We Experiment On Human Beings!

July 28th, 2014 by Christian Rudder

I’m the first to admit it: we might be popular, we might create a lot of great relationships, we might blah blah blah. But OkCupid doesn’t really know what it’s doing. Neither does any other website. It’s not like people have been building these things for very long, or you can go look up a blueprint or something. Most ideas are bad. Even good ideas could be better. Experiments are how you sort all this out. Like this young buck, trying to get a potato to cry.


We noticed recently that people didn’t like it when Facebook “experimented” with their news feed. Even the FTC is getting involved. But guess what, everybody: if you use the Internet, you’re the subject of hundreds of experiments at any given time, on every site. That’s how websites work.

Here are a few of the more interesting experiments OkCupid has run.

Experiment 1: LOVE IS BLIND, OR SHOULD BE

OkCupid’s ten-year history has been the epitome of the old saying: two steps forward, one total fiasco. A while ago, we had the genius idea of an app that set up blind dates; we spent a year and a half on it, and it was gone from the app store in six months.

Of course, being geniuses, we chose to celebrate the app’s release by removing all the pictures from OkCupid on launch day. “Love Is Blind Day” on OkCupid—January 15, 2013.

All our site metrics were way down during the “celebration”, for example:



But by comparing Love Is Blind Day to a normal Tuesday, we learned some very interesting things. In those 7 hours without photos:

And it wasn’t that “looks weren’t important” to the users who’d chosen to stick around. When the photos were restored at 4PM, 2,200 people were in the middle of conversations that had started “blind”. Those conversations melted away. The goodness was gone, in fact worse than gone. It was like we’d turned on the bright lights at the bar at midnight.



This whole episode made me curious, so I went and looked up the data for the people who had actually used the blind date app. I found a similar thing: once they got to the date, they had a good time more or less regardless of how good-looking their partner was. Here’s the female side of the experience (the male is very similar).



Oddly, it appears that having a better-looking blind date made women slightly less happy—my operating theory is that hotter guys were assholes more often. Anyhow, the fascinating thing is the online reaction of those exact same women was just as judgmental as everyone else’s:



Basically, people are exactly as shallow as their technology allows them to be.

Experiment 2: SO WHAT’S A PICTURE WORTH?

All dating sites let users rate profiles, and OkCupid’s original system gave people two separate scales for judging each other, “personality” and “looks.”
I found this old screenshot. The “loading” icon over the picture pretty much sums up our first four years. Anyhow, here’s the vote system:



Our thinking was that a person might not be classically gorgeous or handsome but could still be cool, and we wanted to recognize that, which just goes to show that when OkCupid started out, the only thing with more bugs than our HTML was our understanding of human nature.

Here’s some data I dug up from the backup tapes. Each dot here is a person. The two scores are within a half point of each other for 92% of the sample after just 25 votes (and that percentage approaches 100% as vote totals get higher).

In short, according to our users, “looks” and “personality” were the same thing, which of course makes perfect sense because, you know, this young female account holder, with a 99th percentile personality:



…and whose profile, by the way, contained no text, is just so obviously a really cool person to hang out and talk to and clutch driftwood with.

After we got rid of the two scales, and replaced it with just one, we ran a direct experiment to confirm our hunch—that people just look at the picture. We took a small sample of users and half the time we showed them, we hid their profile text. That generated two independent sets of scores for each profile, one score for “the picture and the text together” and one for “the picture alone.” Here’s how they compare. Again, each dot is a user. Essentially, the text is less than 10% of what people think of you.



So, your picture is worth that fabled thousand words, but your actual words are worth…almost nothing.

Experiment 3: THE POWER OF SUGGESTION

The ultimate question at OkCupid is, does this thing even work? By all our internal measures, the “match percentage” we calculate for users is very good at predicting relationships. It correlates with message success, conversation length, whether people actually exchange contact information, and so on. But in the back of our minds, there’s always been the possibility: maybe it works just because we tell people it does. Maybe people just like each other because they think they’re supposed to? Like how Jay-Z still sells albums?

