A big factor was being in London. I’ve lived in various other UK towns and cities, and London is the only place OKCupid “worked”, in the sense of being a semi-reliable place to obtain a date, with a high rate of turnover in the pool of available matches. By way of comparison, in about 18 months of online dating in Birmingham, (the UK’s second-largest city), I went on maybe half a dozen dates.
Age was probably also a salient feature. I was 29-30 at the time, and had a sliding window of 26-32 on ages of prospective matches. I imagine the numbers were probably in my favour as far as site demographics were concerned.
Speaking to other people, I seemed to have enjoyed a large number of 99% matches, even for London. I’d expect to log into my account and see around 15-20 99% matches, which I gather is also unusual. I almost exclusively dated high 90% matches. I didn’t engage in any clever strategy for answering questions, though I did answer a lot (> 1000). I do wonder if there are some particularly discriminate questions that most men answer “incorrectly”, and I happened to fall on the right side of them.
(My take on the OKCupid matching algorithm is that it’s sensitive but not very selective. People who you get on well with will probably be high matches, but people who are high matches won’t necessarily be people you get on well with. A disproportionate number of 99% matches were tied to groups in my existing social network.)
I’m pretty sure my comparative advantage on the dating market is a combination of eloquence and dirty-mindedness. There seems to be a large subset of women who I match highly with who really appreciate the ability to subtly encode filth in language. This probably carries well over text-based communications and may account for some of my relative success.
My subjective experience of dating on OKCupid seems to be similar to everyone else, in the “seriously, fuck OKCupid” sense. I would regularly compose thoughtful messages to interesting-sounding women only to get no response, which was disappointing and downheartening. (I do have quite a bit of sympathy for the women on OKCupid in this regard, but that’s a whole other essay). This seems to be a fixed experience of being a dude on OKC. I have no idea how much effort I put in compared to other people, or even how to go about quantifying it, but this might be a factor.
Patterns of actually going on dates were very much Feast or Famine. Sometimes I’d go for months without any responses. Sometimes I’d have an elaborate scheduling nightmare. On a couple of occasions I got to second-date territory with two women simultaneously, which was a novel experience for someone who spent his formative years pretending to be mythical creatures and developing strong opinions on which starships were the best. There was a particularly gruelling stretch in early 2012 where I’d just come back from a date and didn’t have another one in the calendar, and it felt like I’d gotten out of some sort of debt.
The most sensible approach seemed to be treating the whole process as a way to meet new friends, who happened to be single women who hadn’t ruled out sleeping with me. In this regard OKCupid was pretty successful. A little under half of the women I met I maintain some sort of social contact with, even if it’s just the occasional bit of banter on Facebook. Eight or so are people I’ll actively hit up for social activity, and a couple I’d consider good friends. Romantic outcomes were mixed, but generally positive: a few brief casual affairs, one ongoing long-term relationship and one ongoing intermittent play partner.
After a recent event where I encountered someone I’d been on an OKCupid date with way back in 2011, but didn’t remember where I knew them from, I went to the effort of listing every date I could remember to make sure it didn’t happen again. This was surprisingly difficult. The number currently stands at thirty women, but there could easily be a couple I don’t remember. Prior to making the list, I somehow had the idea that I’d been on quite a few “bad dates”, but looking over them, there was only one I’d describe as bad, and a few I’d describe as so-so. The dates themselves were overwhelmingly positive, but I think the overall process can be quite draining.
I’d expect to log into my account and see around 15-20 99% matches, which I gather is also unusual. I almost exclusively dated high 90% matches. I didn’t engage in any clever strategy for answering questions, though I did answer a lot (> 1000).
The more questions you answer, the more 99% matches you get. If you and another person have given the same answer to many questions, OkCupid tends to overestimate your compatibility.
One idea to avoid this is to first answer a thousand questions, see which ones are marked as Unacceptable most often, and then delete all of your answers and answer only those questions and the ones you consider particularly important.
Wow, that is extremely helpful and thorough. Thank you very much for the time you spent writing that.
one ongoing long-term relationship and one ongoing intermittent play partner
Can I infer poly from that? I would expect that would reduce the field quite a bit, and introduce a lot of complications into the process, if that were the case while one was looking on OKC. (There’s a Chrome extension to highlight people’s answers to a handful of poly-compatibility questions; I found the hit rate for positive answers to be middling.)
“Monogamish” is probably a better description. My girlfriend and I are ostensibly polyamorous, but mostly we’re just busy.
A significant proportion of my OKCupid matches were polyvangelists back when I was still quite skeptical of it. A couple of years ago I went to a “99% Party”, where the two hosts (themselves 99% matches) invited all their 99% OKC matches, and each guest was allowed to bring a 99%-matching plus-one. That was a surreal experience. There was obviously some selection for extroversion and people who could turn up to a stranger’s house in Islington on a week night, but I learned that my OKCupid matching-space neighbours were a lot more pro-poly, soapbox left-wing and literary than I was.
Interesting stuff. I’ve not had a great deal of success with OkC, but I tend to get bored of the dating site cycle – the few dates I’ve been on haven’t been very exciting, and I tend to prefer meeting people in person (like at parties) as I find that more immediately engaging and exciting.
Could you link to your OkC profile? It’d be interesting to have a look at!
I ended up retiring the profile I went on all the dates with, because I didn’t think it was getting me enough dates. It also went through a couple of complete rewrites over the period in question.
I do actually have a pretty coherent personal theory of how OKCupid profiles should be constructed, but I’d be hesitant to evangelise about it, because it’s probably just optimised for being me.
