Alright, did a mini, very non-scientific experiment. Typing up report now.

Alright, so as I mentioned, I've deleted and recreated my tinder profile countless times. No matter what picture I use as my main or what I have written in my profile, I get 3-4 matches in my first hour. Whether I'm in NYC or the suburbs, that's typically my norm. My assumption is, that most men are just not being seen, for whatever reason. My guess is there's so many dudes out there, and women don't swipe as crazy as men do, so that's what's gonna happen. It's not as picture based as you may think but I'll report my findings and you tell me.

Now, we've seen some of the experiments where a guy makes a fake Facebook account with modeling pics to see how many matches a really good looking guy gets. I wasn't really interested in that. I didn't want a new Facebook, I wanted to determine if my lack of breaking out of the 3-4 match rate was because of my pictures, or my account for some reason not being shown to as many girls as I'm swiping on.

So, I used my regular Facebook, and uploaded two pictures of model Matthew Cadigan. I chose shots that I felt were not overly professional that would make girls think it was a fake profile. However, I have no idea how famous/recognizable he is, and as such, don't know how many women swiped left thinking/knowing it was a dummy account. My profile listed his height as 6'1 and I mentioned something about being a model, but not much else.

I wanted to do this for an hour only, just to compare my results to his.

*After an hour, he had 10 matches. One of which was a bot, so really 9 matches.*

While that's triple the amount of what I get, 3 compared to 9, that doesn't really tell the whole story. I was swiping like I normally swiped. Left on girls I'm not into, right on girls I am. I felt that mass swiping would just dilute the study I was trying to conduct and wanted to see what he would get if he did everything exactly like me. He got 6 more matches than me. I don't find that particularly impressive. Of course if that average remains, he'll have 216 matches in a day. That's probably what I would get in a month and a half of swiping, if not more.

But on it's face - one hour for regular me, 3 matches, one hour for model him, 9 matches. Is the difference that stark? I don't think so. It certainly doesn't account for the sheer volume of swipes I made. I must have swiped right on at least 300 girls. And to come away with only 9 matches using a male model's picture? It says to me, at some level, that my profile is limited. It's not being seen by a whole lot of girls. My regular profile and the model one were both shown to the same amount of girls, but obviously he's going to outperform me. Only by 6 though.

What I did find interesting was that after the first 20 minutes or so, I was shown girls I've never been shown before. Deleting your profile as often as I do, you run into a lot of the same girls, sometimes in the exact same order. Meaning I'll make my profile, see 5 girls in a row, delete it, and later on, run into those same 5 girls. But this time, I was taken out of that pool. But it seems like it's moot point as even though I was shown new girls, my match rate was 9 chicks in an hour.

So, I'm not sure if I should make a fresh Facebook account or just leave it be, but it looks like my profile is not being shown to as many girls as I hoped it was. Even when I became a male model.

Also keep in mind it is Saturday and a lot of girls are inactive. But the fact remains, I wanted to see how he'd do given my same set of circumstances.

There were a shit ton of girls that were last active 30 seconds ago, 1 minute ago, 10 minutes ago that definitely would have/should have swiped on him...had they seen him.

3 matches compared to 9, not very impressive IMO. Maybe some people out there are right, maybe there is a more complex algorithm out there, and it's not just good looks = instant flood of matches.

Interesting experience but I don't think you can conclude anything from swiping on a rather inactive day like a Saturday afternoon. Try swiping on peak time like a Wednesday / Thursday night.

The Tinder and OKC seem to be similar as you'll often have girls that recently swiped right on you among the first profiles on your feed, I guess it's positive reinforcement to keep swiping. I'm convinced the app values activity, as active profiles are always shown first, conversely girls who haven't logged in days/weeks/months are always last to be shown by the algo.

Mister X,

It is worth remembering that you are doing this experiment on a Saturday(evening here in the UK), and most girls will have decided which option they are choosing, and/or are already being banged.

But don't give up. I think these types of things are very dependent on timing(time of day/day of week/season/etc...).