† Once the experiment was concluded, the users were notified of the correct match percentage.

To test this, we took pairs of bad matches (actual 30% match) and told them they were exceptionally good for each other (displaying a 90% match.)† Not surprisingly, the users sent more first messages when we said they were compatible. After all, that’s what the site teaches you to do.



But we took the analysis one step deeper. We asked: does the displayed match percentage cause more than just that first message—does the mere suggestion cause people to actually like each other? As far as we can measure, yes, it does.

When we tell people they are a good match, they act as if they are. Even when they should be wrong for each other.



The four-message threshold is our internal measure for a real conversation. And though the data is noisier, this same “higher display means more success” pattern seems to hold when you look at contact information exchanges, too.

This got us worried—maybe our matching algorithm was just garbage and it’s only the power of suggestion that brings people together. So we tested things the other way, too: we told people who were actually good for each other, that they were bad, and watched what happened.

Here’s the whole scope of results (I’m using the odds of exchanging four messages number here):



As you can see, the ideal situation is the lower right: to both be told you’re a good match, and at the same time actually be one. OkCupid definitely works, but that’s not the whole story. And if you have to choose only one or the other, the mere myth of compatibility works just as well as the truth. Thus the career of someone like Doctor Oz, in a nutshell. And, of course, to some degree, mine.

1,220 Responses to “We Experiment On Human Beings!”

  1. philosopheclese says:

    I have to thank you OK, not for the study, which basically tells us what we already know from being reasonable rational people, but for opening up the flood gates to comments upon the process via this reply/comments area.
    I remember signing up on this site a little while back and having to agree that you would be using the answers that I provided to rate potential matches and that this information would be yours to analyze for such purposes. Being reasonable,I would have to expect that you would continue to attempt to refine the process I’m a way similar to the way google refined their search algorithm.
    Thanks you for sharing this mildly amusing article so that I could be enjoying a deep belly laugh at the people who are reacting so furiously to this apparent violation of their ‘fundamental rights’ and the reaction to the idea that they might be Guinea pigs for some internet company they are contacted with to provide them with their soulmate.
    I can’t wait till you post the study crossing people’s comments to this article and their profile answers.
    Let me know when that blog post comes out.

  2. Lakeforestguy says:

    How about letting people do a search for matches based on the age range what the matches are looking for? So for example I should be able to search based on what ages I am looking for and what they are searching for too.

  3. Kat says:

    The media is saying that people think this is no big deal, but the comments here don’t reflect that. I wonder how OKC got the media on their side, while FB got bashed. One thing is that OKC seems to have convinced people this isn’t about money, but it is. OKC is getting tons of press ($), which mean more advertising dollars ($$). Even this blog is about selling Rudder’s book.

    It is stupid to think this was harmless. Who knows how many mismatched message exchanges led to emotional turmoil, and how many dates ended in verbal abuse or violence because of matching people with fundamentally different moral codes.

    Also, I think it is important to note that OKC used 4 messages and the exchange of PERSONAL information as their threshold. That means that OKC knows specific information shared in messages. I wasn’t aware that my messages were being read by OKC. Worse yet, I don’t know what else they plan to do with the information.

    I wonder if OKC will check the gendered responses to this experiment.

  4. WoodTable.esp says:

    I thought this was pretty interesting. I never knew I was part of an experiment, but that doesn’t change my opinion of the site (especially since a lot of pay sites create fake members to scam you). What I find kind of funny is that a good bit of the report falls in line with the Placebo effect in medicine.

    I don’t see why people are so bent out of shape about all of this. Worst case, you had a chance to interact with someone new (whether or not it was memorable conversation).

  5. Alex S says:

    Thank you so much for this in-depth analysis and explanation.

