Ti**** Posted September 26 Don't mean to bust your bubble Violet. But the average dude has to put in much more effort than the average woman on these apps to even get a crumb of attention.
ey**** Posted September 26 5 hours ago, Legionis said: Men feel much the same way. Let me ask: how many men do you approach vs how many approach you? Statistics matter. Men see only about a 5% response rate, where women get a 45% response rate. We get fewer messages and they seldom go anywhere because women suffer from a perpetual case of "the grass is greener" and they hold out for "better options". It's not a whine. It's psychological. Men, therefore aren't going to effort-post when they get rejected 95% of the time anyway. It's a bad time ROI. I'm not entirely sure where you get these statistics from though for the sake of my argument, I won't dispute them. However whilst statistics matter, you are misrepresenting statistics which is dishonest. And treating women as a "ROI" goes to show how low you value women anyway. I personally get a much better than 5% response rate. On here it's something like 80% which is probably consistent elsewhere. Of course, not everything goes somewhere - sure - but you're talking here about 'response'. My response rate is likely so high because I am very, perhaps too, selective over who I reach out to in the first place. And when I do, there's an effort. The reason some guys get a low response rate shouldn't be difficult to work out. They send too many message, they're less selective, their messages are often low effort. And, yeah, perhaps do have to do more to 'stand out' cos of so many other guys doing the same. Similarly, yeah, women are less likely to make the first move for a few reasons. One is also because they are typically more selective, going for someone who seems interesting rather than sending out lots of messages and hoping for the best. But also, cos... a lot who do reach out have this thing in the back of the head which is "will this be conversational, or will the guy think he's 'in' and turn it sexually pretty quickly" as is sadly often the case. I've known women reach out to folk to be helpful and it's assumed it was an invitation to hit on them. Women's high response rate is a mixture of them being more selective and also men not being.... that a man is more likely to reply to someone even if the person doesn't seem a match "incase it goes somewhere" rather than just leaving it. For me one of the biggest things I wonder though... Let's say tomorrow a guy logs on here, or elsewhere, or whatever - and his inbox is glowing - every single woman he message in the last month have replied to him. What does he do here? Does he really try to hold 10, 20, 30, 50, more, conversations? Or does he focus on the messages that stand out, or look for where 'the grass is greener' and the 'better options' - like in messaging multiple women guys are already playing them off against each other
Le**** Posted September 26 2 hours ago, eyemblacksheep said: I'm not entirely sure where you get these statistics from though for the sake of my argument, I won't dispute them. However whilst statistics matter, you are misrepresenting statistics which is dishonest. And treating women as a "ROI" goes to show how low you value women anyway. I personally get a much better than 5% response rate. On here it's something like 80% which is probably consistent elsewhere. Of course, not everything goes somewhere - sure - but you're talking here about 'response'. My response rate is likely so high because I am very, perhaps too, selective over who I reach out to in the first place. And when I do, there's an effort. The reason some guys get a low response rate shouldn't be difficult to work out. They send too many message, they're less selective, their messages are often low effort. And, yeah, perhaps do have to do more to 'stand out' cos of so many other guys doing the same. Similarly, yeah, women are less likely to make the first move for a few reasons. One is also because they are typically more selective, going for someone who seems interesting rather than sending out lots of messages and hoping for the best. But also, cos... a lot who do reach out have this thing in the back of the head which is "will this be conversational, or will the guy think he's 'in' and turn it sexually pretty quickly" as is sadly often the case. I've known women reach out to folk to be helpful and it's assumed it was an invitation to hit on them. Women's high response rate is a mixture of them being more selective and also men not being.... that a man is more likely to reply to someone even if the person doesn't seem a match "incase it goes somewhere" rather than just leaving it. For me one of the biggest things I wonder though... Let's say tomorrow a guy logs on here, or elsewhere, or whatever - and his inbox is glowing - every single woman he message in the last month have replied to him. What does he do here? Does he really try to hold 10, 20, 30, 50, more, conversations? Or does he focus on the messages that stand out, or look for where 'the grass is greener' and the 'better options' - like in messaging multiple women guys are already playing them off against each other My stats are taken from the most heavily studied of dating apps, Tinder. You don't need to "dispute" them. Google will give you the same numbers in about 10 seconds Secondly, the fact that an exception exists doesn't change the rule, or trend. Good for you for getting a high response rate! Did you want a cookie? These are averages. Medians. No one denies exceptions exist. Their existence doesn't change the behavioral trend. The rest or your explanation to *why* women act the way they do is irrelevant. What IS interesting is how you equate the behavior of messaging multiple people at once to men, when it is typically women who send and receive more messages than men and often across multiple men at the same time. Is this the being selective" part you mentioned?
