How Tinder's “feedback loop” forces men and women into extreme strategies(technologyreview.com)
technologyreview.com
How Tinder's “feedback loop” forces men and women into extreme strategies
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601909/how-tinder-feedback-loop-forces-men-and-women-into-extreme-strategies/
9 comments
Honestly curious: Do you feel guilty for wasting the time of 4,000 men? To me, it feels selfish to value your own learning over the time of thousands of other strangers. Of course, you and others may feel differently than me. What's your approach for thinking about where to draw the line?
Edit: To those downvoting, could you explain why? I'd be happy to improve my comment, if I knew how. I am honestly interested in discussing the ethics of bots that pose as humans.
Edit: To those downvoting, could you explain why? I'd be happy to improve my comment, if I knew how. I am honestly interested in discussing the ethics of bots that pose as humans.
I was a fairly active real user of Tinder for a while. Though, I noticed that a lot of my matches were from Spam bots who were trying to get me to go to malicious links or promote businesses. I wasn't overly annoyed by them and would report those bots to Tinder as "feels like spam". I felt like this was a known part of the ecosystem and my bots didn't feel too burdensome or evil.
The line that I drew at the time was that, aside from the initial match, the bots were never going to engage in any on-going way with the matches. So the bots could receive messages from matches, but would never send messages or post Moments (which was a feature at the time to effectively message all of your matches with a photo).
The line that I drew at the time was that, aside from the initial match, the bots were never going to engage in any on-going way with the matches. So the bots could receive messages from matches, but would never send messages or post Moments (which was a feature at the time to effectively message all of your matches with a photo).
If you're a man on Tinder, you play a numbers game and assume a relatively low response rate. It doesn't take to long to send that first message
This argument is fallacious because a real person, upon being sent a message, is not obligated to reply, irrespective of a mutual match having been obtained.
By questioning the bot author over the morality of their methodology, your post appears to suggest that people who don't reply to messages would be equally perceived as having wasted the time of message authors, which is a view that your downvoters find troubling. That may not have been your intention, given your disclaimer and edits, but I can see why it could be construed that way.
By questioning the bot author over the morality of their methodology, your post appears to suggest that people who don't reply to messages would be equally perceived as having wasted the time of message authors, which is a view that your downvoters find troubling. That may not have been your intention, given your disclaimer and edits, but I can see why it could be construed that way.
Thank you for your reply. To be honest, I still don't see why an obligation to reply makes my argument fallacious. Email spam is universally considered bad, despite the fact that no one is obligated to reply to email spam. Maybe I am misinterpreting what you wrote.
In response to your meta question, I found it weird that you specifically asked if the parent felt bad about the 4000 men but not the 34000 women. Though I didn't downvote.
Whoops, that was entirely unintentional. I think my eyes were drawn to the parallel 1000s on lines (2) and (3). I feel weird about missing the women and I apologize for the omission. Everyone's time is valuable.
On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog.
What were the results of your A/B tests??
I'll probably write a blog post about this in the near future. What do you think the results were?
Feel free to reach out to me privately (contact info in profile) and I'll share with you a quick digest of the results before the blog post gets published.
Feel free to reach out to me privately (contact info in profile) and I'll share with you a quick digest of the results before the blog post gets published.
The imbalance in swiping effectively turns Tinder into Bumble. Women are really making the first move, which is great.
Nearly all of the data contradicts what you're saying.
Finally, a topic I can consider myself some kind of expert in!
For the record, here are my credentials: I've tinder-valeted multiple guy friends, selecting women and conversing with them and warming things up for them. My friends happen to be across a wide variety of attractiveness and success spectrum.
Observations:
1. As is obvious, attractive/successful men get a lot more likes than women.
2. Guys who get lesser matches get increasingly desperate, and start liking everyone.
3. Being 'picky' for guys is hard work. It seems funny when I put it this way, but going through hundreds/thousand(s) of women, and even making a binary choice of yes/no is actually pretty tiring. Even my better guy friends have tended to go on the safer side and pick the earlier choices, because oh god it's a tiring head-aching process, even if you have a group of friends assisting you with the choice and the conversations.
