• stinky@redlemmy.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 hour ago

      ELO is a term used in ranked competitive video games. Part of this author’s sense of humor is that tinder is a ranked game

      edit: see correction below

        • TonyTonyChopper@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 hour ago

          The concept of “ranked competitive” systems, in general, evolved over time, but if we’re talking about ranked competitive structures in games or sports, we can trace it back to a few key milestones in history:

          Ancient and Medieval Competitions: Even in ancient civilizations, competitive games, including some forms of organized sports or games like wrestling, were often ranked in some way, though these rankings were informal.

          Modern Sports Rankings: The formal idea of ranking athletes based on performance in a competitive environment began to take shape in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, especially with the establishment of professional leagues. For example:

          Tennis established its first official ranking system in the 1910s. Golf created a ranking system (the “Official World Golf Ranking”) in 1986.

          All of this was way before chess was invented, around 2014 or so.

  • ryedaft@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    17 hours ago

    Can women message people on Tinder they haven’t matched with?

    And if this was effective wouldn’t it lower all women’s Elo scores? Unless he only ignored one group and catfished everybody else. Sounds like a lot of work.

    • dai@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      3 hours ago

      No, only tinder premium can do so IIRC.

      Bumble? From memory women can only message first, men must wait to be messaged before they can.

      It’s been a while since I used those platforms so my information could be incorrect.

        • I Cast Fist@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          2 hours ago

          As a man who would often get matches but rarely get so much as a “hi” to allow the conversation to start (i’d say only 1/8 of the matches would say anything in the 24h), I really wonder why. A number of women apparently never read that they were supposed to send a message first when using bumble (I did hear that more than once on the app), but others? Why?

          • Buglefingers@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 hours ago

            Well, although I’m not so sure about bumble, I know women on tinder have a volume problem, a few friends have shown me the number of matches and current conversations and wow, it’s actually absurd. I could not maintain that many interactions either. So perhaps if not an issue with formulating an opener there’s just too many matches to reasonably get through them?

            That makes me actually wonder if a match limit would be a worthwhile feature on some of these. Just a stray shower thought

            • I Cast Fist@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 hours ago

              Tinder is a wholly different problem because of that. If memory serves, it’s roughly 80/20 distribution of male/female profiles, so women are absolutely bombarded with conversations, as pretty much every man will want to try and get attention without knowing how deep his last message is buried among all others.

              Bumble had less people in my area last I used it (late 2023), but I can imagine that men vastly outnumbered women even there, but again, since they had to start a conversation first, I suspect it’d be slightly more manageable than tinder. The idea of limiting matches sounds useful and perhaps good for the end user, ie: you won’t show up on searches and you can’t swipe as long as you have 10 or more matches, you have to actually unmatch to “get back”. Don’t expect any app to ever implement anything similar without figuring a way to make it a very shitty experience.

              • Buglefingers@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 hour ago

                I can see how it’d be less money for the app and better for the User, so definitely not gonna happen lmao. IIRC choice fatigue grows wildly with anything beyond a few options so, yeah, being bombarded like that suuuuucks.

          • Buglefingers@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 hours ago

            Yeah, pretty much haha, otherwise its just tinder. I used it briefly a while back and usually the first message would be “.” so that I could start the actual conversation. So I supposed it’s never been all that different to begin with

        • Cethin@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 hours ago

          Yeah, the old Bumble model was better (in my opinion as a man). It creates incentive to have an interesting profile with stuff people can comment on. The newer “opening move” thing incentivizes generic responses. Bumble (in my experience) still has women message first far more often than Tinder though. You may just have to wait and not message immediately.

          Creating an opening message is only really difficult if someone has a generic boring profile, so if it’s an issue for anyone maybe that’s why.

          • Buglefingers@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 hours ago

            I agree it was a better model. I’ve never found it easy to begin a conversation even with someone who has a good profile. I just struggle with the formulation of an opener. Way easier in person IMO, though a good profile makes a conversation continuation much easier.

  • Akasazh@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    22 hours ago

    I think this is an unrealized thought experiment by op. I don’t believe the Chad he imagines has any relation to the man most woman are looking for.

    • Zron@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      16 hours ago

      Op creates profile that makes him look rich and stupid.

      Gets targeted by bots using ai generated images of mildly attractive women.

      Thinks he’s actually attracting human beings.

      Anon still has never willingly gotten the attention of a human woman besides his mother

      • atro_city@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        32
        ·
        1 day ago

        How is that “dehumanizing” when human is literally in the explanation. Had it been “female apeoid” I’d have agreed, but humanoid… So “moid” for male humanoid is “dehumanizing” too?

        • Saledovil@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          42
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          How is that “dehumanizing” when human is literally in the explanation. Had it been “female apeoid” I’d have agreed, but humanoid… So “moid” for male humanoid is “dehumanizing” too?

          “A humanoid is a non-human entity with human form or characteristics.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanoid

          A humanoid is by definition not human, hence calling a human a humanoid is dehumanizing.

        • idiomaddict@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          1 day ago

          -oid is like -esque, in that it describes something that resembles the root word, without actually being it.

        • babybus@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          And the n-word literally means “black”. But from the context we know that it is being used as a derogatory word just like in this case.