Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

A Quantitative Analysis of Online Dating

Posted by samzenpus on Thu Sep 28, 2006 12:47 AM
from the mountain-of-a-man-seeks-woman-who-smells-like-pizza dept.
imjustatomato writes "Never before has something so human and primitive as dating been reducible to such discrete values. A study analyzes the data of an online dating service. When do you like someone like yourself? Among online dating members, "marital status" and "wants children" are the two most influential characteristics to match. Other interesting findings are: men initiate 73.3% of messages, but their initiations are 17.9% less likely to be reciprocated; 78.2% of messages are never responded to."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 28 2006, @01:00AM (#16225179)
    I wrote that I wanted to relax on a couch with someone getting high and watching insects having sex on the Discovery Channel.
  • by Mr. Samuel (950418) on Thursday September 28 2006, @01:01AM (#16225185)
    100% of my messages are never responded to.
      • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 28 2006, @02:54AM (#16225681)
        Hello, im a desprate virgin tieered of masterbating to videos of other people having sex. I spend all day at the computer, and i need someone to cook my food, do my laundry, and clean the house, as i have just moved out of my moms basement. I also require you to do all of this in sexy outfits, and have sex with me whevere i want, further, no naging is allowed, or i will reprogram you in the basement

        Please resond this time HotWifeWannabe1337!!, you dident seem to get my first 26 messages...

        -- Anoymous Coward
  • RTFA? (Score:5, Informative)

    by ari_j (90255) on Thursday September 28 2006, @01:02AM (#16225189)
    Why not link to TFA? Here is a more direct link to the research [berkeley.edu]. I wonder why we got linked from the summary to another summary. Maybe because the summary is new today but the research is 2 years old.

    Anyhow, none of the numbers seem all that surprising, except that 55% of active members are women (63% of all members were men).
    • Re:RTFA? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by DynaSoar (714234) * on Thursday September 28 2006, @01:46AM (#16225395) Journal
      > none of the numbers seem all that surprising, except that 55% of active members are women
      > (63% of all members were men).

      "Members" are anyone who'se ever signed on for an account and not deleted it. They keep the numbers looking good by continuing to carry these. Not surprising, ISPs have done this for a long time. Men don't remain active members because they get so little response (ref. the original paper).

      Women remain active more because they tend to keep coming back to the chat rooms, mostly with other women. They hang around just in case a guy comes along to try to chat with them. Then they'll all play hot chat with him, and afterwards fail to respond to him at about the same rate as in email.

      I've been doing some research of my own. But I don't see anything surprising enough about it that makes it worth writing about. It's the same sort of behaviors I've seen since the time when BBSs started gaining general public members, prior to the spread of internet connection turning them into ISPs. I'm not surprised by the fact the article is new and the paper is 2 years old. I'm surprised that someone bothered to write a paper about something that's been going on for 15 years. On the other hand, it was a master's thesis. Very few academics care what master's students write about as long as the research is done halfway decent.

      • Members... (Score:4, Funny)

        by Savage-Rabbit (308260) on Thursday September 28 2006, @04:38AM (#16226087)
        "Members" are anyone who'se ever signed on for an account and not deleted it....

        That is just plain wrong. Members (Latin name: Phallus Maximus) are sentient symbiont life-forms that human males carry between their legs. The member is connected to the brain of the human male and takes over control of the brain and thus the entire body whenever a human female is present manipulating the human male into to doing and saying idiotic things he would otherwise never dream of. Members, and the effect they have upon the behavior, utterances and personality of the human male can be quite annoying but unfortunately they can also not be eradicated since they are essential to the procreation of the species. Research into alternative technologies such as cloning is ongoing.
      • by way2trivial (601132) on Thursday September 28 2006, @06:25AM (#16226645) Homepage Journal
        this chick
        http://www.tshirthell.com/images/contestpics/a249_ 004.jpg [tshirthell.com]

