We got pretty good results by letting users block messages from users who do not meet certain criteria. We gave users three different filters:
1. Allow messages from users who live in those areas where you are looking company
2. The same as 1., but also age and gender must match your "dream partner" settings
3. And finally allow messages from users who meet X percent of your dream partner settings
And of course you could block users after they have messaged you, but that is already too late if you get 100 harassment messages per day.
It would have been fairly simple to do same for messages, but problem is that Finnish law does not permit moderators to read private messages. So it would have been unfair for some users.
Yey, the sexism here.
Still, I'm very much a typical horny male – it often takes no more than about 2 seconds to go from noticing a woman anywhere to mental procreative scenery. For all the feminist talk about the female libido, I doubt women generally experience as strong (or perhaps "swift" is a better word here) urges as many men seem to do. This discongruence is perhaps one of nature's cruelest jokes... The question is how to avoid demonising (all) men without victimising women.
However, before this whole discussion turns into another bitter (anti-)feminist warzone, this particular case has probably at least as much to do with the medium as it has with issues between men and women. As it stands, the (unwalled) internet is generally somewhat of a lost cause since the distance, anonimity and lack of social consequences make it very hard to compel people to do the right thing – at least according to current societal norms.
If you prefer the wild west over the walled gardens of strictly regulated sites (block, ban, ignore, real ID), I'm afraid you better bring a gun to handle the coyotes... Not many seem to be in favour of policies such as Real Name or let alone forms of official identification.
What is slightly surprising is that online dating websites, for all their sophisticated matching algorithms, haven't bothered applying some of the most basic anti-spam heuristics to the problem. The first dating site that does it, you'd imagine, would get a very good reputation very quickly.
Dating websites actually want people to stay single and remain on the site paying their subscription or viewing adverts, but an add-on that filters out the awful rubbish is surely something women would pay for.
Anyway, if the filter weeds out most spam without getting too much false positives, that's a win. Then, as you mark more messages as "inappropriate", you get less and less such messages.
With email spam, everyone can more or less agree on what it looks like so you can reuse other people's training data but by deciding on what is a "bad" online dating message is much more complicated.
That, and minimum message lengths.
IMHO the majority of men.
> but an add-on that filters out the awful rubbish is surely something women would pay for
Most dating sites are free for women.
In my experience, the most effective dating sites are social networks that are about anything but dating. Where you can meet somebody with whom you share a hobby or something like that. I met my girlfriend on a foreign language learning website and we are still together after 4 years. I guess it's more complicated to meet girls on a Java forum...but the fact that one engages a discussion without sex or relationship in mind can make a future relationship more genuine.
EDITED! since I just found out this subject is a very "sensitive" one for some here. But i still stand by my point.
Citation please or be responsible and remove this baseless claim.
> Out of over 300 messages, less than 10% were actual introductions rather than a plain 'hi' or some rude sexual commentary. I responded to every single one of them. 90% of those [nb: the initially actual non-sexual introductions] turned into something sexual in less than 8 back/forth exchanges. In the end out of somewhere around 340 first contact msgs received, only one guy actually carried on a normal, reasonable conversation longer than a few paragraphs, and even he made one or two not entirely subtle hints in the process.
People using the site respectfully could be the vast majority, but still be drowned out by a small subset of users who copy and paste the same messages to as many profiles as they can find.
If I applied your same logic to my inbox, I'd conclude that 95% of online businesses are dubious Canadian pharmacies selling Viagra without a prescription.
Statistics don't proof anything. A few rotten apples can cause most of the spam.
Besides, I doubt there are many men who don't put at least some sexual innuendos into a conversation with a potential mate, even if they are really desperately looking for a serious long-term relationship. A relationship consists of 2 parties, both with equal rights to have desires and requirements, hopes and dreams. We're not getting anywhere by implying one side is all bad and wrong and disgusting.
Your quote sounds more like a witchhunt on men than a (undoubtedly deserved) complaint about some of the more abusive "empty the uzi and see what got hit" Don Juans.
Concerning your "its just an opinion" defense, I'd like to share a quote by Harlan Ellison — 'You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.'
Took a look at your HN profile statement, now its clear that you have an agenda.
Give me a break. You are paranoid.
We've got to get rid of this misconception that if you're a certain gender, you can't possibly be generally hostile towards that same gender.
Just a side-note about this in general.
Or "Poor Indian wears Fair&Handsome and poses as Rich Western Tourist, barely lasts two hours before getting annoyed by beggars".
Related thoughts from the often interesting Scott Alexander: http://squid314.livejournal.com/327849.html http://squid314.livejournal.com/327957.html
(Yes, I'm one of those big jerks who has as much sympathy for the sexually deprived as the monetarily deprived, which is not a huge amount. Feel free to make status-lowering comments in response.)
a) Plainly have not taken your skills or location or pay grade into consideration
b) Refuse to take "no" for an answer
c) Turn hostile or somehow imply that you owe them your time or should be grateful for their attention
And we generally assume that the engineers are correct in their complaints. I can't say I've ever seen recruiters being abusive, but I have heard voicemail messages that start with "I know you said not to call you again, but...", and there's really no question about who is in the wrong there.
Whether it's actually important is a different question. I get a fair few pointless enquiries via LinkedIn, and I ignore them. I can't say that it troubles me much. But if the people sending those messages were insulting me, making sexually explicit statements or generally being persistent beyond all efforts to make them stop, I would probably feel much more strongly about it.
