and new to online game. Mostly though you should adjust your expectations ETH online game. It’s really just a way to make female friends who may have hotter friends you can hit on in person. Or you just invite women 2-3 points below your sexual market value (and chubby) to your room and get blown out half the time.

That rare 8 bang is what keeps these apps going. But don’t ever be expecting that. The apps are just too hard to use for an 8 woman. She’s gonna match with literally every guy she swipes. She’ll get tired bitchy and Super picky real quick.

Post: #230

(08-24-2017 10:53 AM)DimeBait Wrote:  ^^ Very good input. In fact, I removed my profile on a couple sites shortly after reading this. I'll probably re-emerge after few months with better pics as suggested.

I need to heed my own advice!

I just deleted bumble. I was getting strung along by matches with a decent looking woman here and there. The dopamine hit of a new match. Often waiting... hoping... or getting a conversation that would take a lot of time but eventually go nowhere.

What a joke! Back to the real world. Far better return on effort.

Post: #231

Someone needs to come up with an autoswiper for bumble if it hasn't already been done. It would save so much time. Any RVF programmers up to the task?

Post: #232

I have noticed that the sheer volume of profiles given to guys each day on Bumble is a lot higher than Tinder. I think this is a function of Bumble's increasing popularity and the way Bumble keeps looping back again and again. I really wish it were possible to lock it so that it never shows you the same profile more than once. Since it puts the better looking women first it's usually not worth even swiping through the entire batch.

Post: #233

Alright, I'm wading back into the BS after a break since the start of October.

I fired up Tinder yesterday for a quick look and closed/deleted my account after an hour. I got a couple of matches but overall the standard there was just revolting. First impressions returning to Bumble are, there's a bit of overlap with women appearing on both services. Secondly, there's accounts on here that I saw in October and earlier in the year when I had a mini-LTR.

It's summer here and that's my profile's strength, the outdoorsy/beachy lifestyle. I'm already meeting a number of women through my social circle, at weddings and from a wide network through an outdoor sport I engage in. I've been dating a couple of women here and there but am getting flakiness with two of them so it's time to pipeline.

With this in mind, I want to approach it like a campaign with an objective. I need to increase the number of high quality women I know.
In order to achieve this, I plan to screen women harder, that means no women more than 3 years younger than me, no cute overweight chicks(or border-line overweight where it's hard to tell), no more than 20km radius because I don't want to be fishing in the outer suburbs. It's tempting to get sucked in with these apps and compromise your(my) own standards when the results don't come through. Then you lower your standards chasing the rush of a new match and negatively impacting your own results in a downward spiral. So stating them upfront should help.

The maximum time spent will be 4 weeks, closing off before xmas as I want to spend the holiday period fully engaged with my family and in the new year I will be busy with study and working hard on my career from the first week of January. Anyone I'm still talking to at this point I will transition to messages/whatsapp, however I also want to meet up in person much earlier rather than let conversations drift along.

Post: #234

I just recently deleted my Bumble profile and removed permission from FB to fully delete it after banging another 40y.o. butter-face.
I was planning on deleting anyway, but the need to ghost this potentially stalkerish, twice divorced, single mom further motivated me, lol.
Unfortunately, I've been slaying a sleu of 40y.o.'s for practice, but I feel bad ghosting these bishes, especially since I'm so easy to find in my city due to my professional status.

Post: #235

at this point I wouldn't even take this shit that harshly or seriously, boys

They have to much to wade through it's barely even that fun or attention stimulating. It's dropped from 7s having fun to them using it for IG or other snap connects --- it's only the 5s that get kicks out of it now and actually check or seriously consider, OR 35+ post wall few options girls

The game is now value selection. That means pay apps or you guessed it, azucar daddies lol

Post: #236

(11-15-2017 04:00 AM)Rhyme or Reason Wrote:  Someone needs to come up with an autoswiper for bumble if it hasn't already been done. It would save so much time. Any RVF programmers up to the task?

Seems easy to do, is there a swipe limit like tinder? Bumble is pretty terrible for an EA guy, I've gotten one notch using the app, and she was a 5 at best.