Going through Tinder so much has made me very very very cynical either about people, or the kind of people on Tinder. We're all stereotypes. Really. One picture with mountain in the background, one with a beach, one in Europe, one with friends, one with pet/lonely pouty picture. Bios mentioning 1) 'sarcasm' 2) love of beer 3) love of scotch/whisky. Some mention their heights, most add ' I don't know why this matters but here it is'. Almost everyone desirable puts 'not into hookups', but rarely means it. So many other things. It was only after I started heavily using Tinder (for others) that I really appreciated meeting/dating people more in person/talking over the phone and got really into 'old school' dating.
Anyone else have very different experience?
For the record, here are my credentials: I've tinder-valeted multiple guy friends, selecting women and conversing with them and warming things up for them. My friends happen to be across a wide variety of attractiveness and success spectrum.
Observations:
1. As is obvious, attractive/successful men get a lot more likes than women.
2. Guys who get lesser matches get increasingly desperate, and start liking everyone.
3. Being 'picky' for guys is hard work. It seems funny when I put it this way, but going through hundreds/thousand(s) of women, and even making a binary choice of yes/no is actually pretty tiring. Even my better guy friends have tended to go on the safer side and pick the earlier choices, because oh god it's a tiring head-aching process, even if you have a group of friends assisting you with the choice and the conversations.
Going through Tinder so much has made me very very very cynical either about people, or the kind of people on Tinder. We're all stereotypes. Really. One picture with mountain in the background, one with a beach, one in Europe, one with friends, one with pet/lonely pouty picture. Bios mentioning 1) 'sarcasm' 2) love of beer 3) love of scotch/whisky. Some mention their heights, most add ' I don't know why this matters but here it is'. Almost everyone desirable puts 'not into hookups', but rarely means it. So many other things. It was only after I started heavily using Tinder (for others) that I really appreciated meeting/dating people more in person/talking over the phone and got really into 'old school' dating.
Anyone else have very different experience?
What I found interesting is that I (a straight, male) get a far higher match percentage in the D.C. area than in the S.F. Bay Area. This happens every time I travel back to D.C. I imagine that there are a lot of interesting variables that go into this, making this research not applicable for the "real world."
The sex ratio in DC has more females. But also your matches will tend to build up behind the scenes when you are away, as people swipe your now-relocated profile, so when you return, they'll unleash like a torrential orgasm.
It's well-known that there's very few single women in the Bay Area, whereas DC is the opposite, with a surplus of single women.
NYC also has a large surplus of single women, and Seattle has a surplus of single men.
Basically, the east coast cities have female surpluses, and the tech-heavy west coast cities have male surpluses.
NYC also has a large surplus of single women, and Seattle has a surplus of single men.
Basically, the east coast cities have female surpluses, and the tech-heavy west coast cities have male surpluses.
The overlooked thing about this is that these gender surpluses would work for you even better in person. Despite online seemingly covering a larger spectrum of people you wouldn't otherwise meet, in person you can create scenarios with multiple people without competition.
The problem here is that you have to actually have some kind of venue for meeting people in person. Frequently, people turn to online dating precisely because they've exhausted all their usual social circles for prospective partners.
I'll use myself as an example: I'm a software engineer (big surprise on this site!), so I don't have any female coworkers who are eligible, I'm not a college student any more, I'm not religious so I don't go to church, I'm not a drinker so hanging out in bars isn't really fun for me, and I don't have any friends left who have single female friends to introduce me to. So that leaves me with things like 1) hobby/social groups on Meetup.com, 2) hanging out in coffee shops, 3) going to bars even though I don't drink and don't like the atmosphere, and 4) online dating. FWIW, I've been doing #1 (I've tried #2 but it has such a terrible success rate in actually meeting anyone I gave up; you'd have to spend a LOT of time to meet just a few people, unless you're in your 20s and in a real hot-spot for this kind of thing, like on a college campus), and not experienced any success there at all: I go to hiking meetup, but it seems most of the women who attend these in this area (and there's a lot, sometimes a 3-1 ratio F:M!) are retirement-age. Sorry, I'm not into dating women old enough to be my mother.
