Tinder is shit
-
@boomzilla said in Tinder is shit:
Woman fakes her own WEDDING in an attempt to get ex's attention
The woman, who is named Jacqueline, pretended to get married in an attempt to get her ex-boyfriend to text her - but it didn't work. She rented out a venue and had pictures taken with a fake-groom.
Yeah, that doesn't work. My ex got married for real and I didn't text her. Very ineffective.
-
@Gąska said in Tinder is shit:
Imagine writing an entire article out of a single Tiktok.
What's the exchange rate for Tweets, around three or four to one Tiktok video?
-
@hungrier tweets usually have more words.
-
@Gąska said in Tinder is shit:
@hungrier tweets usually have more words.
...but a TikTok video has more pictures, and the exchange rate is pegged to 1:1000 as everyone knows.
-
@ixvedeusi Which would be OK, except tweets can have videos, making everything more confusing…
-
@dkf and said video is often ripped straight from Tiktok!
-
@ixvedeusi said in Tinder is shit:
@Gąska said in Tinder is shit:
@hungrier tweets usually have more words.
...but a TikTok video has more pictures, and the exchange rate is pegged to 1:1000 as everyone knows.
I don't think pegging is allowed under Tiktok's TOS.
-
-
@DogsB said in Tinder is shit:
@antiquarian said in Tinder is shit:
@DogsB still better odds than tinder.
God, I fucking hate tinder. I'm not good looking and I fucking hate text even more. Whoever thought that could form the basis of a relationship should be shot. Have you used tinder could be a filter question for me from now on. That and asking for their views of Oxford commas would have saved me a lot of heartache.
After using Tinder for a period of sufficient length, I have concluded it is a very good platform for finding pictures of women in bikinis who won't message you or go out on a date with you. Given that I already have an internet connection, finding pictures of women in bikinis (or even less) who won't message me or go out on a date with me is something I already have, and aside from the costs to maintain the internet connection, is free!
-
-
-
@TwelveBaud said in Tinder is shit:
Cool! 20% managed to get one night stands. Over which time span, and which sample size?
I mean, a friday night at a pub probably sees higher number of hookups than that.
-
@Carnage in the last 2 years though?
-
@Arantor said in Tinder is shit:
@Carnage in the last 2 years though?
I don't see why not?
priviledge.
-
-
@Applied-Mediocrity said in Tinder is shit:
You'll never fit a body into that. Unless you're into the very vertically challenged but we're in the wrong thread for that.
@TwelveBaud said in Tinder is shit:
Basically, tinder doesn't do much for most people.
-
-
@Carnage said in Tinder is shit:
priviledge.Damn you and your good looking population.
Wait, that’s now what you’re talking about? Anyways…
-
@topspin said in Tinder is shit:
@Carnage said in Tinder is shit:
priviledge.Damn you and your good looking population.
Wait, that’s now what you’re talking about? Anyways…I just googled ugly Swedish people. Just a lot of people asking the same question.
-
So, I was using one of those Tinder-like apps and it recently had an update. Usually you set an upper and a lower age you're looking for (e.g., 35 to 42). What they added (and which I saw only when I went into the settings because why tell people about that?) was a setting: "Show me contacts two years above and below my set limits".
I'm not sure what that option is good for. Either I'm looking for 35 minimum or not. And if I considered 33 as a minimum then I could set the limit thus?
Anyways, this new option either resulted in a display bug or borked the selection process. Because now I got five contacts in a row who were 33 years old - and then six contacts in a row who were 44. And back to 33 again with four other contacts and back to 44. With the very occasional 38 thrown in.
I mean, I do not expect an equal distribution but such an arrangement skewed towards the extremes doesn't look valid to me.Anyways, did my duty and wrote support an email. The reply: "Well, it would be best if you could make a video of what you're seeing?"
My reply: Do the words: "GDPR" mean anything to you? Not to mention that the video would only show what I already expressed to you in my mail ... using words.
-
@Rhywden So, instead of expanding the set limits by +-2, it's showing you only people at min-2 and max+2. I guess technically it works as advertised. The occasional 38 making it in sounds like a bug in a bug in a stupid new feature.
