Online Dating

Are you living a luxurious lifestyle? Do you only want to date other people with money – others in the top 1%? If so, there’s now an app for that.

New dating app Luxy is billing itself as “Tinder, minus the poor people” – or the other 99% of Americans apparently. If you think it’s some kind of joke, it’s not. The company sent out a press release, declaring the need for an income/trust-fund-based dating app with statements like: "With the rise of high-speed digital dating, it's about time somebody introduced a filter to weed out low-income prospects by neighborhood."

Dating apps have become immensely popular since the launch of Tinder, and so there are many developers trying to distinguish their technology not through functionality, but through marketing gimmicks. This seems like a PR stunt, but according to its spokesperson, it was definitely the company’s intention to create a dating space for the wealthy.

A recent article in XO Jane was from a female online dater with a dilemma: she can’t seem to get any responses to her online dating profile. “Online dating has made me feel more alone and rejected than ever,” she said, noting the twenty emails she sent to potential matches with zero responses.

She is mystified by the lack of responses, something that happens to men on a regular basis but a lot less often to women. It does shake your confidence when you put yourself out there and receive no feedback, but why does it become an interesting story when it happens to a woman, but is still a regular occurrence for a man?

There is a double standard with online dating. Men have to reach out far more than women, and they get far more rejections and radio silence. Perhaps there is something to learn here about giving people a chance.

The writer does admit she got messages from a few men who “weren’t her type.” While I’m sure she reached out to the men she found most attractive, I can only assume the guys on the website were doing the same. And if she isn’t going to give a chance to the guys who messaged her, then why should she expect others to give her a chance?

Dating is a numbers game when you are reaching out to people online – you have to put a good amount of effort in, and depending on the site, use its features to your advantage. For instance, if it is OkCupid, answer a lot of questions and post your own for other site users. Start a conversation. Engage with the other online daters. If it’s eHarmony, check your matches every day and complete your entire profile and questionnaire before you opt out. If you are doing Match.com, then make sure you are checking all of your matches, posting new pictures, and changing your profile description on a regular basis to engage new members.

There are so many people online dating that sometimes it can be difficult to stand out from the crowd. But you have to make the effort, use the tools/features provided, and be diligent about checking your matches and reaching out to as many potential dates as possible, even if you aren’t sure about their profile. Remember, someone could be judging you for one line, like if you admit to “liking 90’s music” or are “a fan of the Muppets and cats.” So try not to apply the same judgment to others. Give everyone a chance, even if something in his profile doesn’t click with you.

People are more interesting than a profile, and they deserve a chance, just like you. So expand your options, keep an open mind, be diligent about sending out messages - and watch your own responses increase.

There are few sources I trust to dish out genuinely good dating data, but Christian Rudder is at the top of the list. As one of the founders of OkCupid and the genius behind the OkTrends blog, Rudder has been granted an inside look at dating habits that no one can beat.

Recently, he turned that insider access into an article for The Guardian that exposes a few of the online dating secrets he’s learned over the years.

Did someone just talk about exposing secrets? Yep, it was me. Get hyped.

In case you missed it, head back to Part I for the first round of reveals from Rudder. If you’re all caught up, read on for the last 4 secrets to be spilled:

1. The British are really into Haribo and kebabs. Ok, that’s not exactly what Rudder said, but it’s close. Rudder compared Britain’s OkCupid profiles to those from the rest of the English-speaking world, and pulled out the words that are (at least according to his algorithms) most British.
   • The 30 words people in the UK use most when talking about themselves are: Newcastle, Bristol, wot, wasters, Camden, Brighton, tw*t, Portsmouth, Biffy, Clyro, trousers, trainers, Glasgow, feeder, Plymouth, consultancy, bloke, moaning, Haribo, kebab, nan, Ibiza, Essex, lecturer, Stereophonics, bolognese, Yorkshire, housemate, bugger, and sh*te.
2. Beauty is an exponential quantity on OkCupid. As attractiveness goes up, so does the number of messages received each week. It seems like basic logic, but Rudder takes it further. The data forms an exponential function - “That is,” he writes, “it obeys the same maths seismologists use to measure the energy released by earthquakes: beauty operates on a Richter scale. In terms of its effect, there is little noticeable difference between, say, a 1.0 and 2.0 – these cause tremors that vary only in degree of imperceptibility. But at the high end, a small difference has cataclysmic impact. A 9.0 is intense, but a 10.0 can rupture the world.”
3. Even when looking for a job, women are treated like they’re looking for a date. Rudder examined interview requests on ShiftGig and plotted the data against the attractiveness of the applicants. The male curve is linear, but the female curve is once again exponential - meaning that a man’s looks has no effect on his prospects, but a woman’s looks most certainly do.
4. The best questions to ask on a first date are probably not what you’re expecting. Two of OkCupid’s match questions stand out as being remarkably predictive of compatibility: “Do you like scary movies?” and “Have you ever traveled alone to another country?” In approximately ¾ of long-term couples who met on the site, both people answered those questions the same way - a much higher rate than expected. “In fact,” Rudder concludes, “successful couples agree on scary movies – either they both like them or they both hate them – about as often as they agree on the existence of God.”

Wondering if you should try online dating? Before you craft your profile, a new study by Michigan State University and Stanford found that people who met online weren’t as likely to stay together for the long-haul as those couples who met offline.

As it turns out, online dating sites who have been touting their matching success rates may not be telling the whole story. Many couples have successfully gotten together thanks to online dating, but that doesn’t mean they have lasted. The separation and divorce rates for folks who paired up online was much higher than for those who met their partners offline in more traditional ways.

According to the report, 8% of married couples who met their spouses online reported to have ended their marriage in separation or divorce, compared to approximately 2% of married couples who met their spouses offline. And compared to 23% couples who had met offline, 32% of couples who had met online had broken up in the following year of the survey.

Sometimes it seems like there are more people claiming to be experts on dating than there are actual people dating.

(Do I fit into that category? Don’t answer that. Let me retain my illusions of usefulness.)

Most of them are probably hacks making things up or regurgitating tired advice they read in Cosmo, but a few - a special few - are genuine experts who deserve their guru status. And few fit that description better than Christian Rudder, the data whiz behind OkCupid’s legendary OkTrends blog and recent author of a piece in The Guardian.

“I have led OkCupid’s analytics team since 2009, and my job is to make sense of the data our users create,” Rudder writes. “As people bring technology deeper and deeper into their lives, it can show us profound and ridiculous things about who we are as human beings.”

Anyone else loving the sound of “profound and ridiculous” as much as I am? I have to know: what exactly does OkCupid know that we normal folks don’t? Rudder was kind enough to offer a few examples:

1. Women have a sensible approach to ageing. You wouldn’t know it from watching The Real Housewives, but apparently women are actually pretty down-to-earth about the ageing process. At least where choosing a partner is concerned. On the whole, at every stage of her life, a woman prefers a man who is roughly as old as she is. On the other hand…
2. Men get older, but they don’t really grow up. It sounds like a tired stereotype, but in this case it seems to be true. Whether men are in their 20s, 30s, 40s - or even at 50 - they strongly prefer women in their early 20s. 20 and 21 are the most favored ages, though a few men are willing to go as high as 23 or 24. Yikes.
3. White people are really obsessed with their hair. After looking at 3.2 billion words of profile text, Rudder found that the top five phrases for white men and women include multiple references to their hair (plus prog-rock and outdoor activities). For other large racial and ethnic groups on OkCupid, hair is rarely a topic of discussion. For example:

• Black men: dreads, Jill Scott, Haitian, soca, neo soul
• Latino men: Colombian, salsa merengue, cumbia, una, merengue bachata
• Asian men: tall for an Asian, Asians, Taiwanese, Taiwan, Cantonese

For more dating secrets from OkCupid's resident data expert, stay tuned for Part II and check out Dataclysm: Who We Are (When We Think No One’s Looking).

In further proof that the Internet is a fickle, fleeting place, it seems everyone has already forgotten about a piece of news no one could stop talking about just a few months ago.

Back in June, Facebook caused a major public outcry when it revealed it had manipulated the news feeds of over half a million users as part of a psychological study to examine how emotions spread on social media. It was a messy situation, to put it lightly, and not long afterwards we found out Facebook wasn’t the only site to experiment on its users.

OkCupid came forward to say that it, too, had manipulated users’ experience - but that it wasn’t really sorry about it. The site’s blog post made the (valid) point that “if you use the Internet, you’re the subject of hundreds of experiments at any given time, on every site. That’s how websites work.” Websites - especially dating websites - have to perform tests, otherwise they’d never be able to improve and make the user’s experience as good as it can possibly be.

So when it came down to the question of whether or not you should be upset by Facebook and OkCupid’s actions, opinion was divided.

A University of Maryland law professor is now claiming that Facebook and OkCupid violated a state law when they manipulated customer data as part of company research. Professor James Grimmelmann says the two websites are in violation of a 2002 Maryland law that requires all research on human subjects to have informed consent of the those involved, as well as approval by an ethical review panel.

In response, Facebook’s spokesman Israel Hernandez maintains that the company did not break federal or Maryland law, but says it is examining its internal processes. “We know some people were upset by this study and we are taking a hard look at our internal processes as a result,” Hernandez wrote in an email to the Washington Post. “The requirements specified by the federal Common Rule and Maryland law do not apply to research conducted under these circumstances.”

The allegations are now in the hands of Maryland Attorney General Doug Gansler, who told the Washington Post, “They’ve already discontinued doing this, so what we’d want to do is talk to them and figure out whether or not what they did was appropriate, whether there was enough notice given to users and whether or not they intend to do something like this again in the future without violating privacy concerns and without giving the ability to opt in or opt out of the testing.”