>>34732638
Woops, well that's a good start.
>Living situation and status/history
should read
>Living situation and work status/history

I'm the type that's not what one would call winsome in my desired demographics. Being realistic here, not self-defeating.
Should I, and others like myself, apply or will you be flooded and would rather keep the intake smaller?

File: raf,360x360,075,t,fafafa_ca443f4786.jpg (29.1 KB)

29.1 KB JPG

>>34732638
It's another episode of guy makes a pseudo-matching thread just to get contacts of femanons for himself and match absolutely no one

>>34732701
I don't participate in the matchmaking myself and I am happy to provide proof of this. Open to suggestions. Obviously it's not like I can give out my address and passport number though.

>>34732691
Overall I would rather help match people who believe they are not desirable than those who believe they are desirable. People with more desirable profiles/stats have a lot more options after all, so they will not benefit as much from these threads I think.

Unless I get like a thousand applications I should be able to handle it at a decent pace. Certainly way faster than the other two current threads.

>>34732708
I see. Thanks.

>>34732701
Yup lmfao. There's a reason why so many copycats of this retarded thread concept started popping up. People realized that women are retarded and fall for this every time for whatever reason.

>>34732701
>>34733451
can't tell if this is bait or actual room temp iq posters

>>34732638
Some questions
>How does the verification system work, especially the text verification
>How detailed would you like the responses to be e.g., if I write a novel are you going to muddle through it
Some suggestions
>Sexual interests e.g., dom/sub/fetishes, might be important to know
>Relationship type e.g., open/poly/traditional
Both the above might fit into the existing questions and I'm being autistic so lemme know if that's the case. I imagine most people are going to want a traditional relationship so that's not likely to be hugely important, but sexual incompatibility is a real killer.

>>34733704
Thanks for the feedback. Right now I am opting for fewer, more open-ended questions to capture what most people think about. Sexual interests and relationship types should be captured in desired qualities and dealbreakers in general.
People who are looking for less traditional arrangements seem to be more forward with it, as they know it's not an easy sell to the average person.
They're both good points, though, and might deserve to be promoted to dedicated items.

>How does the verification system work, especially the text verification
In the questionnaire, people submit information about their ASL, looks, and credentials. When I say 'through text' I also include pictures, to be clear. The most basic level of verification is basically "is this a bot". Just a few message exchanges can check for this. For claim verification, I accept any document with sufficient evidence level, including censored pics, certificates, receipts, etc. and do mild forensics (reverse image search, except on people's faces; check for basic signs of manipulation or AI use, etc., nothing too extensive). I can also do voice checks to verify people's stated gender for those who would rather not share pics. I can also do videochats for the full verification.

The verification level for the various claims that have been validated will be marked and shared with matches, but not the evidence used. So for example someone may be "25F (video verified)" or someone could be "NASA engineer (image verified)" or of course "18/M/USA (unverified)".

Verification is purely on a voluntary basis but I will provide feedback if lack of validation has blocked potential matches for example.

Additionally, I will start reaching out for verification when there is a match on paper, before the pairs are contacted about it.

The responses are as short or long as you want. I will ask followups if there aren't enough details or if there may be a match but more clarity is needed.

Here comes the first update for the Matcher9000 matchmaking.

Total applications: 7
...of which incomplete: 1
M:F ratio: 4:3
Most common location: US
Most common education level: highschool
Most desired location for a partner: US
Matches so far: 0
Potential matches (requires further questioning): 1
Age range of cohort: 18-35

The most sought-after profile is a 25F in the US with at least a highschool degree who works fulltime and lives alone.

Stats should become more interesting over time, as more people join in.

As always, if anyone has any comments or feedback, please don't hesitate.

>>34732638
ive done 3 of these now and radio silence lol

>>34734262
Same. These cupid threads are all shit.

Quick note since it seems I was not clear in the OP: when answering the questionnaire, there are a total of 3 parts.

