
OkCupid has less-than-OK policies. Especially if you're "ugly." - mcantor
http://bitchmagazine.org/post/okcupid-has-less-than-ok-policies-especially-if-youre-ugly
======
karzeem
I'm not quite sure what the problem is. OkCupid's goal is to help its users
find dates. People rarely date someone who's very significantly more or less
attractive than they are. Directing people to users with whom they're much
likelier to find success actually seems quite sensible, not "less than OK".

~~~
potatolicious
Hell, I would like if OKCupid let me know my percentile. If I thought I had a
hot shit profile that actually rather sucks (by real user analytics feedback),
it would benefit me to know.

[edit] People are taking this far too personally. _You_ didn't get rejected as
unattractive, your _profile_ got rejected as unattractive. There are more ways
than one to rectify this. Remember, these people don't know you, they can only
view a tiny slice of you via your profile - one that you are in 100% control
of. Perhaps your failure is not that you're irredeemably ugly, but rather that
your profile inspires no attraction. Conversely, if you "won" the profile
attractiveness game, it may not mean you're nearly as attractive in real life
as your profile suggests.

This reminds of the PUA mantra as it has been related to me: "she didn't
reject _you_ , she rejected your _approach_ "

~~~
steveklabnik
> If I thought I had a hot shit profile that actually rather sucks (by real
> user analytics feedback), it would benefit me to know.

The "YourBestFace" feature would help you with that.

Most interesting thing I found out? Pictures with my grandma: awesome.
Pictures with my grandfather: horrible.

~~~
sliverstorm
Wow, I hadn't heard of that feature!

It makes me wonder why these people are running something as small-time as a
dating website. I haven't seen so much useful creativity and cool new ideas
and openness since Google got bigger.

~~~
modeless
Why is dating "small-time"? What other category of website can actually charge
_subscription_ fees and still attract a large mainstream user base?

~~~
tjmaxal
OK Cupid is free btw

~~~
steveklabnik
But you can pay a subscription and get no ads, better filters, and extra blah
blah blah.

------
byrneseyeview
_The policy discriminates against those deemed less attractive for whatever
reason (bad photo, profile misspelling, etc.)._

Heaven forbid people are rewarded for being liked! Shouldn't a bad photo or a
misspelling count against you?

 _The policy reinforces the notion that hot people deserve love and happiness
and "ugly" people should just get used to being alone._

What does attractiveness mean if not that people like to look at you more? It
would be weird for a dating site not to respond to this dynamic.

 _...we've all got different preferences when it comes to physical
attractiveness, and just because someone hasn't gotten as many click-thrus as
someone else doesn't mean that users won't find that person attractive._

Interesting. I wonder if HotOrNot can tell you what the correlation among user
ratings is (i.e. whether an 8 is more likely to be seen as an 8 or a 2). I
would be pretty surprised if the 8's were just as likely to be seen as 2's by
a random viewer.

 _OkCupid is segregating the groups, which seems counter-productive to, you
know, DATING._

Really? If you're in a dating mood, you don't look for specific kinds of
people? I doubt this. If you're actively looking for mates, you'll still write
off >90% of the people you see on a daily basis (count how many people you
walk past who are within 10 years of your age, a member of the sex you're
attracted to, and not--by your guess--currently romantically attached).

I used to think that the problem with calling prejudice "discrimination" was
that it rid us of a serviceable word. But it's worse than that: now, we're rid
of a serviceable concept, too. Suddenly, discrimination--making judgments
about how things differ--is also a problem.

------
doki_pen
If you think looks don't matter, then this shouldn't bother you as you are
just as likely to make a match no matter how attractive the subjects are. If
you think looks do matter then you have no right to complain. I think people
are just upset to learn that they are in the unattractive group.

------
fgf
"however, we've all got different preferences when it comes to physical
attractiveness"

"this policy is a bunch of discriminatory, attractiveness-norm-reinforcing"

"why are they falling prey to the same arbitrary attractiveness standards as
your local meat market-y douchebar?"

This is what reading too much sociology will do to you. I just spent a year
with it as a major, it won't happen again.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_attractiveness>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_attraction>

~~~
hugh3
Indeed, it does appear to make you believe things which everybody should know
from experience are false. Attractiveness standards are not "arbitrary",
however much you might want to believe it. We have _slightly_ different
preferences when it comes to physical attractiveness, but the differences are
fairly minor. And attractiveness norms don't need any "reinforcing", they seem
to be pretty damn-near hardwired in our genomes.

Reading this, I expected the author to be a trollish blob, but clicking on her
name reveals she's nothing awful:
[http://bitchmagazine.org/sites/default/files/imagecache/prof...](http://bitchmagazine.org/sites/default/files/imagecache/profile-
photo/profiles/images/IMG_0039.JPG)

I suppose that makes sense: if she were completely hideous she'd know about
it, but if she's so-so in appearance then she's more likely to be offended by
her non-inclusion in the top half.

------
wzdd
If I were running that site I would be interested in sending that email to a
randomly-selected half the userbase and then seeing if and how they behaved
differently on the site. After all, the letter says both that you, personally,
are more attractive, but also acts as kind of guarantee that the people you
are being matched with are more attractive too.

There may be some ethical considerations here of course.

~~~
steveklabnik
This sounds like something that they'd do. Those guys are serious math nerds.

> There may be some ethical considerations here of course.

Reading OkTrends, I'm pretty sure they're not worried about it.

~~~
camccann
Not that they don't have standards--I'm sure they're very careful not to
release anything that would reveal private information about specific,
identifiable users.

Other than that, yeah. Those guys pretty much do statistics for the lulz. I
would not be surprised at _all_ if wzdd turns out to have been correct...

~~~
steveklabnik
Since I didn't get one of these letters, I'm pretty sure he is. ;)

------
orblivion
This boils down to the simple fact that the truth sometimes hurts, so we avoid
talking about it as much as we can. Thus it's difficult to be marketable and
reflect reality at the same time.

------
wan23
This post doesn't make sense. It specifically says that this doesn't affect
match percentages which is the primary way that the site matches people. It is
just taking into account that the people who are the most conventionally
attractive tend to stick together. The biggest problem I have with dating
sites is that I have to go through hundreds of profiles to find someone who I
like that also might like me. IMO, the smarter the matching, the better it is
for everyone.

~~~
potatolicious
Ehhh, I still think dating sites fail at their job, and a large part is the
ease at which you can zoom through dozens of profiles and reject them all -
all without having ever conversed or met the other person.

You think you're making an informed choice - that this person is clearly
incompatible with you (or you with them), but consider the relationships you
have/had, and ones around you... how would many of those profiles look on a
dating site? How many perfectly fine relationships would have been written off
by either side if they had a profile to read about the other person
beforehand?

Which isn't to say that filtering is bad, but rather that the "scan profile,
decide if you want to contact" idea is by its nature encouraging users to set
bars that are too high for their own good.

If their match algorithm was good enough, I'd be interested in seeing a dating
site where you don't get to view the other person's profile. It will only give
you the absolute most bare-bones information about this person, and put you
two in contact. This is, after all, how most relationships blossom (i.e., in a
general void of information about each other).

~~~
wan23
<http://www.crazyblinddate.com/>

The people behind OKC actually started a site exactly as you describe. It's
currently being renovated or something though.

------
twir
At first I was like, "wow, that's offensive."

But then I was like, "damn, how come I didn't get that email too?"

~~~
qq66
Why is it offensive? Long-term relationships report the highest happiness
levels when both partners are of roughly equal attractiveness.

~~~
jrockway
But I rate myself above average in every category! Just like everyone else!

~~~
die_sekte
Congratulations! You are more attractive than 70% of the population! Just like
everybody else.

------
adrianmonk
They left out the main reason it's offensive: What do you mean the scales
recently tipped in my favor? I'm just _barely_ above average now, and I was
previously at 49% or lower? What if I thought I was in, say, the top 25%?

~~~
albemuth
so, ignorance is bliss?

~~~
orangecat
Pretty much. If you're a guy, you'll do far better if you're overconfident of
your attractiveness than if you have an accurate impression.

~~~
sharkbrainguy
Unless you're actually really hot, surely.

------
ctcherry
My theory:

I would bet that the system a sliding scale, not a hot or not situation. More
than likely users are being shown matches that the system deems to have
similar "attractiveness" levels, based on that click-through metric mentioned
in the email. The email we see in this article would then just be a
notification letting the user know that he or she has cross into the top 50%
of click throughs. As their click through has been increasing slowly over the
length of their membership they would have been seeing more and more other
"attractive" people as their rank increased.