@Lizard and Lou - I know it's an inactive day for most girls but that was the whole thing. Right now I'm home swiping. If this dude was home swiping, what would he get with my Facebook? I can get 3 matches or so on a slow day. What can he do? He did 9. To me that just shows that women obviously find him more attractive. But nothing more. Here's my belief:

Out of 500 girls, my profile is shown to...150

Out of that 150, in that window of an hour, 3 girls will say yes to regular me.
Out of that same 150, in the same time frame, 9 girls will say yes to model dude.

To me that is extremely low. Inactive day or not. This is a guy that...if he was shown to 500 girls, should get 320 matches. He should be crushing. He has the height, he has the looks, he lives close to the city.

If I did 3 and he did like...45 in the same time frame, then I can conclude that it's just my pictures, and the amount of women who see my profile is just fine. That it is in fact pictures and pictures alone that rule Tinder.

But the fact that he only did marginally better than me given how much better looking he is, tells me something else is in play here. At least to me.

Another thing is, there are some guys here who have taken a girl's Instagram, and gamed her there, yet they didn't match on Tinder. Why? Because his profile was probably buried on Tinder, so it's not that the girl didn't like him, she never even got to see him.

Looks to be the same issue as regular OLD. Dudes swarming a chick with messages so yours isn't even seen.

Now obviously, the better your pictures are, the more matches you get. But it still doesn't explain why he only did 6 better than me. It's not like I got 3 matches during peak hours and he got 9 on a shitty day. We both operated on a shitty day.

I guess what I was trying to dispel is the belief that, if girls swipe right on you a lot, you start getting shown to more women. And I don't know, maybe my experiment doesn't prove or dispel that one way or another because the window was so small. Maybe model guy would have started gaining momentum, I don't know. I didn't want to compromise my account for very long. As soon as I got the match, I unmatched the girl because I didn't want her to call me out as a fake profile and report my account or something. And that kind of looks weird to unmatch 10 profiles in an hour. I don't know what the effects of that would be on my Facebook and I didn't want to find out.

But 9 matches for a male 10, and 3 for a regular dude, on the same shitty day, in the same time frame...kinda makes me feel alright. We knew he was going to outperform me, but he only did so by a little.

If it was a blowout like 50-3 then I would have to take a real hard look at myself and my pictures.

There has also been talk of guys Tindering right next to each other, being shown completely different girls, or one maybe getting the "no one in your area" message while the other is swiping away.

So even though my experiment was small, I think just in the grand scheme of things it's safe to say not all Facebooks are created equal. What I want to know is, why.

One final thing about all of this, per my last point about not all Facebooks are created equal...

Go into settings and see what it uses.

-Public profile
-Friends list
-Email address
-Relationship interests
-Birthday
-Status updates
-Interests
-Photos
-Personal description
-Likes

Now maybe a lot of you think it's bullshit and believe that, that's just the long way of saying it uses your photos. But what if it's not bullshit? What if there really is an algorithm that shows you women based on what you've liked on Facebook? Based on who you're friends with?

Can we create the optimal Tinder-proof profile? What would we need? Lots of female friends in our friends list? Do we need to like girly pages? How much of your success is really your pictures alone and how much of it is affected by your actual Facebook, altering what women you're shown to and to how many of them you're shown to.

(02-06-2015 03:12 PM)BlurredSevens Wrote:  

(02-06-2015 03:00 PM)tallandblonde Wrote:  

(02-06-2015 02:46 PM)BlurredSevens Wrote:  In my opinion, if you haven't made the effort to get professional photos taken of you to put on tinder, then you really have nothing to add to the conversation.

Who says they have to be done by a professional? Does going and getting a headshot done by a photographer really have that much of an impact on matches?

Go pick up GQ or Esquire. You want to be dressed and styled like the men in there. A pro photographer knows how to do that, how to pick locations, how to make you look like a damn stud.

I agree here 100% and it matches with life experience. A couple hot girls I've banged from online have said if the guy is wearing a suit in his first photo, they'll give him a second look even if they're not initially attracted. Same girls also said they'll automatically swipe left if he isn't wearing a shirt even if they are attracted.