I am considering using OKCupid “seriously” for the first time; I’ve had an account for years but mostly for entertainment, with no profile.
I would definitely be interested in trying to understand how you were so successful.
Some observations of my OKC experiences:
A big factor was being in London. I’ve lived in various other UK towns and cities, and London is the only place OKCupid “worked”, in the sense of being a semi-reliable place to obtain a date, with a high rate of turnover in the pool of available matches. By way of comparison, in about 18 months of online dating in Birmingham, (the UK’s second-largest city), I went on maybe half a dozen dates.
Age was probably also a salient feature. I was 29-30 at the time, and had a sliding window of 26-32 on ages of prospective matches. I imagine the numbers were probably in my favour as far as site demographics were concerned.
Speaking to other people, I seemed to have enjoyed a large number of 99% matches, even for London. I’d expect to log into my account and see around 15-20 99% matches, which I gather is also unusual. I almost exclusively dated high 90% matches. I didn’t engage in any clever strategy for answering questions, though I did answer a lot (> 1000). I do wonder if there are some particularly discriminate questions that most men answer “incorrectly”, and I happened to fall on the right side of them.
(My take on the OKCupid matching algorithm is that it’s sensitive but not very selective. People who you get on well with will probably be high matches, but people who are high matches won’t necessarily be people you get on well with. A disproportionate number of 99% matches were tied to groups in my existing social network.)
I’m pretty sure my comparative advantage on the dating market is a combination of eloquence and dirty-mindedness. There seems to be a large subset of women who I match highly with who really appreciate the ability to subtly encode filth in language. This probably carries well over text-based communications and may account for some of my relative success.
My subjective experience of dating on OKCupid seems to be similar to everyone else, in the “seriously, fuck OKCupid” sense. I would regularly compose thoughtful messages to interesting-sounding women only to get no response, which was disappointing and downheartening. (I do have quite a bit of sympathy for the women on OKCupid in this regard, but that’s a whole other essay). This seems to be a fixed experience of being a dude on OKC. I have no idea how much effort I put in compared to other people, or even how to go about quantifying it, but this might be a factor.
Patterns of actually going on dates were very much Feast or Famine. Sometimes I’d go for months without any responses. Sometimes I’d have an elaborate scheduling nightmare. On a couple of occasions I got to second-date territory with two women simultaneously, which was a novel experience for someone who spent his formative years pretending to be mythical creatures and developing strong opinions on which starships were the best. There was a particularly gruelling stretch in early 2012 where I’d just come back from a date and didn’t have another one in the calendar, and it felt like I’d gotten out of some sort of debt.
The most sensible approach seemed to be treating the whole process as a way to meet new friends, who happened to be single women who hadn’t ruled out sleeping with me. In this regard OKCupid was pretty successful. A little under half of the women I met I maintain some sort of social contact with, even if it’s just the occasional bit of banter on Facebook. Eight or so are people I’ll actively hit up for social activity, and a couple I’d consider good friends. Romantic outcomes were mixed, but generally positive: a few brief casual affairs, one ongoing long-term relationship and one ongoing intermittent play partner.
After a recent event where I encountered someone I’d been on an OKCupid date with way back in 2011, but didn’t remember where I knew them from, I went to the effort of listing every date I could remember to make sure it didn’t happen again. This was surprisingly difficult. The number currently stands at thirty women, but there could easily be a couple I don’t remember. Prior to making the list, I somehow had the idea that I’d been on quite a few “bad dates”, but looking over them, there was only one I’d describe as bad, and a few I’d describe as so-so. The dates themselves were overwhelmingly positive, but I think the overall process can be quite draining.
I think I’m out of observations for now.
The more questions you answer, the more 99% matches you get. If you and another person have given the same answer to many questions, OkCupid tends to overestimate your compatibility.
One idea to avoid this is to first answer a thousand questions, see which ones are marked as Unacceptable most often, and then delete all of your answers and answer only those questions and the ones you consider particularly important.
Wow, that is extremely helpful and thorough. Thank you very much for the time you spent writing that.
Can I infer poly from that? I would expect that would reduce the field quite a bit, and introduce a lot of complications into the process, if that were the case while one was looking on OKC. (There’s a Chrome extension to highlight people’s answers to a handful of poly-compatibility questions; I found the hit rate for positive answers to be middling.)
“Monogamish” is probably a better description. My girlfriend and I are ostensibly polyamorous, but mostly we’re just busy.
A significant proportion of my OKCupid matches were polyvangelists back when I was still quite skeptical of it. A couple of years ago I went to a “99% Party”, where the two hosts (themselves 99% matches) invited all their 99% OKC matches, and each guest was allowed to bring a 99%-matching plus-one. That was a surreal experience. There was obviously some selection for extroversion and people who could turn up to a stranger’s house in Islington on a week night, but I learned that my OKCupid matching-space neighbours were a lot more pro-poly, soapbox left-wing and literary than I was.
Interesting stuff. I’ve not had a great deal of success with OkC, but I tend to get bored of the dating site cycle – the few dates I’ve been on haven’t been very exciting, and I tend to prefer meeting people in person (like at parties) as I find that more immediately engaging and exciting.
Could you link to your OkC profile? It’d be interesting to have a look at!
I ended up retiring the profile I went on all the dates with, because I didn’t think it was getting me enough dates. It also went through a couple of complete rewrites over the period in question.
I do actually have a pretty coherent personal theory of how OKCupid profiles should be constructed, but I’d be hesitant to evangelise about it, because it’s probably just optimised for being me.