------
rpledge
Isn't this an obvious marketing angle designed to get people to come to the
site more often? Somehow I doubt they are really giving people less matches
based on this. Anyway, assuming an even distribution of matches, matching
"ugly" top "ugly" and "attractive" to "attractive" will result in an even
match distribution.

~~~
reader5000
I would assume that men are disproportionately more unattractive than women
meaning e.g. the 20% of "hot" men get their pick of 80% of women who are
"hot". Just like in real life. _goes reads mystery method_

~~~
hugh3
If you live somewhere where 80% of women are hot, I want to move there.

~~~
reader5000
college

~~~
what
Uh, ugly people don't go to college?

~~~
timwiseman
Just thinking about the demographics, your average college student is between
18 and 24. While there are certainly exceptions, this is generally the age at
which most people will be at or near their high for physical attractiveness.

Also, college students disproportionately grew up in middle and upper class
households so they generally had access to good food, good healthcare, good
dental care (including cosmetic dental care), not to mention better clothes
and (where appropriate) makeup.

Furthermore, tying in to their age, college students tend to care more about
their appearance than the average population. They often consider dating and
even looking for a spouse to be a major activity of college. They often have
more time to care about it than working professionals. They often have more
social pressures to care about it. So, compared to the average population,
they put more effort into looking good and that effort often has at least some
results.

So, while there are certainly less physically attractive people in college,
the student body of most colleges is on average noticeably more physically
attractive than the average population.

------
callahad
Ack! The author doesn't quite understand how this is implemented, nor how
OkCupid handles matching people. If she did, I imagine she would have found
the practice itself significantly less objectionable, though her points about
the e-mail's phrasing stand.

(Full disclosure: I have an OKC profile, and on My 28th, I received the e-mail
mentioned in the article.)

Members on OkCupid answer questions about lifestyles, dating, sex, etc. (e.g.,
"Do you think it is appropriate for parents to choose their children's
religion or a lack of religion for them?") and then state how their ideal
match would respond, as well as how important it is that a partner have
similar views.

Your set of responses is compared to every other profile's set of responses,
and the intersection between each pair is used to calculate a "match
percentage," which is a pretty good predictor of how folks will get on, or at
least have compatible views. [0,1]

Almost any displayed link to another profile is accompanied by your match
percentage with that individual. It's a major component of the site.

Now, when searching for people to message, most folks set up basic filters --
gender, orientation, age, kids, distance, etc. You have to order the result
set somehow, and that's often either just the match percentage, or you can
elect to sort by "Match & Distance," "Match & Last Online," etc.

As far as I know, searching is the primary means through which people find
each other on the site, and this change will not impact that _at all._

There are a few places where OkCupid will show you somewhat random collections
of profiles: On the homepage when you log in, in the sidebar on every page,
and in two features: Quickmatch and Quiver.

Quickmatch is just a procession of profiles that you're asked to rate from one
to five stars. If two people rate each other highly (or poorly), the site
notifies them. Your "quiver" holds a rotating set of three profiles that their
algorithms think are particularly good matches which you can choose to message
or explicitly ignore.

In all but one of these cases, the candidate profiles are displayed with
little or no additional information beyond a picture. On Quickmatch, the
user's entire profile is displayed, but you must rate them before their
account name is revealed and you're able to communicate with them.

The email indicates that OkCupid is using click-through data from these
sources ferret out which profiles are the most appealing to its users. The
_only_ change that results from being one of those profiles is that when
OkCupid shows you a random profile, it is more likely to pick from the set of
more appealing profiles.

That's it.

If your profile is not within the upper half of all profiles, then you'll
still get the same distribution of recommendations as before. And your profile
will still show up in OkCupid's recommendations to more appealing users,
albeit slightly less often.

But again, that's only for places where OkCupid itself recommends profiles --
on the front page, in the sidebar, on Quickmatch, and in Quivers. Search
ranking remains absolutely unchanged.

Contrary to the author's assertion that "the dreaded bottom 50% presumably do
not have access to potential matches in the top 50%," the bottom 50% still has
exactly the same access to the top 50% as before. They're just less likely to
be _randomly suggested_ to the top 50%.

I'd also challenge the assertion that "the policy reinforces the notion that
hot people deserve love and happiness and "ugly" people should just get used
to being alone." Rather, I think this may be designed to reward users who take
the time to craft engaging profiles by showing them other profiles that have
been vetted by the community.

The policy assuredly does _not_ "[make] dating decisions on the users' behalf
without considering personal preferences" since match percentages and search
rankings are completely unaltered.

While the policy is indeed "kept secret," and the language is offensive, I
find it hard to accept that the policy is segregational or that it has a
significant impact on the site's operations. I'm not even sure it's
"attractiveness-norm-reinforcing," since they're tracking click-through rates,
which is not _necessarily_ attractiveness.

Links about match percentages:

[0]: [http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/2009/09/29/how-races-
and-r...](http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/2009/09/29/how-races-and-
religions-match-in-online-dating/)

[1]: <http://www.okcupid.com/faaaq>

------
thefool
reminds me of "hot or not"

------
mthreat
So in other words, it mimics real life?