1. The top part of the questionnaire (between "Questionnaire:" and "Repeat the above [...]")
2. The same part as the above, but with answers relating to your preferred partner rather than yourself
3. The bottom part of the questionnaire, below the "Repeat the above [...]" part of the post.

Since the previous update, 7 more people applied. Of these, 3 have not yet answered the questionnaire. More stats will be posted tomorrow.

There is now another potential matching pair which may require a followup question or two to check.

I believe I have answered all applicants who have submitted a questionnaire so far. If you have submitted one as of this post, please ping me again on discord. At any rate, I will get back to everyone as soon as possible.

>>34734389
Clarification: if you have submitted a questionnaire and have not received any answer, please ping me. No need to reach out otherwise, aside from the usual (any questions, comments, etc.)

>>34732708
>I don't participate in the matchmaking myself and I am happy to provide proof of this. Open to suggestions. Obviously it's not like I can give out my address and passport number though.
Why not?

Bump for a real thread for real human beans.

Good morning everybody. I am back and will start processing the pending applications shortly. I have also received 6 more adds which have been accepted, feel free to post your questionnaire answers at any time.

>>34734403
Mostly because the reputation risk is too high given my position irl to be honest. Under some magical circumstances where some person who is both trusted by this thread and is unlikely to cause me trouble were to appear, I could actually even do that for the sake of proving myself.

Here comes the 2nd update.

>Cohort statistics
Total adds: 20
...of which retracted before answering the questionnaire: 1
...of which have answered the questionnaire: 13
...of which haven't answered yet: 6
...of which incomplete: 0
M:F ratio: 10:3
Age range of cohort: 18-40
Most common location: US
Most common education level: highschool
Most commonly requested minimal education level: highschool
Most desired location for a partner: US

>Match statistics
Matches considered: 4
People considered for matches: 6
Lowest match score: -62
Highest match score: 45
Matches rejected: 2
Matches not considered: 1 (due to low score)
Matches awaiting confirmation: 1

>>34736569
>-62
Hey that's me

>>34736612
Scores that low are typically caused because there was an item in the dealbreaker list that I didn't catch before beginning match scoring.
Normally I only issue scores to couples who match the right location requirement (not 'ideal location' but 'most general allowable location'), sexual orientation, and age range.
In this case the age range were off but the other characteristics were looking good.

Update #3 (and last update of the day).

>Cohort statistics
Total adds: 22
...of which retracted before answering the questionnaire: 2
...of which have answered the questionnaire: 17
...of which haven't answered yet: 3
...of which incomplete: 0
M:F ratio: ~3/4 (i.e. 75:25)
Age range of cohort: 18-40
Most common location: exaequo US and eurozone
Most common education level: highschool (but college degree is gaining ground)
Most commonly requested minimal education level: highschool
Most desired location for a partner: US
Most undesirable political stance: extreme right

>Match statistics
Matches considered: 7
People considered for matches: 10
Lowest match score: -62
Highest match score: 63
Matches rejected: 4
Matches not considered: 1 (due to low score)
Matches awaiting confirmation: 2

Most common reason for match rejection: not in preferred age range, not of preferred ethnicity (exaequo)

I would like to improve the M:F ratio further. My current strategy is to identify suitable threads and to advertise, but open to additional suggestions.

>>34737613
How many extremely mentally ill applications have you gotten? Extreme as in personality disorders, mentions of multiple stays in a mental hospital, etc

Advertising in all dating oriented threads might be a good idea. I'm unsure if you'd get banned, but r9k is full of single men and women, so trying there could help. I think cgl has a lot of single women as well. If you want to spend money you could buy an ad slot, I have a feeling women are more likely to be phoneposters and not use adblock.

>>34737643
judging by who he told me a potential match was Cassie is doing it so at least 1

>>34735941
Sir, you are posting on /soc/. There is no reputation nor a position. Only way to prove anything is to post your valid ID with a timestamped pic, so people can doxx you in case of failure.