    Personally, I’ve done my own experiments, when it comes to % match v. % friend v. %enemy, and I’ve found that yes, a resounding yes, looks matter. What I mean is, if the person has a 97% match with me we may end up becoming good friends, but if I can’t picture kissing her then we’re not a match. On the other hand, I’ve messaged mortal enemies and no matter how cute she may be, I simply can’t ignore the fact that she hates gay people or demands religion or demands I give up certain things.

    This site, okc, is amazing. I’ve enjoyed learning about my matches (most of my “ideal” matches happen to be in Europe) but more importantly I’ve learned a ton about myself. And I’ve had some good dates, and I also have some war-stories.

    Good job, and keep up the good work.

    Alex

  6. aviel says:

    I am just waiting for the announcement that information from our answers to questions and our online conversations has been sold to advertisers so they could more accurately target us to buy whatever fantasies they are selling.

  7. PurpleNinjaGirl says:

    I’ve been experimented on.

    Meh, it’s still better than getting unsolicited dick picks on Craigslist.

  8. Ciscok1d says:

    Thank you so much for these studies and blog posts. Some observations, I’ve always suspected but it’s nice to see big data support it. I am somewhat saddened by how superficial and racist we still are (myself included). It would be interesting to see if the same mindset is prevalent, in the same ratios, in other countries.

  9. mdelo says:

    This explains all the garbage and jerks I have been contacted by on this site. I do not appreciate being used.

  10. Ilya Zarembsky says:

    Seriously? You are not even gonna pretend to make a show of disassociating yourself from what FB did?

    Closing account.

  11. Joshua says:

    So, these experiments proved that humans can be conditioned.

    Also, what about those that think okcupid is okfling?

  12. songsequencer says:

    Interesting number-crunching (and experiment on #3, which I don’t find to be a cause of outrage as some other commenters do here).

    These numbers are depressing: If the hotness-level of the guy is equal to the girl, only about 24% will respond to a message. Even if he’s at the right end of the hotness scale (whatever that number is…it’s missing), still only 45% of women will answer. Well, that helps one to have proper expectations of how many messages will be ignored.

    Another depressing number is that even for a 90% match, the odds are that only 20% of them will make it to the fourth message! Sad.

    Finally, I find OKCupid’s match numbers to be very helpful, unlike what Christian seems to say here. I’ve been on OKCupid for 2 years and have read hundreds of profiles. Fairly early in my time here, I discovered that it is rare for me to find a match under 96%, or with an enemy percent over 17%. The lowest match I’ve *ever* found was 92% (“match”=someone I am interested in enough to consider seriously for a relationship). I don’t just rely on the numbers — there are plenty of 99% matches that after reading their profiles and questions, I realize are not suitable for me. But it is interesting that going the other direction *has* been accurate — I’ve gone as low as 80% in reading profiles (I sort by match %), but still have never found anyone suitable less than 92%. This accuracy is one reason I like OKCupid so much. Being able to read the answers to questions of people is another — a lot is revealed in these that is not evident in the profiles.

    Yes, pictures are important. She needs to be attractive to me, so I will not choose a profile of someone who I do not find attractive *at all.* However, the match % is more important (beautiful but 85% match doesn’t work), and what’s in the profile and questions is even more important. At least for this user. Apparently, according to the numbers in this blog post, I’m not the typical user?

    Finally, something not about the blog but about OKCupid: Quit removing features! It seems like you’re constantly taking away useful things! Please bring back “Mandatory” as a question importance choice — there are a few things that are absolute dealbreakers that need to be separate from “Very Important.” Also, please bring back Notes — they’re helpful to remember why I put that person on my Favorites. And finally, having the blogs back would be great to learn more about the person’s natural communication and daily thoughts than the more formulated profile.

  13. Girgenti says:

    Not sure what to make of all this, but it boils down to this: when it’s right, it’s right, and when it isn’t there’s no help for it. I find that most initial contacts take about the same course up to a point, then it’s either contact each other off-site by phone or call it quits. Still quite interesting as studying people usually is. I would rather be studied by someone collecting data for an experiment than called boring and being ignored.

