Edit the url to add an equals sign between v and d6w... The site for some reason eats the equals signs in URLs sometimes.
If not search for "Amy Webb: How I hacked online dating".
I''ve seen this one before and I loved it. Opinions will be all over the place, but this video made me want to set up a spreadsheet and a scoring system myself. Yeah, I''m a big geek.
But I like the idea to score different traits and give extra weight to what is important for me before ever meeting the person is definitely appealing. It wouldn''t be superficial stuff either (though I am a man and a visual thinker), so looks would definitely be there. But I''d put a giant score to a combination of things like intelligence, love of kids, love of special needs children, etc. Well over looks.
It would certainly save me contacting a bunch of people that I know won''t be a fit. As a guy, the only other alternative really is to spam to every woman that looks pretty and has a nice OLD profile, and as Amy said, so many of them have nice profiles that are highly suspect anyway (I must have read the phrase "family is very important to me" a million times already - I''m sure not untrue, but it feels kind of canned by now). Why? Because there''s a large body of literature that tells them what to say.
At my age, I won''t have a lot of time to date, and I''m a big believer in technology. I don''t have any people in it, but I have the scoring system more or less ready in a spreadsheet (when I am ready to date long time from now, we''ll see if it works).
Is it the case that chemistry should be there? Yes, absolutely. But with limited time and a life to rebuild, I''d rather sift the incoming possibilities a little bit, and only look for chemistry where it''s worth doing.
Particularly if we as BSs understand that our picker is broken. What a better way to start fixing the picker than by starting to think algorithmically?