>>34737657
im trying to understand why im receiving unnecessary hate. i am NOT extremely mentally ill. maybe slightly mentally ill but everyone on 4chan is at least slightly mentally ill so whats your point? why does everyone attack me for no reason? i literally mind my own business and its random pieces of garbage that go out of there way to try to make me mad and it works! let me tell you something little bitch, Cassie is extremely powerful, gorgeous, and intelligent. Watch your mouth. the difference between me and you is that you depend on this crappy matching tool to find you a mate. im just doing it for the kicks and giggles. worry about yourself before you worry about me. worry about losing weight and becoming intelligent. because as for me, i am perfect

>>34738378
>Cassie is extremely powerful, gorgeous, and intelligent.
Ur growing on me i hate to say it

>>34738439
nigs aren't smart enough to bait this is just pure unfiltered 60 iq jabbering and if that grows on you I'd recommend moving to the south side of Chicago

>>34738448
>60 iq jabbering
my responses are not supposed to be at academic level. i say what needs to be said and that is it. im not trying to appeal to anyone here. i have written on behalf for Bill Gates, Donald Trump, Tom Cruise, and other highly intelligent and successful white men. My IQ is 135. Do not try me. I am an academic scholar and loved by the white men in power.

>>34737643
There are no people in the data who have shared any mental illnesses. I will not play psychologist with the matchmaking pool because that is a little too much from an ethical point of view, but I will add notes from matches that have proceeded to be in contact and failed to connect. Such notes may include that one of the matches thought the other was not mentally stable enough.
Those notes are interpreted with a grain of salt and operate on a strike system to avoid the kind of people who try to attack/ban profiles they didn't like, for example.

I can share that there are 3 profiles that will have a particularly hard time getting matches due to personality, quirks, or requirements, however.

>>34737657
I don't discriminate against "famous posters" and I will not reveal if, who, or how many there are in the pool. All assumptions are made exclusively by the users and will never be confirmed or denied.

I also want to be clear that I only share key details of an application, not the whole questionnaire (so that people can break the ice this way, and to prevent identification before a match is performed). This means typically ASL (where L is the greatest common location, never the finer location that may have been shared), a few traits that match the desired profile, and a few traits that differ.

In case of a good paper match including dealbreakers that can classically be interpreted as negotiable, I open with only those and amend the profile data if the dealbreakers are indeed immutable. I also use this information to refine the scoring function I use for match finding.

File: 4788rg.gif (1.2 MB)

1.2 MB GIF

>>34738545
>i have written on behalf for Bill Gates, Donald Trump, Tom Cruise, and other highly intelligent and successful white men. My IQ is 135.

The girl I'm talking with is so dry how can I get a refund?

>>34739631
I recommend, in chronological order, until the issue is addressed, to:
>chat for a little while longer to see if that changes
>communicating that you are not enjoying this
>agreeing that you are not a good match and moving on

Not all matches that look good on paper will be good in practice. My goal is to first reduce the amount of impossible/terrible matches to 0, second to improve the likelihood of a successful match as high as possible.
To do so, I rely on your experience through my services, and your feedback to refine the process, identify characteristics that could have predicted undesired outcomes, and improve the system's efficiency. This will, obviously, take time.

If you decide that you are not a match, I encourage you to reach out to me with feedback so that I can start the improvement process.

>>34739631
>how can I get a refund?
Your time will be refunded and deposited into your quantum bank account within 3 business light years. Have a nice day!

Here comes today's update. I will be less active for the rest of the day and will be back tomorrow.

>Cohort statistics
Total adds: 37
...of which retracted before answering the questionnaire: 2
...of which have answered the questionnaire: 24
...of which haven't answered yet: 11
...of which incomplete: 0
M:F ratio: 5:1
Age range of cohort: 18-40
Most common location: Eurozone
Most common education level: Highschool (college degrees a close second)
Most commonly requested minimal education level: Highschool
Most desired location for a partner: US
Most undesirable political stance: Extreme right

>Match statistics
Matches considered: 8
People considered for matches: 11
Lowest match score: -62
Highest match score: 63
Matches rejected: 4
Matches succeeded (i.e. contacts were exchanged): 2
Matches not considered: 1 (due to low score)
Matches awaiting confirmation: 1

Most common reason for match rejection: not in preferred age range, not of preferred ethnicity (exaequo)
Most common reason for otherwise matching profiles to not be matched: not in preferred age range. In one case it was off by 2 years.