This is in a city that is pretty superficial about fashion, though. If you live somewhere that's beach-y / bro-y then the beach photos might work out.

Why don't you guys(the ones who claim they have professional photos) just show us what kind of pics you have? Simply saying "Make sure you have professional photos!" doesn't help one bit. All you have to do is blur out your face.

(02-07-2015 04:35 PM)Mister X Wrote:  Now obviously, the better your pictures are, the more matches you get. But it still doesn't explain why he only did 6 better than me. It's not like I got 3 matches during peak hours and he got 9 on a shitty day. We both operated on a shitty day.

I guess what I was trying to dispel is the belief that, if girls swipe right on you a lot, you start getting shown to more women. And I don't know, maybe my experiment doesn't prove or dispel that one way or another because the window was so small. Maybe model guy would have started gaining momentum, I don't know. I didn't want to compromise my account for very long. As soon as I got the match, I unmatched the girl because I didn't want her to call me out as a fake profile and report my account or something. And that kind of looks weird to unmatch 10 profiles in an hour. I don't know what the effects of that would be on my Facebook and I didn't want to find out.

But 9 matches for a male 10, and 3 for a regular dude, on the same shitty day, in the same time frame...kinda makes me feel alright. We knew he was going to outperform me, but he only did so by a little.

If it was a blowout like 50-3 then I would have to take a real hard look at myself and my pictures.

There has also been talk of guys Tindering right next to each other, being shown completely different girls, or one maybe getting the "no one in your area" message while the other is swiping away.

So even though my experiment was small, I think just in the grand scheme of things it's safe to say not all Facebooks are created equal. What I want to know is, why.

Thanks for doing the experiment, but your model is kinda faggy-looking, so I don't know if that's part of the problem. Try it with a guy who looks like Joe Mangianello for the real test. He's a bit too famous for you to use, but I'm betting you can find similar. Even then, I won't be surprised if you get about the same number of matches but it'd be interesting to see.

So have they started limiting likes for everyone or are they just doing it to some iPhone users?



Not mine (was posted on the BB misc and I use android) but anyone here got this yet?

^ is that after an update?

(02-07-2015 08:05 PM)Vice Wrote:  So have they started limiting likes for everyone or are they just doing it to some iPhone users?

Not mine (was posted on the BB misc and I use android) but anyone here got this yet?

Crazy

I guess that's why Kosko was "ringing the alarm bells" on this

I'm picturing him up in Toronto right now...

(02-07-2015 08:02 PM)Stun Wrote:  Thanks for doing the experiment, but your model is kinda faggy-looking, so I don't know if that's part of the problem. Try it with a guy who looks like Joe Mangianello for the real test. He's a bit too famous for you to use, but I'm betting you can find similar. Even then, I won't be surprised if you get about the same number of matches but it'd be interesting to see.

Well my thinking was, he had perfect cheekbones, light eyes, just the typical clean cut All-American boy. I think that's a lot less niche than a rugged looking dude. Maybe I can find a dude with some five o clock shadow, maybe David Beckham-esque, but I didn't want to go too niche. I wanted him to catch as many matches as possible. That preppy Abercrombie look.

The other thing is I don't know how popular this dude is. I didn't want to accidentally stumble upon some model dude all chicks know and it would be an obvious fake profile.

Then again even if girls didn't know who he was, maybe they thought it was too good to be true? Like why would a guy like that be on Tinder?

