Happy match.com-ing

Online DatingI just came across a post that I believe demonstrates irrefutably why internet dating in the west is a big no no. Check out this review of match.com on edatingreview.com I’ve reposted below:

Reviewed By Analyst, Washington DC

Over the past few weeks, I’ve conducted a study to measure the effectiveness of match.com. I created 6 control groups that are designed to be representative of all match.com users. Over the course of one week, I measured the response rates of all 6 groups, in order to determine which group will receive the best user experience. The results may shock you, but they are designed to prove that online dating is most certainly not the most effective medium for men to meet women.

The 6 control groups/profiles are as follows:

there were 6 total profiles created, all in the same area in Washington DC. Each was posted during exactly the same week (7-day period) of July, 2007. Each profile has almost the same text description (obviously some text was altered for the different genders; however, the overall information is identical). The only difference between the profiles are attractiveness (for men and women), and height (for men only). There was no contact made by any of the profiles – this experiment was designed to measure the natural response that each profile will receive. The statistics in each profile are as follows:

1. Attractiveness/Weight – varies
2. Height – 5’5″ for all women, varies for men
3. Income – All are 75k – 100k
4. Location – Washington DC
5. Everything else is constant

The attractiveness of each profile is described below:

1. F-1 – This female is extremely attractive, as rated by 10 males. Her average rating on a scale of 1-10 was a 9.37. Most would describe her as a clone of Angela Jolie.

2. F-2 – This female is average, as rated by 10 males. Her average rating on a scale of 1-10 was a 6.78. She is about 10 lbs overweight, but in no way unattractive.

3. F-3 – This female is a somewhat unattractive, as rated by 10 males. Her average rating on a scale of 1-10 was a 4.52. She is about 40 lbs overweight, but not hideous.

4. M-1 – This male is extremely attractive. He is 6’0″ and looks like Mc. Dreamy, as rated by 10 females. His average rating on a scale of 1-10 was a 8.44.

5. M-2 – This male is average, as rated by 10 females. His average rating on a scale of 1-10 was a 6.13. He is still an average weight, but is only 5’9″ tall.

6. M-3 – This male is also average as rated by 10 females. His average rating on a scale of 1-10 was a 5.65. He is only 5’7″ but still average weight. The only thing separating this male from M-2 is the height, in which he is 2 inches shorter.

Here are the results over the period of 1 week:

F-1 Winks: 2651 Emails: 752
F-2 Winks: 2101 Emails: 721
F-3 Winks: 985 Emails: 203

M-1 Winks: 245 Emails: 68
M-2 Winks: 11 Emails: 2
M-3 Winks: 2 Emails: 0

So the conclusions are:

1. The attractive female (F-1) received 10x more response than the attractive male (M-1).

2. The average female (F-1) still received almost as much response as the attractive female (F-2).

3. The average males (M-2, M-3) received little to no response whatsoever.

4. For the males, if your height is below 5’9″, you can expect almost no response.

With that, happy match.com-ing!

Thanks Analyst. Guys, don’t waste your money on Internet dating in the US, please.




You may also like...

%d bloggers like this: