free and easy.

I mentioned in a previous post that I signed up for another dating site last week. (More precisely, I re-signed up, as I’d had a previous, partial profile from some time in the past that I deleted in order to start from scratch.) Anyway, I’m starting to think that free = too easy. The signal to noise ratio is not as good on this site. I get too many random IMs (I’ve now disabled IMing), too many suspicious or creepy emails (people with no picture who think I’m the woman of their dreams, some of whom live in other countries…uh, right). I’m not sure if it’s a coincidence or not, but I suspect that having to pay a little money to join a site keeps out a fair number of people who are on the site for reasons other than finding romantic partners.

how to avoid awkwardness.

Here’s a tip I read recently (on someone’s profile, actually). I liked it.

You’ve been meeting folk but there are those who you’d rather avoid, and you delete them from your phone. Later, they call and you answer because the number looks familiar: maybe it is a family or coworker! Awkwardness ensues.

Solution? Keep the number, but change the name to “Do Not Answer” — especially if you may have a tendency to get drunk / lonely.

I do not actually use this strategy, but I read it a couple years ago and its re-telling was recently well-received, so I thought I’d share.

you’ve got to be kidding me.

Are people really this gullible?!? A couple of nice tips in the article, though, if you tend to believe what people tell you.

Crazy.

six degrees of separation? more like two.

Two phone calls tonight with two new prospects from two dating sites.

The first used to share work space with a good friend of mine.
The second took a class from another good friend.

Too funny.

humor on profiles.

One of the problems with putting too much funny on your profile is that it is really easy for your reader to misunderstand it (limited context, no ability to use voice tone to communicate that something is meant in jest, etc.) One “match” used an interesting strategy to filter for a similar sense of humor. He posted “If you get a laugh out of this, I think we’d get along.” You’ll notice that the “this” is a link to a youtube video that some people would find funny and others would certainly not. An excellent strategy, particularly if you have an especially quirky sense of humor. (Remember, the goal is to provide enough information to “potential matches” that they can do the work of figuring out that you aren’t a match, thus freeing up lots more time for you to do more interesting things, like watching silly videos on youtube.)

stupid, mean, or crazy.

Just got the following message, first contact, he initiated:

why are you so fucking ugly, they should forbid ugly people from signing up to this website

Hmmm.

If he thinks this is an effective neg (a pick-up technique), he should reread The Game as I believe the technique requires a compliment that is actually an insult.

If he’s having a bad day and just wants to spread the hate, then I hope it made him feel better.

And just in case he has plans to bury me in his backyard alongside the other bodies, I promptly blocked him from accessing my profile. At least I hope I did. I’m checking to make sure.

Creepy.

so much for meeting *new* people online

I joined a new dating site this week. (It’s what I do when I can’t face the ones I’m already on.) This one is free. And it makes you answer a lot of questions before it then tries to match you with compatible people.

It took me a while to answer enough questions to make it worthwhile to check out their matching system. I finally gave it a try today. #5 on the list (ordered according to the site’s measure of compatibility) was a colleague of some close friends that I’d already met about a month ago (in the real world) and quickly became friends with myself. Just had dinner with him last night, in fact.

Hilarious.

So much for meeting new people online. And so much for their matching system, if it’s going to match me up with people in exclusive relationships. Regardless of how compatible we may or may not be in other ways, that is certainly a deal-breaker.

(Just so you don’t judge him unfairly, he’s on the record as looking for “new friends” only.)

benign cyberstalking?

I just read a mildly entertaining piece describing the results of knowing too much about a new date due to the obsessive compulsion to google (or facebook/myspace/flickr/etc.) that person before you really know them. The author suggests that hunting for a new interest online is a bad idea, due to its potentially disastrous (if entertaining) consequences.

I have strong views about this (shocker, right? I’m not an opinionated person at all! Count your blessings that unless you know me personally, you’re spared my political rants. ). I, dear readers, want to know what you think about this more benign form of cyberstalking, so here’s a very short survey for you to take. I promise to report the results back.

In the meantime, I’ll contaminate my results by telling you what I think about it. (This is really unfortunate, because you’ll see when you take it that the survey is super-scientific in design. I mean, I’ve made sure that it’s valid and reliable and everything!)

So here’s what I think.

There is nothing wrong with using what information you have to try to find out who someone is, in both the literal sense of what their name is as well as in the more metaphorical sense of what makes them tick. Again, when cyberdating, we don’t have the normal social networks to fill in background info and help us jump to premature conclusions, uh, I mean perform complex social analysis about the person. The web helps us get some of that info (unless the person doesn’t have an online presence), especially if we have superior stalker-skills!

In my ideal world, everyone would assume that not only is this particular form of data-collection occurring and think it something that normal, well-adjusted people do (along side the crazy ones), but we could also mention things we’d read online without it creeping out the person concerned.

On my own dates, I tend to be pretty straightforward about these things, since there is little long-term potential for me with someone who can’t deal with my honesty and directness. (It really is my default style.) Thus, I have been known to admit, early on, that I had looked someone up online. The typical response tends to be surprise, not that I did it, but that I’ll admit it. I like to think that I’m socially aware enough to time my admissions appropriately, since part of successful communication is making sure the other person understands what you’re saying and doesn’t arrive at wrong secondary conclusions based on what you say. However, it’s mildly annoying to me to have to think about this. The world has changed, people. Adapt! (And while you’re adapting, take my survey.)

edater’s edating rules, part 3

12- This next rule can be a really tough one, because, as a friend of mine pointed out recently, most of us aren’t used to being rejected in such quantity as we get during the online dating process, but if you can remember the following, the entire process is much, much, much more pleasant: If someone doesn’t respond for a week or more, don’t take it personally. Feel free to send a lighthearted e-mail similar to the one in this earlier post, but you just don’t know what’s going on in the other person’s life, and it’s fairly safe to assume that when someone doesn’t respond, it’s not about you. You know why? Because they don’t know you. What you can assume is that they don’t yet know you enough or trust you enough to tell you all the petty details of their life, including if they’re traveling, or when they have a family emergency, or when they’re unexpectedly swamped at work, or when they’re just in one of the normal ebbs of the online dating process that seem to strike most edaters (the ones where people just can’t get themselves to sign onto a dating site to do anything except, perhaps, to show a friend their profile). So if you’re struggling with this one, repeat after me: “It can’t be about me, they don’t know me, it can’t be about me, they don’t know me, it can’t be about me, they don’t know me….”

grrrrrrrr. another one!

This one committed two of edater’s cardinal sins.

First, he “winked.”
Then, when I broke my own rule of ignoring winks and clicked on his profile, he only had the following:
“I cycle, hike, travel, build, fix, teach, play, camp, canoe, commute, compute, bake, dance, sing (where no on hears), run, read science fiction, sit by the fire, watch (movies), read science fact, talk, and listen.” Sans photo. Points for conciseness, but more info needed.

(Geeez! I just wasted about 45 seconds!)