[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]
logo
random

Return ]

Posting mode: Reply
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 441753)
Message
File  []
close
seinfeld fuck this.gif
441753441753441753
>> No. 441753 Anonymous
21st January 2021
Thursday 2:22 am
441753 spacer
I installed tinder and got some matches with my bedroom selfie during my initial swiping spree, but now it seems like way more trouble than it's worth. I don't want to keep swiping incessantly every day just to continue getting matches. Plus, the vast majority of the attractive women are only attractive in the physical sense, and there is a palpable feeling of there being "nothing there", or an unsettling black chasm behind their eyes.

Is there a better way to meet women without having an IRL social life?
Expand all images.
>> No. 441754 Anonymous
21st January 2021
Thursday 2:26 am
441754 spacer
>>441753
>Is there a better way to meet women without having an IRL social life?

Not really. Either you meet women through your workplace, or, you get in the friendzone with someone you like and then try to get off with their single mates; that's what worked for me. If I were you, I would stick to Bumble, it's the kinder version of Tinder.
>> No. 441756 Anonymous
21st January 2021
Thursday 8:09 am
441756 spacer
>Is there a better way to meet women without having an IRL social life?

Ravelry. Teach yourself crocheting, you'll be an absolute fanny magnet.
>> No. 441767 Anonymous
21st January 2021
Thursday 4:14 pm
441767 spacer
Bumble and OKCupid have people who are a bit more 'alternative', or at least enough between their ears to realise that they don't want to be on the Tinder meat market.

There's also something to be said for how you play the game. Getting matches is just the first step, you can direct the conversation to stuff that interests you (in context) or at least be open about what you want with people on matching. Most will respect the honesty, those that don't are total strangers you'll likely never meet anyway.

I'd also suggest you should consider reevaluating your position on having an IRL social life.
>> No. 441768 Anonymous
21st January 2021
Thursday 4:33 pm
441768 spacer
>>441767

Samelad, adding to this that online dating (and especially Tinder) is inherently a numbers game. Among other things, their algorithm awards those who swipe more with greater visibility than "inactive" profiles.

If you want to be really efficient about it, you're generally allowed a certain number of "like" or positive swipes every 12 hours.

When I was on Tinder, I had pretty good success by going in by setting a few guidelines for myself:
- Choose only the best pictures of myself
- Maintaining low expectations (as I said, it's just a first step to meeting people)
- Swiping with the question in mind, "would I enjoy this person sitting across a coffee table from me? Would they inspire me to make the effort?"
- Swiping in ten or fifteen minute blocks of time at 9am and 9pm every day, and not thinking about it the rest of the time
- Have fun with the messaging, and 'roll with the punches' in terms of working out what the other person is looking for
- If a date wasn't arranged in the first two or three conversations, I'd generally think of the person as a no-go and unmatch

This was a fairly good approach in not just netting people who I found attractive, but also led to meetups and actually quite fun dates.

As always, your mileage may vary, but I had an unusual experience in that I had quite a good time on there. It probably also helped that I'm pretty broad in the things I find attractive, and dated girls of a few different backgrounds and temperaments.
>> No. 441777 Anonymous
21st January 2021
Thursday 8:15 pm
441777 spacer
>>441768

> Among other things, their algorithm awards those who swipe more with greater visibility than "inactive" profiles.

While this might be true, it's worth bearing in mind that their algorithm equally punishes people who swipe right on too many profiles. You need to mix in at least 25-30% noes to balance things out.

Incidentally by far the top two things that promote your profile visibility are, in reverse order:

2) Buying premium features such as Plus, Gold, etc.
1) How new your account is.

This is a major part of their business plan; when you first join you get absolutely flooded with likes and matches as you're basically on the top of everyone's stack. As time goes by you drop further and further down the majority of stacks meaning that only the small percentage of people whose stack you ended up near the top of or who swipe obsessively will ever see you. This in turn leads to you buying the premium packages to try to get back to those halcyon days of dozens of matches with top shelf clunge per day.

This is why the smart thing to do is to create a new profile with new photos every six months to a year.

> Swiping with the question in mind, "would I enjoy this person sitting across a coffee table from me? Would they inspire me to make the effort?"

That's certainly one way to do it. My metric was (is) "Would I likely want to shag this person and not be ashamed of it". Or to put it another way, "would I be happy to introduce this lass to my mates as someone I'm seeing?".

