Post: #6001

I'm coming to terms with that; there are very few decent girls that do online dating. I mean let's face it the good ones have plenty of men hitting on them in real life and don't have to resort to online stuff (trendy stuff like tinder MAYBE being an exception).
All this is teaching me is I need to do more approached IRL and sharpen my game there. That's for another thread though.

Post: #6002

I'm tellin' ya, if I see the motherfuckin' height requirement on here on more damn time . . .

Post: #6003

(12-31-2016 02:51 AM)Eugenics Wrote:  I'm coming to terms with that; there are very few decent girls that do online dating.

IMHO, online dating is doing to the club scene the same thing eCommerce is doing to retail. It's simply more convenient to use online dating sites rather than to physically go out and hang at a club. I know some women enjoy the ambience (sort of like how people still go to theaters rather than relying on home video) but I just don't buy the stigma argument anymore. Online dating is mainstream, period.

Post: #6004

As a dude who has never done online dating, but has a couple friends who do it, it seems like a total waste of time, not to mention, an enormous risk.

The odds of the girl you meet with being a catfish/looking nothing like the photos/being a tranny/being a prostitution whore/having STDs seem highly likely.

Also, you're telling your subconscious mind that you're a POS, who can't get girls through actual cold approach. Lastly, who wants to sit in their room with their dick in their hand messaging hundreds of girls just to get one meet-up?

Post: #6005

(01-14-2017 03:54 PM)questor70 Wrote:  

(12-31-2016 02:51 AM)Eugenics Wrote:  I'm coming to terms with that; there are very few decent girls that do online dating.

IMHO, online dating is doing to the club scene the same thing eCommerce is doing to retail. It's simply more convenient to use online dating sites rather than to physically go out and hang at a club. I know some women enjoy the ambience (sort of like how people still go to theaters rather than relying on home video) but I just don't buy the stigma argument anymore. Online dating is mainstream, period.

Yeah, but when you go to the bar/club, you ACTUALLY know what the girl looks like, not to mention you can feel out the vibe/connection.

There is zero connection online plus the odds of the girl actually looking like the photos is slim.

Post: #6006

I took Black Dragon's browsing strategy for a spin last night, and I can't believe the results I'm getting just from the 1st session! It's unbelievable. Hopefully I can effectively capitalize off of this . . .

Post: #6007

(01-19-2017 10:16 AM)Mess O. Wrote:  I took Black Dragon's browsing strategy for a spin last night, and I can't believe the results I'm getting just from the 1st session! It's unbelievable. Hopefully I can effectively capitalize off of this . . .

Link?

Post: #6008

http://www.blackdragonblog.com/2012/07/1...-profiles/

Do it this way. I'm fuckin' serious.

Post: #6009

So OKC isn't dead yet?

Post: #6010

I'm still getting lays from it. It's still the only popular and viable online dating platform that is free and you can easily spam "approach" girls. You have to match with girls on Tinder to message them, and you have to match and get opened on bumble. POF as far as I know is practically a graveyard.

I had an OKC date last week and I have one lined up this week and another who is seeing me next week.

(01-19-2017 02:24 PM)Mess O. Wrote:  http://www.blackdragonblog.com/2012/07/1...-profiles/

Do it this way. I'm fuckin' serious.

This is great and is the best way to use OKC and it's wide-open messaging feature to your advantage. Online is all about numbers baby. Take advantage of the extreme ease of use.

Post: #6011

Tinder really ruined online dating especially for guys who aren't physically attractive. OKCupid and POF were goldmines from 08-12 era. OKC is much better for "gaming" girls. You can send her a good message. You can write a great profile. Those two things are meaningless on Tinder. Tinder is all pics with the profile pic being 95% of that. Plus Tinder brought in more flakey girls that are les serious into the online dating realm.

Post: #6012

(01-14-2017 06:08 PM)Naughty By Nature Wrote:  The odds of the girl you meet with being a catfish/looking nothing like the photos/being a tranny/being a prostitution whore/having STDs seem highly likely.

Dude, you watch too many sitcoms. I've met probably 40-50 chicks from online and never experienced anything you just mentioned. The worst that ever happens is totally mundane stuff; she flakes, she's a couple notches less attractive than her photos, she's boring as fuck, she rejects you, etc.

The only significant downside risk to online dating is wasting your time, which unfortunately is a fact of life for any type of dating.

Post: #6013

It still amazes me how often I'll scope a profile to find that the chick gets visibly fatter through the spread of pix, with the cover pic being the most presentable, of course.

Post: #6014

I am using OKC again (along with Tinder) but the talent doesn't seem to be as good. The nice thing about OKC, like Stalin said, is that you can message any girl right off the bat. This can be a bad thing though as every needy beta out there is doing the same thing. So make sure your first message is unique and clever. Also like that blackdragon blog said, it's a numbers game...so your best bet is just to message every chick you find semi-attractive.

