Jump to content

Message etiquette


Fa****

Recommended Posts

Posted
20 minutes ago, Adventure101 said:

I dont know if anybody has mentioned this yet, but you can change your chat settings to only accept messages over a cercertain length... like 8 characters. Kinda solves the problem of getting "hi" or "hello" for the recipient. And also solves the problem of the sender never knowing why their "hello" didn't get answered, because they never sent it. I thought, I suspect that some people are perfectly happy getting a short message from some one they find particularly attractive, and they wouldn't want to miss that opportunity.

😱😱😱 I did not know this at all - thank you. Again genuine, not sarcastic. But can you set it as that for ONLY the initial message? X

Posted
12 hours ago, Undafeeted said:

I don’t agree, your standard is your own, but I respectfully disagree. I don’t give out free validation to anyone in person so why would I do it on an app? In real life when I approach it’s always “Hello” and if I get a response I at least know that I have your attention, then I proceed to talk. What are you expecting? Someone to look through your photos to say “I like how those jeans in your 3rd photo makes your ass look.”? Now let’s be honest that’s not what you wanna hear. You expect someone to formulate an intricate greeting from photos with filters and bios some people don’t even read(I read them though)? Y’all expectations are too high. Idgaf how pretty, or gorgeous, or beautiful I believe you to be I will never tell you unless we establish a rapport. If you are not interested then there’s no reason for me to give you free validation. In other words, just assume I’m interested because you are what I am looking for nothing more, nothing less. Not because I say some witty banter, I could be just trying to coerce you into believing I like you because you read something I wrote. As you can see I can articulate my very well, but just because I open with “Hello” I’m immediately branded as boring, unintelligible or just a fisherman(throwing out bait to see who bites). Though that’s not exactly what you said but that’s what you meant. Isn’t that the epitome of judging a book by it’s cover? I don’t send a lot of messages, but when I do it’s “Hello”, because you are a complete stranger and I was taught to open with a greeting. It’s not enough that men have to tell you what you wanna hear, now we gotta type what you wanna read off the jump, first message. Smmfh

I’m not convinced you’re “respectfully” disagreeing at all but each to their own, our opinions differ wildly.

As has been established in this thread, more than once, it is PERFECTLY possible to open a message with a greeting yet also provide some substance to said message. I assume you were also taught to smile and/or make eye contact when you greet someone (or if the greeting is via telephone some intonation in your voice) so you appear interested and not getting the person simply for the sake of it? (That was rhetorical).

I DO NOT expect someone to formulate something from photos and bios. What I EXPECT is that they have more to say for themselves than just “hi”. As I have again expressly started on more than one occasion in this thread.

I am most definitely NOT asking anyone to give me free validation. Frankly, I neither need nor require validation and that you think so lowly of others really does speak volumes. 

Furthermore, I never, ever want someone to tell me what I want to hear (likewise with read). As harsh as it may be I’d rather people were honest. 

Which is ironic really as you have been honest about your opinion (which is entirely yours to have) but you have also come across as aggressive and missed the point of the thread and subsequently earned a diatribe from me. 

Posted
12 hours ago, Undafeeted said:

I don’t agree, your standard is your own, but I respectfully disagree. I don’t give out free validation to anyone in person so why would I do it on an app? In real life when I approach it’s always “Hello” and if I get a response I at least know that I have your attention, then I proceed to talk. What are you expecting? Someone to look through your photos to say “I like how those jeans in your 3rd photo makes your ass look.”? Now let’s be honest that’s not what you wanna hear. You expect someone to formulate an intricate greeting from photos with filters and bios some people don’t even read(I read them though)? Y’all expectations are too high. Idgaf how pretty, or gorgeous, or beautiful I believe you to be I will never tell you unless we establish a rapport. If you are not interested then there’s no reason for me to give you free validation. In other words, just assume I’m interested because you are what I am looking for nothing more, nothing less. Not because I say some witty banter, I could be just trying to coerce you into believing I like you because you read something I wrote. As you can see I can articulate my very well, but just because I open with “Hello” I’m immediately branded as boring, unintelligible or just a fisherman(throwing out bait to see who bites). Though that’s not exactly what you said but that’s what you meant. Isn’t that the epitome of judging a book by it’s cover? I don’t send a lot of messages, but when I do it’s “Hello”, because you are a complete stranger and I was taught to open with a greeting. It’s not enough that men have to tell you what you wanna hear, now we gotta type what you wanna read off the jump, first message. Smmfh

Also, there are only a whole 7 (yes, seven) photos on my profile that have filters on them. I found it necessary to check when you found it necessary to mention it. Unless of course you were generalising to the whole female population of this site?