        and this chick
        http://www.tshirthell.com/images/contestpics/a249_ 003.jpg [tshirthell.com]

        the reason they didn't write back was they already finished spanking it for that evening...
      • Re:RTFA? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by neoform (551705) <djneoform@gmail.com> on Thursday September 28 2006, @08:59AM (#16228499) Homepage
        I'm still surprised that no one has caught on to the fact that of the top 10 dating sites right now, at least 4 of them employ the use of fake profiles and even pay employees to chat with their members in order to get them to pay for premium membership. I know, because i've seen it happening first hand.. why doesn't anyone catch on to this?

        Ever recieve a flirt/wink from another rather attractive member, only to find he/she doesn't reply back when you message them? Or how about receiving large numbers of flirts/winks in a very short period of time when your member profile contains close to no information?

        Do a test yourself. go to www.mate1.com, make a profile, but profile no personal infomation about yourself. wait a week and see what happens. odds are you'll be messaged by about 15 people who are all supposedly interested in you.
    • Anyhow, none of the numbers seem all that surprising, except that 55% of active members are women
      No, no, no, no. We're talking about the internet here. You must add a qualifier. 55% of active members say that they're women.
  • Online dating (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Lord Kano (13027) on Thursday September 28 2006, @01:10AM (#16225229) Homepage Journal
    I had mostly positive experiences with online dating after my divorce. I met several women, some were romantic friends, some were regular friends and one just didn't work out at all.

    LK
  • by macadamia_harold (947445) on Thursday September 28 2006, @01:10AM (#16225233) Homepage
    Among online dating members, "marital status" and "wants children" are the two most influential characteristics to match.

    Uhh, yeah. I'm going to guess that the phrase "wants children" means something different, depending on whether you're on a dating site, or on alt.sex.lolita. Yes?
  • Religion and Smoking (Score:5, Interesting)

    by sleepwellmyfriend (1003977) on Thursday September 28 2006, @01:15AM (#16225257)
    I always thought discrimination against religion and smoking were bidirectional. Religious people are more likely to not want to date non-religious types, than the other way around. Non-smokers will prefer to date non-smokers, but I doubt smokers have much of a preference. It would be interesting to see if there are characteristics that work in the opposite manner. Opposites attract, don't they? Guess not
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 28 2006, @01:16AM (#16225259)
    I think it's fair to say that there's a lot of factors at play here:
    1. Communication. Email (and other text-based mediums) miss out on several communication cues. Tone of voice, body language, etc. are important to figure out exactly what is meant. I can write something and mean it in one way, but that doesn't mean the person at the other end will read it that way - they could just as easily (especially if they're having a bad day) cast it in a negative tone in their mind.
    2. Expectations. Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest to find out that men (and women!) online are looking for the "perfect partner". Newsflash, people: there's no such thing. Everybody has their flaws. Doesn't matter who they are.
    3. Appearances (which comes in with expectations, I suppose.) If you're not 'beautiful', you're evidently not worth knowing. Dig a little deeper, people. There's more to beauty than stick figures like you see in those fashion magazines ...
    My experiences with online dating? I've met five, maybe six, people that way. One's a decent friend still. One, it's too early to tell (but my feeling is "nothing more than friendship".) The rest, I haven't seen much of beyond the early meetings.

    All in all, my Quest for Non Single Status shall henceforth be conducted off the computer. Between the cost, the frustration of usually never getting a message back (I'd rather hear "thanks, but I don't think it'd work out" than never hear back at all - at least then it's a clean break), and generally getting out and about in the real world a bit more than when I was a teenager, I think I'll be much happier for it. Do I need somebody? Hell no. Do I want somebody? Yes. But I'd rather be single than with the wrong person.