ey**** Posted September 26 25 minutes ago, Legionis said: My stats are taken from the most heavily studied of dating apps, Tinder. You don't need to "dispute" them. Google will give you the same numbers in about 10 seconds So I found assorted studies. And, yep. I repeat that you're misrepresenting the statistics. So I found one from goonlife which has women swiping right on 5% of profiles. That's not a 5% response rate. Men on the other hand average at a swipe of 50%. So yep, in essence men are going to get fewer matches due to being less selective Swipestats backs this up - men who swipe right on fewer than 4% of profiles get an 11.85% match rate which is much better than the 2.19% match rate of swiping everyone However... before I get into more. Firstly presenting findings from tinder doesn't mean other dating sites follow the same format or formula. Among other things the mechanics is different compared to other sites. 36 minutes ago, Legionis said: it is typically women who send and receive more messages than men and often across multiple men at the same time. Is this the being selective" part you mentioned? Well you've contradicted your previous post here - like you said men receive fewer messages. If women send more to more men, then men most receive more?! Unless of course you're continuing to misunderstand/misrepresent stats. For example on "match based" sites, then yes often women will send an opeing message following the match. 40 minutes ago, Legionis said: Secondly, the fact that an exception exists doesn't change the rule, or trend. Good for you for getting a high response rate! Did you want a cookie? These are averages. Medians. No one denies exceptions exist. Their existence doesn't change the behavioral trend. the question is of course WHY exceptions exist. The reason so many men have low response rates is because their effort is low.
Vi**** Posted September 26 11 hours ago, Legionis said: Men feel much the same way. Let me ask: how many men do you approach vs how many approach you? Statistics matter. Men see only about a 5% response rate, where women get a 45% response rate. We get fewer messages and they seldom go anywhere because women suffer from a perpetual case of "the grass is greener" and they hold out for "better options". It's not a whine. It's psychological. Men, therefore aren't going to effort-post when they get rejected 95% of the time anyway. It's a bad time ROI. Actually, men are highly responsive to our profile. We're approaching women right now. Three we spoke with and got up to the point of preparing to greenlight a meet up, return the next day to a "deleted member" thread. To be fair, our scenario is very narrow, so we don't expect a ton of activity, but on the same token, don't waste my time or his by pretending to be legit. I stopped even telling my partner when I have a responsive person for this reason.
da**** Posted September 26 3 hours ago, Legionis said: My stats are taken from the most heavily studied of dating apps, Tinder. You don't need to "dispute" them. Google will give you the same numbers in about 10 seconds Secondly, the fact that an exception exists doesn't change the rule, or trend. Good for you for getting a high response rate! Did you want a cookie? These are averages. Medians. No one denies exceptions exist. Their existence doesn't change the behavioral trend. The rest or your explanation to *why* women act the way they do is irrelevant. What IS interesting is how you equate the behavior of messaging multiple people at once to men, when it is typically women who send and receive more messages than men and often across multiple men at the same time. Is this the being selective" part you mentioned? Good old fashion American education. Dude the problem is you. IF YOU USE STATS THEN GIVE A PLACE TO FIND THEM. REFERENCE. Also don’t use mla, that’s for 5 yrs. But just from looking at your profile, eh. You contradict yourself in your bio. Maybe if you want more responses be more clear and direct. And don’t say stupid sh*t like this. Half of what your saying is that woman are “bitches” because they don’t give YOU the time of day. Ask yourself why and do some self improving
SJ**** Posted September 26 Yesterday at 12:40 PM, Violetbi1140 said: To be fair, if we actually do get into a decent conversation, the recipient seems to delete their account two days later. Either way, we're tired of having our effort wasted. Violet, I think everyone's describing the same kind of frustration -- putting in effort and feeling like it goes nowhere. I understand why men facing constant rejection start treating dating as a numbers game. But flooding inboxes with generic messages leaves people with more to sift through and less reason to engage. It's a self-feeding cycle. I'd rather approach fewer people who genuinely interest me and put some thought into it. Nobody owes anyone a response, but when two people do connect, a little curiosity, reciprocity, and consistency would go a long way. I think we're all pretty tired of feeling disposable. And if they don't respond after several days, that's more of a comment on them than anything we did. Either way, I would also caution against self-serving bias. At some point, if you're consistently getting the same results from different people, it's worth examining the one variable they all have in common: your approach.