Post: #237

(11-20-2017 12:42 AM)Putin Closes Wrote:  

(11-15-2017 04:00 AM)Rhyme or Reason Wrote:  Someone needs to come up with an autoswiper for bumble if it hasn't already been done. It would save so much time. Any RVF programmers up to the task?

Seems easy to do, is there a swipe limit like tinder? Bumble is pretty terrible for an EA guy, I've gotten one notch using the app, and she was a 5 at best.

I think there is a limited amount of people you can swipe through based on your parameters set (age, distance) but you don't hit a "cap" on max amount of swipes per day. I've sat there and swiped passively while reading / watching tv and never hit the limit. That's why I'm thinking this needs to be automated.

Post: #238

I still think most of the front-loaded attractive profiles are fakes. I've noticed patterns where many seem to be from the same geographical area, like exactly 9.8 miles away.

Post: #239

I've had an opportunity to do a direct comparison between tinder and bumble over the past month. On tinder, I am raking in matches left and right, and plenty of girls have also contacted me first. I can't keep up with the dates on there even if I tried.

On bumble, i've had three matches, all of which expired after 24 hours.

I've used the exact same photos for tinder that I used on bumble. My stats are good- 6'4" caucasian, educated, dog owner. I regularly get approached by girls when I go out. My recommendation- delete. If it won't work for me, it's probably a waste of time for most guys.

Caveat- I am in a very small market. I live in the tri cities area of east Tennessee.

Post: #240

Well I lasted 48 hours and deleted it again.
I had 3 matches, none of which actually began a conversation.

I agree Dimebait, I noticed a lot of profiles appeared to be in one specific neighbourhood, which isn't a popular place?

It's a waste of time. Women are able get emotional validation and don't even start a conversation.
I'm not going to participate in "Daily Extends" where I virtually beg them for recognition.

Post: #241

(11-15-2017 12:03 PM)questor70 Wrote:  Since it puts the better looking women first it's usually not worth even swiping through the entire batch.

I wonder how they do this. Is there some algorithm they use? Or is there some employee that personally ranks female profiles. And does the inverse also apply, whereby the female also get the more attractive males first?

Post: #242

(11-20-2017 08:26 PM)Conquistador Wrote:  

(11-15-2017 12:03 PM)questor70 Wrote:  Since it puts the better looking women first it's usually not worth even swiping through the entire batch.

I wonder how they do this. Is there some algorithm they use? Or is there some employee that personally ranks female profiles. And does the inverse also apply, whereby the female also get the more attractive males first?

It would be easy to rank female profiles which are most swiped right upon by men, then create a rank or desirability according to the age of male swiper and present the most liked profiles matched to the age of the user.

You can sense it when using the app. If you swipe for 3-5 mins, you start to get into WNB territory.

I also think they mix in old, dormant accounts toward the end too.
Reason being you see some people that have two accounts and one is 'old', old pictures, maybe a previous login/email address/fb account.

Post: #243

(11-20-2017 10:19 PM)Mig Picante Wrote:  You can sense it when using the app.

It's almost a straight objective mathematic measurement of physical beauty from high to low, which only confirms the simple beauty-contest decisionmaking applied to swiping right or left, even on Bumble where everyone's supposedly more evolved than that.

Post: #244

(11-21-2017 12:20 AM)questor70 Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 10:19 PM)Mig Picante Wrote:  You can sense it when using the app.

It's almost a straight objective mathematic measurement of physical beauty from high to low, which only confirms the simple beauty-contest decisionmaking applied to swiping right or left, even on Bumble where everyone's supposedly more evolved than that.

Which city are you in? I've Bumbled in 5+ cities and haven't seen a straight ranking in over a year.

In my city, the profiles are mixed.

Post: #245

(11-24-2017 07:44 AM)corsega Wrote:  Which city are you in? I've Bumbled in 5+ cities and haven't seen a straight ranking in over a year. In my city, the profiles are mixed.

Boston.

Usually the first 5 or so profiles I get (and it helps if some time is given to accumulate a big stack) are all right-swipe-grade to me. Then it drops to maybe 75-80% and so on. Lots of bikini photos up front.