I would still like to improve the M:F ratio further and I'm thinking about how to go about it.

>>34739877
>Eurozone
>US
Are Euros asking for Americans or is there something happening like Euros asking for specific EU countries?

>>34740431
A lot of people are open to LDRs. When they aren't, they're more likely to be US based and require a fellow american. So someone in the US would be able to fit into most location requirements, whereas Europeans often get filtered this way.

>>34739877
How are you scoring people?

>>34742523
I use a simple scheme based on a weighted sum of match attributes, with highly negative guardrail components to allow for soft-scoring through otherwise dealbreaking factors either through inadvertence or for trials when attempting to adjust the function.

I will share a new set of statistics soon, and am currently proceeding through profile processing and a new round of matchmaking.

>>34742655
I don't understand a fucking word you said, but you seem fucking intelligent as fuck desu. Can we trust your big computer brain to find us true love?

>>34742790
Every shot at love is less than a single digit % chance at best, anon.
No, you can't trust any one method, you just gotta try and most of the time it won't work, then keep trying. This is just one more option.

Here comes today's first (or only? We shall see) update.

>Cohort statistics
Total adds: 48
...of which retracted before answering the questionnaire: 3
...of which have answered the questionnaire: 41
...of which haven't answered yet: 4
...of which incomplete: 1
M:F ratio: 5:1
Age range of cohort: 18-40
Most common location: Eurozone
Most common education level: Highschool (college degrees a close second)
Most commonly requested minimal education level: Highschool
Most desired location for a partner: US
Most undesirable political stance: Any extremes

>Match statistics
Matches considered: 8
People considered for matches: 11
Lowest match score: -62
Highest match score: 63
Matches rejected: 4
Matches succeeded (i.e. contacts were exchanged): 2
Matches not considered: 1 (due to low score)
Matches awaiting confirmation: 1

Most common reason for match rejection: not in preferred age range, not of preferred ethnicity (exaequo)
Most common reason for otherwise matching profiles to not be matched: not in preferred age range.

I focused on going through the profile backlog, if you have posted your questionnaire answers and did not receive my confirmation that I have processed your answers and have no followup questions at this time, please ping me so I can get back to you.

You may notice the match statistics have not yet changed. I am going to focus on a round of matchmaking when I have time throughout the day, so look forward to it. In the meantime I will be slower to process profiles.

>>34742790
It is ultimately as >>34742985 says.
My goal is to make the process as smooth and likely to work as possible, but I am not a telepath, nor a magician. I believe it should be possible to make 1/5 matches work right off the bat, and maybe 1/3 of these should be able to develop into the desired relationship type (e.g. long-term, short-term, marriage...) with a well-optimized process.
The current process is still early, so this is just a pie in the sky for now.

Updated match statistics.

>Match statistics
Matches considered: 20
People considered for matches: 23
Lowest match score: -62
Highest match score: 63
Matches rejected: 4
Matches accepted: 2
Matches not considered: 1 (due to low score)
Matches delayed (partner already in another match): 2
Matches awaiting confirmation: 10
Matches failed: 1

There is now just enough data to give an idea of the average profile for the M and F in the cohort.

Average M:
26/M/US or Europe. White with brown hair and eyes, average weight. 179cm (5'10''). Looking for long-term, eventually to marry and have children with a white or asian woman. Shy, introverted, into videogames and anmie. Drinks sometimes, doesn't do drugs or smoke. Highest education level was highschool, currently works in tech. Lives alone or looking to do so. Politically a left-leaning centrist. Looking for a relaxed, openminded, caring partner with a positive attitude who shares some interests in common. On average, had 1 previous relationship. His ideal date is one where he can have a great time simply talking together, and he wants a partner he can share a good chat, interests, and life events with.

