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. Jonathan says:

    Love the blog post and please keep doing experiments! I started using OkCupid because of your old blog and am very happy to see a new blog post!

  2. Dina Z Colada says:

    Of course I look at the pictures first, but have fallen head over virtual heels for a guy without even seeing his pictures of his face, because his well-written, saucy and lengthy profile he had written, let me know that he understood women and had done his homework on what women want. So generally pictures mean a lot, but if you get the words right you can melt a woman from the inside out.

  3. alexander pineda says:

    Okcupid is where is met my fiance. I thank you for giving us the opportunity to meet. We couldn’t be happier

  4. Philip says:

    I don’t know how typical of a user I am, but if I look at a profile of a woman that I find attractive, and then the text is a total turn off, I tend to just move on to another profile without leaving a rating at all. If a lot of people do that, and they don’t account for it in their data, it could have a serious skew.

  5. T. says:

    I know satire and humor are a part of this but the opinion of Dre and Oz are just that, opinion. Otherwise a good article.

  6. PressyPress says:

    From the data I’m not sure how you concluded that you made OKCupid better by turning off photos. It looks more like you just made it “slower”. Yes, you forced people to turn to conversation to find out what the person is all about– but that’s pretty much the only thing left when there are no photos to look at. Were they exchanging more details? Sure, but probably just to exchange photos. Were they having longer conversations? Sure, but probably to find out what the other person looks like.

  7. Josh says:

    I appreciate the blog post, and the research. But what I appreciate most of all is that you weren’t performing this research on behalf of anybody but the people at OKCupid, and OKCupid’s parent companies. Facebook crosses a different sort of line when they openly share their data with outside, interested third parties.

    Moreover, it breaches serious questions of ethical conduct when it conducts such research on its userbase *at the behest of third parties.* Then, not only the motives of Facebook (profit, we can assume) but the motives of those third parties commissioning the research (I believe the DoD was in the mix somehow?) must be scrutinized.

  8. Batman says:

    The best thing I ever did for my profile was write something that was completely me, off-the-wall, and rather funny. I stayed away from the regular, boring: I do this for work, I like to travel, I exercise, blah blah blah. And when I made that change, I started to receive 10x the number of messages because women were loving my different approach.

  9. Andino Wang says:

    That is interesting. And it occured to me whether can I join your work on data analysis, since I am an active OkCupid user and majoring in Statistics in University of Science and Technology of China.

    I love the work of applying statistics in things I like or interesting.

    Hope You can notice me :0

  10. ElKhan says:

    I remember when they launched the blind date app and their picture blinding attempt. I did try a couple messages in the mean time. Never got a response from anyone. I personally thought other users would shy away from profile views simply because they were used to pictures as an easy evaluation tool and would rather wait it out.

    I try to use the profiles as a gauge for how similar and/or interesting someone might be. Most of the time I’m just disappointed, even if they’re attractive. Messaging seems to be a crapshoot, and some people wont of attention are now willing to part with money just to know that they’ve been ignored completely.

    Part of it might be in line with simple markets, smaller cities without big colleges and universities would seem to have few users in the “sweet spot” age range that seem to drive sites like these. The metrics just point out what some of the more cynical users have found themselves.

  11. Meet_Morpheus says:

    I don’t see any difference in my matches. Maybe I wasn’t a part of your experiment or your algorithm wasn’t good enough.
    Or my profile still running in that algorithm ?
    Seriously, Are you reliable ?

  12. Chelsea says:

    Makes me wonder about my 96% match that had four pages of unacceptable answers…

  13. Justin C. says:

    There is a difference between market research and experimentation, albeit a fine line. As a professor who conducts empirical research in psychology, I admit, I could get a lot more work done, and quicker / faster answers if I did not have to submit an IRB proposal, and if I did not have to get consent from those I experiment on. In most cases, no one would even notice. In social psychology, the nature of research has to do with participants doing something as seemingly harmless as reading counterbalanced vignettes. Yet, we have IRB protocols for the protection of the public, to ensure that those who would be participants are both informed, and not harmed. I could do an observational study, such as the one in which you describe a difference in responses on a “love is blind day”, without having to get IRB approval.

