How Popular Are Dating Apps: Swipe and Web?

[9-3enthusiast]

Only one I ever used was Bumble... During the Spring-Summer of 2019.
Bumble's USP is that the woman has to send the first message - That means that by the time you get a message you already know she has an interest.

My strategy was not to go on swiping sprees
Maybe 20 or 30 mins when I first signed up.... then approx 10 mins once a week after that, so that the app knows you're still active.
I didn't pay... the free version will inform you of likes, but you get a blurred-out image of her - However... If you change your age filter she will drop off as a like if she falls outside your new limit.
So when I got a like, I would half my age range (Because of my own age I started with a range of 35-55)

So for example, a woman of 43:
After the initial 'like' from her, I would change my limits to 35-45.
She's still there, so I go 35-40 - She disappears so I know she's 40-45
Then I would start dropping the upper limit (At the time, Bumble allowed a minimum 4 year age-range)
40-44.... Still there
39-43.... Still there
38-42.... She disappears, so now I know she's 43
Then I would go to the swiping section with an age range of something like 41-45, looking for 43 year-olds.
Now I want to match the profile pic to the blurred image - It's very easy to do, you can see things like hair colour, colour of clothes, background such as outdoor greenery or sky, or maybe the colour of the wall behind her.
Now that you've nailed her age, she'll usually come up within about 8-10 swipes if she's within your distance filter.
If her profile looked promising I'd swipe right and wait to see if she sends a message.

As I said above, the beauty of this is that if she sends the message, you already KNOW she's interested - so from the point of that first message, getting the initial date is now easy.

I was quite picky in my matching - Matched with around 8 or 9 - Five of those sent the initial message, and 4 agreed to a date within a few messages.
Out of those 4... 2 of the dates weren't great when I met them so I went no further.
One of them ended up back at my place after the second date, and we had a few 'fun' weekends - The other one lasted a fair few months... during which we had a LOT of fun together.

 

[bat soup]

Ive noticed that the apps which used to have body type filters have removed them by now. I wonder what the exact reasoning behind that was but suspect it's pretty simple: having to spend more time swiping through more profiles boosts their "user engagement" statistic, which is correlated with profits both from users and from financial speculators.

Yeah, that's probably to promote "body positivity" or some other political agenda. The fatties were angry that men were filtering them out. Meanwhile, women can filter men by height and income. I don't see how that does anyone any good - forcing me to wade through pictures of fatties that I'll never be attracted to is not going to make me choose them.

I'm sure the apps would rather have you spend your time swiping through all of the garbage that you don't want than letting you apply filters which would let you quickly realise that there's almost nothing worthwhile there and certainly nothing worth paying for.

 

[bat soup]

Only one I ever used was Bumble... During the Spring-Summer of 2019.
Bumble's USP is that the woman has to send the first message - That means that by the time you get a message you already know she has an interest.

My strategy was not to go on swiping sprees
Maybe 20 or 30 mins when I first signed up.... then approx 10 mins once a week after that, so that the app knows you're still active.
I didn't pay... the free version will inform you of likes, but you get a blurred-out image of her - However... If you change your age filter she will drop off as a like if she falls outside your new limit.
So when I got a like, I would half my age range (Because of my own age I started with a range of 35-55)

So for example, a woman of 43:
After the initial 'like' from her, I would change my limits to 35-45.
She's still there, so I go 35-40 - She disappears so I know she's 40-45
Then I would start dropping the upper limit (At the time, Bumble allowed a minimum 4 year age-range)
40-44.... Still there
39-43.... Still there
38-42.... She disappears, so now I know she's 43
Then I would go to the swiping section with an age range of something like 41-45, looking for 43 year-olds.
Now I want to match the profile pic to the blurred image - It's very easy to do, you can see things like hair colour, colour of clothes, background such as outdoor greenery or sky, or maybe the colour of the wall behind her.
Now that you've nailed her age, she'll usually come up within about 8-10 swipes if she's within your distance filter.
If her profile looked promising I'd swipe right and wait to see if she sends a message.

As I said above, the beauty of this is that if she sends the message, you already KNOW she's interested - so from the point of that first message, getting the initial date is now easy.