Post: #6015

OK Cupid, because of the questionaire, is for girls who are more open about revealing personal info (like everything there is to know about their sexuality). This provides a strong demographic filter. You'd think this would make them more DTF but I've never met anyone off of it. Maybe that's because I don't want to go for sluts or they don't think I'm attractive enough or whatever. I do find it a real mind-f*ck to know before you even meet them whether they are into this or that sexual act. It's something that sounds better in theory than it is in practice as you will often see some demure looking single mom of young kids who is into the sickest crap in the world.

Post: #6016

Again, dudes, I can't believe the results I'm getting from just a day's worth of using this new strategy. But, of course, time will tell if these prospects are for real or not . . .

Post: #6017

(01-20-2017 11:42 AM)Mess O. Wrote:  Again, dudes, I can't believe the results I'm getting from just a day's worth of using this new strategy. But, of course, time will tell if these prospects are for real or not . . .

You're facing a novelty bias - if you're new on any online dating service you're going to get a huge amount of responses early on as you are the novelty. Same goes if you suddenly upgrade your profile or in OKC's case use the browsing strategy. Once you've gone through the local batch of women who are interested in you, the responses come in much slower.

I've had this happen as well: got new profile pictures, saw huge increase in interest across the board on several apps and now the responses in terms of quality and quantity is back to 'normal' levels - with perhaps a slight bump in the number of 7s and 8s, though it's marginal

Post: #6018

I definitely hear ya on that one, Genghis, but I think this is a unique instance, at least for me, certainly, as this is not a new profile or pix or anything. It's all in the approach to formatting the messaging and the pace and efficiency. At least for right now, we see a night/day difference, so hopefully we see some real profit from it. It's certainly time-efficient now, for damn sure.

Post: #6019

(01-20-2017 08:14 PM)Mess O. Wrote:  I definitely hear ya on that one, Genghis, but I think this is a unique instance, at least for me, certainly, as this is not a new profile or pix or anything. It's all in the approach to formatting the messaging and the pace and efficiency. At least for right now, we see a night/day difference, so hopefully we see some real profit from it. It's certainly time-efficient now, for damn sure.

Thanks for posting your progress.

In my experience, customization of messages yielded me the highest response to meet up rate. Mass messaging women will get you responses, but responses only get you so far. When I build the connection, getting the number is easy. Building rapport is the best way for you to transition to dates.

PM me if you need advice or assistance.

Post: #6020

Edited

Post: #6021

(01-20-2017 06:39 PM)Genghis Khan Wrote:  You're facing a novelty bias - if you're new on any online dating service you're going to get a huge amount of responses early on as you are the novelty. Same goes if you suddenly upgrade your profile or in OKC's case use the browsing strategy. Once you've gone through the local batch of women who are interested in you, the responses come in much slower.

Cosign. The Ctrl+V mass messaging strategy everyone gets so hyped up about ignores one key fact: there is a limited supply of desirable women in your area. You'll run out in no time.

Given this scarcity, your best bet is to maximize the probability of response for each desirable target you come across (by sending quality messages), rather than trying to maximize your # of responses per minute spent messaging as though your options are infinite.

Post: #6022

I know full well that Remington is one of our most credible gentlemen, and in addition to what else I've read here over the last day, I've got a few things to think about. Maybe a sort of combining of tactics, like tweaking and tayloring messages, but a hell of a lot of them. In all fairness, I've never heard of the "cut-and-paste" method for this before, really. And again, so far, the results are pretty impressive, but we'll see if what y'all's have prophecized comes to light - that being the pool quickly drying up.

Post: #6023

Still can't believe how many empty profiles with full inboxes I run into. Jesus Christ.

Post: #6024

Nice to see guys are still pulling from this old chestnut. I haven't been on this thread in a while because I've pretty much given up using the site seriously for the time being. Went on a lot of dates, got some solid lays from it in the last half of 2015 and into 2016, but I got burned out on it and am slowly slouching towards possible monogamy with one girl I like a lot. I just don't have the patience for it at the moment.

I spent one evening spamming 20 messages or so in December in exchange for zero replies, something that as far as I can recall has never happened. It's "cuffing season" and dead as fuk around here. Maybe I'll check back in around V-day, I did really well then last year. Anyway, for anyone just joining in don't listen to talk about how the girls are all fat feminist trannies, you could never pull a 7+ from there, you're going to get catfished etc. because it's all nonsense!

Post: #6025

Quote:Nice to see guys are still pulling from this old chestnut. I haven't been on this thread in a while because I've pretty much given up using the site seriously for the time being. Went on a lot of dates, got some solid lays from it in the last half of 2015 and into 2016, but I got burned out on it and am slowly slouching towards possible monogamy with one girl I like a lot. I just don't have the patience for it at the moment.

Great to see you back in the thread. Like you, I've not dabbled in online in a while as I've been slouching toward monogamy with the the one girl for a while now. I had my best years online in 2013 and 2014 and the burnout you speak of is very familiar. The ROI became poor and I just lost all patience for it. I was still getting laid, but not with the ease and frequency that had once made online so beneficial. I also couldn't deal with the ghosting after the make-outs and being blocked after the ONS near-misses.

Online can still be a supplement though, and it's good to know it's always there.