    However, as soon as I insert a theory onto people in terms of a manipulation, then it becomes unethical. It does not matter how benign the manipulation is. Yes, you are a business, and yes you are concerned with making your product and site superior. My consultancy is a business, and I am concerned with making my findings more accurate too. It still does not give me the right to act in an unethical manner. Your argument about protecting profits and promoting efficiency does not hold in my field, and it should not be allowed in yours. We’re talking about people, and although I tend not to like slippery slopes, it is the lack of oversight which you currently have which has led to some of the greatest unethical atrocities in experimental history (see the Tuskegee syphilis experiment).

    I am here to say one simple thing. I conduct experiments, and I do so in an ethical way. I get consent first, and I ensure there is some benefit to the participant. I do not object to you (or any website) conducting a study. However, you should be held to the same standards as the science and medical communities. You must give participants a choice, and you must find a way to compensate them. It’s not that hard, and can be done. Yes, this would be unpopular in business, and yes, it would slow your progress and or increase costs, but welcome to a world concerned with protecting the rights of humans. You need to consider ethics before you consider profits.

  14. Zero Cool says:

    Just because you’ve hidden a consent clause somewhere you know people don’t read doesn’t mean you have consent. It certainly means you don’t have informed consent. Experimenting on people in ways that are potentially harmful to them without their informed consent is unethical, and having a lighthearted, quirky attitude when you write about it doesn’t change that.

    The reason people are less likely to get upset here than with Facebook is that you don’t have the de facto institutional status Facebook does, and you weren’t intentionally trying to emotionally damage people to see if you could. Don’t defend it, because it makes me think you don’t see a difference.

  15. Reston says:

    Ha! Loved this piece. Interesting and entertaining.

  16. Devin says:

    tl;dr
    “You shouldn’t be upset that Facebook is conducting unethical experiments on you without your knowledge or consent because we conduct unethical experiments on you without your knowledge or consent, also.”

    This is not OK. I just cancelled my account.

  17. Greg Glazier says:

    Not OK. How dare you play God just to see what happens. Asshat.

  18. andrew says:

    When you realize what Earth is then you will know the answer to life.
    Earth isn’t what you were taught, I’ll leave it to that since most will not handle the truth as much as others with an open mind with common sense or logic.

  19. DogDyedDarkGreen says:

    I have almost half as much faith as you do in the “Match” percentages but I do wish you’d take better care of your data. There are so many duplicate questions in the pool, and many of them are full of typos, to the point that people seem to misunderstand what their own answers mean. Also, the scoring needs to be more aggressive — some answers really are ironclad dealbreakers but marking them “mandatory” doesn’t affect the overall percentage noticeably. And a lot of the questions are good conversation-starters during a date (or fun things to read in someone’s answers and help give an impression of their personality), but have no business being part of a score that people use to evaluate each other. Which Girl Scout cookie is my favorite or whether a sailboat is specifically the vehicle I’d use to run away from my life shouldn’t decide my future happiness!

  20. Howard says:

    I am perfectly okay with this. In fact I ENCOURAGE them to CONTINUE and do further experiments. The match percentage was/is just a guide on who you may want to talk to. Not some final verdict on whom you will love, hangout with or want to fool around with (or whatever it is you want to gain from the site). I especially liked the whole blind date experiment. Honestly I know I judge alot of women based off of horrible or awesome pictures and would love to see how things would go for myself and others if we had to read the profile and check the questions before seeing the people on the other end. In fact I would gladly pay more if that was added as an another A-list feature.

  21. OSC says:

    Weird enough (or thankfully) I don’t seem to fit in the average user profile. I tell you how I work: if there’s less info (description AND questions answered), I’ll rate based on the picture, otherwise I’ll rate based on affinity. I hardly – and I can’t say never because I don’t remember for sure if I’ve never done it – write to people with no or nearly no info, no matter how good looking they are. I also read the questions answered.

  22. Randy says:

    Like many others who have commented, I see so many pretty faces every day that you have to have a lot more than looks to catch my attention. Interesting profiles are what get me excited about sending someone a message!

    Hey, that last bit could explain why my gf and I were reported to be a 60% match, but are more compatible than I could have ever imagined. You sneaky devils…

  23. C. says:

    Love it! I heart data analysis, and I’m pretty clueless about the dating game. Now more than ever, after five years of dating online and off. It’s great to see statistical confirmation that I’m an oddball, and that most other people’s behavior makes no sense to me. BTW I haven’t seen your picture, but I can tell you’re my kind of guy. Carry on!