  14. Talktothehand says:

    OkCupid is trying to cover up what they did wrong, because this info leaked out a few days ago. Oh and trying to do such cover up in a he, he funny way. Don’t hate us like you do Facebook, who did the same. Its total bs and weak.

  15. Peter Pruneanu says:

    Good work with these studies! to me this shows you guys are really dedicated to what you do. Of course this has a commercial aspect (I invite anybody that criticize this, and works for free, to step forward.) It’s your guys work and that should be paid, like the rest of us.

    In addition, your transparency to show this data is nothing short of remarkable. And your courage, knowing that there are so many obtuse people who would take this the wrong way.

    In one final word, Congratulations!

  16. loretta says:

    - Conversations went deeper
    – Telephone numbers were exchanged quicker
    STOP READING MY EMAILS – That isn’t OK….Cupid

  17. James says:

    I really appreciate you saying you guys really don’t know what you’re doing. I don’t mean that sarcastically either. I think by saying, “we know exactly what we are doing” would actually be insulting to the members intelligence on this site. The truth is, how can anyone really know how someone’s chemistry is going to match up with another’s, regardless of “how much they have in common” or whatever other evidence is presented from both sides? For Okcupid to say they don’t really know what they are doing(as well as other dating sites), but they are going to work to improve on that, is very realistic and fair, and I have to tell you that I really truly appreciate that. It’s honest and it shows you guys are doing your best to reach your own goal to satisfy more members. So kudos and thank you!

  18. odie1n says:

    That’s pretty cool. Pics are always first words are second and you may be right about being part of test , because some of matches were high. So read through questions and was like . Whaaat! Were totaly opposite. Also this is probably the wrong place but your messenging side of your site has a a lot of lag. So i inform the person of this problem and we move to a different site to continue are texting

  19. 225 says:

    There are three principles in human subject research:

    1. Beneficence – The research must, in general, reasonably promise more benefit than harm to the participants or must not inflict harm. Given how flaky the match% evaluation is, the harm inflicted is pretty minor. Given that we all benefit from better research into how to find Mr. Right, the harm to benefit ratio is not problematic. Facebook had problems in that it was intentionally causing people distress rather than just wasting their time.

    2. Respect for persons – In clinical research, this usually means a full informed consent of the nature of the study. For online dating sites, a notice up front so that users know their data is being used to improve the site should be sufficient. I wasn’t surprised at research, and I’d gladly participate given the option, but it shouldn’t come as a surprise.

    3. Justice – Basically, does the research harm one group in order to benefit another. Facebook’s research had serious Justice issues – the users are being exploited in order to benefit the shareholders and the users received no benefit. At least with OKCupid, the people being evaluated at least potentially benefit from the research.

    So… OKCupid fails one criterion (Respect for Persons) outright, and is dubious on the other two. Facebook clearly failed all three.

  20. TheArtistFormerlyKnownAs... says:

    Stop screwing around with useless stuff and bring the Journals (“Our” Blogs) back.

  21. Talktothehand says:

    TINDER APP ON IPHONE AND ANDROID!

    JUST USE THE TINDER APP!

  22. LuccPucci says:

    I still love you okcupid. So you had a little fun and manipulated information at my expense. Bad, bad you. I forgive your transgression in the name of science. After all, I did get a three year relationship (91% match potential) out of your site. Oh, and two jobs…one of which turned into a career I never would have imagined. All for free. Go ahead and fuck with my head. We’re good.

  23. Shivawn Ambrose says:

    I love how this is apparently news to everyone. Was I the only one that picked up on any of this eight years ago when I started using the site? As for the matching algorithm, I knew it was remarkably flawed and total bullshit from the beginning. I mean, you don’t see little compatibility percentages above people’s heads when you’re walking around meeting people IRL. You look at them, talk to them, and base your judgments and reactions from there. The fact that this site relies so heavily on a completely arbitrary number calculated by trivial questions in order to tell people how compatible they are is ridiculously frivolous.