SJ**** Posted September 26 15 minutes ago, daddysgoodgirl08 said: Good old fashion American education. Dude the problem is you. IF YOU USE STATS THEN GIVE A PLACE TO FIND THEM. REFERENCE. Also don’t use mla, that’s for 5 yrs. But just from looking at your profile, eh. You contradict yourself in your bio. Maybe if you want more responses be more clear and direct. And don’t say stupid sh*t like this. Half of what your saying is that woman are “bitches” because they don’t give YOU the time of day. Ask yourself why and do some self improving Thank you. Why is it so difficult to understand that the burden of proof lies on the claimant?? Lol 😆
Le**** Posted September 26 5 hours ago, eyemblacksheep said: the question is of course WHY exceptions exist. The reason so many men have low response rates is because their effort is low. I didn't contradict anything. How do you not understand that women send and receive more messages than men because they are sending and receiving to and from multiple men at the same time. Each individual man may only receive 10 messages to and from a woman, for example, however if that woman is speaking to a hundred different men. Well, you do the math
Le**** Posted September 26 3 hours ago, daddysgoodgirl08 said: Good old fashion American education. Dude the problem is you. IF YOU USE STATS THEN GIVE A PLACE TO FIND THEM. REFERENCE. Also don’t use mla, that’s for 5 yrs. But just from looking at your profile, eh. You contradict yourself in your bio. Maybe if you want more responses be more clear and direct. And don’t say stupid sh*t like this. Half of what your saying is that woman are “bitches” because they don’t give YOU the time of day. Ask yourself why and do some self improving I didn't call women bitches. Those are your words. You are reading what you *want* to read in order to justify your outrage. I also didn't contradict myself in my bio. You seem angry and accusatory. Good luck with that 👍
Le**** Posted September 26 2 hours ago, SJVox said: Thank you. Why is it so difficult to understand that the burden of proof lies on the claimant?? Lol 😆 Every claim need not be backed up, especially when the information is readily apparent. Is It the state of the education system that you are taught to engage in gish gallop and black holing when someone presents a point? He asked where the data came from, I told him how to find it. He then did poor math in the next post by conflating total responses with response rates. Two entirely different thing. It's true that the same 10 people who respond to me would make my response rate 100% if I only asked those 10, instead of the 250 interactions it takes to narrow it down.
Le**** Posted September 26 6 hours ago, eyemblacksheep said: the question is of course WHY exceptions exist. The reason so many men have low response rates is because their effort is low. As to why the exceptions exist, you are being presumptuous. Anecdotally, response rates are unaffected by effort posting or not. It's easy to claim "try harder" is the solution, until you tell that solution to the opposite sex, apparently. OP makes a lot of good points the message receivers can use to live up and test interactions. But how dare we suggest women could or should do anything better?
SJ**** Posted September 26 2 hours ago, Legionis said: Every claim need not be backed up, especially when the information is readily apparent. Is It the state of the education system that you are taught to engage in gish gallop and black holing when someone presents a point? He asked where the data came from, I told him how to find it. He then did poor math in the next post by conflating total responses with response rates. Two entirely different thing. It's true that the same 10 people who respond to me would make my response rate 100% if I only asked those 10, instead of the 250 interactions it takes to narrow it down. C'mon... someone asked you where your numbers came from, and I pointed out that the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Why should someone else have to do the homework to substantiate your claim? See what I'm saying? And yes, I understand your example. Women can have more conversations overall while individual men receive fewer messages. But we're still mixing up swipes, matches and actual responses, none of which tells us why someone chooses not to engage. What interests me more is your example of approaching 250 people to find 10 who respond. Why are you taking such a shotgun approach? What's your actual purpose in doing this, just to get a response from someone, anyone? That's precisely why I favor being selective in the first place. I'd rather approach people I'm genuinely interested in and put some thought into those conversations. I get that dating can be frustrating. But if we're consistently getting disappointing results, surely it's worth examining how we're approaching people rather than assuming the problem lies with everyone we're approaching.
