What happened to POF?

[goldengoose]

In my opinion, if they started charging for composing and receiving messages, the quality of POF would likely immediately increase. The majority of those ugly fat POF chicks who live in their mobile homes with 3 kids and tattoos on their boobs probably aren't willing or able to pay $40 per month to meet men.

I tend to think that the owner of POF thinks that he can make more money from the advertisements rather than charging a membership fee.

POF's agenda is NOT quality--it's all about how much money they can make.

If the advertisers pull their commercials from the site and it starts losing money, then POF might start charging a monthly membership fee--but only as a last resort. Seems to me that POF's advertisements currently target guys who are desperate enough to click on those corny ads promising a date with a sugar mama, etc.

POF is chock-full of links leading to other crappy dating sites--and it must be working because the site remains mostly (in my opinion) "free." POF is probably making lots of money off of guys who are spending money on the site's ads.

Espi, your opinion is correct. Not only that, everytime you log in POF gets paid for the ads that pop up and cookies that track you. They make their biggest money off of you by selling your email address to all those spam sites out there. They also take your profile pictues and info and sell them to other people.

There was some fraud complaint site where a lot of people were put on some European scam dating site without their knowledge. All their pics and profile information was almost exactly the same. They just tweaked the height, age a little. They were warning people not to sign up. I guess that's why peole have disclaimers not to use their stuff on their profile. Like what good is that going to do.

Those sites are technically free, the quality is crap, but they mare making a ton of money off people.

 

[sylvester the cat]

Notice BTW that all of the ads I see on POF are geared toward men--not women.

that's because you're not a woman. if logged in as a woman the ads would cater to women. i speak from experience.

 

[Stagger Lee]

I think sites that charge would eliminate a lot of men especially the unemployed ones that have nothing better to do but send messages to girls all day and meet them. I think excess competition is the real problem online or real life in bars. But I wonder if charging also doesn't reduce the number of women too.

But really what is the point of online dating, unless you're able to browse the net most of the day but aren't free to go to bars and such to pick up? When I could get girls from online to hook up after meeting in person, I could also get girls, more often and better too, from approaching at bars. Now that I can't get girls to hook up after meeting in person due to thinner hair, I can't get girls from bars either.

Bottom line is if you can get girls from online, then you can get as many or more and better ones from approaching in real life. And vice versa if you can't get girls irl you're not going to get any online. I still go online because I can browse online even when I'm not free to go out, but it doesn't make sense to make online you're only market. To able to be succeed online you could succeed irl pick up.

 

[Zarky]

But really what is the point of online dating, unless you're able to browse the net most of the day but aren't free to go to bars and such to pick up?

That actually describes me perfectly. I have a ton of time but little cash. I hate going to bars and those types of venues because it costs $$$ just to be there. With online dating I don't pay a dime unless I've already got a chick on the hook.

Nothing worse than a long dry spell in venues where you're losing money with every rejection. If I get rejected, there's a plus side that I'm not spending my cash.

 

[pdx1138]

And, in my mind, if a woman is paying to meet men, she's likely taking things more seriously. She's expecting to meet quality dudes.

Not necessarily.

The last time I was on match there were lots of women acting like they were from pof....not taking it seriously.

In fact I recall there was WAY more self entitlement going on there with quite a bunch of the better looking women, than any other online dating site I can recall.

 

[MOTU]

I travel a lot and I always troll the locals on POF, OKC and Tinder. I definitely think there is some regional preference and it varies by age group as well.

There are hot chicks on all three sites in most places, but I agree that POF also has the most fuglies.

 

[Stagger Lee]

That actually describes me perfectly. I have a ton of time but little cash. I hate going to bars and those types of venues because it costs $$$ just to be there. With online dating I don't pay a dime unless I've already got a chick on the hook.

Nothing worse than a long dry spell in venues where you're losing money with every rejection. If I get rejected, there's a plus side that I'm not spending my cash.

That's somewhat understandable but I still go out sometimes because after awhile online dating sites rot my brain and it gets dull as heck talking to ugly bores. I need to get out and see some nice looking girls in the flesh and talk to them at least until they walk away on me.

Anyway, all women are boring, suddenly and magically become unslutty or even mean when you're not a hot guy they are attracted to. It's sucks in real life and online.

I travel a lot and I always troll the locals on POF, OKC and Tinder. I definitely think there is some regional preference and it varies by age group as well.

I don't doubt this. It's especially true for real life or bars. I just happen to be in a city where where even the ugly, fatties think their hot stuff and the hot girls which there are quite a few think they're royalty.

 

[goldengoose]

I think sites that charge would eliminate a lot of men especially the unemployed ones that have nothing better to do but send messages to girls all day and meet them.

I agree. POF would pretty much be a ghost town if they started charging for membership. Hell, people won't even upgrade to pay $10 for the couple of extra features they give you.

Who would pay a monthly fee to talk to some fat slob? All the AW's that use the site for fun wouldn't pay. All the single mothers and the unemployed wouldn't be able to afford it. People would go to sites like match instead where there would be more quality people.

Also, they would have to put in a lot of money to upgrade the site because of all the glitches and the sh1tty way it looks. Markus is in the game to make money, not invest into a cheap product that he is raking in the dough off of.

 

[Wilko]

I've got a hunch that most of what feels like a decline in the quality of women on PoF is actually just my own standards creeping up over the years. I'm more willing to disqualify women than I ever have been:

BMI over 25? Next.

Appalling misuse of the English language? Next.

Worthless social "science" degree? Next.

Yoga-loving travel junky? Next.

Barring some outliers at the extreme ends of the SMV scale, I don't think there's any huge difference in the distribution of quality online vs the real world. The only reason we tend to think that women in the real world are of a generally better quality is that they don't come with profiles. Profiles are great! Profiles will tell you exactly how vain, self-absorbed, and sexually dysfunctional a woman is - IF you can learn how to read them. Crazy b!tches will tell you just how crazy they are, frigid women will actually boast about how much they hate sex, lazy women will write incredibly lazy profiles, and dumb women will write some amazingly stupid things - they just don't know how to hide it, in fact, I doubt they even realise that it's in their best interest to try and downplay their flaws - if anything, they tend to celebrate them, which makes my job that much easier. In the real world it might take weeks or months for those red flags to become apparent, but online they're visible from the outset, and that's why the quality seems so much worse.

 

[spiegel549]

Reading these posts had me laughing out loud! It is sooo true how many slobs and ugly broads are on those sites. Personally I feel ALL online dating sites are sh!t. I prefer real time approaching women.

With that said I actually feel Tinder to me is the best, easiest, most simple. Swipe if a chicks hot, if you match, send a message or two, number close, meet up, fuk, next.