> If a date wasn't arranged in the first two or three conversations, I'd generally think of the person as a no-go and unmatch

This can't be overstated. Tinder is not an app where you're going to have weeks or even days to woo someone. Either they're attracted to you, you build rapport, hopefully move to another messaging platform, and be planning to meet within three days to a week or it's likely that nothing is ever going to happen. Tinder is the speed dating of the online dating world, you either move fast or you miss out. If you can get their number and start building rapport over text or other messaging them you've got a better chance of building towards a "date" over a week or two, but if your messaging stays on the app then it's going to peter out fairly quickly in my experience.
>> No. 441780 Anonymous
21st January 2021
Thursday 8:34 pm
441780 spacer
>Is there a better way to meet women without having an IRL social life?
There's Hinge. I don't have to do the account churn thing there.
>> No. 441782 Anonymous
21st January 2021
Thursday 8:59 pm
441782 spacer
You lads have confused me again. There's nothing you can do with a lass at the moment but go for a walk in the cold and screw - right? Have all those empty shops been converted in American style speakeasys and I'm simply not cool enough to know about it?
>> No. 441787 Anonymous
21st January 2021
Thursday 9:30 pm
441787 spacer
>>441782

No, you're absolutely right. It's the main reason I'm barely putting any effort into tinder at all the moment; basically if I hadn't gotten blind drunk over the "Black Friday" weekend and bought a year of Tinder Gold at a ridiculous discount I would have deleted my account by now.

I happen to be in a relatively comfortable position where I can basically have all the sex I want with someone who I know is taking the same Covid precautions that I am. If I wasn't, and I was in a total sexual drought since the beginning of last year I would probably be risking things a lot more and actually meeting up with the kind of mental slag lass who wants to hook up with a total stranger in the middle of a global pandemic.
>> No. 441794 Anonymous
22nd January 2021
Friday 10:09 am
441794 spacer
Honestly lads, just have a wank and wait. I know someone who had Covid, you don't want this. Blood from the face apparently.
>> No. 441801 Anonymous
22nd January 2021
Friday 2:02 pm
441801 spacer
>>441794

>Blood from the face apparently.

For £300, I wouldn't mind a bit of blood from my face.

But you're right, wank and wait. You younglads think the world is going to end if you go a year without shagging. I was once like that, but let me assure you, it won't.
>> No. 442034 Anonymous
3rd February 2021
Wednesday 9:13 pm
442034 spacer
Tinder is a waste of phone storage space if you're not pretty. might as well punch yourself in the face.
>> No. 442035 Anonymous
3rd February 2021
Wednesday 9:32 pm
442035 spacer
>>442034
>might as well punch yourself in the face.

Oh is this the blood thing? I'd get on Tinder lickety-split if I saw Andrew W. K. on there looking for a support bubble. I've got a big tub of Vanish Oxy Action here doing not much at all because I wear darks mostly.
>> No. 442039 Anonymous
3rd February 2021
Wednesday 11:26 pm
442039 spacer
Found a lass I used to work with that I fancied the pants off on bumble. Cue me spending an inordinate amount of time trying to sell myself with her in mind on my profile and realising I don't really have any pictures.

Let's hope the algorithm hides me as I'm liable to make a fool of myself.

>>442034
Numbers game lad. Numbers game. I find you will get weeks where all your matches come in and then you can be disappointed in a whole new way as all the good ones bin you before you meet.

Tinder is still completely wank though but for different reasons - it's all people trying to get you to follow them on Instagram. Disgusting app.
>> No. 442041 Anonymous
4th February 2021
Thursday 2:47 pm
442041 spacer
>>442039
>it's all people trying to get you to follow them on Instagram.

So they can get you to buy their Onlyfans or follow pay for a private snapchat account. It's some fairly impressive SEO optimisation.
>> No. 442042 Anonymous
4th February 2021
Thursday 2:50 pm
442042 spacer
>>442041

>SEO optimisation

They'll be laughing all the way to the ATM machine.
>> No. 442043 Anonymous
4th February 2021
Thursday 3:02 pm
442043 spacer
>>442042
You can blame the tosspot "consultant" my company brought in to teach about SEO. he kept on saying SEO optimisation to the point that I completed that saying in a Pavlovian response. I really should hold myself to a better standard, otherwise I'll end up using more superfluous words.

Return ]
whiteline

Delete Post []
Password