  24. LadyLuna says:

    I don’t think that your experiments could be compared to facebook’s.

    Their experiments induced people to feel in a specific way by modifying the type of news they were shown; whereas yours did not affect the user’s feelings in bad ways.

    So I really hope that this blog entry is actually just emphasizing how good OKC is.

    And I must also say that I use the compatibility numbers only to see how much information the other person is willing to share and to add more to their profile. A nice pic without a nice profile is a no-no.

  25. Jason Schmidt says:

    Meh , not the coolest thing in the world but I must admit its interesting and it’s not exactly without merit.
    If the end result means in the long run I might be able to actually meet someone I and fully compatible with I say good for you.

  26. Jazz says:

    So that explains why many times I have had a high match percentage, but after reading their profile and match questions, I’ve thought, “What the hell is OKC thinking?! We don’t match at all!” Because of being highly matched with very, very poor matches, I’ve never put any stock into the match percentages; I judge for myself.

  27. Marie says:

    I don’t mind this experiment. As a psychology major I enjoy seeing just how ppl really think. I’m not too ashamed by it to admit I think the same way & probably was apart of some of the studies. Compared to what Facebook did with their study, I’d take this one a million times over. Tell me how shallow I am instead of purposely making me depressed. I won’t use OkCupid any more or less because of this study because this study is being more honest with me then I ever was to myself.

  28. Emmanuel Handling says:

    It’s just Jay Z these days. Drop the hyphen, dawg.

  29. John H says:

    Still the best dating metric out there! Love you guys!

  30. TheGuy says:

    I’ve fucked so many women on OkCupid. It is like having a rolodex of bitches. Thanks!

  31. Lids says:

    Oh, the picture thing didn’t surprise me at all. I get tons of messages and tons of likes but the amount of people who actually read my profile… I’d say about 10% of the people who message me have read it lol. About 2% skim it and try to get by with small (but often times incorrect because they skimmed) bits of information. So essentially people here are as shallow as I’ve said from the beginning.

  32. Nate says:

    Your admittance of social experimentation would go down a lot easier if you cut back on the smugness just a wee bit. Nobody’s going to care why you did it if you express it like a douche.

  33. A says:

    So at any given time, the match/friend/enemy percentages I see – one of the primary methods of sorting profiles on this site – could be completely fabricated for the sake of an experiment.

    Obviously I’m not mad, as the possibility of experimentation is presumably mentioned in the agreement I skim-read at best (though burying consent isn’t necessarily informed consent), but it does make me further question what gives OKC an edge over other dating sites other than ubiquitousness, since its unique features aren’t trustworthy.

    Also, did you contact users who were involved in any of these experiments to explain to them what had been done? Relying on them to intuit that they were unknowing participants in false matching by mentioning it in a blog post, again, is not a very thorough or appropriate debriefing. In fact, it’s almost as if you’re more interested in publicity than in research transparency!

    Really, the biggest tell here for me isn’t your own actions, but rather how you brush off Facebook’s recent experimentation controversy and use it to segue into your own experiments. In the case of Facebook, attempts were made to alter people’s moods (for the worse) – people are understandably upset at having possibly been part of a pretty insidious experiment that may have negatively affected their mood, perhaps long-term. If you can’t see that that’s a shitty way to treat your users, and if you think that’s analogous to what you’re doing, then it just further sours my experience of your service.

    I look forward to next week’s post where this is explained as an experiment to see how it affects usage of OKCupid.

  34. Natasha says:

    This is an AWESOME study but it just proved to me that most or some people can be just like sheep. And not in a good way.

    For some odd reason people think I have the worst taste in men because what I think is physically attractive most people don’t. I’m more likely to message someone on a positive note if I like how they’ve presented themselves with words. This shows me that they can communicate at a higher capacity than someone with a blank profile and a bunch pictures. But then, I’m a poet and writer who delves into the deeper bits of things. Pretty faces don’t captivate me if there is no brain or depth of character.

