Just when you thought it was safe - OK CUPID PART 3: The Return of the WOO!

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (8288 of them)

Isn't this frivolous application of collected responses against some kind of data protection act? Have these people agreed to have their profiles turned into a spot-the-virgin game?

― Alba (Alba), Thursday, 22 July 2004 14:56 (8 years ago) Permalink

You can opt out in your settings.

― nabiscothingy, Thursday, 22 July 2004 14:57 (8 years ago) Permalink

yes. it says it in the FAQ and sort of in a roundabout way on the front page. you can request it to be taken off if you so wish too.

― dog latin (dog latin), Thursday, 22 July 2004 14:58 (8 years ago) Permalink

Oh, fucking hell. I just did the whole thing and then got an error page at the end so I don't know what my score is.

― Alba (Alba), Thursday, 22 July 2004 15:13 (8 years ago) Permalink

Bah. So did I.

― marvin wang (marvin wang), Thursday, 22 July 2004 15:31 (8 years ago) Permalink

The relevant page, post email provision (http://www.okcupid.com/signup) is down. Maybe if they fix it I can refresh the page later.

― Alba (Alba), Thursday, 22 July 2004 15:34 (8 years ago) Permalink

Still don't know what I got the first time, but I did it again and only got 38% correct, which is appalling. So I did it again, trying to go more for the obvious choice this time, and got 71%.

It says: "In general, males are about as good as females at spotting virgins. But females almost always guess correctly with female pairs."

Unless my logic is skewy, surely this also implies that men alomst always guess correctly with male pairs, unless they instead make up all the ground by getting much better scores in the mixed pair ones, which would be very odd.

― Alba (Alba), Saturday, 24 July 2004 15:51 (8 years ago) Permalink

(I think I fucked up the first time by assuming that dumpy, unattractive teenage girls were actually quite promiscuous, as a means of making themselves feel better about themselves, or as a product of sexual abuse. I now feel ashamed of this strategy.)

― Alba (Alba), Saturday, 24 July 2004 15:54 (8 years ago) Permalink

Alba, your logic is wrong - all that tells us is that women must be rather less good at anything but female pairs, and it certainly doesn't imply what you infer.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Saturday, 24 July 2004 19:12 (8 years ago) Permalink

But how do the two sexes end up being about as good as each other overall? There are only three sections to the test - m/m, f/f and f/m. They must be losing ground to the men on one of the sections other than f/f. If it's f/m, then as I said, that's weird. If it's m/m then then male contestants must be, as I said, as good at that as the female ones are at f/f.

― Alba (Alba), Saturday, 24 July 2004 20:09 (8 years ago) Permalink

(I'm struggling to articulate why I can't countenance the possibilty that they would be better at f/m and the same as men at m/m. I guess that's where I'm stepping out of strict reason)

― Alba (Alba), Saturday, 24 July 2004 20:14 (8 years ago) Permalink

Hang on, now I'm confused.

― Alba (Alba), Saturday, 24 July 2004 20:15 (8 years ago) Permalink

you're not alone.

― cºzen (Cozen), Saturday, 24 July 2004 20:16 (8 years ago) Permalink

Oh. I confused myself by making a typo - in the post three above I mean "I can't countenance the possibility that they would be worse at f/m and the same as men at m/m."

― Alba (Alba), Saturday, 24 July 2004 20:17 (8 years ago) Permalink

I've played around with some examples of possible averages and see my logic was indeed skewy. For a 70% overall score, it could be:

Women

f/f = 90
m/f = 75
m/m= 45

Men =

f/f = 68%
m/f = 75%
m/m = 67%

Which would be mean men are better at spotting m/f than either m/m or f/f. Hmm.. that would also be weird. Other combinations I've tried result in both sexes being bettter at spotting female virgins than male ones, which seem noteworthy enough for them to put up on the website.

Can you come up with a set of average scores that fits what we know without any interesting implications at all?

― Alba (Alba), Saturday, 24 July 2004 20:38 (8 years ago) Permalink

I always spoil everything.

― Alba (Alba), Saturday, 24 July 2004 21:21 (8 years ago) Permalink

I can't stop looking at her:

ihttp://www.okcupid.com/profile?pic=0&tuid=8878330946154156249

― cºzen (Cozen), Saturday, 24 July 2004 22:59 (8 years ago) Permalink

Ew. I can.

― roxymuzak (roxymuzak), Saturday, 24 July 2004 23:07 (8 years ago) Permalink

is that the Joker?

― dog latin (dog latin), Sunday, 25 July 2004 00:15 (8 years ago) Permalink

I can't stop looking at her:

http://www.okcupid.com/profile?tuid=12703610378878205705

― Alba (Alba), Sunday, 25 July 2004 02:04 (8 years ago) Permalink

I can't stop looking at her:

http://www.okcupid.com/profile?tuid=1366843686365106737

haha

― AaronHz (AaronHz), Sunday, 25 July 2004 02:11 (8 years ago) Permalink

I can't stop looking.