-
@Rhywden I wonder if they've had a spat of off by one errors.
-
@Rhywden said in Tinder is shit:
My reply: Do the words: "GDPR" mean anything to you?
I get your point, but it's a dating site. If you think they're treating your personal data in a secure manner in the first place, you're probably kidding yourself.
-
@Zerosquare said in Tinder is shit:
@Rhywden said in Tinder is shit:
My reply: Do the words: "GDPR" mean anything to you?
I get your point, but it's a dating site. If you think they're treating your personal data in a secure manner in the first place, you're probably kidding yourself.
What you’re trying to say here is they’re probably breaking the law left, right and center, and getting away with it, which is fine because all the big players are doing it.
That’s correct, except for the part where you just accept that.
-
@topspin said in Tinder is shit:
That’s correct, except for the part where you just accept that.
Hobson's choice.
-
@Applied-Mediocrity said in Tinder is shit:
Hobson's choice
In a sense, yes. Give Tinder all your data to with as they please, or do without the services of Tinder at all. However, Hobson's choice usually implies that doing without is undesirable; whereas in the case of Tinder, doing without is by far the preferable option, regardless of data privacy issues.
-
@HardwareGeek I personally agree with you there. I've taken that road myself. But... well, it's not so clear cut for others who still have some hope left.
-
@Rhywden said in Tinder is shit:
So, I was using one of those Tinder-like apps and it recently had an update. Usually you set an upper and a lower age you're looking for (e.g., 35 to 42). What they added (and which I saw only when I went into the settings because why tell people about that?) was a setting: "Show me contacts two years above and below my set limits".
Presumably you can set the lower bound at 18. I wonder what happens if you do that.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear You get banned from living within 500 feet of a school?
-
Or you live in a country where the legal age is 16?
-
@Rhywden said in Tinder is shit:
I'm not sure what that option is good for. Either I'm looking for 35 minimum or not. And if I considered 33 as a minimum then I could set the limit thus?
Not everyone is German
.Random trolling aside, I imagine that most people set limits on round numbers (e.g. 35, not 33) but in reality they probably are not really that set on a specific number, so fuzzing the numbers might yield contacts that won't be immediately rejected (presenting a 50-yo to someone who said "20 to 30 only" is a bad idea, but presenting them a 32-yo is probably going to work).
It's wonky and while the wording is
it looks like 
to us number-inclined people, but dating and human psychology isn't quite an exact science...It seems the implementation is also not quite an exact science, which is definitely a
.
-
@remi said in Tinder is shit:
@Rhywden said in Tinder is shit:
I'm not sure what that option is good for. Either I'm looking for 35 minimum or not. And if I considered 33 as a minimum then I could set the limit thus?
Not everyone is German
.Random trolling aside, I imagine that most people set limits on round numbers (e.g. 35, not 33) but in reality they probably are not really that set on a specific number, so fuzzing the numbers might yield contacts that won't be immediately rejected (presenting a 50-yo to someone who said "20 to 30 only" is a bad idea, but presenting them a 32-yo is probably going to work).
It's wonky and while the wording is
it looks like to us number-inclined people, but dating and human psychology isn't quite an exact science...It seems the implementation is also not quite an exact science, which is definitely a
.I would expect that those "outside-limits" search results are penalized, ie shown after those in configured limits. Maybe even the "two years" is just a fuzzy limit, with several steps or even non-discrete computed penalty.
Which makes a lot of sense to improve search results (not just in this very case) and is widely used in most search engines today. The hardest part of implementing this stuff is the question "how do we present this options to
total idiotscustomers?"
-
@remi said in Tinder is shit:
@Rhywden said in Tinder is shit:
I'm not sure what that option is good for. Either I'm looking for 35 minimum or not. And if I considered 33 as a minimum then I could set the limit thus?
Not everyone is German
.Random trolling aside, I imagine that most people set limits on round numbers (e.g. 35, not 33) but in reality they probably are not really that set on a specific number, so fuzzing the numbers might yield contacts that won't be immediately rejected (presenting a 50-yo to someone who said "20 to 30 only" is a bad idea, but presenting them a 32-yo is probably going to work).
