Match.com (Volume 6)

[gregs656]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I don't follow your logic.

When you make a connection on an online dating platform you are just expressing a mutual interest.

When you make a connection in a bar or what ever you are just expressing a mutual interest.

The only difference is the information used to make the initial selection.

You're not choosing who you fall in love with in either case, your 'ideal' match in either instance could be absolutely wrong for you. Someone who you take 'on risk' for want of a better term because there is something about them that sparks your interest could be the one you end up with.

[davhill]

Well, doubting Thomases and naysayers, I have news.

As a direct consequence of writing to Match.com, I received
an e-mail this afternoon, from Anna of the Match.com team.

Anna told me that my feedback was appreciated and as a
gesture of goodwill had done this...

Activated a 3-day free trial.
Sent me a discount offer - a monthy's basic membership for £19.99.

I'm enjoying the former and have purchased the latter.

It just goes to prove that unlike some, this company can be reasonable.

For the record then, here's proof that the unreasonable generally know nothing.

And I quote...

'Looking at the posting time they'll be still asleep and waking up with a huge hangover '

Thank you, speedyguy. In fact, come September I'll have been teetotal for 30 years.

'I'm sure we had all already figured from your tales of tightness that you are a Yorkshire man.'

Thank you Dromedary66. Living in York for a third of my life didn't make me a Yorkshireman,
not even an honorary one. I'm a Derbyshire man.

And thank you PAUL500 for your genuine, non-judgmental advice. This was appreciated.

[Monkeylegend]

davhill said:

Well, doubting Thomases and naysayers, I have news.

As a direct consequence of writing to Match.com, I received
an e-mail this afternoon, from Anna of the Match.com team.

Anna told me that my feedback was appreciated and as a
gesture of goodwill had done this...

Activated a 3-day free trial.
Sent me a discount offer - a monthy's basic membership for £19.99.

I'm enjoying the former and have purchased the latter.

It just goes to prove that unlike some, this company can be reasonable.

For the record then, here's proof that the unreasonable generally know nothing.

What they have cleverly done is suckered you into a discounted trial and now have £19.99 of your hard earned

[trackdemon]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

From my pool of 1, yes you can. Met g/f on PoF, she's my best mate and one of the funniest women I've ever met. She's hot and we have great chemistry. It can work, I don't see any reason why you'd have a greater/lesser chance of meeting someone via dating websites than in real life other than the increased numbers. But as a % of people out there, surely the chances of meeting that 1% person you have a great connection with is just the same.

[Shnozz]

trackdemon said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

From my pool of 1, yes you can. Met g/f on PoF, she's my best mate and one of the funniest women I've ever met. She's hot and we have great chemistry. It can work, I don't see any reason why you'd have a greater/lesser chance of meeting someone via dating websites than in real life other than the increased numbers. But as a % of people out there, surely the chances of meeting that 1% person you have a great connection with is just the same.

I would say these days its probably in excess of 50% of people that met via a dating site/app.

That said, during my time playing the game, I did get the impression that many players on the apps were transient by nature rather than looking to settle. I fought against it at first and then just ended up playing the same game and adding notches. I think by its very nature its hard to focus on a match when you have many new ones daily so the temptation to move on from one to the next is greater than in the real world where you may spend a couple of dates getting to know someone without the distraction of new entrants on a daily basis.

[anonymous-user]

Shnozz said:

I would say these days its probably in excess of 50% of people that met via a dating site/app.

That said, during my time playing the game, I did get the impression that many players on the apps were transient by nature rather than looking to settle. I fought against it at first and then just ended up playing the same game and adding notches. I think by its very nature its hard to focus on a match when you have many new ones daily so the temptation to move on from one to the next is greater than in the real world where you may spend a couple of dates getting to know someone without the distraction of new entrants on a daily basis.

It would be interesting to see how many people use dating sites now, for me, (for a long time) it had a bit of stigma attached to it. It does work for some people though.

[Blown2CV]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

so you set up a profile that would never achieve any interest, and then used this scientific test to determine that in fact dating sites do not work and contain no women which you would ever have a long term relationship with? Also your inference that there are only a handful of women out there who are 'the one' for each man is mental. You'd be able to live a good life with one out of plenty of women. 'the one' is a complete fallacy.

[Shnozz]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Of my mates that are single (both genders), I would say 90% of them are on a dating site/app as well as "real world" shopping.

That was always my thoughts toward dating sites. It's not like you have to exclusively do one or the other, but the chances are anyone single you meet on a night out/through friends/at work is also on a dating site. It's not like its two camps - so why discount online at the expense of searching on foot. You also avoid chasing after people who aren't single. At least when you are both at a singles camp you know where you stand - ish. If you eschew dating apps/sites, you're just vastly reducing the exposure to local single people and I see no reason why that would play to your advantage.

