Post: #1

In case you missed it, Tinder basically shot themselves in the foot and fucked players over with their latest update in which they introduce an "arbitrary" (according to them) maximum number of swipes a day.

In addition to what I've done below, let me know if you fellas want me to test anything else specific out. I plan on doing a location test in a new city over the coming days. I can tell you the rewind feature doesn't mean shit since I don't swipe within the app itself anyway (see below).

The Setup

Phone: iPhone 6
App: Tinder Plus, which I paid $4.99 for a one month subscription for. Already cancelled the auto-renewal.
Add-ons: Tools For Tinder - an auto swiping program. I verified that it works even with the new version of Tinder. I am using the pro version which continues swiping even when your phone is locked.

Me: 23 years old, 5'8", half Asian half white. Pictures are strong (guitar, travels, etc). A few other people verified what I looked like in this thread: /thread-45403.html

For the record, I'm not sure why my price was only $4.99. I was texting with Slubu earlier, and they wanted $9.99 from him. Here's what pricing has looked like so far from the people I've asked:

Me, 27 in Tinder profile, Los Angeles: $4.99 a month
Slubu, 27 in Tinder profile, New York City: $9.99 a month
Buddy of mine, 26, Orange County: $9.99 a month
Blog groupie, 27, Atlanta: $9.99 a month

I decided to be a guinea pig and test this out in the hopes that the overall quality of matches will improve. Obviously a lot of the Tinder bots will be maxing out their swipes in a matter of minutes, and I'm hopeful that actual matches will be more inclined to come through as they have a limited amount of swipes a day.

Regardless, Tinder isn't what it was a year or so ago and I'm not hopeful that it'll ever get back to that way.

Tinder Settings

Searching age 18-25
~20 mile radius, moving up or down as I run out of matches. Good trick to know if you weren't aware.

Day 1 Stats - Los Angeles

Girls Liked: ~11,000
Matches: 22
Of the 22, how many are bangable? 7
Bots: 0

This snapshot was taken at 7:22pm PST. I'll update this thread tomorrow with the number of matches that came in overnight.

Anyone else having any luck?

Post: #2

That's interesting, the price must also be location based. I'm 23 in NYC and it's $15. No way I'm paying the price of an HBO subscription to match with some 5's on Tinder.

Post: #3

(03-03-2015 10:29 PM)tallandblonde Wrote:  That's interesting, the price must also be location based. I'm 23 in NYC and it's $15. No way I'm paying the price of an HBO subscription to match with some 5's on Tinder.

Which is bizarre, because from what I know NYC has a better ratio for guys anyway.

Post: #4

I'd very interested to see what your ratio of matches to girls liked is in a week.

I'm guessing since its day 1, most of the girls you've swiped haven't had the chance to swipe you back.

But damn 22 matches is still solid, even if 1/3 are bang-able.

By the way, any chance of getting banned for swiping that many girls through that app?

Post: #5

(03-03-2015 10:36 PM)Saladin Wrote:  I'd very interested to see what your ratio of matches to girls liked is.

I'm guessing since its day 1, most of the girls you've swiped haven't had the chance to swipe you back.

But damn 22 matches is still solid, even if 1/3 are bang-able.

I'll definitely post back tomorrow with updated numbers. I suspect a lot more will trickle in tonight and while I sleep. The best part is that the bots are gone though, so they're not inflating the match numbers.

I'm headed to Budapest next month and will keep this updated as to how pipelining is with the location option.

Post: #6

(03-03-2015 10:36 PM)Saladin Wrote:  By the way, any chance of getting banned for swiping that many girls through that app?

I've been using it for months and I haven't been.

Well worth the $3.

Post: #7

http://thinkprogress.org/culture/2015/03...-users-29/

I cannot believe how much they are charging for my age group. I'm not going to pay that much. 19.99? I think that's tinders way of saying 30-year-old should not be on their app.

Post: #8

I remember in 2013 and most of 2014, when I would bang 5 girls a week off of Tinder. It was easy, and the girls were hot. Now, whenever I feel like playing around with Tinder, the app fails to bring in anyone of quality. If I match with an 8, she is a bitch looking for attention. If I match a 5, she wants me to fuck her immediately (yay!). I really think Tinder is dying, but......

This app is amazing for travel. Pretty much everywhere I travel I pipeline with the app (don't bother paying for their stupid location feature) and have tremendous success. I do better in places like London and Madrid (which I would assume aren't that easy) than Washington or Boston (big surprise), and have had success in places as obscure to the dating game as Managua. I have 150 matches lined up for Manila later this week and I've been swiping left 90% of the time. When I was in Finland and Sweden I met 10 girls in a week (not notches, I'm not that good....) and I was working most of the day. South America was more of the same. I've probably gotten 10 flags in the past 3 months just because of Tinder.

But we all need to realize that it's a crutch. Tinder makes us not want to go out and game. I enjoy Tinder because I don't drink that much, but seriously it is a way for the betas to get themselves on your level. Pretty much every Tinder date I've been on the girl is surprised that I look the same as my pics and am not weird. I think that tells you something.

I'm never going to pay for Tinder.

Post: #9

Haha, el CID - you are a tinder god. Good on you for max'ing the rise of tinder. 5 girls a week comes out to 20 girls a month. Those are legendary numbers extrapolated over 2 years.

Post: #10

That's how I've always thought of it. A tool in a man's arsenal. Nothing more.

Update on tonight:

Now at 36 matches. Quality seems to have gone up, about 15 are good quality.

Post: #11

In the 'Tinder App' thread it was reported multiple times that mass-swiping appears to move your profile lower in the queues of potential matches. For this reason, while using liker for convenience, I glance over loaded profiles and uncheck obvious ugly ones to reduce the chance of being flagged as auto-liker.

Good test though. Interesting to see how number of new matches will change going forward.

Post: #12

Clark: I'll try to do some testing tomorrow without auto-swiper, but it'll be nearly impossible to track the number of swipes.

Also funny to note that a girl who is local here posted a moment showing a price of $9.99...whereas I only paid $4.99. So it doesn't even seem to be based off of location, either.

Post: #13

(03-04-2015 02:34 AM)TroubleMaker Wrote:  Clark: I'll try to do some testing tomorrow without auto-swiper, but it'll be nearly impossible to track the number of swipes.

Also funny to note that a girl who is local here posted a moment showing a price of $9.99...whereas I only paid $4.99. So it doesn't even seem to be based off of location, either.

Part of it could be your age. As I get older, my number of matches goes up considerably.

Post: #14

I've done A-B testing between 23, 25, and 27 - and yes, 27 works best.

Unlike a platform like OKC where you can message any girl, most girls are going to set their range to their age and greater which means they won't even come across you.

Post: #15

(03-03-2015 10:29 PM)tallandblonde Wrote:  That's interesting, the price must also be location based. I'm 23 in NYC and it's $15. No way I'm paying the price of an HBO subscription to match with some 5's on Tinder.

It' also based on age so if you're over 27 you'll pay more

I'm over 27 and they want $15.....bwahhahahha I rather

Post: #16

(03-04-2015 01:42 AM)elcidcampeador Wrote:  I remember in 2013 and most of 2014, when I would bang 5 girls a week off of Tinder. It was easy, and the girls were hot.

5 new girl a week? you must be extremely good looking if they're that hot

Post: #17

The difference in the drop in quality in one year in Edmonton has been dramatic. I got three girls in a week this time last year. At the moment I got maybe four matches this week. I think it is definitely played out in some cities. I predict a new app before the year is out that trumps tinder.

Post: #18

(03-04-2015 09:09 PM)Thesoloist Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 01:42 AM)elcidcampeador Wrote:  I remember in 2013 and most of 2014, when I would bang 5 girls a week off of Tinder. It was easy, and the girls were hot.

5 new girl a week? you must be extremely good looking if they're that hot

I'm exaggerating, but I definitely had at least 50 girls when Tinder just came out. I was working from home at the time and was addicted to the app. I would work, have a Tinder date for lunch, work more, Tinder date for dinner. This was NYC so logistically a piece of cake.

Really almost as easy as Tinder in Manila right now.

I'm not the world's best-looking guy - Tinder just had way less competition. Girls were into it, and the quality spoke for itself. Now guys are into it.

Post: #19

Update, day 2.

10,000 more swipes, about 3,000 which were in Poland. Doing some pipeline testing for my upcoming trip to Budapest.

Now at 86 matches total.

I don't have numbers on this but I definitely would say that overall response rates are higher.

Post: #20

(03-04-2015 09:17 PM)Atlantic Wrote:  The difference in the drop in quality in one year in Edmonton has been dramatic. I got three girls in a week this time last year. At the moment I got maybe four matches this week. I think it is definitely played out in some cities. I predict a new app before the year is out that trumps tinder.

3 notches that is. Looks like I got a girl coming over tomorrow though so maybe I spoke too soon.

Post: #21

(03-05-2015 12:26 AM)Atlantic Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 09:17 PM)Atlantic Wrote:  The difference in the drop in quality in one year in Edmonton has been dramatic. I got three girls in a week this time last year. At the moment I got maybe four matches this week. I think it is definitely played out in some cities. I predict a new app before the year is out that trumps tinder.

3 notches that is. Looks like I got a girl coming over tomorrow though so maybe I spoke too soon.

Are you paying?

Post: #22

For tinder? Not yet. I haven't decided if I will.
I see the new features but I don't need rewind and I already have a GPS cracker.
I swiped maybe 50 today and it didn't stop me so no need yet. Does anyone know what the limit is?

Post: #23

Since the Plus got fully switched on I'm only seeing about 5 girls a day and only match one a week. Guess that's how it looks when the bots are removed.

Post: #24

No we know where tinder got it's inspiration from...not in TLC but in cash legal tender....
and now it's cashing out...

Not that anyone is surprised.

Post: #25

(03-03-2015 10:36 PM)TroubleMaker Wrote:  

(03-03-2015 10:29 PM)tallandblonde Wrote:  That's interesting, the price must also be location based. I'm 23 in NYC and it's $15. No way I'm paying the price of an HBO subscription to match with some 5's on Tinder.

Which is bizarre, because from what I know NYC has a better ratio for guys anyway.

Overall the ratio is good for guys. There are more women in Manhattan than men. But unfortunately this is still online dating so it's a sausage fest where girls are the commodity.