SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

https://www.youtube.com/watch?vd6wG_sAdP0U

Interesting video about online dating, worth to take a look and share some thoughts.

I guess we need a lot patience and homework to do too.

[This message edited by Blackhair at 1:45 AM, April 11th, 2014 (Friday)]

Can't get the video to work. It takes me to youtube.com

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?

I used to be like that with online dating, and then realized how EASY it is to lie on profiles. My ex's online profile hits every single item on my checklist, and would score high if I had a rating system. My IC told me that the better approach is to put very little information in my own profile, and then schedule a coffee date relatively soon if I like the initial messages. Otherwise you waste too much time caring about someone you haven't met and could be lying. It's a lot easier to tell if someone is being honest in person than it is online. Plus, my IC told me that I told my ex too much about what I wanted in my messages before I met him. He was able to lie and be exactly what I said I wanted. So from now on I say very little about what I'm looking for, and I just get to know the person in person. Works better I think.

Thanks Gotplayed, you are right, I tried to paste the link again and the equal sign disappeared once it is submitted.

Lonely girl: I learned a lot from old and I can not agree with you more, do not write too much, or give out too much info ahead of time, meet the person soon as nothing better than real face to face conversation.