That said, I have known people want a break from the sites/apps for periods after it has become tedious or, in my case, knackering. No harm in that, in the same way that you can decide to not go on the pull on every night out, whereas at other times that is the name of the game.

[gregs656]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

With the advent of dating apps I think most of the stigma in the younger generation went a long time a go.

Though people I know who use the apps go through phases with them.

[anonymous-user]

Blown2CV said:

so you set up a profile that would never achieve any interest, and then used this scientific test to determine that in fact dating sites do not work and contain no women which you would ever have a long term relationship with? Also your inference that there are only a handful of women out there who are 'the one' for each man is mental. You'd be able to live a good life with one out of plenty of women. 'the one' is a complete fallacy.

It wasn't a scientific test, it was more out of interest and throwing out a question. What I was trying to get at was if there was a difference between meeting a stranger in the street or new person at work for example, (when you are not looking and have an immediate attraction), and two people desperately clicking away, ploughing through profiles until they settle on something that matches a search criteria?

Not making a judgement, just posing the question.

It has been successful for some on here, so it has worked for them., so it has in a way answered the question.

[Shnozz]

Aside from choosing the right photos, I think the idea of spending hours on a profile are utterly pointless. Lets be honest, 99% of the decision is made instantly on visual. Endless crap in a profile will not assist you like a CV would for a job. I had one line saying I liked ice cream.

[gregs656]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Your posts suggests you are making a judgement.

For example - 'desperately clicking away'

[davhill]

Monkeylegend said:

What they have cleverly done is suckered you into a discounted trial and now have £19.99 of your hard earned

I hope you're enjoying your little bit of schadenfreude but I must pee on your chips now.

In my mail to Match.com, I said that if I could take six months at £19.99 per month then
cancel the subscription before the auto-renewal for month two I'd gladly subscribe.

They complied, I did what I suggested, job done, no-one suckered.

BTW, you have egg on your face

[Monkeylegend]

davhill said:

Monkeylegend said:

What they have cleverly done is suckered you into a discounted trial and now have £19.99 of your hard earned

I hope you're enjoying your little bit of schadenfreude but I must pee on your chips now.

In my mail to Match.com, I said that if I could take six months at £19.99 per month then
cancel the subscription before the auto-renewal for month two I'd gladly subscribe.

They complied, I did what I suggested, job done, no-one suckered.

BTW, you have egg on your face

It's not egg

[Pebbles167]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Shnozz said:

Aside from choosing the right photos, I think the idea of spending hours on a profile are utterly pointless. Lets be honest, 99% of the decision is made instantly on visual. Endless crap in a profile will not assist you like a CV would for a job. I had one line saying I liked ice cream.

Whole heartedly disagree - and moreover I ignore any contact that has NOT looked at the profile and only swiped.

If it is more because you can't be arsed to put the effort in, be honest, trusting and open - then you're gonna ironically fall in to the vacuous 'on longs alone' category yourself.

Somewhere in between here lies the target. At least from what I've seen.

I won't bother reading a profile with a huge amount of text, I like to see a few nice pictures and a short, but honest paragraph.

As for chat up lines, I generally say a funny line, or ask if they fancy a chat. Both work reasonably often. Copy and paste lines less so, but if you've got a huge search area it's fine.

[Don1]

Has anyone on here trued 'Elite Singles'? (Not for me, just wondering if was as horribly elitist as the adverts make out).

[anonymous-user]

Just a question, (it may seem like a silly one) if you see say four that look interesting, do you contact all of them at the same time? Haven't gone back through all the thread but has anyone dated two or three people at the same time or is it easier to date one at a time?

[spikeyhead]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I went for several years keeping four on the go at any one time, typically changing one out every month. It's a bonkers, slutty, enjoyable thing to do, but be honest with them otherwise the mental will gain revenge.

[anonymous-user]

spikeyhead said:

I went for several years keeping four on the go at any one time, typically changing one out every month. It's a bonkers, slutty, enjoyable thing to do, but be honest with them otherwise the mental will gain revenge.

So be honest and on your guard

In this internet dating age, at least for the first couple of dates I suppose you have to keep all options open.

[LosingGrip]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I used to send messages off like I was dying that day. Used to get a few replies back, fked up a couple of times and got things wrong, but worst was when I was dating two/three last year (if my GF is reading...way before I met you!).

One off POF, one off Tinder and one of Twitter of all places.

It was a nightmare. The twitter one knew I was dating others (she was already in a relationship, so couldn't really judge!). But the other two didn't know about the others. Had to be careful with social media, and didn't add two of them on the same thing.

I fked up a couple of times and called one the wrong name on the phone, got another one confused with their jobs.

One didn't take it well when I said it wasn't working out and the Twitter one got a bit funny with me (which is another story), but worked out in the end (well didn't as broke up a month after officially getting together...she was a nutter, well her daughter was!).

TLDR...I was st at it.