I was quite picky in my matching - Matched with around 8 or 9 - Five of those sent the initial message, and 4 agreed to a date within a few messages.
Out of those 4... 2 of the dates weren't great when I met them so I went no further.
One of them ended up back at my place after the second date, and we had a few 'fun' weekends - The other one lasted a fair few months... during which we had a LOT of fun together.

That's an interesting tactic. Personally, though, I'm just not interested in any women over 33.

 

[CoandaEffect]

How do you square all this negativity about OLD with the fact that about 1 in 3 couples these days meet online. Didn’t @MatureDJ have a recent post that talked about that.

 

[AttackFormation]

How do you square all this negativity about OLD with the fact that about 1 in 3 couples these days meet online. Didn’t @MatureDJ have a recent post that talked about that.

Technically, if everyone settles for literally anything they can get, then no one can have any dating problem and OLD works great. But settling for anything you get is not a desirable choice, as women will certainly tell you. Our problem is that we cant date women who pass our minimum thresholds of physical attraction, mental health and baggage, as you would well know. So implying that we couldve been one of those "1 in 3" if we had no preferences whatsoever is a bad argument.

 

[SW15]

I think women are becoming more arrogant, passive and entitled. The internet has a lot to do with it. We assume that the internet connects people but really in many ways it drives them apart. It actually puts up a barrier between men and women - instead of her being right next to you and being able to read her body language she's sitting on the other side of the city and you can't see what she's doing or who she's with and you certainly can't reach out and touch her to find out if she's genuinely interested or just a timewaster.

This is relatable. If a man today is starting from scratch with no prospects and a limited social circle at best, it's not his best move to use swipe apps to get something going in his life.

Starting interactions from behind electronic screens has the illusion of efficiency because you don't have to get dressed, go to events, or linger on a walking path/in the grocery store to meet women. You can find dates at home sitting in your underwear. However, the dates you find while sitting at home in your underwear are generally worthless dates. You'll have a lot of "one date, no sex, no second date" type dates, which are a waste of time regardless of what goals you have in relationships.

If given the choice between using swipe apps or doing nothing, the better choice is doing nothing. Eventually, a guy's sex drive means he'll need to something, but doing nothing for a little bit until he can cold approach is a better course of action.

Cold approaching is quite difficult. No one says that is an easy path. It's frustrating. However, instead of wasting 1-2 hours on a date and getting flaked on if you want a 2nd date if you didn't get the first date sex, there might be a determination in a 10 minute interaction with no money spent that the interaction is going nowhere. Everyone benefits from that rather than the false hope, emotional trauma, and the financial loss of meeting from behind an electronic screen and not having the interaction result in sex or something more meaningful.

 

[CoandaEffect]

1. Technically, if everyone settles for literally anything they can get, then no one can have any dating problem and OLD works great. But settling for anything you get is not a desirable choice, as women will certainly tell you. Our problem is that we cant date women who pass our minimum thresholds of physical attraction, mental health and baggage, as you would well know. So implying that we couldve been one of those "1 in 3" if we had no preferences whatsoever is a bad argument.

2. We dont know who those couples are. I dont really care if women who are outside of my age range are more willing to meet men through OLD or not (and this is a variation of what i already said in point #1).

Your first point makes no sense to me. You seem to imply that the 1 in 3 who met online just settled for anyone and they are really unhappy with their partner. That just does not make sense to me. You might be on to something though, I wonder if the divorce rate is higher or lower for people that met online when compared to those that met IRL.

Your second point is reasonable. I have come to the conclusion that your age on OLD determines your outcome. I tried Match when I was in my mid thirties (20 years ago) and I got nothing but frustration. I gave up after about 6 months. I tried again at the beginning of this year and had a (somewhat) better experience. I have been dating a very nice lady that I met online for about 5 months now. Maybe OLD works better for older people because they are more realistic about expectations.

 

[AttackFormation]

Your first point makes no sense to me. You seem to imply that the 1 in 3 who met online just settled for anyone and they are really unhappy with their partner. That just does not make sense to me. You might be on to something though, I wonder if the divorce rate is higher or lower for people that met online when compared to those that met IRL.

Your second point is reasonable. I have come to the conclusion that your age on OLD determines your outcome. I tried Match when I was in my mid thirties (20 years ago) and I got nothing but frustration. I gave up after about 6 months. I tried again at the beginning of this year and had a (somewhat) better experience. I have been dating a very nice lady that I met online for about 5 months now. Maybe OLD works better for older people because they are more realistic about expectations.