    But then again who’s to say someone is lying about what they’ve written in their profile? Which is why I now understand why folks rely on pics and the overall percentage of match to help them find a partner.

  35. Luise says:

    I massively enjoyed this blog until I saw this – I mean are you seriously telling us it’s ok to manipulate who people message etc without REAL consent and going through an ethics committee? Unsubscribing from this & definitely never signing up with this page.

    You shouldn’t get away with this just because your data is more interesting than facebook’s.

  36. Zackatoustra says:

    Can I just say that this is awesom data science?!!
    From the mere debunking of the so-shocking Facebook experiment polemic to the clear as pure water explanation of how numbers (and brains!!!) show us how much love is not blind but could be, show us that pictures are worth their fabled worth, etc…
    Well, everything in this post deserves I carry out a respectful hoolahoop for you guys.

  37. kleeman says:

    Very interesting, would be better with uncertainty estimates on all the numbers!

  38. Mike Wood says:

    I was excited to see the return of this blog, but I won’t be reading it any longer. As a psychologist who goes to the trouble of getting consent and IRB approval for his experiments, not to mention debriefing research participants after the fact, I’m very disappointed that you’re doing experiments like this. You give legitimate, ethical psychological research a bad name. At least Facebook, for all their faults, published their results in a peer-reviewed journal – apart from your own internal market knowledge this doesn’t seem to have any public benefit beyond a smug, self-satisfied blog post. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

  39. VMS says:

    I think this is all very interesting. However, if I have signed up for a service that supposedly matches me with someone compatible, I think it’s crappy to be lying and telling me I’m a 90% match with someone who is a 30% match or vice versa. Now, I’ve never actually used this service, I’ve been married since before I even had home internet access! But it still seems kind of underhanded to lie to you customers.

  40. Victoria says:

    I’d love to see a gender breakdown. Because I know I get tons and tons of messages from men who don’t even pause to consider that I wouldn’t kick them to get a bug off my shoe- not least because of low match rating, but because of absurd distance and total disinterest in consulting who and what I might be interested in. And I don’t message guys who have empty profiles or no match percentages.

  41. Victoria says:

    also, everyone needs to quit their whining about the supposed “ethics” violation. This is a dating website, and there’s probably plenty of small print you didn’t bother to read. The majority of websites mine data, and interrupting the minute odds on one potential relationship out of hundreds does not constitute a crime against humanity. Signing up for a website means you are volunteering your content, and what that website does with that content is generally up to them. Should OKCupid have gone to better lengths to disclose (or better yet, allowed people to voluntarily sign up for data testing) probably yes. But it’s not the Milgram experiment, get over it.

  42. david says:

    I think these experiments are interesting. I kind of wish you included some error analysis though. For example you suggest your “Women’s Offline Reaction” plot is indicative of some trend, when actually it appears that there’s little correlation or none at all. Of course it’s harder to tell without error bars :p

  43. WortPirat says:

    This gets funny when you adapt it to the “real” world. After all people don’t change just the medium does.
    So this does mean if I could just somehow put something on my face, put something on my body to appear better looking (boy someone should invent this s/he could make billions..) or buy something to carry with me or to be carried in to look better, my chances of getting a hotter looking partner rise daramtically (btw. who defines “hot”? anyway…).
    On the other hand a good tactics to get the person I want to love me is simply to convince someone s/he knows to just tell her we were perfect for another. That would also skyrocket your chances. You don’t even need someone close, just pay someone realiable (like someone looking hot, s/he must know, right?) and that will do.

    I think I need to rethink my mati…uhm…dating routines.

    PS: I really love the writers bitter undertone :D
    Did you happen to realize people are stupid animals just like any other?

  44. anon says:

    the difference between facebook experimentation and okcupid experimentation is that facebook attempted to MANIPULATE the emotions of their users.

  45. johnny says:

    “conversations went deeper”… so… you’re actually reading conversations?

  46. Techbucket says:

    So, how much money do I get since I’m PAYING YOU to run tests on me ? Are we getting a discount on our memberships?

    Right?

  47. FormerCustomer says:

    “Everyone (else) does it” is an immature justification of one’s (here OKCupid’s) behavior. It’s a non-excuse, unethical, and you didn’t merely “experiment” with users, OKCupid LIED to and EXPLOITED users, including me. “Experiment” is your intellectually-and-ethically-deficient euphemism for lying to and exploiting your customers.