Online dating exposes you to people you would never meet in real life; that's why people do it. There's just no way around it. You can talk all you want about how it's better to meet people in person, but our society simply does not have many venues for this any more. In the old days, people met through friends, family, and church. These days, people like us are non-religious, we've moved away from our hometowns and move periodically for work so we don't have many friends to put us in contact with possible partners and family lives too far away. Online dating also lets you filter people out easier: I can look through someone's profile in less than 60 seconds and determine she's not someone I'd be interested in dating for various reasons (religious, extreme or conservative political opinions, etc.), things which aren't immediately obvious if you just walk up to someone in a bar and start chatting, and which may take a long time to find out through normal conversation.
I'll use myself as an example: I'm a software engineer (big surprise on this site!), so I don't have any female coworkers who are eligible, I'm not a college student any more, I'm not religious so I don't go to church, I'm not a drinker so hanging out in bars isn't really fun for me, and I don't have any friends left who have single female friends to introduce me to. So that leaves me with things like 1) hobby/social groups on Meetup.com, 2) hanging out in coffee shops, 3) going to bars even though I don't drink and don't like the atmosphere, and 4) online dating. FWIW, I've been doing #1 (I've tried #2 but it has such a terrible success rate in actually meeting anyone I gave up; you'd have to spend a LOT of time to meet just a few people, unless you're in your 20s and in a real hot-spot for this kind of thing, like on a college campus), and not experienced any success there at all: I go to hiking meetup, but it seems most of the women who attend these in this area (and there's a lot, sometimes a 3-1 ratio F:M!) are retirement-age. Sorry, I'm not into dating women old enough to be my mother.
Online dating exposes you to people you would never meet in real life; that's why people do it. There's just no way around it. You can talk all you want about how it's better to meet people in person, but our society simply does not have many venues for this any more. In the old days, people met through friends, family, and church. These days, people like us are non-religious, we've moved away from our hometowns and move periodically for work so we don't have many friends to put us in contact with possible partners and family lives too far away. Online dating also lets you filter people out easier: I can look through someone's profile in less than 60 seconds and determine she's not someone I'd be interested in dating for various reasons (religious, extreme or conservative political opinions, etc.), things which aren't immediately obvious if you just walk up to someone in a bar and start chatting, and which may take a long time to find out through normal conversation.
You talked exclusively about a gender deficit, I mentioned gender surplus.
You also mentioned the pros of online dating, everyone is aware although it sounds like you've had to explain this to other people in your age range and older, you neglected the cons. Females get a gender surplus of men on online dating, if you want females you should pursue situations with a gender surplus of females, and this distinctly excludes online dating.
You also mentioned the pros of online dating, everyone is aware although it sounds like you've had to explain this to other people in your age range and older, you neglected the cons. Females get a gender surplus of men on online dating, if you want females you should pursue situations with a gender surplus of females, and this distinctly excludes online dating.
>if you want females you should pursue situations with a gender surplus of females, and this distinctly excludes online dating.
Yes, I realize that, however the venues for this are very limited in my experience; I already listed out everything I could think of.
Usually, when this discussion comes up, people will recommend things like "find groups that do things you like, and you'll meet women you like there!" Sorry, but I'm not likely to meet any desirable and single women at a Linux or programming group. And I do attend some outdoors groups, but IME there the women are generally much older than me (and I'm not young either). I'm not really sure what the single female 30-45 crowd does in the DC area, but it's not hiking. From my limited dating experience in this area, their general free-time activity appears to be hanging out with their female friends and complaining that they can't find a husband while their biological clock is running out so they're going to start on IVF from a donor.