I went back and summed my post up into being the first point, ill explain what i mean: it's great that those couples found each other on OLD, assuming they both genuinely want to be with each other. But for guys like me and the others in this thread, our negativity about OLD comes from the fact that we evidently cant fit into that category, and the reason why is because our preferences (attraction, mental health, baggage) are either not on OLD or dont want us. So, the fact that those "1 in 3" couples found each other on OLD doesnt make a difference to us, because we cannot make use of the process that they used.

Women maybe becoming more down to earth after theyve hit menopause is great.... but theyre not my target demographic right now enjoy your time with her mate.

 

[CoandaEffect]

Rollo addresses the OLD phenomenon in The Rational Male. He talks about it from the perspective that it is a buffer that allows men to minimize the fear of rejection and the fear of regret at the same time. That chapter is worth re-reading in the context of this thread.

 

[bat soup]

This is relatable. If a man today is starting from scratch with no prospects and a limited social circle at best, it's not his best move to use swipe apps to get something going in his life.

Starting interactions from behind electronic screens has the illusion of efficiency because you don't have to get dressed, go to events, or linger on a walking path/in the grocery store to meet women. You can find dates at home sitting in your underwear. However, the dates you find while sitting at home in your underwear are generally worthless dates. You'll have a lot of "one date, no sex, no second date" type dates, which are a waste of time regardless of what goals you have in relationships.

If given the choice between using swipe apps or doing nothing, the better choice is doing nothing. Eventually, a guy's sex drive means he'll need to something, but doing nothing for a little bit until he can cold approach is a better course of action.

Cold approaching is quite difficult. No one says that is an easy path. It's frustrating. However, instead of wasting 1-2 hours on a date and getting flaked on if you want a 2nd date if you didn't get the first date sex, there might be a determination in a 10 minute interaction with no money spent that the interaction is going nowhere. Everyone benefits from that rather than the false hope, emotional trauma, and the financial loss of meeting from behind an electronic screen and not having the interaction result in sex or something more meaningful.

I think that generally, for most men, OLD is a waste of time. The problem is the imbalance between the effort put in by men and women. It's like paying to get into a bar that contains 100 women and 20,000 men.

Also, like you say it gives you the false illusion that you're taking action and approaching women, when really you're not getting any worthwhile leads and most of the women you're swiping on are probably never even shown your pics. You're also not developing any useful social skills. It can drive down your confidence and stop you from approaching in real life.

I'd even go further and say that facebook, Instagram and so on are actually more like kokblocking/attention whoaring apps than apps that help people get together. They enable women to harvest male attention whilst avoiding ever actually meeting up with them.

 

[SW15]

I think that generally, for most men, OLD is a waste of time. The problem is the imbalance between the effort put in by men and women. It's like paying to get into a bar that contains 100 women and 20,000 men.

I've even had my married beta male friends say that the swipe apps aren't worth it unless you are unquestionably a Top 10% male.

There have been statistics shared on these forums about Tinder being 76% men now and Bumble/Hinge being 65% men. Choosing to play in those areas where there's such a disadvantage is likely to lead to bad outcomes. Going to fitness classes that are 65-70% women is likely a healthier choice.

It's best to avoid the swipe app sausage fests and other sausage fests, such as pool parties attached to most bars/restaurants (Las Vegas exempted).

 

[9-3enthusiast]

That's an interesting tactic. Personally, though, I'm just not interested in any women over 33.

Well I'm 57, hence my target age-range.
Same tactic, just insert your own age-range... say... 20 to 33

 

[westinlover]

Generally speaking, women have a totally passive strategy. Their game is limited to going out and doing whatever they wanted to do anyway...

...whilst women (even the horrendously ugly ones) swipe right on 0.5%. And the 0.5% are all the same small group of guys. Then the women get pissed of that these guys don't respond to them and that men don't read through hundreds of boring, low-effort and arrogant profiles that probably won't match anyway before swiping on them.

Then women go back to their totally passive strategy of just basically doing nothing and just accepting or rejecting men that approach them in real life.

Lots of good info in this thread which seems to resonate with what most guys are experiencing.