    I used your site in several different periods looking for love, a serious relationship, and hopefully one to last the rest of my life.

    What OKCupid is now telling me is that you falsified reality, treating me as an uncompensated, uninformed hence non-consensual research subject when I was, at times, a directly paying customer—”A-list”—and at other times an indirectly paying one by submitting myself to viewing the advertisements you get paid to put on your site by commercial businesses. Using customers as non-consensual research subjects is exploitation.

    OKCupid lied to me; you did not inform me your site was misrepresenting reality. You claimed you would show me the profiles of others so I could check them out and see if I was interested in them, and vice-versa, so we might possibly explore having a relationship together. You offered all sorts of explanations of your site’s features, algorithms and various matching methods and methodologies, about which, I now find out, you were not completely honest. You said in writing in various places on your site, ‘The site works according to these specified methods and processes A, B, C, and D,’ in great detail at times. Oh, how proudly you did this in your arrogant self-celebration of regarding your putative cleverness, intelligence, business acumen, and superiority to your business competitors. Those claims you put into writing—in great detail—weren’t necessarily true at given points in time, you now confess. That’s lying, not merely experimenting.

    What OKCupid is admitting to is breaking the contract you made with me when I agreed to use your services. You certainly broke your contract with me when I was paying a monthly fee to use your service. Your misrepresentations of reality not only broke your contract with thousands or perhaps millions of other customers and me, you failed to perform the services you promised. Your falsifications potentially prevented me from connecting with people of great interest, to the point of failing to connect with someone I might be married to now and for the rest of my life, by falsifying their information, my information, and the information that the system provided regarding our mutual compatibility and interests on a number of issues.

    As you admit this, you are wholly dismissive of your customers and seemingly proud of what you did.

    What OKCupid did was far worse than what Facebook did; OKCupid violated the entire spirit, if not the law, regarding the service you claim to provide, and in many cases did it for paying customers like me, unlike Facebook’s manipulation of information made available free users.

    Your business model is dead. There will be investigations into the practices of OKCupid and similar services and revelation of the other ways you and surely competitors do not provide the services your claim you do. For example, it is known that online dating sites manipulate the access to other profiles that users have by producing search results and non-randomly altering the presentation of available users according to things like physical appearance—attractiveness levels, body type, weight, height, etc.

    In the not too distant future, those providing online services in your line of business will be required to engage in full disclosure of all factors and mechanisms used to shape and provide access to the information, photos, and profiles of other site customers. Online personals services will advertise and gain customers with their audited claims of engaging in full disclosure of how their site works and stated, and audited, refusal to interfere with the searches and access to information about other uses in ways of their own discretion.

    Services that put users in control of their access to other users and complete, true information without manipulation by the service or any other agent will become the most successful services. It’s time for OKCupid and other similar services to stop lying, falsifying reality, and withholding information from customers. It’s time for OKCupid and similar services to stop playing “god” with their customer’s lives.

  48. FormerCustomer says:

    It’s time to boycott OKCupid and call on online personal ad services to engage in full disclosure of methods and an end to manipulating search results and information access. Empower customers to take control of their experience; quit playing god by imposing your own values and ideas on us about compatibility. Let us see all users as we wish. Use all of your own criteria that you want for for how you label our potential compatibility with each other–though fully disclose your methods and algorithms, but do not filter, shape, limit, alter, or otherwise screen our access to, or information about or coming directly from, other users.

  49. David says:

    Great excuse, hey other people do that too!! Know what, when you outside you are maybe a subject of a robber does that mean it is ok to rob you? Other people rob or get rob too so it must be ok.

    Lame Excuse!

    And when you don’t know what you do, you don’t know what you do to other peoples life.

    Greetings and when you G2H send bad greetings to Josef Mengele i think he will like you attitude! He did what he did because he could just like you.

    Sincerely,
    David

  50. Mimi says:

    I put a ‘clause’ in the second paragraph of my profile to see if people actually read it, and well… a lot don’t.
    I also went through a period where I took down my picture and erased most of the text and though I got less first messages, it seemed more people wrote back. (Not saying that I’m ugly, I just think it incites people’s curiosity.