It's wonky and while the wording is
it looks like to us number-inclined people, but dating and human psychology isn't quite an exact science...That makes no fucking sense whatsoever. You may be correct, since humans are TRWTF, but it still makes no fucking sense.
This smells of the paradox of the heap. If I set 35 as age limit I may be fine with 32. So I actually set 32 as age limit, thus I should be fine with ... By induction, there is no age limit. You're really just giving people two options, one sane and one idiotic, to control the same setting. If you don't want the limits to be the numbers you have set, then don't fucking do that!
-
If dating sites were run based on rational thinking... let's say that probably fewer of us would be single.
-
@Zerosquare Is that supposed to be a good thing?
-
-
@Applied-Mediocrity said in Tinder is shit:
@Zerosquare Is that supposed to be a good thing?
I mean, half-seriously. If fewer of us were
hopelesslysingle, that's one less topic that we can exchange self-deprecating jokes about.
-
@topspin said in Tinder is shit:
This smells of the paradox of the heap. If I set 35 as age limit I may be fine with 32. So I actually set 32 as age limit, thus I should be fine with ... By induction, there is no age limit.
I don't think your induction part works, because "being fine with" is not a binary choice. Reusing your numbers, and assuming that you actually know what you like (which is a big if... everybody always lies to themselves!), if presented with thousands of 35 yo, you will accept some proportion of it, say X. Presented with the same number of 32 yo, you will accept another proportion Y. And with 30 yo, it'll be Z. My suspicion is that while X > Y > Z, X is fairly close to Y, while Y and Z are significantly different -- and even if Y-Z is the same as X-Y, X-Z is going to be much larger than X-Y.
So no, "being fine with" 32 yo doesn't mean you'll "be fine with" any other age.
You're really just giving people two options, one sane and one idiotic, to control the same setting. If you don't want the limits to be the numbers you have set, then don't fucking do that!
Again, this is pure speculation, but Tinder has actual numbers on what people pick as their age limits, and I'm ready to wager that there are huge peaks around round numbers (30, 40...). That's not specific to an app, even in real life people will casually refer to someone as being "40 yo" even if they are 39 or 41. Fuzzing around the limits to spare people (especially those who are less number/computer-savvy) having to think too hard about one of the billions of things they have to put in the app makes sense to me. That's almost part of usability.
But I'm again trying to argue for a non-logical solution with a German, so that's a lost battle (and I'm French, so I know a bit about lost battles against Germans).
-
I assume the flexibility is to cope with things like “32 years and 1 day” isn’t suddenly less appropriate than “32 years” even if you set your upper limit to only permit 32 years.
Fuzzy matching be hard, yo.
-
@Applied-Mediocrity said in Tinder is shit:
@Applied-Mediocrity said in Tinder is shit:
@Zerosquare Is that supposed to be a good thing?
I mean, half-seriously. If fewer of us were
hopelesslysingle, that's one less topic that we can exchange self-deprecating jokes about.So Tinder should implement an ‘anyone who will pay attention to me’ option?
Is there a dating app where ‘saving towards 30% deposit’ is a valid common interest?
-
@DogsB said in Tinder is shit:
@Rhywden I wonder if they've had a spat of off by one errors.
Sounds like their off-by-one error was off by one.
-
@DogsB said in Tinder is shit:
I just googled ugly Swedish people. Just a lot of people asking the same question.
-
Also, so much for this popular: "Oh, but women are so communicative!" saying. Twice in a row now have two women contacted me (not vice versa!) and when I replied I always only got single-sentence answers whereas I made sure to always include some tidbits or outright questions (even open ones!) for her to hook into to keep the conversation flowing.
How the fuck do you expect me to get to know you when you don't tell me stuff about yourself? Oh, well, onto the next potential match.
I also always wonder about the gals who don't answer a single question (or post a bunch of unintelligible emoticons in the "about me" part). Sometimes even upping the ante by only posting a single picture. Bonus points if there are multiple women in said picture or if only the back of the head is visible. Alternatively: Someone in a mask or half a face against the sun.
Okay, dismissing those is pretty automatic but seriously, what are these people expecting?
-
@Rhywden said in Tinder is shit:
what are these people expecting?
I'm sorry, but you fail because you're not a mind reader.