What puzzles me is that the behaviour of the recruiters does make at least some sense in a way that the dating site behaviour doesn't. Sure, getting a job spec for a senior Java developer and then mailing everyone with "senior [something] developer" in their past job titles on LinkedIn is going to fail quite often, as you'll hit Senior Python Developers and Senior C++ Developers and so on, but sooner or later the recruiter has to get lucky. But who the hell responds positively to the kinds of comments that the OP received? Are the people sending the messages doing so because they believe that sooner or later it's going to work? Even worse, does it actually work sometimes? I can't easily believe that it does, but it's hard to understand the behaviour otherwise.
But I don't adopt the same victimhood that the Jezabel blog post is trying to imply, i.e. I won't favorably quote people making statements like this: "I came away thinking that software engineers have it so much harder than buggy-whip makers do when it comes to that kind of stuff..."
If you're happy being a bit more stoical about the problems you've encountered, that's fine. Perhaps some of the women receiving unwanted messages on dating sites could be a bit more stoical too. But it does seem to me that they're being given a bit more to be stoical about, and this is unfair, to some extent (it is perhaps hardly the greatest injustice in the world, but it does seem genuinely unfair).
I doubt you get hit on by "fatties" or "gays" every day and in unsuitable situations.
On a dating website, messages are the only signal available to the receiver. This means the person had to go through a lot of noise (or as the article says, "wade through a mountain of shit") to find out if anyone interesting to them messaged them. If on top of that these messages are as numerous and off-putting as the person in the article says, then it's easy to see the online dating experience can become rapidly unpleasant. Furthermore, this is a problem because finding matches is the only function of a dating website!
Now, back to your example. The thing is that not only do you hopefully get utility from socializing at a bar beyond being able to find sexual partners and you're presumably not constantly in such a situation (which already makes your analogy miss the point), but you have many other signals at your disposal: you can simply visually identify those who are more attractive to you in the room and physically make your way through them, and even though, as you said, you can get cockblocked at times, this is still an option that's not available to people on dating websites.
I somehow doubt your failures with more attractive girls are down to “being cockblocked by gays and fatties” - my initial feeling is that it may have something to do with your stellar perception of other people.
Seriously, “I complain about fat girls hitting on me.” “I complain about gays hitting on me.”
This doesn't amount to "Women! It's actually all your fault for encouraging these guys!", although it could easily be taken that way. I presume it's more complicated than that, though I am not a sociologist or psychologist and can't really take the analysis much further.
My account was created about 1000 days ago, and my karma is 182. I am unable to downvote at this time, because I lurked for long part of that 1000 days.
Edits: Yes, that doesn't have anything about some kind of ratio though... just that there is a threshold. Thank you :)
EDIT: I put the paragraphs quoted into http://www.hackerfactor.com/GenderGuesser.php#Analyze
Female = 1683
Male = 1466
Difference = -217; 46.55%
Verdict: Weak FEMALE
Weak emphasis could indicate European.
(Without wishing to offend females of school-attending age)
It doesn't read like the (somewhat stereotypical) male character they're describing. It's portrayed as some cocky male who frequents 4chan having a deep and heartfelt revelation about the plight of women.
But I wouldn't expect anything on that site to not be biased.
I agree, the whole thing sounds a little overcooked.
TwoX is bafflingly aggressive to just about everyone. There are MRAs there from their sub reddits.
Aren't they part of the Gawker/Valleywag hive of scum and villainy?
^ This would be an attractive feature.
Note that it's not a post against online dating sites, commenters on both 2x and jezebel note that they've met significant others on dating sites.
> I get that this problem plagues free sites like OKC or POF - is it also a problem on paid sites?
Creepy messagers have as much money to spend as others (if not more) I'd guess, unless the site finds out they make people leave (and stop paying) I'd expect little difference. But you'd have to ask women using or staff of these sites to know/get a comparison really.
Ok, joking a bit, but there is a point to this. If you have a finite set of people (and I bet in a short time frame you can make that assumption), then in the WORST case you have to do n*(n+1)/2 matches. Let's say it takes 1 hr to run a date, then we can match 10 people in 55 hrs in the worst case.
Now, try matching 10 people using these websites. Enter the texting game and no proper filtering (by looks, age, location, etc.). It will take X time my worst case scenario to maybe match half of the population.
Point is: somebody should make a system that clusters people and randomly assigns them to dates. Without any prior texting that is. Which, by the way, would simulate the way people met until 20 years ago more or less.
Another approach would be to have a karma system that over time will filter out the bad actors.
Not a good idea. Karma would work (but could be abused).
It's amazing how big the mountain of stupid is out there and it's not easy when their all trying to talk to you.
That's why us guys have it hard in general. When she has to sift through so many emails to find just a half decent guy.
Lesson 1: You need to stand out if your just like the other 20 guys she's talked to these past hours you're doomed to fail. Be yourself but be your best self and don't be afraid to be unique or weird as long as its not in a creepy way.
Lesson 2: Don't be a wuss or needy let her reply in her own damn time and if you're writing a follow up be funny and bust her balls a bit for not replying in a timely manner. If she still doesn't reply ...oh well there's plenty of other fish in the sea.
This is not something new women have been dealing with this since the birth of the internet and there's nothing you can do about that.
All you can change is yourself and learn from other guys stupidity.
#1: People to talk to.
#2: The person need to a person you want to talk to, ie not a "predator", scam artist, bot, creepy, and so on.
The question the person had was if women had a easier time on dating services than men. By experiment, he concluded that the mass of men wanting to talk to a female profile and the over predatory attitude quickly overwhelmed the person who made the fake profile. By this, he concluded that women has a worse time than men.
Just me who do not think he actually answered his question?
It would be funny if messages from users who are reported as annoying get redirected to a horny bot which keeps them "entertained" :)