Average F:
22/F/Europe. Brown hair and eyes, 165cm (5'5'') tall. Average weight. Looking for a masculine, clean, white or asian man at least 5'9''. Glasses a bonus. 2 previous partners on average. Wants to be taken on a coffee or restaurant date and expects to share a lot of affection with a partner.. In it for the longterm, but not sure about having children. Into anime and videogames. The ideal man will obsess over her, and be mature and calm. She is shy and introverted, so he needs to be confident to take things forward. Politically, she is a left-leaning centrist. She has a highschool degree and is currently enrolled in college, living either at home or in the dorms.

Pretty standard I would say, but a lot less crazy than some of the claims I've seen posted around sometimes.

>>34743867
>Average F:
>Looking for a white or asian man at least 5'9''.
oh kek I'm screwed lmao omg I'm fucked hahahaha

>>34743867
White women were a mistake. White men have realistic expectations while women want a chad with glasses because they themselves are nerdy while being whores without much value themselves (more than 1 partner = used up whore). I pitty most men for being cucks or having to stay alone otherwise.

>>34743952
>>34743996
Both the M and F version are an amalgamated average and does not represent any person. Some of these properties are linked at some level. For example, someone who lives independently is more likely to want likewise of their partner, but this isn't captured in this kind of portrait.

>>34744004
>makes generalized statement
>t-that's just a generalized statement
Yeah no shit illiterate.

>>34743867
I am now understanding that the things I want are not normal. I keep not submitting an application but if I'm this far from the norm in my desire then maybe I should
Question:
Do you worry that posting average profiles like this will allow bad actors to lie about themselves more easily and game the system?

>>34743867
I love them and wish they have many wasian babies together.

>>34744083
I avoid providing too many statistics about extremes because I am worried those extremes could be targeted. I am not as worried about averages like these because the likelihood of an average profile matching a real person is very slight (no individual is average, and matches are between individuals and not between populations).
Moreover, I use a strike system to reduce bad actors. This will only become relevant at scale, but also it is only at scale that bad actors can deal real damage.

File: IMG_2182.gif (3.3 MB)

3.3 MB GIF

>>34732638
Just submitted my answers, thanks for the effort Anon.
>>34743867
Literally me, except I got rid of my glasses some time ago.

Just going to leave a quick note that I will be less available tomorrow. I will do some more profile processing in the morning, especially to get through the queue I have received in the past couple hours as well as to approve the new adds overnight.
I will be able to return after 7pm CET or so at my usual pace.

My priority will be:
>processing ongoing matches
>processing new profiles
>pinging adds who have not answered the questionnaire
>performing another matchmaking round

In this order. I will post updates to the thread, as any other day.

I'm done for the morning and will come back to continue processing profiles tonight. I will also post complete stats then. In the meantime, here are some quick key figures: there are now 50 filled profiles in the database, and 59 non-retracted, non-filled profiles. A total of 5 accepted matches vs 9 rejected. The main rejection reason has become: match partner too fat. 3 of the matches seem to be doing well so far and I will be continuing to collect feedback to improve the process.

If I did not send you a message this morning where I confirmed that your answers have been processed, and explaining validation to you, that means you are still in the backlog and I will get back to you tonight.

>>34746027
>match partner too fat
So which of the two sexes are the one making the rejections here anon?

>>34747145
So far it has been roughly equal between both.

>>34743746
>Highest match score: 63
I'm curious about this number. Is it on a scale of 1-100? Or is it theoretically uncapped? At what threshold do you currently strongly consider someone for a match?

>>34747366
It's theoretically uncapped. In practice, the current minimum possible score is -445 and the maximum possible score is 73.

>>34747434
>the current minimum possible score is -445
This the point where if you left the two alone in a room together you'd come back to find one of them dead I imagine.