    • by bzipitidoo (647217) <bzipitidoo@bigfoot.com> on Thursday September 28 2006, @02:00AM (#16225463) Journal
      Did they confine their research to just Match.com? Because my experience with the greedy Match.com was poor. If you haven't paid, not only can you not send messages, you can't read messages others send to you. Even if those others have paid, you can't read their messages. When I was a paying member, I got one genuine unsolicited message which was from a woman who seemed nice but was more than twice my weight, and one genuine reply which was, sadly, negative. The rest of the messages I got were spams and scams. I wasn't doing as well as a 10% response rate, let alone the even higher numbers this research claims. Possibly it's because I refused to put down an income range. After I quit paying, I was still getting notices whenever someone sent me a message, but no info on who sent it or what the message was. A wink at least mentioned who. Damned if I was going to pay more just to find out it was another scam message. Now I think Match.com's lousy policies had a lot to do with the low response rate. It's not that all the women really were that rude, or swamped, it's that Match.com stinks. I get much better response rates on okcupid.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        Even if those others have paid, you can't read their messages.

        I wonder if that was made clear to paying members, before you send them. Or before you join.

        I was similarly disappointed when I tried out the system of eHarmony a year ago. I could understand not being able to initiate communications until becoming a paying member, but I was very surprised that I couldn't communicate back. Someone who could initiate with me would have to be a paying member. But to me this lessens the value of membership. Esp. if
    • by king-manic (409855) on Thursday September 28 2006, @04:01AM (#16225939)
      Appearances (which comes in with expectations, I suppose.) If you're not 'beautiful', you're evidently not worth knowing. Dig a little deeper, people. There's more to beauty than stick figures like you see in those fashion magazines ...

      I though that once upon a time. Then I realized I wasn't ugly and have been shallow and self gratifying ever since. It works for me.
  • my observation (Score:5, Insightful)

    by aliscool (597862) * on Thursday September 28 2006, @01:18AM (#16225269) Homepage
    I recently spent two months on Match.com and by and am pleased with the end results... I am dating someone I met on there.
    You really have a hard time weeding through the mass amounts of spam email (I realize you are looking for someone in Virginia, but Montana is only 6 hours away), the obvious scammers mostly with .ru email addresses. The old I need a visa and it costs 600 American dollars thing.
    Also there are a fair amount of women that fall into the FREAK category.

    I would disagree with this point made in the paper "Among online dating members, "marital status" and "wants children" are the two most influential characteristics to match."
    From my limited experience on Match, I think the most important thing women were looking for was income range. I initially had that on my profile and got swamped with replies, after hiding that bit they slowed way down.
    • by Belial6 (794905) on Thursday September 28 2006, @01:25AM (#16225309) Homepage
      Of course, women love a man with a huge... bank account. Did this suprise you?
    • Re:my observation (Score:5, Informative)

      by rossifer (581396) on Thursday September 28 2006, @05:42AM (#16226383) Journal
      I just married one of the woman I met on match.com in 2003, though the path to getting here was exhausting. I had 13 first dates where either I was interested but she wasn't or she was interested but I wasn't. By the time my wife searched for me and sent me an email, I was very tired of the whole thing and about ready to throw in the towel. But it looked like I would have an interesting conversation with this one last woman, so I went to the coffee shop and had an amazing night.

      Too many women (and probably men) are putting up unrealistically flattering photos, which means an unpleasant suprise in person. My wife unintentionally put up fairly unflattering photos and when I saw her in person, I had to check the room again, as I was so pleasantly suprised. I told her that her photos didn't do her justice and that was the beginning of a beautiful relationship.

      Just remember that dating websites only kinda solve one part of the problem. They get you introductions to people you would never otherwise meet. If they're honest on their profile, you also get some early answers to important questions, but there are no guarantees there. You're still going to have to go through all of the work of really seeing if the relationship makes sense and then putting in the work to build that relationship into something significant, with all of the joys and difficulties that will bring.

