So anytime I was subscribing back on Tinder, I had a initially greatly smaller then later fairly smaller entrance in liking rate (around 8-15 the first day in '14-16, then 12-20 around '18) at Montreal than "Joe" (assumed to be some anonymous booked model, and of course white) had in Boston (25 likes) , struggled for the early days to get a match who suits his picky standards like I did, then just thereafter he got 55 matches from seven other big cities (each with different pop. density, language, etcetera) for what, let's say perhaps just 50% or less of the number of hidden likes he get (110 likes) a week , which can be assumed he would get an average 7 matches a week for 14 hidden likes.
https://www.swipehelper.com/2020/03...any-likes-do-equally-attractive-profiles-get/
I got around 12-20 hidden likes a week, but make within a month a number of matches alike to what he does within a week. Almost the same starting dash and maintenance running speed for about two-three days onward then the shit shut down drastically...
... something is wrong about their algorithms. I would have logically made about 6-10 matches a week all ethnic backgrounds included (24-40 a month)-- even with a much smaller income and scarsier black female pop. being interested into brothers, not 2-3 (5-6 max.)
a month. Even while being pickier by ignoring the bottom average 6,9/10 to 7.4/10s (dating roof) too and focusing on the lower 7.5-to-8.2/10s and scarsier above, it still make about what? 20-30% of the likes, depending the week-- or about 2-3 matches a week (8-12 matches a month) not a month-- which, for a population of 4 million people across a pluri-city metropolitan region, if we assume that only 20% of women around are 7.5/10s + (400,000 unicorns and wannabes) , it's a pretty good score: matter-of-factly, it would be an even FAR greater score than the number of women who hit on me or the contrary on an yearly basis - which is around an average 6-10 a year, female clients excluded (otherwise 18-20 a year) - instead of around a
slightly greater 20 matches a year by some complex equation I just tinkered about (not just additions) , when logically I would rather do around 15 times the same score within a year (300 matches a year) . People are less inhibitated and more oriented into smashing on dating apps: I don't have to dumb down, measure my words or stay aloof the same way while filtring outdoors than I do online. You know when a woman is just super-entitled AF on Tinder: a mere "hi, how about you?" and a short-termed selling of the casual pleasantries are the ultimate deal breaker of whether she's an entitled bitch who are going to ghost you for not starting up with a "we smash when?" this way or not entitled enough.
Yea, their algorithms are fucked up. They're cutting the lawn on my feet.