Yes, I realize that, however the venues for this are very limited in my experience; I already listed out everything I could think of.
Usually, when this discussion comes up, people will recommend things like "find groups that do things you like, and you'll meet women you like there!" Sorry, but I'm not likely to meet any desirable and single women at a Linux or programming group. And I do attend some outdoors groups, but IME there the women are generally much older than me (and I'm not young either). I'm not really sure what the single female 30-45 crowd does in the DC area, but it's not hiking. From my limited dating experience in this area, their general free-time activity appears to be hanging out with their female friends and complaining that they can't find a husband while their biological clock is running out so they're going to start on IVF from a donor.
I see I got an upvote here, so just in case anyone's interested in a funny anecdote about the IVF comment, I met a 43yo woman on Tinder a few months ago in the DC area. We talked on the phone before meeting in person, and one of the first things she told me after we got started chatting was how she had already tried one round of IVF...
Dating at this age really sucks.
Dating at this age really sucks.
I was traveling a good bit when I gave Tinder a shot (several months). Different cities gave me very different results. Hometown - nothing, not enough users so a lot of bots. Atlanta - tons of responses. LA - not quite as many, I probably didn't look as interesting compared to the other guys on there? Rome - Decent number, better than LA, not as much as Atlanta.
Then I met someone and we've been dating for 6 months so hopefully I don't get to test it out much more.
Then I met someone and we've been dating for 6 months so hopefully I don't get to test it out much more.
What I found interesting is that I (a straight, male) get a far higher match percentage in the D.C. area than in the S.F. Bay Area
SF has an unusually lopsided gender ratio, with more college-educated men than women, while almost all other major metro areas skew towards having more women than men. Jon Birger's Date-onomics covers this: http://jakeseliger.com/2015/09/19/briefly-noted-date-onomics..., and I rather liked it.
SF has an unusually lopsided gender ratio, with more college-educated men than women, while almost all other major metro areas skew towards having more women than men. Jon Birger's Date-onomics covers this: http://jakeseliger.com/2015/09/19/briefly-noted-date-onomics..., and I rather liked it.
Maybe you stand out more in D.C. Are you something(professionally) other than a lawyer?
While not expert in Tinder specifically this seems to come up in most digital matchmaking scenarios in my experience in variety of areas. If you keep your ear to the ground long enough you can identify broad archetypes, the same way as if you watch how people write search queries. You can quickly identify who is new, who has been around for years, who just came back and is out of date, who only knows one trick that worked for them in the past, the desperate, the overdetailed, the ascetics, the repeaters, the copycats and so on.
It was a little more interesting when things were more anonymous, but nowadays since identity and digital identity are strongly coupled I assume less dupes, alternate accounts, and full-identity copycats. In my opinion it's just a characteristic of the medium of digital matchmaking. The goal outcome is a match, that's all you want. There is a temporal lingua franca of the moment with trends, and you are either following it or you are not. Because the other users are only able to see this particular payload of images/bio/whatever, all inferences towards this goal must be evaluated from only this input and so it does tend to be exhausting.
I think to answer your question more succinctly, I haven't seen a digital matchmaking service that doesn't act like this.
It was a little more interesting when things were more anonymous, but nowadays since identity and digital identity are strongly coupled I assume less dupes, alternate accounts, and full-identity copycats. In my opinion it's just a characteristic of the medium of digital matchmaking. The goal outcome is a match, that's all you want. There is a temporal lingua franca of the moment with trends, and you are either following it or you are not. Because the other users are only able to see this particular payload of images/bio/whatever, all inferences towards this goal must be evaluated from only this input and so it does tend to be exhausting.
I think to answer your question more succinctly, I haven't seen a digital matchmaking service that doesn't act like this.