      As for the income thing, match equates "don't want to answer" with "less than $25k/year". My wife didn't want to date the unemployed and put "at least $25k/year" as a filter and only saw me because I had recently made my income visible. So my wife wasn't being a gold-digger, but wouldn't have seen me if I hadn't put my income out there. Match.com's decision-making on this question is particularly questionable.

      Regards,
      Ross
  • Oblig. (Score:3, Funny)

    by Mister Impressive (875697) on Thursday September 28 2006, @01:19AM (#16225281)
    Yeah, but 72% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
  • by tftp (111690) on Thursday September 28 2006, @01:21AM (#16225287) Homepage
    No wonder geeks do not get much of replies. The very fact that a geek is sitting in his fortress, behind the flickering terminal, surrounded by 16 different and very old Linux boxen, clearly indicates that his romantic needs are best addressed by a robot or by some pr0n that is plentiful out there.

    And from the other side of the equation, no sensible female of the species will choose to date a geek that is clearly ill-adapted socially, is not likely to resemble a movie star from her wall poster, and probably will not fare well in the salary department if he ever manages to leave his basement (many choose not to.)

    And with respect to children, many men dislike children and don't want them at all. They are expensive to maintain, and pointless to raise in the first place. The society changed so much in the last 100-200 years that a large family that was a great advantage to a peasant is now a death warrant in many professional areas, financially and time-wise. Parents nowadays are expected to sink up to a million dollars into a child, with no ROI whatsoever. The parents become slaves to their children, working most of their productive life to maintain the family.

    • by Frogbert (589961) <frogbert.gmail@com> on Thursday September 28 2006, @01:28AM (#16225325)
      Wow... just wow.

      I give that one +1 Jaded as Fuck.
      • by ceoyoyo (59147) on Thursday September 28 2006, @01:32AM (#16225345)
        Nah, give that one very young and hasn't figured out there's more to life than return on investment.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          I'm very nearly 30. And I have to agree with the grandparent on his points to the most part. If you'rea nerd you tend to look at things (everything) logically, if you take that approach to having children, there really is no logical reason to do so in this day and age. Logically, a person is better focusing energy on wealth creation, when you're old and decrepid, you can pay somebody to look after you.

          It's only when you bring emotion into the equation that some find that having children serves a purpose.
          • by CosmeticLobotamy (155360) on Thursday September 28 2006, @02:13AM (#16225523)
            If you'rea nerd you tend to look at things (everything) logically, if you take that approach to having children, there really is no logical reason to do so in this day and age.

            If you can say that, then you can say there's no logical reason to have sex or play baseball or create wealth. Some people want kids, others don't. There's no logic there. There's logic in not having them if you can't afford them, but that's pretty much it, I think.
          • by Aris Katsaris (939578) <katsaris@gmail.com> on Thursday September 28 2006, @03:15AM (#16225751) Homepage
            If you take emotion out of the equation, then there's no point in doing anything at all, given how happiness and unhappiness, satisfaction and dissatisfaction, are all emotions. Being inert as a rock is logical when there's no boredom or other emotion to make you desire activity -- letting civilization collapse is as "logical" as the opposite, when there's no emotion that makes one desire its continuation. Logic is only a method used to achieve end goals you've already set; logic is absolutely meaningless without *emotion* first setting what those goals should be.
  • by Denial93 (773403) on Thursday September 28 2006, @01:29AM (#16225331)
    I cannot believe geographical distance wasn't a factor. Who is going to date someone a two hours drive away? Then again, ignoring this probably helped in making the number of messages sent the best predictor for number of messages received, giving more false hope to quicktyping nerds. Bet the author was one.
    • You know I used to think like that. I tried match.com for a while, and initially I limited it to women who lived within 15 minutes of where I lived, and I met a lot but they were all the same and I was looking for something that was different to my past experiences. Fast forward a year, I had gone international. When you go international it takes a lot of work. Sometimes you would find like 2000 matches to your criteria, and you go through them and find like the top 10,20,100 whatever. This is when you need
    • by Andrewkov (140579) on Thursday September 28 2006, @05:49AM (#16226437)
      Women love long-distance relationships. All talking and no sex.
  • okcupid (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 28 2006, @01:43AM (#16225379)
    For what it's worth (and I imagine it's worth a lot to slashdot readers), my experiences with online dating have always been best with okcupid [okcupid.com]. It is free, novel (fun matching tests), and its participants always seem, to me, to be more appealing than those of eharmony, match.com, and all the other paysites.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Yup.

