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 (11167 of them)
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 (nineteen years ago) link

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 (nineteen years ago) link

Bah. So did I.

marvin wang (marvin wang), Thursday, 22 July 2004 15:31 (nineteen years ago) link

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 (nineteen years ago) link

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 (nineteen years ago) link

(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 (nineteen years ago) link

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 (nineteen years ago) link

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 (nineteen years ago) link

(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 (nineteen years ago) link

Hang on, now I'm confused.

Alba (Alba), Saturday, 24 July 2004 20:15 (nineteen years ago) link

you're not alone.

cºzen (Cozen), Saturday, 24 July 2004 20:16 (nineteen years ago) link

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 (nineteen years ago) link

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 (nineteen years ago) link

I always spoil everything.

Alba (Alba), Saturday, 24 July 2004 21:21 (nineteen years ago) link

I can't stop looking at her:

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

cºzen (Cozen), Saturday, 24 July 2004 22:59 (nineteen years ago) link

Ew. I can.

roxymuzak (roxymuzak), Saturday, 24 July 2004 23:07 (nineteen years ago) link

is that the Joker?

dog latin (dog latin), Sunday, 25 July 2004 00:15 (nineteen years ago) link

I can't stop looking at her:

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

Alba (Alba), Sunday, 25 July 2004 02:04 (nineteen years ago) link

I can't stop looking at her:

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

haha

AaronHz (AaronHz), Sunday, 25 July 2004 02:11 (nineteen years ago) link

I can't stop looking.

cºzen (Cozen), Sunday, 25 July 2004 08:49 (nineteen years ago) link

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 (nineteen years ago) link

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 (nineteen years ago) link

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 (nineteen years ago) link

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

j e r e m y (x Jeremy), Sunday, 25 July 2004 14:29 (nineteen years ago) link

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

Alba (Alba), Sunday, 25 July 2004 15:36 (nineteen years ago) link

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 (nineteen years ago) link

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 (nineteen years ago) link

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 (nineteen years ago) link

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 (nineteen years ago) link

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 (nineteen years ago) link

holy crap.

teeny (teeny), Sunday, 25 July 2004 20:54 (nineteen years ago) link

that dude is how I imagine nickalicious.

cºzen (Cozen), Sunday, 25 July 2004 21:24 (nineteen years ago) link

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 (nineteen years ago) link

sorry dude.

cºzen (Cozen), Sunday, 25 July 2004 21:29 (nineteen years ago) link

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

x-post.

Fergal (Ferg), Sunday, 25 July 2004 21:30 (nineteen years ago) link

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 (nineteen years ago) link

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 (nineteen years ago) link

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

Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Sunday, 25 July 2004 21:34 (nineteen years ago) link

Roxy, he sounds like a treasure. Why resist?

Ned Raggett (Ned), Sunday, 25 July 2004 21:37 (nineteen years ago) link

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 (nineteen years ago) link

Ooh. That ruins it.

roxymuzak (roxymuzak), Sunday, 25 July 2004 21:57 (nineteen years ago) link

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

Fergal (Ferg), Sunday, 25 July 2004 22:01 (nineteen years ago) link

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 (nineteen years ago) link

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 (nineteen years ago) link

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 (nineteen years ago) link

Welcome to my world, starry.

Bryan (Bryan), Monday, 26 July 2004 09:03 (nineteen years ago) link

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 (nineteen years ago) link

there needs to be more cutting involved in the profiles.

ken c (ken c), Monday, 26 July 2004 09:07 (nineteen years ago) link

No no, I never hit on anyone, I just like to talk. I've made a couple of nice friends on there but mostly I find people don't bother to reply even to the most politely worded messages. Very strange.

Bryan (Bryan), Monday, 26 July 2004 09:08 (nineteen years ago) link

did you put "a polite notice" as the subject line?

ken c (ken c), Monday, 26 July 2004 09:10 (nineteen years ago) link

ok dude

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Tuesday, 4 September 2018 16:07 (five years ago) link

ah, the innocent days when OkCupid ruled the online dating landscape.

homosexual II, Tuesday, 4 September 2018 17:26 (five years ago) link

five months pass...

sigh

incredibly beautiful person who messaged me first and then abruptly stopped replying when i asked you out, what’s on ur mind

the late great, Thursday, 21 February 2019 00:14 (five years ago) link

turns out i was buried under a pile of weirdos, but now i got the digits and a date :-D

the late great, Monday, 25 February 2019 12:45 (five years ago) link

ten months pass...

tried to log in to this for the first time in three years and my profile was deleted

that's reasonable, but it's unlikely i'll ever have the energy to make a new one

mookieproof, Friday, 17 January 2020 21:09 (four years ago) link

Probably not worth said energy, tbh.

may the force leave us alone (zchyrs), Friday, 17 January 2020 21:13 (four years ago) link

diminishing returns

Suggest Banshee (Hadrian VIII), Friday, 17 January 2020 22:10 (four years ago) link

six months pass...

We’ve introduced a dating forum at https://t.co/rVJHNl5voI, so singles who feel the same way about the virus can meet and not have to worry about differing attitudes to social distancing. https://t.co/haGHFYuzuy

— Toby Young (@toadmeister) August 9, 2020

mookieproof, Monday, 10 August 2020 15:08 (three years ago) link

Is there any reason currently to use this over the apps?

lukas, Monday, 10 August 2020 16:48 (three years ago) link

iirc there is no reason whatsoever to use a dating forum based around being a "lockdown sceptic"

Doctor Casino, Monday, 10 August 2020 17:00 (three years ago) link

or did you mean OKC? it has an app!

Doctor Casino, Monday, 10 August 2020 17:00 (three years ago) link

Is there any reason currently to use an app promoted by someone who calls himself toadmeister?

nickn, Monday, 10 August 2020 17:06 (three years ago) link

I meant OKC, and yeah I guess now that it has/is an app it seems to have sanded away all the weird bits that maybe made it unique and useful?

lukas, Monday, 10 August 2020 17:07 (three years ago) link

let alone one promoted by someone featured in a thread like this

Most Hilarious Way for Toby Young to Die Although God Forbid It Should Ever Happen

mookieproof, Monday, 10 August 2020 17:08 (three years ago) link

the gradual sanding-down of OKC was one of those long slow bummer demises of the Old Internet, or in this case the Internet of the Mid-00s. gradually the site became incredibly square in tone, policing out a lot of weirdies/kink profiles etc., the clampdown on usernames in favor of real names, and with the interface meanwhile becoming so simplified and tinder-like that having more than a few sentences in your profile came to look absurd. i'm sure they culled a lot of the questions and quizzes and stuff too. it basically just got a lot more generic, slowly.

Doctor Casino, Monday, 10 August 2020 17:17 (three years ago) link

Every 6 months they get rid of another feature people liked, people complain, life goes on. As with all sites, doing what your userbase wants or retracting a bad change is completely off the menu.


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