Not as far as I know. Have you had your friends look over your profile and your pictures to offer any criticism? Sometimes people are just not very good at picking flattering pictures of themselves or in describing themselves well. Otherwise, you can always try a more targeted 50 & up type of dating service, to help eliminate the men trolling for younger women, or maybe you’re simply one of the people who do better meeting people in three dimensions. Maybe even speed dating or something like that, if you really want to be proactive (although the whole idea of speed dating doesn’t appeal to me.)
“Hi… Dave?”
“Oh, hello. You must be Pamela.”
“Yes, I am.”
“Oh. No, I’m not Dave.”
[quote=“MeanOldLady, post:224, topic:642072”]
I double dog dare any straight woman, even the ones who think dating online is so cool that it wears the cat’s pajamas, to tell me they were not inundated with gobs of terrible messages every single day, and that the percentage of quality exchanges with folks they might be interested in was not vanishingly small.QUOTE]
I’ll take that bet. In the months I was on Match and eHarmony, I got practically no messages, good or bad. I felt like the Amazing Invisible Woman.
Yes, in that they looked like their picture.
I went out on probably a dozen internet dates total in my life, spaced across three discrete months, one in 2002, one in 2004, and one in 2006. The first was Yahoo!, the second was OK Cupid, the third was Match.com.
The pictures simply looked to good to be true, or way out of my league. I also tend to be drawn to the more quirky, amateurish photos. If a women looks pretty good in a photo that is badly composed in questionable light, then she’s probably going to look pretty good in a nice environment. I tended to go for women with very plain-looking and “honest” photos. I don’t know how to describe it, but I just have a knack (and I bet you could do this, too), figuring out whose photo is likely to be accurate, and whose is not.
I see you changed that. Yes. 100% of the time. I understand I may be somewhat anomalous, but I gave you my strategy above, and it didn’t fail me.
What strategy is that exactly? Going for people you think are unattractive in their pictures?
No, women who I find “cute” and “attractive” even though the picture isn’t the greatest or is just very straightforward and average.
Then what is above average?
Yep glamour shots, ones with kids in them [really WTF] etc are all reasons for me to skim past a profile.
I remember reading about Nigerian scammers and they were saying that they have the most luck with amateur cell phone photos. So if it works for the 419ers then it might work for you as well.
By “average” picture, I mean something that is a candid or non-studio, every day kind of shot.
Dammit, they’re on to me. 
Good thing I’m out of the game. No, but seriously, “too amateur” can also be a problem. Like I don’t like the whole webcam or Facebook angle stuff. I’ll look over it as long as there’s a good variety of photos to get some sense of the person.
Like I said in post #3, I met 4 men through OKCupid, and am now engaged to #4. I chatted with one other man that I chose not to meet. I was not inundated with gobs of terrible messages every day. I got perhaps 3 or 4 scam-type messages (like “hello, beautiful” before I had a chance to post a picture). That’s it. Oh, I am straight.
Other than this site, I am not online a lot. I don’t play any online games other than Words with Friends and Draw Something. By anyone’s definition, I am not someone who is online a lot. I am an extrovert.
You have a hard time with the phrases “looks like I was wrong” and “I am sorry,” don’t you?
You don’t know what photo shop is. Sigh
Non-studio. Who uses pictures taken in a studio?
Given that I have been a professional photographer since 1997, I highly doubt that.
Why are you being so contrary? You asked for honest experiences with online dating, and I’m giving them to you, as honestly as I possibly can.
So, wait. Introverts are those who are online a lot? News to me.
Also, what makes you think you’re right?
Oh ya, you’re engaged to a dude you met there. I guess that automatically makes everything you say on the subject right.
A good number of Match.com profiles, at least when I was looking, had studio shots on them.
What a great scam they have going.
Not only do you have to pay for using the site, but you have to go out of your way and get studio shots (since you’re saying that’s the norm).
And I believe they are claiming that 1/5 relationships start on match?
So you’re paying an expensive monthly fee with a 20% success rate. Well, success in terms of starting a relationship. And that’s only starting a relationship!
WOW!
why don’t you talk about the actual fucking statistics, captain contrarian?
17% of couples that were married in the last three years met on an online dating service. (Chadwick Martin Bailey Study - April 2010)
Online Dating is the third most popular way for singles to meet, behind school/work and friend/family member. ( Chadwick Martin Bailey and Match.com Study - April 2010)
there are more than 280,000 marriages a year as a direct result of people meeting on an online dating service (Online Dating Magazine - January 2011).
20 % of all current committed relationships are two people who met each other online. (from Reuters, Herald News, PC World, Washington Post.)
haters and failures gon’ hate–but online dating is nothing more than just another place people can go to meet other people.
this will make the THIRD time you’ve ignored them.
I don’t understand what you’re talking about.
Once again, I perceive some hostility here. I don’t understand why. I’m getting the feeling that you really aren’t interested in hearing good experiences with online dating sites.
No, Modern Master. What’s your problem? I was merely refuting **MeanOldLady’s ** theory that online dating only works for those who are online a lot and don’t like interacting with others IRL. Oh, and her newest assertion about getting lots of terrible messages.
I never said, nor will I ever say, that online dating is for everyone. I just said it worked for me, and refuted some foolishness that others said about it.