Cheesr Jamie

I was actually thinking about this exact thing the other night and while I have absolutely no experience creating an app I did have an idea. We separate everyone on the app into groups of 100, 50 men and 50 women so each individual is limited to swiping on and talking to just 50 people and that’s it for one month. After the month is over it resets and everyone is put into a different group with new people. No elo scores, just a totally random group of 50 people you can either reject or try to match with. Now after watching this video I realize that it probably won’t work because women won’t be shown only the “top quality men” they’ve become accustomed to seeing but if we could get women to use the app it would solve so many problems. Out of 50 people you might only get 10 matches in a month so it would drastically lower the amount of ghosting because women wouldn’t be picking and choosing out of dozens of guys. Everyone is on an equal playing field and everyone gets a fair shot. Again, after watching this video it’s pretty clear to me why it would never work but just thought I would share my idea. I took the time to think it up, I might as well tell someone about it because I do think if we could somehow make a system like this desirable to women or market it in the right way, it would work so much better than traditional dating apps

Yea it won’t work because there other dating apps out there they’ll just leave to go join Now if yours is the ONLY dating app that exists on earth then women will have no choice but to suck it up and stay if they wanna do online dating

Well - remember to delete your account before you delete your app. ;)

Tinder is a bit of an artform to some degree - it's easy to inadvertantly create a profile that won't get matches - It's not specifically Vegas, that's a Tinder issue everywhere sadly.

Big fan of stoicism here :)

Thanks so much ItzZehDiego!

Yeah Thomas, you'll defintiely always get hotter women doing cold approaching I agree with you there for sure - as a 37 year old man, I also always pick up younger women more frequently with cold approaches too.

@@SchoolOfAttraction how (hot and) young can you still go at your age? ;-) asking as a 25year old..

I agree with all of what he said but do you really want to have to put in so much effort for scraps online? Whats the point? Unless you are the top 10 percent of men that's what you will get no matter how hard you work. That's completely different than what you could get in real life. Most men can get a woman close to his SMV in real life. Unless you are in the top tier of men you are going to have to settle for way below your station online....so its really not worth it. Get offline and go meet people in person.

Apparently it's not uncommon for the top 5% of men to be downdating consistently in online dating, have a read: www.bodipua.com/tinder-2/

@@yousmallfish5069 That's not surprising. The problem is that they downdate at all. Have some respect for yourself and dont settle for scraps online.

No unfortunatley - Tinder gives you a unique rank for different locations now.

People are on multiple apps, but they tend to spend the lion's share on one particular app... For eample a while back, I was 80% on Hinge, now I'm back to 80% on Tinder. Just depends where you're receiving the most attention.

How many people did you meet with in person on dates that were at least cute?

Yeah, same here

Yeah thats just how it works. Your elo score drops massivly after the first day ive noticed this aswell for myself

You pretty much gotta rebuild your profile from the ground up again if you're gonna do a reset; otherwise all those women who swiped left will just do it again. Maybe you gotta put some more work in your profile to make your ELO last longer, or maybe you just don't live in the greatest location to get consistent results just because of the population alone? Good luck.

What apps are you referring to btw?

This is where we differ - at the end I pointed out "Life isn't fair" You can't walk around trying to change that fact - you have to go around doing the best wtih what you have. I said that it's fair becuase it's organic human behaviour, like it or leave it. But dont' try to change it, because that's just being a victim and wasting time and energy.

@@SchoolOfAttraction Many things that are organic human behaviour are not fair. Xenophobia, for example - the so-called parochial altruism, "love your group, hate another groups", is basic human behaviour, but it is not fair, and people make movements to combat xenophobia. You cannot make an assessment about something being ethical just because it's natural. But, in the end, I agree with you - we should play with the cards we get.

@@Straga_Severa well said, I agree with both of your angles.

@@woudjee2 Thank you!

But Dum Dum, you have ot think more broadly - if it were that 'obvious' to create an app that really gave people what they wanted - wouldn't someone just create that app and become a billionaire? The whole social dynamics of the thing is complicated. If it weren't, other apps would take over.