The women who put their heights and remark they don't know why it matters? They see height in all the profiles they view (i.e. men's) and figure they should put it in their own even though they don;t get. Men do this because for almost all women this is a selection criterion and cannot be expressed readily in photos
[deleted]
[deleted]
21% of women sending a message first seems surprising. I only skimmed the paper, but it doesn't seem like they removed bots from their data. Back when I was single, the vast majority of women messaging first were bots.
Yeah, this is definitely the case. I swipe right on everyone. It's an extreme rarity to find a woman who texts first. I'd put it at easily less than 5% (if they aren't a bot).
The bots are getting smarter; now they wait for you to write first, then chat you up a bit, then give you a spiel about how their boyfriend has ED and they need a hook-up.
As a person not on Tinder, I wonder: what is the endgame for bots or botmasters?
I've seen a few things:
1. "Follow me on instagram/twitter for more pics!" Getting real followers for fake social media accounts.
2. "I want to give you a sexy show, go this website!" Driving traffic to paid webcam sites.
3. "Friend me on facebook!" Similar to one, but datamining for ad networks could be the real motivation here.
4. "I want to fly out to meet you, but I can't afford a plane ticket!" Old school scamming money.
Anyone seen others?
2. "I want to give you a sexy show, go this website!" Driving traffic to paid webcam sites.
3. "Friend me on facebook!" Similar to one, but datamining for ad networks could be the real motivation here.
4. "I want to fly out to meet you, but I can't afford a plane ticket!" Old school scamming money.
Anyone seen others?
5. "I'm a hooker and want you to come to my hotel" Getting you to come to their hotel and either rob you, be a sting operation, or get an STD, or at the very least be out hundreds of dollars, which to their credit has a greater chance of actually real and attainable, though not worth the risk in my opinion.
6. Text me so now I have your phone number in my spam registry.
Most of the screenshots of the crap ones usually advertise some webcam sex show which requires a credit card for age verification (what they really mean is for scamming you out of money).
I had no idea there was such a market for Tinder bots. What are they all doing? Are there a variety of types?
In NYC it was mostly what I referred to as hooker-bots. They really made no effort to disguise the automation and were effectively just free advertisements. I did run into a couple bots that were at least trying to pass which was weird since I couldn't figure out their purpose. If you're looking to avoid (or create/market) sleazy dating bots bumble seems mostly sentient.
A man can have 10 children in a day.
A woman can have 10 children in a lifetime.
Only this ridiculous age could be surprised by the behavioral outcomes of this basic fact.
A woman can have 10 children in a lifetime.
Only this ridiculous age could be surprised by the behavioral outcomes of this basic fact.
true story
TL;DR: Men are not picky, but women are. Men can get more matches with a bio and more pics.
A couple of my guy friends have told me they swipe "Yes" on every single girl. I suspect that this isn't too uncommon.
Why put effort into making a decision now, when you can filter out everyone who didn't reject you first and then make fewer decisions later?
Because that constitutes being an irresponsible participant. If everyone did that, it just shifts the filter from swiping to unmatching.
It also signals a lack of empathy IMO. No one likes being matched and immediately unmatched.
It also signals a lack of empathy IMO. No one likes being matched and immediately unmatched.
Well sure, but I mean hypothetically as a selfish jerk, there's no reason not to do it that way.
It's the digital equivalent of the stereotyped 'bar/club tactic' of trying to pick up every girl in a bar. Most will decline, but after a week's worth of attempts, their chance of still not having succeeded will approach 0%.
I guess I'm the outlier then... :/
Because that's a shitty strategy and just doing what you like and talking to people while there works much better. I'm pretty sure I've gotten more dates sitting by myself reading at cafes and quiet bars that rowdy bars and clubs.
Doesn't work when you like doing functional programming or similar activities ;)
So if your favorite activity is functional programming, do you really think you're going to have a lot in common with people in bars and clubs? Or is the stereotypical person in one of those places really who you're looking for?