Posted
On 5/22/2022 at 10:29 AM, kaycie said:

Don’t like bald guys😳😳 bald guys are sexy AF in my opinion of course!! A beard with that bald head? Uber sexy!!!!

whooop :)

Posted
23 hours ago, Adventure101 said:

TBH, that's more or less how me opening messages go.

" Hi *your name*. *Comment on something I noticed or liked*. Would you like to chat."

Works well enough for me, and when people do respond it's usually a warm response.

I think as agreed by others on here - it's perfect.  It isn't so lengthily you feel you've bust yourself typing and putting pressure on yourself - let's them know a reason why you're interested, and, isn't copy paste 

 

Posted
I just want to say again that not everyone defending one word openers, or carpet bombing/shot gunning is frustrated by the response rate. Some people are perfectly ok with doing both and getting the responses they get. Yes, naturally it would be guys doing this, as most women already have inboxes so full of messages that they only have to choose the ones they like most.

My defence of such methods is mostly this: for some people what they are looking for is not found in a bio. What they are looking for is someone responsive who seems interested in them. They wont know who those people are until they have started talking, so shotgunning messages out gets their inbox filled up enough that they now have the opportunity to select who they like based on the responses they get. At that point they are on the same playing field with women who start out with full inboxes from the get-go.
Posted
29 minutes ago, Adventure101 said:
I just want to say again that not everyone defending one word openers, or carpet bombing/shot gunning is frustrated by the response rate. Some people are perfectly ok with doing both and getting the responses they get. Yes, naturally it would be guys doing this, as most women already have inboxes so full of messages that they only have to choose the ones they like most.

My defence of such methods is mostly this: for some people what they are looking for is not found in a bio. What they are looking for is someone responsive who seems interested in them. They wont know who those people are until they have started talking, so shotgunning messages out gets their inbox filled up enough that they now have the opportunity to select who they like based on the responses they get. At that point they are on the same playing field with women who start out with full inboxes from the get-go.

That makes one big assumption which is that they actually get responses - which the evidence on this thread alone, from both sides, indicates that the majority of the time they don't - so from the limited responses they do get, their "choice" is still limited.
.
Now ultimately, as I've said several times, if guys are happy to work on that basis, and accept it, or find it works for them, then it's their prerogative and good for them - but, again from many of the responses to this thread there is a level of frustration that they don't get responses, and that's when changes to approach are a wise move.
.
As the old saying goes there's nothing more foolish than repeating the same thing in the hope of a better outcome (or something like that anyway 😆)

Posted
13 minutes ago, gemini_man said:

That makes one big assumption which is that they actually get responses - which the evidence on this thread alone, from both sides, indicates that the majority of the time they don't - so from the limited responses they do get, their "choice" is still limited.
.
Now ultimately, as I've said several times, if guys are happy to work on that basis, and accept it, or find it works for them, then it's their prerogative and good for them - but, again from many of the responses to this thread there is a level of frustration that they don't get responses, and that's when changes to approach are a wise move.
.
As the old saying goes there's nothing more foolish than repeating the same thing in the hope of a better outcome (or something like that anyway 😆)

By that notion I don’t know why I keep trying to date men 😂😂😂😂😂

Posted
22 minutes ago, DuchessFeuille said:

By that notion I don’t know why I keep trying to date men 😂😂😂😂😂

Touché 😂🤣

Posted
1 hour ago, gemini_man said:

That makes one big assumption which is that they actually get responses - which the evidence on this thread alone, from both sides, indicates that the majority of the time they don't - so from the limited responses they do get, their "choice" is still limited.
.
Now ultimately, as I've said several times, if guys are happy to work on that basis, and accept it, or find it works for them, then it's their prerogative and good for them - but, again from many of the responses to this thread there is a level of frustration that they don't get responses, and that's when changes to approach are a wise move.
.
As the old saying goes there's nothing more foolish than repeating the same thing in the hope of a better outcome (or something like that anyway 😆)

Very true. For those that are frustrated by their approach, they should take some of the plethora of information they gained and make some changes.

Personally, I use different approaches depending on the medium. Be it online or in person.