@@SchoolOfAttraction Hasn't Hinge added messaging limits and other features to make for a better user experience only recently? Large corporations innovate in response to threats to their market share. Otherwise, if they aren't aggressively targeting growth, they will be stubbornly resistant to change. This glacial pace of progress is comparable to other industries. For example, intermittent delay for windshield wipers weren't commonplace until around 1976. Wipers themselves were not standard equipment on autos until after 1940. Any grassroots effort to create a better platform is up against a completely saturated attention economy and no user base to begin with. An industry magazine stated in 2007 that online dating startups succeed 1% of the time. Yikes. www.onlinedatingmagazine.com/columns/industry/2007/startinganonlinedatingservice.html

The rating system is an inevitable part of the success of a dating site though, the reason not being that of match results, but the traffic coming into the app; that's how these apps make money, to give you the incentive of potentially meeting and hooking up with a 10. For example, you can compare a dating app to a club: Clubs often have women come in for free, or free drinks to a certain point of the night, or some other kind of financial discount for the sake of having more women coming into the club. Reason being is that the more beautiful women showing up brings in more male customers. In every case, despite this business model actually working, there will always be more men than women. You can blame human nature for that incongruity. The difference between a dating app and the club IS that ranking system. Clubs go through cycles, often times with that incentive of hotter women bringing in more men eventually kills itself off; as the male clientele begin to over-saturate the business, women tend to flock elsewhere because all the men in town caught on that there are tons of hot women at this club, and these women are turned off by all these undesirable guys approaching them. And now that all the hot women are gone, all the men start going elsewhere too. Its a somewhat common thing for clubs to mysteriously burn down, because its more financially desirable to claim insurance and build a new club that excites people to check it out and start that cycle all over again. These tech companies running dating apps would not benefit from burning their apps down and making new ones, because they're a brand, not a club. They succeed with more and more traffic. The ranking system prevents hot women from the leaving the app, because their choices are limited to higher quality men. And because their app retains legitimate profiles of hot women, men continue to flock the app. Despite there being more men than women just like the clubs, that ranking system protects their retention rate and is the very reason that brings you there in the first place. So the hotter women really are the most valuable customer. Like Damian said, life's not fair, but its what you have work with until something better comes along, and you have to work to make it work. How women rate you is different than how men rate women. We arguably have way more to work with than women. All you have to do is be that much better than all the not-self-aware men's profiles to have an edge.

Ronny - when it comes to bars, clubs, house parties and online dating - wherever tehre are the hottest women - men will flock - even though most men will never get those super hot women. That's why clubs and bars let the hot women in for free - it just ensures that everyone else wants to get in.

It may not be obvious from my videos, but my hair is starting to badly thin, especially badly at the back of my head. So my hairstyle options are very limited. But again - I don't need better results personally so it wouldnt' really be a focus for me anyway.

Eh.... we’ll all lose our hair at some point anyways...

Porque no los dos? :P

So... There's a difference between what the end user would be happiest wiht long term and how the end user 'votes' with their eyebalsl and app usage. The latter being ultimately what matters to profitability and the app's ability to survive and compete. So if I launch an app tomorrow called... Timbler - and Timbler doesn't focus on looks, more personality matches... Men will go on there and be shown more unattractive women, they'll perceive Tinder to have hotter women (becuase it's showing you hoth women) so the majority of men will go back to Tinder. The same would happen with women. So long as ther eare OTHER apps out there showing you the HOTTEST and most superficially desireable people around you - nobody will invest much time in an app that matches you wiht people you'd realistically match witih based on personality. Which is tragic... But very hard to fix without going bankrupt.

@@SchoolOfAttraction Its an interesting conundrum - and I do get the idea that a dating app will be seen as most valuable the more it can recommend desireable matches. The pre-swipe ok cupid did this based on survey responses for example. The approach of using swipes as proxies for attractiveness doesn't measure attractiveness directly, it measures whether people swipe right on you, which may be attractiveness but is also other things - and then it ranks you based on how often people swipe right on you and how often others who themselves are often swiped right on also swipe right on you. At that point, I feel the matching gets pretty questionable - as we seem to see given that people seem to run into so many issues when they do date recommended matches. Its also handing the app a lot power for deciding for you who you get to see. This is especially true now that all the apps seem to have adopted the swipe approach

the apps could provide swipe matches as an option perhaps, as opposed to the only possible approach - if people do see this as a valuable approach they could just turn it on but if they want to see less engineered matches based on proximity or whatever they could also choose that option

Yeah it really is a conundrum.... Something that I honestly think would help would just be limiting the number of matches you can have at any one time... Maybe to 3 or 5... Also, taking response rate into much higher account when considering profile ranking. Those two things would ensure a much more even distribution of matches (although still far form fair probably). - And would ensure more people engage in converation with the matches they have. Doesn't exactly fix all the issues - but I feel it would go a long way in the right direction. Definitely when it comes to match quality - the oldl school dating websites of 10 - 15 years ago did a far superior job.

@@SchoolOfAttraction that’s actually a pretty elegant solution I think. It wouldn’t require jettisoning the whole swipe- based approach which , as you you say, has strong appeal for some reasons. And it would likely incent users to create more compelling profiles, returning somewhat to the older approaches where more info was provided in the bio, interests, “what I’m looking for” etc sections. It would also make repetitive matching less of a quick dopamine hit

And?

Hahah yeah I don't see the problem :P

Wise women ☝️