      I've found success/insanity on okcupid as well.

      She's a hairdresser, runs ubuntu, and is getting FiOS installed next week. She also doesn't care that I work insane hours, have an on-call schedule, am in CA a few weeks a month, and tend to be antisocial to just about everyone.

      She even had t-shirts from thinkgeek from before we started dating.

      Unfortunately, before her, I met a total whack job who after getting in a nasty fight with, threw razor blades at me while I was asleep (to prevent her from cutting
    • Re:okcupid (Score:4, Informative)

      by radtea (464814) on Thursday September 28 2006, @10:03AM (#16229715)
      For what it's worth (and I imagine it's worth a lot to slashdot readers), my experiences with online dating have always been best with okcupid.

      I've found the free sites generally better than the pay sites, too. Never met anyone from okcupid, but I met my current g/f on PlentyOfFish [plentyoffish.com], and met a previous g/f there as well.

      In about three years of online dating I've observed that:

      1) Almost everyone lies, generally about age, appearance and relationship history. Lieing about appearance is the one that I haven't been able to make sense of. I've observed it myself in women, and according to many women I've dated lots of men do it too. One women described a guy she met as being, relative to his online picture, like the "before and after" of some terrible and ravaging disease. Lieing is a showstopper for me, so I have tended to drop a lot of women gently after a first meeting.

      2) Even on the really skanky sites, women are either looking for a relationship or are really messed up. I've never dated anyone from such sites, but poked around out of curiousity. Really.

      3) Free sites are better than pay sites. Lavalife is the best pay site I've used.

      4) Different sites have different geographic representations. I live in a small town, and some sites have far more women in my area than others. I have no idea why.

      5) By far the best strategy is to "meet early, meet often." After a couple of e-mail exchanges I ask if she wants to meet for coffee somewhere. If not, that's the end of it--life is too short to waste time on electronic interaction when five minutes face-to-face will tell you more than five months online.

      Overall, online dating is a very good thing if people go into with reasonable expectations and treat it as an introduction service rather than a magic filter that will find them "the One" without any hard relationship-building work on their part.

  • by LilGuy (150110) on Thursday September 28 2006, @02:11AM (#16225511)
    I've had much success with "internet dating", but it seems to depend on where I live. When I lived in Houston the girls were plentiful and fun. Living in Des Moines is a completely different story. The only ones I get replies from here are trollish freaks that probably couldn't get a date if they didn't post fake pictures of some model, or at least some hot chick from down the street. I'm still amazed at the enormous differences in both quality and quantity of women from the online world between the two cities.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      What kind of twist of ego can convince a person that the lack in quality/quanity replies is indicitive of a lack of quality women? If I couldn't get any desirable women to reply to me, I might start to question my relative attractiveness... not the attractiveness of the women.

      -matthew
  • Primitive? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kahei (466208) on Thursday September 28 2006, @04:10AM (#16225971) Homepage

    What's 'primitive' about dating? You think they have or had 'dating' in primitive societies? Modern Western culture, and those parts of the rest of the world that have been globalized into it, are the only places we find this custom. They didn't 'date' in Europe/America in the 1900s, and they don't 'date' in most of the world now, except for that internationalized overclass that you get in big cities.

    They have lots of sex, but that's a whole nuther thing.