Le**** Posted September 27 5 hours ago, SJVox said: C'mon... someone asked you where your numbers came from, and I pointed out that the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Why should someone else have to do the homework to substantiate your claim? See what I'm saying? And yes, I understand your example. Women can have more conversations overall while individual men receive fewer messages. But we're still mixing up swipes, matches and actual responses, none of which tells us why someone chooses not to engage. What interests me more is your example of approaching 250 people to find 10 who respond. Why are you taking such a shotgun approach? What's your actual purpose in doing this, just to get a response from someone, anyone? That's precisely why I favor being selective in the first place. I'd rather approach people I'm genuinely interested in and put some thought into those conversations. I get that dating can be frustrating. But if we're consistently getting disappointing results, surely it's worth examining how we're approaching people rather than assuming the problem lies with everyone we're approaching. The example of 250 to get 10 isn't about the shotgun approach, it's about the fact that selectivity doesn't tell you which 10 will respond. It's not about asking everyone at once and hoping for a response, it's about slog. Talk, fail, talk, fail, talk, fail..over and over again. And out of those 10? They might lead to some chatting, but as the ladies are perpetually complaining about, they usually go cold. All that work for 0 options is why men check out and go passport bro. I'm always amused at how a simple thread on "this is a problem men have" topic with female interaction (which was the OP's intent) and suggestions how women could change their interactivity style to better their OWN experience turns into a white knighting session on why men just need to "do better".
ey**** Posted September 27 7 hours ago, Legionis said: As to why the exceptions exist, you are being presumptuous. Anecdotally, response rates are unaffected by effort posting or not. It's easy to claim "try harder" is the solution, until you tell that solution to the opposite sex, apparently. OP makes a lot of good points the message receivers can use to live up and test interactions. But how dare we suggest women could or should do anything better? you've been citing studies and the studies you cite show that higher effort yields higher response are we going off studies now or your own experience? Could women do things better - sure - but right now you're blaming women for your own poor response rate.
Le**** Posted September 27 15 minutes ago, eyemblacksheep said: you've been citing studies and the studies you cite show that higher effort yields higher response are we going off studies now or your own experience? Could women do things better - sure - but right now you're blaming women for your own poor response rate. Wrong and presumptive. I'm not "blaming" women, as you put it, I merely mentioned the response trends and how they lead to frustration in men. That comment was in response to another poster responding to OP by dumping on men with a "do better" post. The OP's intent was clearly explanatory, and not permissive. And we aren't discussing MY response rate, nor have we ever been. So your attempted jab is both hollow and apparent. My only reference to MY experience was that effort posting was irrelevant to response rates. That's a qualitative statement, not quantitative. I've made no mention of what those rates are. Anything else is just a hopeful inference from you.
Do**** Posted September 27 Do you know why? Because you never get a normal reply. Then you get simple Hi's and How are you's.
Vi**** Posted September 27 12 hours ago, SJVox said: Violet, I think everyone's describing the same kind of frustration -- putting in effort and feeling like it goes nowhere. I understand why men facing constant rejection start treating dating as a numbers game. But flooding inboxes with generic messages leaves people with more to sift through and less reason to engage. It's a self-feeding cycle. I'd rather approach fewer people who genuinely interest me and put some thought into it. Nobody owes anyone a response, but when two people do connect, a little curiosity, reciprocity, and consistency would go a long way. I think we're all pretty tired of feeling disposable. And if they don't respond after several days, that's more of a comment on them than anything we did. Either way, I would also caution against self-serving bias. At some point, if you're consistently getting the same results from different people, it's worth examining the one variable they all have in common: your approach. Good point. I'm not too proud to say, hey, maybe it's me. I don't necessarily think I come at people the same each time. I'm a very "match your energy" kind of girl, but maybe that could be it. I don't know at this point. Yet.