For example, when I've been on Tinder, I carpet bombed to the nine hells. After a hundred or so swipes I had dozens of matches. Then, I can go through my matches and choose who I talk to knowing that many of them are interested.

When my female friends who use tinder, they tell me they match on every swipe. So after a dozen or so swipes they have a dozen or so matches, and many of them are actually interested.

So, we use two different approaches, carpet bombing and selective swiping. And because men and women have a different experience, we wind up with similar results after using different approaches.

Part of getting along with the opposite sex is understanding WHY they behave differently, what the differences are and learning from it. I have no experience with same sex dating interaction, so I dont know much about how different that experience is. But I'm interested and maybe I'll ask somebody some day.

At that ponit

Posted
So, when we read through this thread we can say "all those men are bitter" or "all those women are entitled". Or we can use the many responses to understand WHY things are the way they are, see that there are several different common motivations for the same behavior, and come out with more knowledge.
Posted

tindr I think is an interesting one and is also where some of the skewed statistics come from

So we kinda all know that men will swipe on most profiles.  

This includes the women who are also swiping - which to a degree gives them an element of power - a guy can swipe 100-ish profiles and potentially get a dozen matches - whereas a woman can know that is she swipes 10 profiles that she could have 8 or 9 matches.

She would also know, of course, this is likely to go sour quickly given the guy has been swiping most profiles.

I'm often against a lot of the 'social experiments' but there was one where the lady was pushing to make dates happen - and then turned up to the date in a fatsuit - and found that a lot of the men she's agreed to meet walked straight out.  (though, things did go very well with one that didn't) (by contrast, a guy who turned up in a fat suit - 0 of the women walked out.  Which does put a bit of a twist on the idea that women are only interested in looks, but hey ho)

I think though, of course. 

Having tindr matches you kinda at least know the other person might be interested in talking to you - there still needs to be some conversation to take it to a date, though, ironically - some stats from tindr suggest a "Hey" is the best way to get at least a response from a match - though, it lacks the context that the other person has already shown they have an interest in chatting to you.   And, probably only have a handful of 'heys' to deal through 

Posted
33 minutes ago, Adventure101 said:

Very true. For those that are frustrated by their approach, they should take some of the plethora of information they gained and make some changes.

Personally, I use different approaches depending on the medium. Be it online or in person.

For example, when I've been on Tinder, I carpet bombed to the nine hells. After a hundred or so swipes I had dozens of matches. Then, I can go through my matches and choose who I talk to knowing that many of them are interested.

When my female friends who use tinder, they tell me they match on every swipe. So after a dozen or so swipes they have a dozen or so matches, and many of them are actually interested.

So, we use two different approaches, carpet bombing and selective swiping. And because men and women have a different experience, we wind up with similar results after using different approaches.

Part of getting along with the opposite sex is understanding WHY they behave differently, what the differences are and learning from it. I have no experience with same sex dating interaction, so I dont know much about how different that experience is. But I'm interested and maybe I'll ask somebody some day.

At that ponit

Same sex interactions, based on my own experience on sites like this, has actually given me an appreciation of what women have to deal with.
.
Being bisexual I'm open to meeting other guys, but will look for a connection and chemistry, just as I would with women, before even considering meeting someone.
.
In six years of using sites like this, I've yet to meet a single guy, but have met several women, and it comes down to with men there's a lot more immediacy about what they expect.
.
Despite making it clear I want to get to know them first, if ever I do get a message from guys, even ones that appear promising, invariably it turns sexual within three messages and they are pushing to "meet now" pretty much straight away.
.
More often than not it's sexual within the first message.
.
I think apps like Grindr where everything is pretty immediate and designed to satisfy needs can account for a lot of that.

Posted
Interesting. That's just another great example of how people are different. I've had long term relationships that started with a message on an app. Even met my ex wife online. But I have never once had a genuine connection with someone over text, online, before meeting them. I wouldn't even know what that's like. All of strong chemistry and romantic connection has come after meeting for the first time, and in my experience both parties usually know in minutes after meeting in person if there is romantic potential. It's really cool to know that some people can have that kind of connection remotely like that. Thanks for sharing.
Posted
25 minutes ago, Adventure101 said:
Interesting. That's just another great example of how people are different. I've had long term relationships that started with a message on an app. Even met my ex wife online. But I have never once had a genuine connection with someone over text, online, before meeting them. I wouldn't even know what that's like. All of strong chemistry and romantic connection has come after meeting for the first time, and in my experience both parties usually know in minutes after meeting in person if there is romantic potential. It's really cool to know that some people can have that kind of connection remotely like that. Thanks for sharing.