― cºzen (Cozen), Sunday, 25 July 2004 08:49 (8 years ago) Permalink

My username is lixenixen, and right now I'm scared of logging in to OkCupid, because I haven't checked it for a few days, and now I fear there's yet another bunch of messages waiting for me, and I have to reply them all, because I feel like a bad person if I don't reply. I'm such a wuss!

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Sunday, 25 July 2004 09:55 (8 years ago) Permalink

On the positive side, lately I've been chatting with this Irish girl who plays in a punk band and seems very nice.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Sunday, 25 July 2004 09:59 (8 years ago) Permalink

radcliffy = oxbridge

I still don't get this... Could someone please explain it to this poor foreigner?

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Sunday, 25 July 2004 14:21 (8 years ago) Permalink

okay... I'm FrancesBean with an incredibly obnoxious photo.

― j e r e m y (x Jeremy), Sunday, 25 July 2004 14:29 (8 years ago) Permalink

Oxbridge = Oxford and Cambridge. The elite of British universities. Traditionally deemed snobby as well as brainy.

― Alba (Alba), Sunday, 25 July 2004 15:36 (8 years ago) Permalink

Yeah, I knew what Oxbridge meant, but I didn't know it could be used as an adjective. So "radcliffy" = "snobby and brainy"?

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Sunday, 25 July 2004 15:44 (8 years ago) Permalink

Well it isn't really a fully functioning adjective, I suppose. You'd have to say something was 'a bit Oxbridge' or 'Oxbridgey' rather than 'it's Oxbridge'. I never knew the word 'radcliffy' before, btw, so I don't know how close the comparison is. Is radcliffy a bit 'preppy', 'WASPy' or 'Ivy League' too?

― Alba (Alba), Sunday, 25 July 2004 15:50 (8 years ago) Permalink

It's in the okcupid glossary, anyway:

radcliffy

adj. Consisting of the broad range of personality traits normally associated with Harvard girls.

Bob's organized, ambitious, and smart. I wish I were more Radcliffy like he, because I can't get a job at Morgan Stanley. He needs to fuckin' loosen up, though

― Alba (Alba), Sunday, 25 July 2004 16:00 (8 years ago) Permalink

Aaron, you're supposed to woo a person.

I don't like this new layout. The most off-putting part is probably the "Real Friends: None (0)" part. Sheesh.

― roxymuzak (roxymuzak), Sunday, 25 July 2004 20:31 (8 years ago) Permalink

OH MY GOD. MY SECOND LOCAL MATCH IS THIS GUY:
http://www.okcupid.com/profile?tuid=12237521857448720993

― roxymuzak (roxymuzak), Sunday, 25 July 2004 20:33 (8 years ago) Permalink

holy crap.

― teeny (teeny), Sunday, 25 July 2004 20:54 (8 years ago) Permalink

that dude is how I imagine nickalicious.

― cºzen (Cozen), Sunday, 25 July 2004 21:24 (8 years ago) Permalink

I was gonna just copy and paste part of his rhyme, but then I clicked on his whole profile and the landscape of awful just expanded and came into total view and I just put the link there.

― roxymuzak (roxymuzak), Sunday, 25 July 2004 21:27 (8 years ago) Permalink

sorry dude.

― cºzen (Cozen), Sunday, 25 July 2004 21:29 (8 years ago) Permalink

Everything about that profile is really fucking funny, except the bits where he raps.

x-post.

― Fergal (Ferg), Sunday, 25 July 2004 21:30 (8 years ago) Permalink

He's more Republican
He's more capitalistic
He's more socially conservative
He's less thrifty
He's more loving
He's less energetic
He's less ambitious

― Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Sunday, 25 July 2004 21:31 (8 years ago) Permalink

He's more Republican
He's more capitalistic
He's more socially conservative
He's more loving

OMG teh oxymoron!11

― Fergal (Ferg), Sunday, 25 July 2004 21:34 (8 years ago) Permalink

I like how he couldn't be bothered to rhyme the films.

― Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Sunday, 25 July 2004 21:34 (8 years ago) Permalink

Roxy, he sounds like a treasure. Why resist?

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Sunday, 25 July 2004 21:37 (8 years ago) Permalink

But his final words are these:

You should message me if:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can appreciate this bizarre social experiment.

Plus he works on the computer field, and has kids. So it's prolly just a joke.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Sunday, 25 July 2004 21:56 (8 years ago) Permalink

Ooh. That ruins it.

― roxymuzak (roxymuzak), Sunday, 25 July 2004 21:57 (8 years ago) Permalink

I thought he was really a terrible conservative white rapper!!

― Fergal (Ferg), Sunday, 25 July 2004 22:01 (8 years ago) Permalink

Just to link this thread to the other ones:

OKCupid.com, Pt.2- Afterparty! Hotel lobby! REMIX!