    I honestly never, ever paid attention to those percentages. They didn’t matter to me at all. What was important to me was 1) Was their profile unique and well-written, clever, and/or thoughtful? 2) Do I find them attractive? That is all that should matter. If I found their profile appealing, I’d message them anyway, even if their match compatibility with me was 8%. Also there’s a huge flaw with those questions wherein it drives your match percentages down if you aren’t too concerned with how your potential mate would answer. If you answer “doesn’t matter” on most of those questions (because you’re not a controlling, meddling, abusive prick), then it basically just marginalises you as undateable. Probably the #1 reason I stopped using the site.

    Also I found it remarkably disturbing how this site also tended to marginalise people who weren’t looking for long-term, exclusive relationships as undateable as well. The way all the match questions are designed were basically ruling out people who were only looking for platonic relationships or casual partners, since a lot of the questions are very specific and tailored to appeal exclusively to conventional relationships. So it’s essentially useless for people who want to shop the market for a while before making a definitive decision that they actually want an exclusive relationship. For example, if I’m just looking for casual sex, why the fuck should I care how they vote or if they want kids? It’s irrelevant, but OKC doesn’t think I deserve to connect with people if I’m not that interested in their personal lives or goals. Also it assumes that every successful relationship is based on partners agreeing on and liking all the exact same things. Not healthy, guys.

    I realise there are specific sites designed for casual meetups, but presumably OKC is too, considering it actually makes it an option in the Looking For section of the profile. Besides, relationships will naturally form out of casual encounters, because honestly, it’s healthier that way anyway, since it happens organically. You don’t just go on a dating site, say “I want a relationship right now!” and throw a dart at the highest matches. That’s weird and creepy.

    All of those things considered, I was still surprised that a site presumably designed to appeal to a more rational, progressively-thinking demographic would place so much faith in something as trivial and flawed as the match percentage ranking anyway. It’s never been all that reliable, and truth be told, only reinforces the stereotype that math nerds are ridiculously socially inept.

  24. tommy says:

    That’s some rationalization for duplicitous behavior and sloppy analysis. Way too many non-controlled factors. Dubious, self congratulatory conclusions. And did you think that while you were screwing around, entertaining yourself at the expense of your members, that perhaps you actually stopped some people from finding each other who might have done well together. Your arogance is amazing. And depressing.

  25. laira says:

    Amazing.

  26. james says:

    Thanks for the info guys:-) I really like your site and I think i’ve found my one:-)

  27. loveadventure says:

    I look at the pic first, but it’s the profile that makes me send a message.I like to find someone with the samw interests as me. I do respond to messages sent to me. I think if a person takes a leap of faith and puta themselves out thwre, that the reciever of a messages should acknowalage them.

  28. nottohappy says:

    Guys, this is 100% abuse, when we go to a business & ask for a product that’s advertised shouldn’t it be that product. I’m not saying a person ia a product, but when the site says there’s compatability…. shouldn’t there be ?. Sorry OkCupid.but this is.defrauding your customers, this isn’t research, this is false advertising, or better yet.. lying. It might not bother to many until you pair an ax murder with a school teacher.

  29. Fox says:

    I’m with Lakeforestguy on this one. I’m 37 and prefer the company of younger women (an artifact of my parents’ 14-year age difference, no doubt)…but it can get annoying when I see a 25-year-old woman with a good match percentage and even a great profile, then I get to her “looking for” and she clearly wants someone close to her own age or outright says “don’t message if you’re over 30.”

    I don’t want to come off as a creeper, but at the same time I don’t want to close off the idea of meeting a younger girl since as mentioned it’s what I myself prefer.

  30. Jamee Shackelford says:

    Very interesting survey

  31. L says:

    Greetings Cupie-pies
    Your well endowed humor doesn’t obscure the fact that you fucked around with us.
    That ain’t right.
    You seem to feel that sticking it in our ends (not that I’m opposed to such things, in the right circumstances) is justified by your lack of mean spiritedness. I call bullshit.
    There is some good news: answer that message, the match is variable.
    But back to you, Cupe.
    Don’t do that again.