In some ways to me it's no different than in person, and becomes more "real" as a result - messages flowing naturally and easily are the flowing conversation of meeting face to face - I also think you can to some degree establish being on the same wavelength quicker on-line than in person, because you may not hold back as much due to location, circumstances, *** of offending etc.
.
As you say it may be person specific, but I actually find it easier to talk on-line initially than I do in person, and that in itself makes it easier once you get to the "in person" bit.

Posted
Well, thank you all who kept coming back to give your insight. You know who you are. Sure we had a couple grumpy guss's swing through, but if you scroll back through the comments, there really weren't that many. Overall a great conversation!
Posted
24 minutes ago, gemini_man said:

In some ways to me it's no different than in person, and becomes more "real" as a result - messages flowing naturally and easily are the flowing conversation of meeting face to face - I also think you can to some degree establish being on the same wavelength quicker on-line than in person, because you may not hold back as much due to location, circumstances, *** of offending etc.
.
As you say it may be person specific, but I actually find it easier to talk on-line initially than I do in person, and that in itself makes it easier once you get to the "in person" bit.

Ah, yeah I find it vastly easier to talk in person. Body language, eye contact, attitude and general aura all play a huge roll in my ability to connect. I often struggle greatly with communicating online, particularly via text. It's a lot easier in either situation if I have a particularly interesting subject to discuss. But establishing initial raport is ***fully difficult online and usually blissfully easy in person.
.
On a relative scale at least, I certainly know many people who have a much easier time that me in person. Particularly with "small talk" type subjects. I tend to get into in-depth and often controversial topics and people either completely opt out right away, or they stick around. I tend to get along very well with anyone who sticks around.

Posted

I think it's about chemistry and emotional triggers. You never know who you're going to meet and what to expect Sometimes few words are okay if thoughtful and kind. It's quality not quantity necessarily. 

BruiseWayne
Posted
6 hours ago, gemini_man said:


As the old saying goes there's nothing more foolish than repeating the same thing in the hope of a better outcome (or something like that anyway 😆)

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result"

 

Usually attributed to Albert Einstein. :)

Posted
49 minutes ago, BruiseWayne said:

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result"

 

Usually attributed to Albert Einstein.

Thank you 🙏

Knew someone would know it better than I did 😃

Posted
While I mostly concur re the vapidity of an empty “hi”, I think it depends on the app a bit. I’ve been on some where it shows people who have not been online in ages without stating that, so there needs to be some kind of a “is your profile current?” thing. Am a lousy first-messager tho!
Posted
I send simple messages because there are a very high and growing number of fake profiles, catfish, people that make profiles and never come back, etc. I don't want to waste my time writing 2 paragraphs for someone that doesn't even exist, or see it. Especially as a non paying person that only has limited resources on those dating sites. I send you a wave, and you answer, then we can communicate further.
Posted
4 hours ago, skrtchazer said:
I send simple messages because there are a very high and growing number of fake profiles, catfish, people that make profiles and never come back, etc. I don't want to waste my time writing 2 paragraphs for someone that doesn't even exist, or see it. Especially as a non paying person that only has limited resources on those dating sites. I send you a wave, and you answer, then we can communicate further.

That’s totally your choice and I respect it; but I would ignore anyone like that, and indeed I do - daily. If a man is not prepared to put some thought into engaging me, I will have no time for him.
Yes, you’re having to compete with many other men for the attention of any one woman on here, but the irony is that most of those men *make no effort* - so it’s easy to stand out. Why sink to that level?

Posted
5 hours ago, skrtchazer said:

send simple messages because there are a very high and growing number of fake profiles, catfish, people that make profiles and never come back, etc. I don't want to waste my time writing 2 paragraphs for someone that doesn't even exist,

while bits I get - I think, you can often avoid sending messages to fakes, catfish or people who are inactive with some due diligence 

the last category maybe not - "oh, they were last online a day ago" could mean they log in daily or that that was the last time they'll ever log in - but certainly, it doesn't take much reading of a profile to think "this doesn't feel right" 

Instead the vibe given is that you're going for a scattergun approach which is then not appealing to any of the real folk you strike

×
×
  • Create New...