I understood from a friend that you get more/better matches (as a man) if you pay?
The men I know that are attractive (can attract a woman with relatively little effort) are not likely to be spending money on online dating. Ergo, women are seeing a lot less of 'attractive men' in online dating?
Women’s sexuality also doesn’t really line up with how dating apps work.
Almost every dating app out there now is based around Grindr’s original formula. Show a few photos and about three sentences of text. It’s completely catered to men’s sexuality. For men, personality is important but if you aren’t physically attractive - there’s almost nothing that will move that. The same cannot be said for women - as most women find most men physically unattractive (often including their own partners).
Most of the women I know who didn’t meet their partner from a dating app usually say they wouldn’t match with their partner if they had seen their profile online. For women, in person interactions are incredibly important for determining overall sexual value. This is why many women will meet very physically attractive men in real life but then find the men very off putting in some way or another - leading them to feel disenchanted with the process.
Online dating is inherently a male gays oriented game as it has been developed over the last decade.
Protocols aren’t going to change that. Email has to be open or it won’t work. But being open means there is abuse. And abuse means there is reputation. And reputation… means you will be blocked sometimes.
Question is whether a new or updated protocol could force users such as "email providers" to change their behaviour.
Here is something to downvote, a series of questions:
What if email were "pickup only" _from the sender_. Not from some intermediary recipient, e.g., an "email provider". What if the the recipient had to identify acceptable senders before they could "send" mail to the recipient. Arguably this already happens every time an email recpient gives out their email address to some email sender. What if the sender did not "send" mail but instead uploaded it to host run by the sender and accessible by the recipient. Then the recipient retrieves the mail from the sender.
In the past, one large email provider had an RSS feed for a user's inbox. What if the RSS feed is not provided by some third party "email provider" but by _senders_. What if the feed indicates whether there is new mail waiting to be retrieved by the recipient. Arguably, something like this already happens, albeit using third party intermediaries, for example as millions of people use non-public webpages on third party websites to communicate with each other, instead of using email. Recipients check these pages for comments or messages from "senders".
A simpler idea that requires no changes to any email protocol, which I have tested successfully on home network, is for sender and recipient to be on a peer-to-peer overlay and run their own SMTP servers, like the original internet. The sender SMTP server communicates directly with the receiver's SMTP server, not a third party SMTP server run by an "email provider". Obviously, sender and receiver should not invite anyone onto this network who they do not know and from which they do not want to receive email.
The fundamental problem with email is that personal, non-commercial email is mixed with commercial email, mail that is selling something. That's beneficial to marketers, but not email users. Any change to email that threatens to exclude the unsolicited, commercial email will be opposed fervently.
> What if email were "pickup only" _from the sender_.
Congrats, you've invented DJB's Internet Mail 2000[1]. Definitely a good proposal for moving the burden of spam back to the spammers but I don't think anyone took the time to seriously consider it.
Pickup email makes one problem in spam much worse. It demonstrates that the address being spammed is valid and active. That's one of the reasons most email clients/hosts don't load remote resources by default.
Unless there was a google-scale grab-n-cache going on for those messages, I think there'd be a problem.
Here is a fun thought/question: Could it be that (using rss) only one of the two parties needs to remember/have login credentials for the other to be able to obtain them?
I doubt there will be a technology that can reliably exclude unsolicited or commercial email. How will the system know, what's unsolicited or unwanted? It can make a guess and that's what the big ones do. But it won't get better than this. I don't think there will ever be an alternative where this could be opposed.
As for unsolicited, this is already taken on by the GDPR and if you're a company that wants to sell their stuff in the EU, you pretty much have no choice than to adhere to these laws.
Software developers trying to manipulate computer users for financial gain make lots of assumptions about what people want without ever asking them. I am not a software developer.
I'm the same. I offload stuff to my phone's camera. Not really "offload" because I barely load it into my brain, just photograph it and don't worry about it. It has saved my mass quite a few times.
It so happens that we have Absurd on a special discount today. Only $19.99 or only $9.99 if you subscribe for a year. Normal price $79.99 so don't lose out on today's offer!
I think what Google doesn't realise is that they're driving around with an open container of petrol slushing around on the floor. It just needs a spark (from a new competitor) and fire is real.
No wonder. I was reading a about historical battles the other day and wanted to research the armour that the knights whore. When I searched for "knight armour" (I didn't know "plate armour" is the generic term), ONE result was wikipedia. ALL the others were trying to sell me knight armour.
I hate how it's translating words or when you highlight something on mobile and select search web, it prefixes "define" or replaces the word entirely with a more generalized term. Just this week, I searched for Clătite. The first result is a giant full page (on mobile) information box about Crêpes. Which, yes, the same, but also not the same. If I wanted to read about crêpes, I would have searched for crêpes. When I'm searching for Clătite, it's because I'm interested in the specifics of what is different. Giving information about the French variety is missing the point entirely. If you're on Android, try it yourself. Highlight the word Clătite and see what it puts in the search box when you click "web search".
The men I know that are attractive (can attract a woman with relatively little effort) are not likely to be spending money on online dating. Ergo, women are seeing a lot less of 'attractive men' in online dating?
reply