It might make a difference that I am skewing older, where women are straddling pre and post-wall age-range. If I were to limit things to just early 20s it would be harder to see the falloff since youth itself is a beautifier.

Post: #246

(02-25-2016 12:06 PM)OregonToSoCal Wrote:  With that being said the only tag line on my bio is: "Looking forward to us matching and then never hearing from you "

Who would have thought that a modern, sophisticated, feminist dating app which empowers women to make the first move and act with all confidence, would...

...produce women who are like Victorian children: Seen and not heard?

Post: #247

I've had to adopt a mentality of not treating a woman is a viable prospect until I've gotten to the 2nd or third date. It's amazing how personal some of these initial discussions can get and then they never pick up the conversation again, at least not without prompting. Women use dating sites like an anonymous chat-room in this respect in which case the decision to "match" should in no way be interpreted as serious intent.

I'll give them my time at first just so they can sample what it's like to communicate with me, after which I expect them to prove they're interested in meeting otherwise I treat their silence as disinterest. I know in some of these cases I probably could have forced something to happen but I just think if her interest is weak and she needs that much poking and prodding it won't turn out well.

I think this is my way of dealing with YES/NO/MAYBE girls. The ones who are passive are maybe girls.

Post: #248

(11-20-2017 08:05 PM)Mig Picante Wrote:  Well I lasted 48 hours and deleted it again.
I had 3 matches, none of which actually began a conversation.

I agree Dimebait, I noticed a lot of profiles appeared to be in one specific neighbourhood, which isn't a popular place?

It's a waste of time. Women are able get emotional validation and don't even start a conversation.
I'm not going to participate in "Daily Extends" where I virtually beg them for recognition.

Had the exactly same experience with this app. In Tinder there's a lot of ghosting when you message the girl, but you can actually take action. With this app ghosting is just even more likely, since she can decide wether she messages you or not. From my experience is no.

Post: #249

(11-24-2017 09:22 AM)questor70 Wrote:  

(11-24-2017 07:44 AM)corsega Wrote:  Which city are you in? I've Bumbled in 5+ cities and haven't seen a straight ranking in over a year. In my city, the profiles are mixed.

Boston.

Usually the first 5 or so profiles I get (and it helps if some time is given to accumulate a big stack) are all right-swipe-grade to me. Then it drops to maybe 75-80% and so on. Lots of bikini photos up front.

It might make a difference that I am skewing older, where women are straddling pre and post-wall age-range. If I were to limit things to just early 20s it would be harder to see the falloff since youth itself is a beautifier.

Yes, the first 3-4 profiles are always 9.5s. It's their way of getting you to keep swiping they've been doing this for a year+.

Before (Spring 2016), it used to be an absolutely straight ranking where you would see all the 9.5s, all the 9s, etc.

Post: #250

(12-10-2017 06:02 PM)Innovative Wrote:  Had the exactly same experience with this app. In Tinder there's a lot of ghosting when you message the girl, but you can actually take action. With this app ghosting is just even more likely, since she can decide wether she messages you or not. From my experience is no.

I am not following this thinking. Online dating be it tinder/bumble is passive dating. Essentially, what women do before the MILKS GONE BAD. Free reign for top form SMV. Not so much thereafter.

Tinder is full of hookers, whores, prostitutes/escorts, and spam bots. I believe it was great originally when it first came out. Now a days, it is a ego boost for women and their ridiculous e standards.

IMHO, bumble is better. A woman needs to stop being a fat ass, actually message or you indirectly ghost her. If a girl doesn't give her number ASAP, NEXT SET!

I have 100x better success irl cold approach pickup then this nonsense of boosting women and their egos. A woman cannot photoshop or catfish you irl. I am not saying, don't swipe right. I am saying, the same way you would NEXT SET a woman for being a attention whore irl, you should on those apps online IMMEDIATELY. Like, if the girl does not give her # and hangout that week, she is lost in the abyss of soon to be cratered SMV and single mother victimhood.

#GOODRIDDANCE!