Do they realize they are being throttled? Just because one end sends a swipe doesn't mean the other end receives it right away or at all.
Men who send a lot of swipes get their outgoing swipes throttled. Women who receive a lot of swipes get those swipes throttled, too.
Think about if you were the programmer working on Tinder. The first thing I would build is swipe spam detection.
Men who send a lot of swipes get their outgoing swipes throttled. Women who receive a lot of swipes get those swipes throttled, too.
Think about if you were the programmer working on Tinder. The first thing I would build is swipe spam detection.
I know someone who works on the Tinder team, and if this is happening, it's news to them. Ie, you have no idea what you're talking about.
If both parties have to swipe in order for them to receive spam, why does Tinder care? In your head, do you think server costs are their primary concern?
If both parties have to swipe in order for them to receive spam, why does Tinder care? In your head, do you think server costs are their primary concern?
What do you mean by throttled?
As I've seen there is a daily limit on swipes (which can be bypassed with an in app purchase).
As I've seen there is a daily limit on swipes (which can be bypassed with an in app purchase).
As in after a high enough number of consecutive swipes in a time period, i.e. 3 swipes a second for 30 seconds, the swipes get ignored. No one can evaluate people that quickly, so it's okay to assume the client is a bot or a human spamming likes.
I do exactly this because it's informative. I don't actually follow through with anything, but it's interesting to find out types that find you attractive.
I've heard this as well. It's the shotgun effect, it's not that different from how many/most guys find dates. Ask 100 girls to get 10 dates to maybe get 1 date that isn't a total disaster. For something like Tinder that a lot of people just use for hookups, it's going to be even more pronounced because guys will be even less picky.
Sounds like they need a 'selectivity rating' so you can tell they aren't serious. Like your seller rating on EBay.
Oh, they are serious. That's just what a lot of people have to do to get anywhere with anyone. The alternative for most guys is being picky and getting nothing.
I've always wondered what this sort of behavior does to the number of single males/females. Eg, ultimately what really happens?
I could list a dozen questions about each genders respective choosey levels and tactics.. they're quite common and well known. But at the end of the day, are they even effective? Does each gender even have the same goals? Are males and females even happy with the result of their (conscious or unconscious) behavior?
The two parties in question have such different tactics and tend to play the game so differently. Yet they're dependent on each other (barring additional genders or gender preferences, which only complicate matters in this already confusing discussion haha).
It's all quite puzzling. Personally, i view myself as very different in this data sample, so perhaps i'm so puzzled because i'm so different.. for better or worse. Regardless, i don't understand.
I could list a dozen questions about each genders respective choosey levels and tactics.. they're quite common and well known. But at the end of the day, are they even effective? Does each gender even have the same goals? Are males and females even happy with the result of their (conscious or unconscious) behavior?
The two parties in question have such different tactics and tend to play the game so differently. Yet they're dependent on each other (barring additional genders or gender preferences, which only complicate matters in this already confusing discussion haha).
It's all quite puzzling. Personally, i view myself as very different in this data sample, so perhaps i'm so puzzled because i'm so different.. for better or worse. Regardless, i don't understand.
Personally, I'd rather be picky and get nothing if the alternative is having to sleep with someone I'm totally not attracted to. Porn is more satisfying, and with porn I don't have to worry about hurting the girl's feelings.
That said, however, you do have to be realistic about what kind of woman you can attract.
Also, if you get distracted by someone you're really not into, that can keep you from meeting someone who's a better match for you.
That said, however, you do have to be realistic about what kind of woman you can attract.
Also, if you get distracted by someone you're really not into, that can keep you from meeting someone who's a better match for you.
I've always felt people on both sides of the fence are too picky. I met my soon-to-be wife on a dating site, so i'm sure i'm biased, but i've always felt they are the way to go.
Not specifically Tinder, but rather a good algorithm that improves your signal to noise ratio. The problem there, as i see it, is always users though. Even if the site has an awesome pitch, you need critical mass to feel you have a shot at it.