    Enjoy the sophisticated, rarefied culture that allows you to have such esoteric customs as dating! But don't think it's a basic primitive instinctive thing, because it's about as natural to human culture as the iPod.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      "Dating" is a US anti-sex custom related to the introduction of the box-on-wheels y'all love so much. That custom is, sadly, also spreading with americanized culture. Fortunately, it is under attack in the US itself, and will hopefully die shortly.
    • Objects (Score:4, Funny)

      by GoatMonkey2112 (875417) on Thursday September 28 2006, @10:32AM (#16230251)
      Don't waste your time dating primatives. Full fledged objects make much better dates.
  • Done before (Score:3, Informative)

    by Don_dumb (927108) on Thursday September 28 2006, @04:16AM (#16225999)
    Never before has something so human and primitive as dating been reducible to such discrete values.
    Actually I just finished reading 'Freakonomics'http://www.freakonomics.com/ [freakonomics.com] its been out for a year and did just such an analysis on Internet Dating. It really is a good read.
  • by threaded (89367) on Thursday September 28 2006, @04:55AM (#16226161) Homepage
    When I was 14, I hoped that one day I would have a girlfriend. When I was 16 I got a girlfriend, but there was no passion, so I decided I needed a passionate girl with a zest for life.

    In college I dated a passionate girl, but she was too emotional. Everything was an emergency; she was a drama queen, cried all the time and threatened suicide. So I decided I needed a girl with stability.

    When I was 25 I found a very stable girl but she was boring. She was totally predictable and never got excited about anything. Life became so dull that I decided that I needed a girl with some excitement.

    When I was 28 I found an exciting girl, but I couldn't keep up with her. She rushed from one thing to another, never settling on anything. She did mad impetuous things and made me miserable as often as happy. She was great fun initially and very energetic, but directionless. So I decided to find a girl with some real ambition.

    When I turned 31, I found a smart ambitious girl with her feet planted firmly on the ground and married her. She was so ambitious that she divorced me and took everything I owned.

    Now, I am older and wiser, and am looking for a girl with big tits.
  • Top Criteria (Score:4, Interesting)

    by CrazyTalk (662055) on Thursday September 28 2006, @07:13AM (#16227001)
    Having done online dating in the past my top criteria was religion - not what religion they were following per se, but what religion they were looking for. "Catholics seeking Catholics" seemed to be the most common requirment in my area on match.com. As someone who is Jewish, albeit barely practicing, I was forced to skip these profiles over. What really irked me were profiles seeking a "Christian, Muslim, Taoist, Atheist" etc. and they had to go out of their way to de-select the option of dating someone who was Jewish, rather than just select "All religions"
    • by cperciva (102828) on Thursday September 28 2006, @01:12AM (#16225239) Homepage
      I can't believe how many blank pages there were in this dude's thesis! Interesting work, but come on, at least do what we normally do when we can't make our 90 page requirement... use larger fonts, make the margins 1.5", double-lines, etc.

      A thesis doesn't have to be long in order to contain good research. My doctoral thesis is only 81 pages, and 20 pages of that is overhead (front matter, table of contents, list of symbols, preface, advice to the reader concerning the order in which chapters should be read, epilogue, and references).
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Interestingly enough, my *nix instructor lives with his mom (who happens to be the SQL instructor).

      Yes, I'm a coward.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        Have you considered doing original work?

        An important part of research is to first be aware of the existing body of knowledge, in order to avoid duplicating work done elsewhere, or, worse, of coming to conclusions debunked elsewhere.

        Most papers have a part called "state of the art" whose purpose is to reference previous work done in the area.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          I am just completing a research phd, and beleive me, it was very hard indeed.
          The idea of doing a phd that had involved just learning the current state of the art didn't appeal at first, but they get you educated to the required level, and they're easier.

          Doing original work is painful, stessful, and frankly scares the shit out of you at times. I'm lucky (well, I worked my ass off), I managed to acheive my stated goals. A 'book report' thesis, as you describe it is still hard, but you at least know it can be