That’s how I would view it as well. It’s more like an in-person meeting of eyes before one person launches into conversation. You don’t want to start talking when there’s no way of knowing if the person is actually there to hear it.
Person A has interest, but has no way of knowing if Person B has any. So, Person A sends an extremely brief message so as not to waste everyone’s time. Person B either responds or doesn’t. If Person B responds, it’s after putting in the same effort Person A put in already–looking at the profile. If Person B doesn’t respond, Person A isn’t out a ton of time and effort.
Hmmm. I’m a woman and, while I’ve never tried on-line dating, it would make sense to me to let a fellow I was e-mailing know what exactly prompted me to pick him out. I wouldn’t see that as any more agressive than giving a fellow my phone number.
I like your resume analogy. There are a lot of single women out there, many of whom are younger and prettier than I am. If I want to draw your interest, I ought to give you a brief sketch, at least.
Then again, maybe this is one way of weeding out the riff-raff?
That’s how I see it as well. The person doesn’t want to take a bunch of time trying to start a conversation unless they know that there is some chance that you may be interested. It’s more like a “hey, I’m interested in you, let me know if I should bother to continue or if I repulse you utterly from the start so I don’t waste my time.”
Every individual has his or her own minimum requirements, many of which can be triggered by a well-written profile. The message style questioned in the OP is perfectly logical. The message is not “I’m too lazy to figure out something to talk about.” It’s more like “I’ll wait to put the time into a real message until I’ve passed the first gatepost.” Why put in the time and emotion into a substantive message only to be ignored or told “sorry, you’re not my type.”
Because, by doing that, you’re making the other person put time and emotion into a substantive message only to be ignored or told “sorry, you’re not my type.” All you’re doing is shifting the burden.
I don’t think so. You’re just asking for an exchange of initial communications. It’s like a smile a wave and a “hi.” I don’t think there’s anything unreasonable in asking for some minimal response and indication of “I’m not immediately repulsed by you” before in depth communications begin.
People are told to spend time in creating detailed profiles so that others get a reasonably good picture. I see absolutely nothing unreasonable in just asking someone to peruse one’s profile and then indicate “You don’t immediately repulse me.” This is not rocket science. Why not use a detailed profile as a good weeding-out tool?
And, of course, I was using shorthand in that “sorry, you’re not my type.” It’s more “Sorry I don’t like X about you, which I could have learned just by reading your profile first.” Again, I say it’s perfectly logical and it saves both parties time and effort.
I wholeheartedly agree with Siege. If you don’t want to compose a lengthy introduction, that’s fine. It’s perfectly understandable. However, merely saying “Please read my profile and let me know what you think” simply shifts the burden onto the other person. It puts the other person in the position of having to come up with something to discuss. It’s also a bit inconsiderate, as it implies that your time is more valuable than his or hers.
As I said, I understand if you don’t want to compose a doctoral dissertation. You don’t need to thype a lengthy message, though. Just say something from which a conversation can start. Ask about the shirt he or she is wearing in his/her profile, for example. Or ask about his favorite musician. It’s how people start conversations in real life.
I don’t think it requires a substantive message in reply, just an acknowledgment.
But then, I haven’t been on the dating scene in quite a few years. I know that I wouldn’t send a huge, complicated reply, just a “Yes, I looked at your profile. What did you like about mine?”
ETA: That is if I did look at their profile and they seemed interesting enough.
When I mentioned this on the aforementioned singles site, several women (and one guy) said, “But women don’t want to be the aggressors! We want men to make the first move!” Sorry, but if you’ve asked a man to look at your profile, then you’ve ALREADY taken the initiative. You’ve already made the first move.
If so, then at least say something to get the discussion started. Ask about his interests, for example. That’s not aggressive at all; in fact, it’s the sort of question that one can ask even when you’re not interested.
I’m still surprised that people think that an introduction takes a great deal of time and effort. Obviously, something about that person piqued your interest – career, place of residence, church membership, whatever. Why not ask about that? That takes scarcely any effort, little intelligence, and almost no effort.
That certainly avoids the need for a lengthy reply, but they shouldn’t even have to do that. As we’ve said, it takes practically no effort to briefly mention something that caught your interest.
Besides, if somebody says “Please read my profile and let me know what you think,” that doesn’t sound like asking for a quick signal on whether they should proceed or not. If that were the intent, then it would be best furthered by saying “I realize that your time might be limited. Mine is too, so I was wondering if you’d take a quick look at my profile. Do you think that we might be compatible?” That’s quite a bit different, and only takes a few more seconds to composde. More importantly, it lets the other person know that you’re proceedingly hesitantly, and it doesn’t sound like shifting the burden of effort onto him or her.