Today's current stats:

>Cohort statistics
Total adds: 64
...of which retracted before answering the questionnaire: 3
...of which have answered the questionnaire: 56
...of which haven't answered yet: 3
...of which incomplete: 2
M:F ratio: 13:2
Age range of cohort: 18-45
Most common location: USA
Most common education level: Highschool
Most commonly requested minimal education level: Highschool
Most desired location for a partner: US
Most undesirable political stance: Any extremes
Soft-banned profiles: 1
Hard-banned profiles: 0

>Match statistics
Matches considered: 20
People considered for matches: 23
Lowest match score: -62
Highest match score: 63
Matches rejected: 8
Matches accepted: 6
Matches not considered: 1 (due to low score)
Matches delayed (partner already in another match): 2
Matches awaiting confirmation: 1
Matches failed: 1

Most common reason for match rejection: body type a dealbreaker.
Most common reason for otherwise matching profiles to not be matched: not in preferred age range.

>>34747453
I process matches in a 2 phase process. First I perform filtering based on dealbreakers, age, location, etc. Then I perform scoring of surviving match candidates. Any score above 0 is then proposed (the threshold will shift overtime as I understand better which properties are more indicative of a successful match, as will the score ranges, indicator factors, and their weights).
The reason why it can go that low is purely for safety reason if I missed a dealbreaker in the filtering phase. It's basically a way to flag this despite the mistake to really, really not perform the match.

>>34747469
Do you tell applicants what their relative scores are at any point?

>>34747487
No, that information wouldn't have any meaning even if I did, because the score can be updated over time and my internal scoring system WILL NEVER align with that of the individuals which I match, as it is designed and being optimized for a totally different purpose.

I will sometimes note that a match is a borderline match, especially if I present more than one match, but I will never reveal which, and I will avoid mentioning that fact if there are less than 3 matches.

While mentioning that fact can cause bias in the selection process, it is my belief that the direction of the bias is productive to forming a good match pair because the person being matched will use their own internal evaluation to decide. Moreover, ultimately, all matches are matches. It is best to go for what seems best to you on its face and go down the list if it doesn't work out.

I have now processed all profiles in the queue. If you have sent me a questionnaire and I have not yet told you that your responses are done being processed, please let me know and I'll get right on it.
Otherwise I will now be reminding people who have added me but not yet posted their questionnaire that their application is still pending, and proceeding to a new matchmaking phase.

>>34747469
>Soft-banned profiles: 1
damn who was that lol

>>34747604
A profile who was matched and then stopped responding to both the match and to me.

>>34747606
don't you also want to find love matchmaker?

>>34747617
No.

>>34747641
why not?

>>34747901
There are too many people who want to find love and can't. I am tired of watching. I can't wave a magic wand around and fix it, but I can try.
That is what I care about.

>>34747469
>M:F ratio: 13:2
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH worse then any dating app, waste of time to even try anything here. I have no idea why so many men try to play in a market where women have the absolute buying power.

Can I pay like 4 dollars for 2 day shipping? Thx

>>34747978
I promise if it were 1:1 no one would want you anyway

>>34748032
anon doesn't understand you miss 100% of the shots you don't take. Statistically some people will get matched, and women especially are likely to get some kind of match, unless they don't want to date guys in the states or over 25 I guess.

>>34748032
Are you a woman by any chance because your entire argument is very feminine trying to insult me by denying me access to women by proxy
>no woman will give you access to her holes
Who says I want any woman from here?

>>34748075
if you see the truth as an insult, you definitely need to look inward, not outward

>>34748082
Okay you are a woman good to know. I pitty every single man who even wastes a single second filling out this form and doxxing themselves to this guy just for the "chance" to talk to some entitled bitch.

>>34748092
Are you on the wrong board anon? It's fucking /soc/ sharing your info is kind of the point.

>>34748092
>everyone who disagrees with me is literally hitler: incel edition

File: 1766233954908402.jpg (430.6 KB)

430.6 KB JPG

>>34748119
Again denying access to your hole or any other by proxy is not a real argument or insult. Most women don't have that much value.
>>34748110
It is a waste of time in that case.