  32. marie says:

    It is sad that NO dating site can weed out the scammers! I am so sick of wasting time, only to be asked for money, pay my housekeeper, I was robbed, send me a phone and ipad! Wtf? Everyone is a widow whose wife was killed and left him alone or with a kid. They live in the States for work. Most own huge companies. Its dangerous and frustrating. Why are there no sincere men out there. Pictures or words don’t matter when they aren’t REAL anyway!

  33. OnAReach says:

    I write web-based software.

    I’m impressed with the metrics you capture. What impresses me more is that you were able to pull them from backup tapes, presumably consisting of an immature data schema generated by less sophisticated software.

    Are you hiring? :-)

  34. Andrew Brown Jr says:

    I get this.

    To me this calls to mind what I got in one of Dr. Atul Gawande’s books. He wrote that all patients want to have the newest, best and proven cures or treatmenthe but almost no patients want to be in the beta or experimental stage from which the good stuff, from which the effective stuff is derived.

    OK, so you experimented on me…I’m sure that this 4th ear will be reabsorbed and assimilated back into my body as normal tissue, right?

    What I found to be a particularly shitty experience in the OKC, Frankensteinian mash up, was receiving suggestions that I would be a great match with these white women who stated very clearly that they wanted to date/mate in their own skin color/ethnicity. Dude, I’m as black as the Ace of Spades!

    WTF?!?

    At the same time I ABSOLUTELY. LOVE. THAT. YOU. HAVE. THIS. AS. A. QUESTION. The ethnicity preferences help me, personally, to avoid a lot of bullshit…that is, whenever you stop sending me Paula Deen sympathizers!

    Rock on

  35. Elegantballerina says:

    Men only look at the picture and almost never do they read the profile or what the woman is looking for.
    Do men really think an educated woman will look at their profile if he is half dressed or wearing a baseball cap???? or if he has no education or if he expects you to give him your email address for more info??? Are they for real??? Are women stupid enough or desperate enough to respond to these men???

  36. ont says:

    I think the “experiment” is to see how many people stay on dating sites even though there is no matches on here in your area lol some how they keep matching me on this site and others with people far away or to old or to young or some match i said i would not date so i think these sites just need the numbers so they keep us on here never getting to see the one person we said we are looking for could be the person just down the road from you but they wont match you up because you will be gone and there numbers will drop

  37. Saarth says:

    I don’t mind being experiment on. Neither by fb nor by OKC. We as humans experiment with each other all the time anyway.

    Also I liked reading through all the stuff in the blog post. Wouldn’t mind being spammed by OKC in the future with more such posts about their experiments.

  38. OnAReach says:

    To:

    July 29, 2014 at 10:20 pm
    L says: …

    L, as they stated, ALL websites do this to one extent or another.

    You’re being profiled anytime you visit a site repeatedly. I know, because I write software for a large online retailer. We really don’t care who you are, but we do care what person 1234 did while at our site. It’s not as evil as you might think.

    At my current project, most of the data we collect is about anonymous users that we have a couple of data points on.

    Same thing with this study from what I read. They are were interested in how user 1234 is using the site, and how it’s working out for them regarding user 5678. Yes, someone could probably spend a lot of time and effort to find out the actual identity of user 1234, but why? They are not tracking you, they are tabulating your interactions with others.

  39. bean q says:

    YES!!!! finally you guys post again!!! i have seriously been checking periodically…

  40. Zolarie says:

    I have a question then. Were any of our ratings reset after the experiments? I personally never rate anyone above a 3 star based on picture alone. Ever. So if you showed me someone with a high match percentage, and an awesome profile, but all I got to see was the pictures, I either skipped them or rated them a 3. If I rated them a 3 (though I almost always just skipped), I may never that profile again to know how awesome it really was.