I will point out however that women are not totally passive. They will actively pursue guys (to a very limited but noticeable extent) IRL. In the past, this used to be limited to the obvious weekend nightspots (popular clubs, bars, music festivals) along with more casual venues like cafes to a lesser extent.

What I've noticed recently however, is that they are being more flirtatious and making more overt gestures in routine activities as well: outdoor exercise, farmer's market, grocery stores: places where women initiating was relatively rare.

But like I said in another thread, this type of "pursuing" falls into line with 80/20 theory and it's probably more like 90/10 or 95/5 at this point.

**

I'm not sure who mentioned it, but it's completely true: even the most hideous of female wildebeest will hold out for the hottest guy in a social circle and completely ignore all other men except to exploit them mercilessly for money, gifts and favors of various kinds.

There was one "girl" in our social circle (prior to the march 2020 sh-tshow) who would only talk to yours truly, among all the guys who showed up for social events, and there was a huge gender imbalance as well. She may have been a cool girl, but she was one of the least physically attractive women I have ever seen.

 

[9-3enthusiast]

A little update to my posts above...
After making those posts, I downloaded a swipe app called 'Badoo'
Got a match a couple of hrs ago with a woman who lives only a few miles away - and after a few messages back and forth..... Sunday afternoon we're meeting up at a coffee shop approx mid-way between us.
12 yrs younger than me, and quite a nice looker - assuming the pics are recent LOL
Could possibly become the first time I've spun more than one plate at a time for a couple of yrs now....

 

[AttackFormation]

A little update to my posts above...
After making those posts, I downloaded a swipe app called 'Badoo'
Got a match a couple of hrs ago with a woman who lives only a few miles away - and after a few messages back and forth..... Sunday afternoon we're meeting up at a coffee shop approx mid-way between us.
12 yrs younger than me, and quite a nice looker - assuming the pics are recent LOL
Could possibly become the first time I've spun more than one plate at a time for a couple of yrs now....

Badoo is the bottom of the barrel from my experience, be warned. Every woman ive met from there has been some sort of person i couldnt get away from fast enough. The only good things i can say about it is that it's one of the places ive managed to both meet women through at all, and meet the most from (3).

 

[9-3enthusiast]

Badoo is the bottom of the barrel from my experience, be warned. Every woman ive met from there has been some sort of person i couldnt get away from fast enough. The only good things i can say about it is that it's the place ive managed to both meet women through at all, and meet the most from (3).

Haha - noted.
I'll find out on Sunday afternoon.
Badoo is a new one to me.... Only the second one I've tried - I'm 'old-skool', prefer to meet socially, rather than OLD (probably due to my age-group Haha)

 

[MatureDJ]

Now I want to match the profile pic to the blurred image ...

I immediately discard any profile of such an image. I think that there a lot of trannies on OLD, and part of their MO is to hide their tranniness.

 

[MatureDJ]

Technically, if everyone settles for literally anything they can get, then no one can have any dating problem and OLD works great. But settling for anything you get is not a desirable choice, as women will certainly tell you. Our problem is that we cant date women who pass our minimum thresholds of physical attraction, mental health and baggage, as you would well know. So implying that we couldve been one of those "1 in 3" if we had no preferences whatsoever is a bad argument.

Yes, and about half of even non-old women are obese to begin with.

 

[9-3enthusiast]

I immediately discard any profile of such an image. I think that there a lot of trannies on OLD, and part of their MO is to hide their tranniness.

No, that's not what I meant.
She didn't upload a blurred picture - Bumble blur the pic... unless you pay
If you use Bumble free - When you get a like, the app shows you an image of her, but they blur it. (You see the image un-blurred if you pay their monthly fee)
So when the app shows the photo that they blurred, you can look through the swipes for the sharp image to match it - and find her profile.

 

[Guy69JackBlue]

I immediately discard any profile of such an image. I think that there a lot of trannies on OLD, and part of their MO is to hide their tranniness.

One time I saw a YouTube video of trannies doing their makeup before and after. They looked like a regular dude before.... And all of them looked like a very attractive female when they were done. There's no way you could ever know it's not a real girl unless they told you or you saw them naked.

But then it got me thinking... That's what REAL GIRLS do too!!! They put on so much makeup that they are unrecognizable from their actual unaltered appearance. 99% of the "hot girls" are ugly without makeup on, and this includes supermodels and celebrities.