-
@Arantor said in Tinder is shit:
I assume the flexibility is to cope with things like “32 years and 1 day” isn’t suddenly less appropriate than “32 years” even if you set your upper limit to only permit 32 years.
Fuzzy matching be hard, yo.
What's hard about ranking using the reciprocal of the absolute difference?
-
@DogsB said in Tinder is shit:
Is there a dating app where ‘saving towards 30% deposit’ is a valid common interest?
I dearly hope not. Someone should make one.
-
@Rhywden said in Tinder is shit:
I also always wonder about the gals who don't answer a single question (or post a bunch of unintelligible emoticons in the "about me" part). Sometimes even upping the ante by only posting a single picture. Bonus points if there are multiple women in said picture or if only the back of the head is visible. Alternatively: Someone in a mask or half a face against the sun.
Okay, dismissing those is pretty automatic but seriously, what are these people expecting?Think of how much effort on average a girl has to put in he Tinder profile to start getting matches. Those people are 2σ to the left.
-
@Rhywden said in Tinder is shit:
Also, so much for this popular: "Oh, but women are so communicative!" saying. Twice in a row now have two women contacted me (not vice versa!) and when I replied I always only got single-sentence answers whereas I made sure to always include some tidbits or outright questions (even open ones!) for her to hook into to keep the conversation flowing.
How the fuck do you expect me to get to know you when you don't tell me stuff about yourself? Oh, well, onto the next potential match.
I also always wonder about the gals who don't answer a single question (or post a bunch of unintelligible emoticons in the "about me" part). Sometimes even upping the ante by only posting a single picture. Bonus points if there are multiple women in said picture or if only the back of the head is visible. Alternatively: Someone in a mask or half a face against the sun.
Okay, dismissing those is pretty automatic but seriously, what are these people expecting?
They are expecting you to do all the legwork. Or, they are seeking validation that they are sufficiently pretty.
They expect it of you because they are either accustomed to being approached and catered to by men on a regular basis, or assume that receiving attention is their birthright. And, in one of the great injustices of the human experience, some of them become so accustomed to being constantly approached that they regard it as irritating white noise, when every single one of those approachers might have spent some time working up the courage to even approach in the first place.
What you do with these people is what you have already done: swipe [in the direction that politely rejects] and move onto the next candidate. One fundamental rule in online dating, and dating in general, is only focus on people who match your level of effort.
It's actually pretty easy to gauge. Does the person ask you questions back? Are her responses one-word or one-sentence answers? Is her profile filled out, or just one sentence and an Instagram handle? When it comes to dates, does she offer to help plan them? If you make it to dinner, is the check 50/50? Does she seem to be truly invested in getting to know you, or is she only along for the ride until someone more interesting comes along?
This is why I treat OLD as supplemental and real-world speed dating/Meetup.com as primary methods of meeting people.
-
@DogsB said in Tinder is shit:
Is there a dating app where ‘saving towards 30% deposit’ is a valid common interest?
I encountered a profile months ago which demanded that all candidates must be putting at least 15% of their incomes away for retirement to merit consideration (not in those words, and not as politely expressed).
The funny thing is that while I was three percent too low to make her threshold, I also have this thing called a "hoose" and another thing called a "mort-gauge" or something. In less than 20 years, I will own the land I sit on and only owe property tax and community association dues to live there. That, I would argue, is a far more important step toward financial security, at least compared to saving three percent more if you're still renting, when rent will by far be your biggest monthly expense.
-
@Groaner said in Tinder is shit:
@DogsB said in Tinder is shit:
Is there a dating app where ‘saving towards 30% deposit’ is a valid common interest?
I encountered a profile months ago which demanded that all candidates must be putting at least 15% of their incomes away for retirement to merit consideration (not in those words, and not as politely expressed).
The funny thing is that while I was three percent too low to make her threshold, I also have this thing called a "hoose" and another thing called a "mort-gauge" or something. In less than 20 years, I will own the land I sit on and only owe property tax and community association dues to live there. That, I would argue, is a far more important step toward financial security, at least compared to saving three percent more if you're still renting, when rent will by far be your biggest monthly expense.
send her to me.