    Conversely, I look terrible in pictures but a lot of people enjoy reading my profile. My words may not mean much, but they’re all I’ve got. How many people rated me low without getting to read what I wrote and will never get a chance to see it?

    One last one. Do you ever show people that rated us highly in Quickmatch anymore? My number keeps climbing and no matter how many profiles I go through on it, I never run into a match and the number never goes down. I’ve even tried rating people a 4 when I normally wouldn’t just on the off chance of finding one.

  41. rambosf says:

    People who are at OKCupid are serious about finding a mate and are here to avoid the people who like to play games. Little did we know that it was OKCupid who was playing games.

    You were in a position of trust and you violated that trust. Manipulating the results is inexcusable. What really bothers me is your cavalier attitude towards what you have done. Apparently you don’t take your service as seriously as many of your users do. You’re dealing with the most personal issue anyone can go through and you view it as a big joke.

    I wonder if, in your new spirit of transparency, you’ll be sharing the number of accounts that are deleted because of your little experiment.

  42. ont says:

    I GET BETTER MATCHES IN MY SPAM EMAIL’S lol and there just as close to me as the matches on the dating sites i gave up on here and took down my stuff

  43. Hey me says:

    When you go on FB or OKCupid or Match for that matter, and reveal information about yourself, we should not be surprised if those in charge choose to monitor our behavior. Human behavior is interesting to be sure. I have no issues with OKCupid even if they’re privy to my personal exchanges. So what. Should we really be shocked by this?
    I’ve wondered if online dating is successful for the many like myself who succumb to it. I’ve made friends. Had lovers too. It keeps life interesting though I’ve encountered some major jerks on this site – and on other sites that cost plenty. At least OKCupid costs nothing. I have discovered there are many poor people on this site. Finding those with means can be challenging. As for pictures. They matter. They’re many unattractive men especially among older men. I’m still very attractive. Pictures matter.

  44. sam celia says:

    Im just thankful that you s a business, are really thinking about these things. I feel good that you do. Youve done a great job here, and hopefully will be blessed with a great understanding of human nature. Most will behave as you have described, and the other 10%, cannot be easily explained. I have a great time here, and thankful for your service. (About the 10%, just a bold estimate, may be higher or lower, but that is my tribe, and those I seek) So oddly, not only are you experimenting on us, but we on you as well. I thank you deeply!

  45. Danny says:

    And in all those years you never once thought “more then two genders?!”

  46. walter says:

    It’s nice to know that so many people are the same

  47. Em says:

    Well, I supposed it’s not “cool” they read my messages possibly…..but if they did, they should give me feedback on that gosh darn!

    The site was an experiment for me so if I was an experiment for the site, no hard feelings. It’s a bullshit place to meet people and it didn’t change my odds. Just threw more riff raff at me. Made me realize I’d rather be alone than deal with the shit on that site. I wonder how many other people had that experience. Or were the “I wanna make you my wife and cum on your face everyday” messages more special than I thought and I should give the site another shot?

  48. DiscoJer says:

    You only posted this to get press for your book, didn’t you?

  49. mb says:

    OKC, you can experiment with percentages, but the only thing lowering a percentage will do is place the person farther down the match scroll list, so I’m less likely to even see their blurb because I have scroll tolerance limits like so many other people.

    If you falsely boosts someone’s match percentage – e.g. 90% – and I read their Profile, Two of Us, Personality, and maybe even some Test results … and the only thing going through my mind is [the algorithm squirrels •MUST• be drunk again!!] … NO! Emphatic NO! I’m not going to send a message simply because the top of the screen says 90%.

    Particularly if they answer any of my “mandatory” questions in a way that is not acceptable to me.

    Then again, if someone has an annoyingly brief profile, has NOT publicly answered a reasonable number of questions, and sends me a 10 word message, my likelihood of replying is about 1:200.

    YMMV.

  50. DaVictorious says:

    It’s like food if it looks & smell good your more likely to eat it.Most healthy foods don’t look good are smell but it good for us it all in the eye of the beholder.