>>34748082
>>34748151

hii when r u going to find Cassie a match? she has been waiting patiently for you to match her with her dream white man. please hurry up the process. she wants the gift of love please and do it quickly.SHE IS THE NEXT WOMAN TO BE MATCHED PLEASE EBONY GODDESS CASSIE

>>34748440
Each person in the match pool has equal priority and matchmaking rounds are performed routinely. If you have not received notification that more matches are available, it means there are no suitable candidates at this time. This can be for multiple reasons, such as failing age or location requirements, or due to either potential match expressing a dealbreaker that clearly applies.

Please do not submit fake or duplicate profiles yet. Creating a convincing fake profile is difficult. As my strategy is to always err on the side of caution, I only annotate fake profiles instead of disqualifying them. However, please note that all associated profiles will be challenged simultaneously if any of them is found to be a bad actor.
A bad actor means someone who has applied with no intent to actually pursue a relationship, such as to attempt to mine data, to insult or mock users, for the purpose of scamming or demanding money, or any other such purposes. In particular, while ghosting a match will result in a note in your file and may result in being deprioritized if done too often, so long as you remain in the process in good faith (e.g. by continuing to share feedback), you may remain in the pool.
If anyone encounters a bad actor, please contact me directly so that I can add the appropriate annotation and deprioritize or ban the associated profile.
Beyond bad actors, everyone else is welcome to apply, and you can always reach out to me if you would like to update your profile.

>>34738545
You are so boring.

>>34749381
>Please do not submit fake or duplicate profiles
I can understand fake profiles, but what the fuck is the point of a duplicate when you're personally vetting and inputting everything yourself? It's not like cupid's attempts which were depersonalized google forms and something could get lost in the noise. You have to personally speak to and confirm every possible applicant.

>>34747978
>M:F ratio: 13:2
>HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH worse then any dating app
Better than dating apps, actually.
No one cares to bot the /soc/ matchmaker #4 to get dudes to pay for premium.

Today's current stats:

>Cohort statistics
Total adds: 83
...of which retracted before answering the questionnaire: 3
...of which have answered the questionnaire: 67
...of which haven't answered yet: 14
...of which incomplete: 2
M:F ratio: 7:1
Age range of cohort: 18-45
Most common location: USA
Most common education level: Highschool
Most commonly requested minimal education level: Highschool
Most desired location for a partner: US
Most undesirable political stance: Any extremes
Soft-banned profiles: 1
Hard-banned profiles: 0

>Match statistics
Matches considered: 21
People considered for matches: 25
Lowest match score: -62
Highest match score: 63
Matches rejected: 9
Matches accepted: 6
Matches not considered: 1 (due to low score)
Matches delayed (partner already in another match): 2
Matches awaiting confirmation: 3
Matches failed: 1

Most common reason for match rejection: body type a dealbreaker.
Most common reason for otherwise matching profiles to not be matched: not in preferred age range.

>>34750406
Correction:

>Match statistics
Matches awaiting confirmation: 0

>>34750406
>not in preferred age range.
Been wondering about this one, how far outside of the preferred age range are the potential candidates on average?

>>34750411
It varies quite a bit. In a few cases, it's very close (1 or 2 years). Sometimes it's quite far (15 years in one case).

>>34750413
I guess it would be worth asking the women if they're okay with a partner who's only a year or two outside of their preferred range. Especially if they have high potential as is (unless you're already doing that)

>>34750441
I probed this pattern a few times and consistently received a consistent 'no' answer. For efficiency's sake, I now take a hard stance on age ranges. I am using the same logic to harden the matching logic regarding different kinds of dealbreakers (e.g. dealbreakers related to personality, appearance, or otherwise), i.e. I start with a flexible stance and harden them over time.

>>34750450
that is a lot of work, why do all of this for /soc/?

>>34750812
Because >>34747958
It is in my nature to want to improve things. There is no reason.