I don’t think that many people would interpret “Let me know what you think” as a request for a quick answer. If anything, it sounds like a request for a substantive message, as Seige said.
Some people have said that they just want to save time. All the more reason to compose your introduction carefully, though. Again, it’s like applying for a job. You *might * save time by sending off a hastily prepared cover letter and resume, but you probably won’t. As several here have said, all you have to do is say something about what piqued your interest. It only takes a few seconds, it gives you something to discuss, and it makes you seem more considerate. It will probably save you time as well.
Yeah. I’m not asking for a novel. In my experience, the messages I respond to most favorably are not long, but make it clear that they did look at my profile and are responding to something they liked. “I like that author too. Have you read X by him?” or “I bet you played a half-Elf Ranger,” or “Your antipathy towards tomatoes seems frightening,” - all of these one sentence emails would interest me enough to write a reponse.
I believe that’s exactly what the people who are writing “let me know what you think” mean by it. They mean “I’ve read your profile and I’m interested; read my profile and let me know if I’m not an instant reject. And I just want to make sure you actually reply to these things. After that, we can start communicating.”
And maybe the frustration evident in the OP would be alleviated if you just assumed that’s what it meant. Better understanding, happier world, and all that.
Better yet, if you just want a quick response as to whether it’s worth proceeding, then why not say so? As I said earlier, why not say “I realize that your time might be limited. Mine is too, so I was wondering if you’d take a quick look at my profile. Do you think that we might be compatible?” It takes almost no extra effort, and it sounds a great deal more considerate.
Yeah, I know. Some people want to save time, and they’d rather dash off a five-second reply instead of typing two more sentences. As some posters have said, this comes across as rather lazy. Like it or not, human interactions often require those little sacrifices, especially if you don’t want to come across as though you’re imposing on somebody else or foisting the burden of communication onto them.
“But I wouldn’t interpret it that way!” some would say. “I would only assume that they wanted a no-frills, yes-or-no response.” If anything though, this disagreement only emphasizes the importance of making one’s self clear. The quickie approach might not be deliberately lazy, but it certainly comes across that way – or at the very least, lends itself to ambiguous interpretations. That one reason why there are guidelines for human politeness – so that we can avoid such problems.
But there’s another potential lesson about human interaction and a civil society – Give people the benefit of the doubt and put off being put off until you have a concrete reason to do so. That’s just as important a “guideline for human politeness” as any other.
Which is precisely why I wholeheartedly believe that such people mean no offense. I believe we should give people the benefit of the doubt, but only up to a point.
Even for the best of us, there comes a limit. If somebody uses foul language during a job interview, for example, how many of us would say “Let’s give him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he just has Asperger’s syndrome?” The vast majority of people would conclude – justifiably so – that he simply doesn’t care about the way he presents himself.
“But that’s a different situation!” one might say. Yes, it is; that’s inevitable when giving examples of societal behavior. The point is that giving somebody the benefit of the doubt is one thing; bending over way backwards to do so is another.
If somebody is REALLY concerned about not wasting time, then it’s only polite to say so – to emphasize that this is your intent. Failing to do so doesn’t make somebody deliberately rude, but it does indicate a lack of consideration. It amounts to saying “I want to save time and effort – for myself. That’s why I’m not going to tell the other person that I just want to save time.” Again, it’s surely not deliberate, and few people would explicitly say that to themselves. Nevertheless, somebody who’s genuinely concerned about the time investment of both parties (not just himself/herself) will attempt to make this clear.
And I don’t think the explanations are all that reasonable. Or rather, they’re reasonable for people who want to save time for themselves. Judging by the visceral distaste that others have likewise expressed, I’m clearly not alone.
I don’t think it’s offensive; I just think it’s poor marketing. Look, let’s say JThunder has got time to reply about half a dozen e-mails from potentially interested girls during his lunchbreak. He’s got a dozen or so that he could reply to. If half of them say something like, “Hi! I saw you like Cecil Adams’ columns in your profile. Have you heard of the really cool message board that goes with his columns? Let’s fight some ignorance!” and the other half say something like “Hi! I"d like to start a conversation. Please read my profile and tell me what you think,” which ones do you think he’ll answer first?
Right. But let’s just say that JThunder doesn’t have any replies and really wants some action. He (or someone) might reply and check it out.
There’s high-level marketing targeted to an audience and there’s shot-gun marketing that’s just done with high volume. Both work. If you’re looking for a perfect match, shot-gun marketing won’t appeal to you.