Perhaps Facebook should buy and integrate something like OkCupid. A data-centric approach to matching, combined with the largest data set (albeit, not tailored for OkCupid..) seems like a very interesting prospect.
edit: Not sure what being picky has to do with dating sites... think i wandered, apologies.
Not specifically Tinder, but rather a good algorithm that improves your signal to noise ratio. The problem there, as i see it, is always users though. Even if the site has an awesome pitch, you need critical mass to feel you have a shot at it.
Perhaps Facebook should buy and integrate something like OkCupid. A data-centric approach to matching, combined with the largest data set (albeit, not tailored for OkCupid..) seems like a very interesting prospect.
edit: Not sure what being picky has to do with dating sites... think i wandered, apologies.
>Perhaps Facebook should buy and integrate something like OkCupid. A data-centric approach to matching, combined with the largest data set (albeit, not tailored for OkCupid..) seems like a very interesting prospect.
OKCupid has already been bought by the company that owns Tinder and Match.com (unfortunately). This was a year or two ago I think.
OKCupid has already been bought by the company that owns Tinder and Match.com (unfortunately). This was a year or two ago I think.
> the alternative is having to sleep with someone I'm totally not attracted to.
I'm not sure how people can sleep with someone they're not attracted to. Isn't being attracted required you know for getting a physical response?
I'm not sure how people can sleep with someone they're not attracted to. Isn't being attracted required you know for getting a physical response?
If your prospective partner is not specifically repellent, and there are enough of the appropriate hormones built up in your system, physical response is no problem, if emotions are just right, if there's something arousing about the circumstances you find yourselves in, or (as mentioned) you close your eyes and let your imagination take hold.
It's complicated, and there's more than one dimension.
It's complicated, and there's more than one dimension.
Basically, no. You'd be surprised what the imagination can do.
Yes, complete with comments and criticism.
I suppose a solution would be to somehow limit the number of right-swipes that can be made, or enforcing a swipe ratio. However, that would probably end up reducing overall usage of the app, so Tinder is unlikely to adopt such a strategy.
> I suppose a solution would be to somehow limit the number of right-swipes that can be made
They do exactly this. It's their pay model, buy more swipes.
They do exactly this. It's their pay model, buy more swipes.
[deleted]
quickly adds more photos
1) I placed a male profile in ~10 different cities, auto-swiped for a few days, and waited for matches and messages to flow in. I found the match/message rates to be significantly different for each city. Sample size of ~34,000 right swipes.
2) A/B test two female profiles with exact same photos and bio except 1 was a CEO and 1 was Graphic Designer. Swiped on 1000 men in NYC and 1000 men in SF.
3) A/B test two female profiles with exact same photos and bio except 1 was listed as 29 and 1 was listed as 31. Swiped on 1000 men in NYC and 1000 men in SF.
Through my experience in this, I can see the methodology they used in this study could be flawed. Specific concerns:
* While I don't have any real inside knowledge into Tinder's "recommendation" algorithm of who they show to you, I assume there is a strong preference to show active users first. So if they are swiping on hundreds of thousands of profiles, they are probably burning through the legitimately active users in a region pretty quickly... that's one reason why they get a lot of matches quickly and not as many matches over time and end up with a 0.6% match rate.
* The number of messages that guys send (at least as of 2 years ago when I ran my studies) is wildly more than women. The male profile was seeing an 11.8% match rate, and a message rate of 15.3% from the matches for an effective message rate of 1.8%. Whereas the women were getting an 81.5% match rate, with 63.9% message rate from those matches for an effective message rate of 52.1%.
* I believe there is now rate-limiting on the right swiping, so after ~100 or so right swipes, you have to wait 12 hours until right-swiping again. Really not sure how they could have made it through hundreds of thousands of profiles unless they paid for the premium membership.
Anyway, interesting stuff regardless, happy to release more data when I have time, if there is interest.