>>34750450
>consistently received a consistent 'no' answer
Truly, life is pain for the anons in their late 20s.

>>34750073
HOW THE HELL AM I BORING? YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT ME CUNT. UR A RUDE ASS BITCH. IM NEVER BORING. IM THE MOST ENTERTAINING MOST SOPHISTICATED MOST FUN PERSON EVER. DONT TRY ME

>>34750450
What's the average preferred age range for men vs women?

File: shocked-face-dude.gif (215.8 KB)

215.8 KB GIF

>>34750912

>>34751192
Average minimum is 22. Many have no upper bound, but among those with a bound, the maximum average is 34.

>>34752669
Clarification: this is for the women.
For the men: average minimum is 21, average maximum is 35. Unbounded cases are rarer.
As of today, the average age for men is 26, while for women, it is 21.

>>34752669
>>34752695
Honestly surprised the age limit is so high. I feel like many places (especially things like reddit) people make a huge deal of age gaps, while as a man I always thought it was kind of silly.

My sister acts like I'm a pedo for thinking girls in their mid 20s are hot.

>>34752669
My max is 64 F. HMU

Tg Martin Coombs

>>34753462
The reality is that there is no pattern. With 67 highly biased entries you might as well get your data from TV static. Drawing conclusions from statistical means is fruitless, there's barely anything there to begin with while outliers poison the data.

>>34753545
Thank you Mr. Coom.

>>34753546
That is overall correct except that most of the data is concentrated around the average when it comes to limits. When it comes to age, however, there is a clear bimodal distribution (one clustered around 19, one around 26 for men; 18 and 30 for women).
As you say, ultimately with so little data it's not very robust, though it exceeds statistical standards for these kinds of data.

>>34753710
So why publish these metrics at all if they don't give any meaningful indication of anything? All you're doing is risking people's privacy by making it possible to profile them.

>>34753813
He has to entertain himself somehow with this totally useless flavor of the month data mining spamming then catalog recently.

>>34753813
There is more than enough information that there is 0 risk of any kind of information leakage from these statistics. It is also why I have updated the kind of statistics I have been publishing over time as more data becomes available.

The primary purpose of these statistics is, nevertheless, entertainment.

>>34753834
Want to make a bet on that? You've already profiled people yourself.

>>34753813
To show people there's stuff going on in the background they're not privy to other than OP lmaogettingFadds.
Also for number nerds.

>>34753840
Given that people have been matched, there is always the possibility that you are one of the people who got matched and will be using this information as a ploy.

That said, if you can point to the data origin in this thread and add profile data that matches something reasonably unique, I will adjust the data reports to avoid such leakage in the future.

Today's current stats:

>Cohort statistics
Total adds: 91
...of which retracted before answering the questionnaire: 3
...of which have answered the questionnaire: 76
...of which haven't answered yet: 12
...of which incomplete: 2
...of which retracted: 1
M:F ratio: 7:1
Age range of cohort: 18-45
Most common location: USA
Most common education level: Highschool
Most commonly requested minimal education level: Highschool
Most desired location for a partner: US
Most undesirable political stance: Any extremes
Soft-banned profiles: 1
Hard-banned profiles: 1

>Match statistics
Matches considered: 21
People considered for matches: 25
Lowest match score: -62
Highest match score: 63
Matches rejected: 9
Matches accepted: 6
Matches not considered: 1 (due to low score)
Matches delayed (partner already in another match): 2
Matches awaiting confirmation: 3
Matches failed: 1

Most common reason for match rejection: body type a dealbreaker.
Most common reason for otherwise matching profiles to not be matched: not in preferred age range.

A new round of matchmaking will start soon.

>>34753926
hard banned?

>>34753978
One person was apparently just there to spam dick pics and refused to elaborate. As a result, the profile was banned with no allowable recovery.
By comparison, the soft-banned profile will not be prioritized in future matches, but is welcome to come back (and sufficient good behavior will remove the soft-ban).

>>34753983
most well adjusted soc user