I don't know. All I know is, if we were competing in real life, it surely wouldn't end 9-3, that's for sure.

read about tinder on her since i joined the forum but simply want paying attention. have tried pof with no luck for a couple years.

signed up for tinder 5 days ago have about 40 matches, after weeding out a few crazies or no responses, maybe a handful of potential. traded one number and supposed to get together tomorrow. another potential next week, another messaging over the past few days

I find it interesting as this has the hook up app reputation, and I've never been they type to just hook up, although I wouldn't pass it up. but...the girls i'm messaging don't seem to be in it for hook ups.

maybe that's just my perception and my approach though - with one girl, convo was going well and she was at work, so i said too bad i cant see you now your picture is turning me on - thinking she might want to have fun and get into some dirty convo at work. her response was lame with 'so you're just here to hook up' another girl we've been texting for the whole week - yes got her number 1st day and set a date for drinks.

what are your guys thoughts on the girls who profess 'not here to hookup' ??

also,

one thing i didn't mention in my profile is that i have a kid - and i haven't mentioned it to the 2 potential dates. do you guys think i should add this upfront? i'm concerned that when they ask what i did this weekend and i mention the kid it will take them by surprise and sour potential next steps - like i was hiding something - or they just wont want to be involved.

thanks guys

^ Don't say you have a kid unless they explicitly ask you. You'll definitely miss out on a lot of potential matches if you put that in your profile. As for them saying they're not looking to hook up, just ignore it and push for the date, or make fun of her for wanting a relationship(eg: don't tell me you expect to find your future husband on this app). A girl unmatched me today after I told her that "I'm just here to have fun." Apparently she was looking to have a relationship, and of all places, she decided Tinder was her best bet of finding one. Ha.

Thought this was interesting.

^^^What I figured, beard is niche. Don't let social media fool you into thinking a beard = endless pussy parade. Although if you do have a beard and you find one of those girls who's into it, don't fuck it up game is all you need.

I worked for P&G (who owns and runs Gillette) and i know how these numbers are "created". I would not trust a single one of them. Also, Gillette is struggling with guys shaving less and as a consequence their sales go down. Obviously, they have a huge interest in finding some kind of data, that suggests that shaving is better than not shaving. Never trust data, which you haven't faked yourself!

Shocking a Gillette sponsored survey would be pro clean shaven. Let me guess, next survey sponsored by Axe will say women prefer gel in a man's hair.

(02-08-2015 02:02 PM)Mister X Wrote:  ^^^What I figured, beard is niche. Don't let social media fool you into thinking a beard = endless pussy parade. Although if you do have a beard and you find one of those girls who's into it, don't fuck it up game is all you need.

A full blown beard fetish is niche but women liking beards is not niche. There are very few women who do not like beards across the board. They are usually referring to guys with shitty beards. Even women who say they don't like beards will admit certain guys look really good in them. I've read multiple times women saying Jamie Dornan(50 Shades of Grey Actor) looks much better in a beard than clean shaven.

Its kind of like a girl saying she doesn't like long hair on a guy. She usually doesn't mean that across the board. If she sees someone looking like Harry Styles or Hayden Christensen from the third Star Wars then it's a different ballgame. Same thing with beards. If you can grow a really good beard it's an advantage.

Moral of the story is to not change your appearance based on silly surveys. You need to use your brain and find what works best for you.

(02-08-2015 02:05 PM)Special1 Wrote:  I worked for P&G (who owns and runs Gillette) and i know how these numbers are "created". I would not trust a single one of them. Also, Gillette is struggling with guys shaving less and as a consequence their sales go down. Obviously, they have a huge interest in finding some kind of data, that suggests that shaving is better than not shaving. Never trust data, which you haven't faked yourself!

Exactly. They're not even hiding it.

The last image says that when men shave they get 19% more swipes.

But note those pesky little little cross symbols - keep your ZZ Top beard a bit longer, what they actually found was that looking like a you sleep rough was a poor choice of image for a dating site based on attractiveness.

I am unsurprised.

So... What ive noticed about tinder recently.. Is that , it seems like tinder will recycle girls if you dont match.

I haven't restarted my tinder.. But I have noticed that ever couple days.. sometimes I see the same girls in the line up.

Does anyone else notice this?

Here's a Tinder experiment where supposedly good-looking guys run caveman, autism, etc. game and chicks are still down:

http://www.tinderrage.blogspot.ca/

Can anyone tell me what happened here? She unmatched me after I texted her and didn't text me back... Bot? Flake?


   

^ Yep, that's a bot. They're getting smarter. Haha.