da**** Posted September 27 12 hours ago, Legionis said: I didn't call women bitches. Those are your words. You are reading what you *want* to read in order to justify your outrage. I also didn't contradict myself in my bio. You seem angry and accusatory. Good luck with that 👍 Your whining that you don’t get responses. You’re upset because you have a lack luster bio, and you do contradict yourself in your bio. I’m not outraged, just tired of getting sexual offers or a how are you ‘now that you responded let’s sextet’. These are coming from men not the woman I talk to. When I message first I use what’s in the bio to create a personal message, the amount of men that just look at my pics and don’t go further is infuriating
Le**** Posted September 27 1 hour ago, daddysgoodgirl08 said: Your whining that you don’t get responses. You’re upset because you have a lack luster bio, and you do contradict yourself in your bio. I’m not outraged, just tired of getting sexual offers or a how are you ‘now that you responded let’s sextet’. These are coming from men not the woman I talk to. When I message first I use what’s in the bio to create a personal message, the amount of men that just look at my pics and don’t go further is infuriating I'm not "whining" at all. Just like I didn't call women bitches. Another fabrication. "You're upset" no. You're projecting. This is what you want to believe. It justifies you acting hostile. Without it you just become extremely unpleasant. You may find my profile "lackluster". Ok. I'm not sure what you want, but I also don't care since I'm not interested in you. I am amused about this alleged contradiction. Point at it, please. I suspect that you can't because like the other things you mentioned it is merely a fabrication of your own mind.
ey**** Posted September 27 8 hours ago, Legionis said: My only reference to MY experience was that effort posting was irrelevant to response rates. That's a qualitative statement, not quantitative. I've made no mention of what those rates are. OK, fair. I kinda don't want to invalidate your experience - but when I posted mine you said it was a 'outlier' and not reflective of 'statistics' If you want to go down the route of ancedotal evidence - then your finding of having consistent results (to whatever level) regardless of effort/input is valid in your experience. Though, when we get into 'statistics', which you brought into the conversation - then pretty much every study related to effort finds that men who are more selective, and who put in more effort, are more likely to get dates/meets/matches/conversations/etc than those who put in lower levels. Mind, sadly, one of my favourite (shall we call it) independent studies annoyingly doesn't exist any more as the user deleted her twitter (or it was deleted) and it was a lady who, over a 2 year period, replied to every message she got no matter how trivial. She categorised them into 3 levels of effort (and writing novels didn't necessarily make it into the 'highest' effort level if most of it's content wasn't relevant) and in short her findings were the higher the initial effort the more overall likely it would be to go somewhere and in fewer messages. So while there were some "Hi, how are you?" she did end up meeting, these generally played out as being more likely to be a waste of her time. It's such a shame because I don't think anyone has ever tried anything on this scale. And even the men doing the "so I pretended to be a woman on a dating site to see how easier it is for women" tend to never fully commit to their own independent study because for an accurate experience they'd need to reply to trivial messages to, ahem, see where they go.
Sa**** Posted September 27 Id say that my experience seems to be again lots of messages and I made the mistake of replying to almost all of them because I'm not judgemental, though I will say that with over hundreds of messages in my inbox a vast majority of them simply just wanted to chat while they played with themselves ( we can always tell when this is happening) a few I did end up meeting but I found out that they were basically doing it for my trans card. 😭
Ti**** Posted September 29 @eyemblacksheep, you might be over exerting yourself a bit here... most of the average dudes are eating a sh*t sandwich... we dont need a bible of statistical studies to prove that. It helps, and its appreciated, but men are mostly telling the same overall story. That should be enough. Not to mention the lack of any self reflection, empathy\sympathy or accountability from the other side (not all). No hate towards anyone just facts.
da**** Posted September 29 September 20, Sve25 said: My profile: “I don’t speak German” 75% of messages: “hallo wie geht's ich mag deiner profile"🫠 I have smokers as a hard limit, 9/10 times its a smoker messaging me
Recommended Posts