― roxymuzak (roxymuzak), Sunday, 25 July 2004 22:03 (8 years ago) Permalink

A woman I was chatting to (and according to her getting on well) deleted her profile rather than continue.

The punchline, of course, was that her profile said she was looking for someone "who could be honest with (her)".

― aldo_cowpat (aldo_cowpat), Monday, 26 July 2004 08:54 (8 years ago) Permalink

I'm embarassed! I actually mailed one of my matches because he banged on about Richard Feynman and drinking gin... AND HE HASN'T REPLIED, OH MY LIFE, I am that Interweb Nutter, dear lord, help!!

― Sarah (starry), Monday, 26 July 2004 09:01 (8 years ago) Permalink

Welcome to my world, starry.

― Bryan (Bryan), Monday, 26 July 2004 09:03 (8 years ago) Permalink

I mean!! I was bored! I wasn't like, hitting on him or anything!

Loads of you haven't even filled in any information, come on, that's the most interesting bit, not your moody rubbish photos, ch.

― Sarah (starry), Monday, 26 July 2004 09:06 (8 years ago) Permalink

there needs to be more cutting involved in the profiles.

― ken c (ken c), Monday, 26 July 2004 09:07 (8 years ago) Permalink

Skipping 8188 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

irl lol

― ljubljana, Thursday, 16 May 2013 21:21 (1 week ago) Permalink

damn i just did that thing where i saw a picture and sighed, i think that means i should message one last person before shutting this shit down.

― steening in your HOOSless carriage (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Tuesday, 21 May 2013 02:52 (2 days ago) Permalink

ie the one i spontaneously sighed at

― steening in your HOOSless carriage (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Tuesday, 21 May 2013 02:52 (2 days ago) Permalink

Twice now the system has sent me an email saying that someone I rated highly to had also rated me--when that happens, it matches you up? Both times I have waited a while and then emailed the dudes, and both times they haven't written back. LOOK, YOU STARRED ME, OKAY?

― lets just remember to blame the patriarchy for (in orbit), Tuesday, 21 May 2013 03:01 (2 days ago) Permalink

yeah i've had that happen a couple times, very strange

― steening in your HOOSless carriage (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Tuesday, 21 May 2013 03:05 (2 days ago) Permalink

bear in mind one strategy is to five-star every single person you see just to see who stars you back.

― the girl from spirea x (f. hazel), Tuesday, 21 May 2013 04:07 (2 days ago) Permalink

People, man. They're terrible.

― lets just remember to blame the patriarchy for (in orbit), Tuesday, 21 May 2013 04:08 (2 days ago) Permalink

― mookieproof, Tuesday, 21 May 2013 04:14 (2 days ago) Permalink

does OKC set you up with the expectation that people you rate will msg you? if i were on it i'd probably just rate a million profiles out of boredom

― Nhex, Tuesday, 21 May 2013 04:16 (2 days ago) Permalink

i think that's somewhat common--the rating out of boredom.

ime if you and a match both rate each other highly you get an automessage that says 'you rated each other highly, go say hi!'

that creates a weird thing sometimes.

― steening in your HOOSless carriage (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Tuesday, 21 May 2013 04:22 (2 days ago) Permalink

yeah and if you're doing it in the quickmatch" mode, you dont get to see their whole profile, and once you DO get to see their whole profile, maybe theres something thats a turn-off

― gr8080, Tuesday, 21 May 2013 16:48 (2 days ago) Permalink

bamf

― steening in your HOOSless carriage (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Tuesday, 21 May 2013 16:59 (2 days ago) Permalink

No, you can actually scroll down and see the profile in quickmatch mode. xpost

― emilys., Tuesday, 21 May 2013 21:00 (2 days ago) Permalink

yes but not their "details" (height, religion, diet stuff etc) or their "you should message me if" essay

― gr8080, Tuesday, 21 May 2013 22:11 (2 days ago) Permalink

in quickmatch you can skip the profile (or rate it 3* or something) and then when it says something like 'oh are you sure?' you can click on their profile. I think? I've deactivated my account now. okc's worked out pretty well for me.

― useless chamber, Tuesday, 21 May 2013 22:24 (2 days ago) Permalink

If they look promising I always skip, then on the next screen click on the little icon of the person you just viewed.

― Doctor Casino, Tuesday, 21 May 2013 22:25 (2 days ago) Permalink

sure, i'm just attempting to explain how a casual user could rate someone highly in quickmatch and then not give a shit about getting in touch with them once the site notified it was a mutual attraction

― gr8080, Tuesday, 21 May 2013 22:36 (2 days ago) Permalink

Posting to ilx about things seems to spur them to happen, even if to no effect? I got a response from the 2nd co-starring person but a profoundly unenthusiastic one that asked me nothing. Ho hum.

― lets just remember to blame the patriarchy for (in orbit), Tuesday, 21 May 2013 22:59 (2 days ago) Permalink

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.