486
You know the algorithm shows you to fewer people if you swipe right on everyone
Yeah for these algorithms you want to show better signals. Choose a sex/age range your not interested in and just swipe left while watching a movie.
Your algorithmic pickiness will improve tremendously.
But they swipe left on a whole... 3.5% of people! Super picky, that's probably why
if swiping right on 14k people got him 14 matches and no dates, i can only imagine the hopelessness of trying to be picky.
The thing is, you have no idea how many people saw it. If 50 people saw it and he got 14 matches, that's actually pretty good! Imagine if he'd been seen by 500 people instead.
Have you tried being born wealthy? :-D
2 new friends in 4 years? That's pretty great.
What a beautiful perspective. I was thirdhand crushed by this data before you said that :)
i wish i made a long lasting friend every 2 years or so.
besides, those will give you the connections you need to actually date.
Seriously, how do you even get the data to make such graphs?
On another note, I don't have much sympathy for people who clearly "swipe right on everyone". I am aware that it's a numbers game, but have some standards, man.
Bro he got 14 matches in four years, how can he afford to have standards. If he has any more standards, he will get ZERO matches
Also you can request this data from tinder and bumble support
You won't get any matches if you don't tell the algorithm what kind of person you're interested in. It won't be able to put you with people you're compatible with.
I'm interested in: people that breathe
I find that this isn’t actually a successful way to filter or get the “algorithm” to recognize people you might be interested in. Those features are built in, but you need the premium versions of the apps to do the filtering.
I hopped onto Bumble after a few years and nearly every one I get doesn’t match my values or how I swipe. I thought it might work like that, but I get Christian Conservative more than any other demo and my profiles and swipes do not match that type.
These apps are not interested in finding you a good partner, they are solely interested in you continuing to use the app
Not gonna lie, a few years ago it worked on me. Paid for the Premium, but didn’t get any better results. The gamified dating scene is bad but meeting people organically just doesn’t seem to happen as I get older.
load more comments
(1 replies)
You are talking to a person with a 0,295623% chance of getting a match...
load more comments
(1 replies)
use a simple counter for your left and right swipes, then you just need to count the matches and which ones fizzle out
The main problem here: commercial dating apps are not intended to help people find partners or flings. They are intended to make the companies money. Some may initially be functional but enshitification hits them fast, once they have a userbase established.
I believe the algorithms on those apps purposefully hold back the best matches for you unless you pay for a subscription.
Honestly. I suspect they hold back the best matches even if you do pay for a subscription, so you continue to do so.
Oh, they do. There have been lawsuits. Why would the company want to lose a paying customer?
I met my boyfriend on OkCupid. That was 5 years ago and I doubt we'd be able to find each other today. The app went from matches based on answering questions to a "hot or not" sleazy hookup tinder clone.
It makes even less sense when you learn that they were never in competition with tinder since the two of them are owned by the same parent company along with nearly even other dating app. You'd think that company would want all its services to be unique in some way so as to encourage diversity in the market but I guess I've not got a mind for business.
Unrelated, good screenname :)
Dude...
Wow that's crazy. I still remember some of the questions that supposedly made me and my partner 99% compatible. That's such a drastic shift for them.
Edit for unrelated story: My second highest match was like 97%, but she clarified in her profile that she was looking for a bi third to join her and her partner. OKC kept recommending her so eventually I just messaged her to say "I'm not what you're looking for but good luck!"
They're basically all owned by the same company, unless it's small and niche.
~~28:1 odds~~ I don't use tinder so I had to look up that I got that backwards, but rejecting 1 in 28 screams of desperation.
It also makes the app show your own profile to fewer people.
One in a thousand to even get a chance to talk to someone, what an encouraging system
The algorithm suppresses male accounts wih excessively high right swipe ratios 
Yeah, not to defend the apps or anything but filtering out the people who put in no effort and approve 96%+ makes sense.
I get were you're coming from, but on the other hand most women put no effort to their profiles whatsoever. In my experience with Tinder 90-95% of profiles don't even have a bio, so how am I supposed to filter people based on some pictures and three tagged hobbies (which are usually bland like movies, travel, nights out)?
This is one of the reasons I don't use apps. I'd just have to not match with any of those 90-95%, at which point you're basically not using it at all.
That's cool you can go ahead and swipe them left then. Also:
how am I supposed to filter people based on some pictures and three tagged hobbies (which are usually bland like movies, travel, nights out)?
Getting really close to understand why these apps are shit.
I think tinder uses Glicko-2 based on swipes to create an attractiveness ranking.
We let the (frequently maidenless) chess nerds take control of love.
They should probably limit how many swipes you get instead of having your swipes go into the void.
Oh they do
Unless you pay
(Info current as of like a bunch of years ago)
there is no way in all of hell that 14k right swipes led to 14 matches unless the person’s bio literally says they are a sex offender or something insane like that
Nah, I can actually believe that. If you’re a below average guy (be it because of your looks or weight), your chances of getting matches on tinder are very slim. I‘m not an ugly guy and I barely had any matches, back when I was on tinder
Yeah it's the pinnacle of "looks matter the most".
I've been on dating sites for over 10 years now. The most "likes" I've ever had was 17.
Not even matching. That number is like 6 over 10 years...
I'm quite literally an absolute joke of a human though. I'm the exact person people joke about as being the worst kind of person: I'm a (guy) homebody who likes to smoke, play videogames, and garden. I'm fit but not muscular, short, balding, and not a fan of dogs or travel (way too expensive). I'm literally worse than Hitler to almost all women.
Unfortunately the only people who have ever swiped on me except for those 6 I mentioned look like honey booboos mom, have kids, and dogs.
nah bro you’ll find your soulmate ❤️ you just gotta find the style that works for you to compliment the stuff you can’t change. anyone can be a 7/10, the rest is luck. and this is not even taking into account the fact that a fuckload of people value your personality much higher than cosmetic stuff
Who would want to date someone that uses Sankey diagrams?
Me
If you swype right on everyone, you're shadowbanned very quickly and simply don't appear for others anymore.
Consider the OneLobster009: you don't have sex, because you're a weirdo. RIP in pepperonis. 
this post was submitted on 04 Jun 2024
486 points (97.1% liked)
Data Is Beautiful
7937 readers
1 users here now
A place to share and discuss data visualizations. #dataviz
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS