×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Python Scripting and Analyzing Your Way To Love

Unknown Lamer posted about 3 months ago | from the you-might-be-overanalyzing-things-if dept.

Math 188

fiannaFailMan writes "Wired reports one mathematician's mission to find love online by data mining from OK Cupid and applying mathematical modeling to optimize his profile(s). His methods included using 'Python scripts to riffle through hundreds of OkCupid survey questions. He then sorted female daters into seven clusters, like "Diverse" and "Mindful," each with distinct characteristics.' But the real work began when he started going on dates."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

188 comments

fake history & heritage fright hurts us all (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46035385)

we should take care to consider ourselves in relation to each other & creation including momkind's new clear options,, no bomb us more mom us,,, no drone us no bone us,,, stem cells for all... be good sports & good spirits. see you there.

Slashdot only allows anonymous users to post 10 times per day (more or less, depending on moderation). A user from your IP has already shared his or her thoughts with us that many times. Take a breather, and come back and see us in 24 hours or so. If you think this is unfair, please email posting@slashdot.org with your MD5'd IPID, which is not here. Let us know how many comments you think you've posted in the last 24 hours.

mynuts won;!@#? too mushy? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46035677)

considering who we are compared to what we pretend to be..... leaves us 100% pretensive & offensive

How many dates though? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46035409)

"But the real work began when he started going on dates."

All 88+ of them.

Re:How many dates though? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46035805)

My experience with OKCupid, I gave up after 3. The first 3 were soo bad.

However I agree with his approach to keep it short and simple.

Hooray for Python (2)

dkleinsc (563838) | about 3 months ago | (#46035411)

I mean, I'm glad it can do almost anything, but I'm still waiting for import antigravity [xkcd.com] to work properly.

Re:Hooray for Python (5, Funny)

MtHuurne (602934) | about 3 months ago | (#46035599)

Have you tried "from __future__ import antigravity"?

Re:Hooray for Python (1)

jellomizer (103300) | about 3 months ago | (#46037143)

--Mainfile.c
include "magic.h"; /* your code */

--magic.h
include "magic.h" //Behold the power of recursion!

I almost got it to work, but I ran out of processing power... Perhaps the next generation computer will handle it.

Re:Hooray for Python (4, Funny)

sunderland56 (621843) | about 3 months ago | (#46036703)

Have you considered that the fact he writes Python scripts to solve his love life is the *reason* he has no love life??

Python can't stop you from being a geek...

TED talk (1, Interesting)

kwiecmmm (1527631) | about 3 months ago | (#46035421)

I watched a TED talk about someone who did something similar.

http://www.ted.com/talks/amy_w... [ted.com]

Re:TED talk (5, Interesting)

i kan reed (749298) | about 3 months ago | (#46035911)

TED is now basically full of pseudoscientific bullshit and ego-fueled self-promoters.

Re:TED talk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46035937)

Thank you!! Finally someone I agree with regarding those goddamn TED videos.

Re:TED talk (2)

rev0lt (1950662) | about 3 months ago | (#46036157)

now?

Re:TED talk (0)

i kan reed (749298) | about 3 months ago | (#46036961)

Yeah, I think that's a fair conclusion, after reviewing their archives. It really has gotten worse.

Science category for 2013: here. Notable woo includes:
*Could we speak the language of dolphins
*Jessica Green: We're covered in germs. Let's design for that.
*A promising test for pancreatic cancer ... from a teenager.(Woop woop woop, red flag detected)
*How a dead duck changed my life

Going back to 2003 here [ted.com] . The only item that draws my eye as bad is
*Tierney Thys: Swim with the giant sunfish. (and it's possible that's not as bad as the name implies)

With plenty of legit topics like:
*Life in the outer solar system
*Birth of the computer
*health and the human mind (...maybe)
*The face of AIDS in Africa

It's gotten worse.

Re:TED talk (0)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about 3 months ago | (#46037125)

TED is now basically full of pseudoscientific bullshit and ego-fueled self-promoters.

You should do a TEDx talk about it.

Re:TED talk (0)

MightyYar (622222) | about 3 months ago | (#46037259)

It was never scientific. _T_echnology _E_ntertainment _D_esign. It is entertaining and thought-provoking, but as you say full of egos and full of promotion. I still enjoy some of the perspectives coming out of it, even if I disagree with it.

"When he started going on dates" (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46035469)

Well, there's the step I never get to.

Sounds creepy .... (4, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | about 3 months ago | (#46035517)

So the real thing here is that someone needs to be building a dating website for nerds (assuming it's not already happened).

Start with the proposition you've got a pool of educated individuals working in STEM-type jobs, and go from there. Then you at least know you're working with a pool of people who might have some chance of being interested in your collection of Star Wars figurines, or who want to debate the relative merits of Jar Jar as a character.

Because, really, if you tell the person you're on a date with that you used Python scripts to categorize people into several containers ... you're not gonna get a second date, and the one you're on might end abruptly as the awkward silence turns into thoughts that you might, in fact, be some kind of creepy stalker.

BEGIN NERD VOICE
I've done stochastic analyses of your responses to questionnaires and exhaustively compared your responses to other women on this site, and I calculate there is an 45.2% you might like me. You're the highest score yet!
END NERD VOICE

Really, don't be that guy.

Re:Sounds creepy .... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46035587)

Or you could just... not bother with this nonsense. Even posting on Slashdot is more useful than living a life of mediocrity by being in a relationship. It just sounds tedious and boring.

Re:Sounds creepy .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46036189)

That's right; you rejected them.

Re:Sounds creepy .... (1)

ThatsDrDangerToYou (3480047) | about 3 months ago | (#46036535)

Or you could just... not bother with this nonsense. Even posting on Slashdot is more useful than living a life of mediocrity by being in a relationship. It just sounds tedious and boring.

That depends on how you define mediocrity. If you only date tedious and boring women, then you are doomed to mediocrity. Rule #1 is: don't be tedious and boring.

Re:Sounds creepy .... (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 3 months ago | (#46035635)

If you RTFA, that's pretty much what he said to the woman he's going out with now, and she didn't leave him.

The coding and mathematical work he's done is only slightly interesting, what I'd really like to know is how he plans to keep a girlfriend while living out of a cubicle in a university office! That could be a real Einstein-level breakthrough!

Match your crazy early (3, Insightful)

Overzeetop (214511) | about 3 months ago | (#46035913)

Finding true love is really nothing more than matching your personal with either the same or a complimentary crazy in someone else. Wearing your crazy on the first date is risky, but reduces wasted time on those who are incompatible with your personal brand of insanity.

Re:Match your crazy early (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46036057)

I think this is great advice.

I used to make the mistake of making an impression of myself that I thought people wanted to see, only to learn through experience that people want to see the real you, not the "socially-acceptable" facade. So being your real self (with the quirks and all) from the get go is a good way to be. They might not like you, but that's fine - you want someone who likes the real you, not the fake version of you.

Re:Match your crazy early (1)

geminidomino (614729) | about 3 months ago | (#46036151)

I have to disagree. It's *horrible* advice. The part about "being your real self", absolutely true. But mixing crazy with crazy, that's a recipe for horror.

Re:Sounds creepy .... (4, Insightful)

TWiTfan (2887093) | about 3 months ago | (#46035639)

So the real thing here is that someone needs to be building a dating website for nerds

So, thousands of guys fighting over a few hundred guys pretending to be women? You should set up a Kickstarter for that.

Re:Sounds creepy .... (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 3 months ago | (#46035845)

You should set up a Kickstarter for that.

I will leave that to some nerdrepreneur. Sounds like this guy should look into it.

Re:Sounds creepy .... (3, Funny)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about 3 months ago | (#46037211)

It already got funded. That's what World of Warcraft is.

Not that there aren't women in WoW, they just pretend to be guys...

Re: Sounds creepy .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46035793)

"creepy": someone who has figured out that "dating" is actually a game which is governed by an intricate web of stupid rules and how to hack and exploit them to gain an advantage.

Hate the game, not the player...

Re: Sounds creepy .... (3, Informative)

AvitarX (172628) | about 3 months ago | (#46035919)

When I read TFS it sounded a lot like what ok cupid does already. And of the people I've met on it (probably around ten), at least half would of thought it was cool I augmented the site to waste less time with people I didn't like.
What online dating suffers from is 75% of the participants are dudes, so the girls get tons of messages, get overwhelmed, and leave. This keeps the problem going.

Re:Sounds creepy .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46037205)

BEGIN FRINK VOICE
I've done stochastic analyses of your responses to questionnaires and exhaustively compared your responses to other women on this site, and I calculate there is a 45.2% chance you might like me. You're the highest score yet! MMHAY!
END FRINK VOICE

quote>
FTFY

Whats love got to do with it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46035525)

Social conditioning and biochemical cues is all you need.
One day you will see...

Limited potential (4, Interesting)

petes_PoV (912422) | about 3 months ago | (#46035531)

His data analysis and harvesting will help the guy get a first date with more women. But all he's doing is trawling for ones that match what he thinks he wants. To get a second date his real-life personality and interests have to match what the other person thinks she wants.

Even with the women in question also choosing him on the basis of his tailored responses, he's simply increasing the sample size (i.e. the number of first dates) he gets, without really addressing the quality of the data - how closely the women match him in reality and vice-versa.

One of his descriptions in the article "star signs and all that crap" (or words to that effect) indicates that he still hasn't really "got" the women in the database. By dismissing what they consider important in a profile (the "crap") he's not helping himself. Maybe he should have turned around his search. Instead of hacking his profile to get more matches, he should consider modifying his personality to be more attractive to what the larger numbers of women feel they want in a man.

But I guess to a techie, every problem has a technical solution. No doubt all the first-date restaurants will thank him for his patronage and his (later, but maybe not much later) divorce lawyer will also be suitably grateful.

Re:Limited potential (4, Informative)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | about 3 months ago | (#46035593)

Did you read the whole article? He ended up with his now fiance this way and they are doing well.

Re:Limited potential (2)

petes_PoV (912422) | about 3 months ago | (#46035637)

Did you read the whole article?

Good God, no. This is the internet, you know. Most people don't even make it past the headline. (and did you not see my line about divorce lawyer?)

Re:Limited potential (1)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | about 3 months ago | (#46035783)

Yes, but it wasn't clear if that was because you actually understood that the individual had a decent relationship going on or was just further snark. More seriously, As far as I can tell from the article the main problem with his method was a poor signal to noise ratio which was made worse by the large number of candidates. The signal to noise ratio on online dating is always terrible, but it would be more noticeable when one has a larger pool. In fact people optimize profiles all the time (which hobbies they emphasize, which pictures of themselves they present, etc.). But somehow when one optimizes more effectively relying not on vague intuitions but actual data, then people have reactions like yours. (Possibly relevant disclaimer: I met my girlfriend on OkCupid. I did not do what this guy did.)

Re:Limited potential (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46036367)

no he didn't. His fiance found him with her own search. His analysis did nothing but get him a bunch of failed dates.

Re:Limited potential (1)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | about 3 months ago | (#46036893)

Please read the actual article. His entire approach was optimizing his profile for other people's searches not the other way around.

Re:Limited potential (1)

Beyond_GoodandEvil (769135) | about 3 months ago | (#46035645)

he should consider modifying his personality to be more attractive to what the larger numbers of women feel they want in a man.
I noticed you used "feel" instead of "say" if this guy were independently wealthy, I am sure he could have his pick of potential mates, but since he isn't, he's trying to increase his chances of success by casting a wide net. Seeing as how the typical courtship pattern involves the man making the first move, obtaining that first date is a successful strategy.
his (later, but maybe not much later) divorce lawyer will also be suitably grateful.
Given the success rates of marriage w/out data mining, I am not sure how he could do worse.

Re:Limited potential (1)

TWiTfan (2887093) | about 3 months ago | (#46035697)

It also makes the HUGE assumption that the women's profiles are actually accurate and honest. How many times IRL have you heard a female friend say "Looks don't really matter to me. I'm just looking for a nice guy," who then turns around and exclusively dates the same himbo pricks as every other woman? Saying "I'm looking for X and Y" doesn't mean that's what someone is ACTUALLY looking for. It's just what they claim.

Re:Limited potential (4, Insightful)

HaZardman27 (1521119) | about 3 months ago | (#46036291)

How many times IRL have you heard a female friend say "Looks don't really matter to me. I'm just looking for a nice guy,"

Zero. I have never heard a woman say that. I think the idea of the woman who says this is made up by men who have no other quality other than being "nice" and want someone to blame for their lack of romantic success.

Re:Limited potential (1)

lagomorpha2 (1376475) | about 3 months ago | (#46035701)

His data analysis and harvesting will help the guy get a first date with more women. But all he's doing is trawling for ones that match what he thinks he wants. To get a second date his real-life personality and interests have to match what the other person thinks she wants.

Even with the women in question also choosing him on the basis of his tailored responses, he's simply increasing the sample size (i.e. the number of first dates) he gets, without really addressing the quality of the data - how closely the women match him in reality and vice-versa.

One of his descriptions in the article "star signs and all that crap" (or words to that effect) indicates that he still hasn't really "got" the women in the database. By dismissing what they consider important in a profile (the "crap") he's not helping himself. Maybe he should have turned around his search. Instead of hacking his profile to get more matches, he should consider modifying his personality to be more attractive to what the larger numbers of women feel they want in a man.

But I guess to a techie, every problem has a technical solution. No doubt all the first-date restaurants will thank him for his patronage and his (later, but maybe not much later) divorce lawyer will also be suitably grateful.

Wait... if I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that what women want/think they want is important? I've never really considered that, this could be a novel idea. Perhaps that's where so many of us have gone wrong all these years?

Re:Limited potential (3)

Bigbutt (65939) | about 3 months ago | (#46036029)

The problem is what women think they want can be totally different than what they deep down want. Women can say one thing but after a while they'll realize it's not doing it for them and leave (hence the 70% of divorces being filed by women).

It gets worse. Guys are trying to mold themselves to be what women say they want only to discover later that what women really want isn't what guys are now.

Then the divorce lawyers cackle with glee.

[John]

Re:Limited potential (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46036319)

Nope. Your worst move is to give women close to 100% of what they want. Next they'll drop you and try move up-market.

Re:Limited potential (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46035887)

Instead of hacking his profile to get more matches, he should consider modifying his personality to be more attractive to what the larger numbers of women feel they want in a man.

You don't seem to have a very healthy outlook on relationships.

Re:Limited potential (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46036181)

If you've read anything on these dating/pickup websites you'll learn quickly that dating is a numbers game. It took him 87 attempts before he got to 1 that was a successful pairing. If more people attempted this (kind of like speed dating) then they may have better luck finding a good match, eventually.

missing quote... (1)

leuk_he (194174) | about 3 months ago | (#46036353)

I’m sorry to inform you that he has been taken in by unsupportable mathematics designed to prey on the gullible and the lonely. The only way this will work is if will be blackmailed with a hidden dirty sock.

I searched for "Looking for fat nerd programmer" (5, Funny)

TWiTfan (2887093) | about 3 months ago | (#46035533)

So far no results for me. They all seem to want "rich, handsome guy who loves to travel."

Re:I searched for "Looking for fat nerd programmer (1)

RogueWarrior65 (678876) | about 3 months ago | (#46035547)

That's closer to reality than you think. In my own searches, every single woman wanted a guy who was between 5'8" and 6'2". Every...single...one.

Re:I searched for "Looking for fat nerd programmer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46035585)

Every woman wants Prince Charming. The practical result of this is that every Prince Charming is a prick with a wife and five mistresses on the side (because he can be), and every non-Prince Charming is either alone or with a wife/GF who secretly resents him and is looking to drop him at the first hint of a slot opening up on Prince Charming's schedule.

Re:I searched for "Looking for fat nerd programmer (1)

mark-t (151149) | about 3 months ago | (#46035679)

Or... a non-prince charming is with a beautiful woman who should be waaay out of his league who simply loves him.

It's not a rational situation, but it can still definitely be true.

Re:I searched for "Looking for fat nerd programmer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46035839)

BS. Some women want to be Pricss Elizabeth (The Paper Bag Princess). And since she didn't marry Prince Ronald because he was a prick, she's free to find someone who she doesn't have to treat like Prince Charming.

BTW, my wife has degrees in Chemistry, Chemical Engineering, and an MBA. And she got the MBA to figure out how to get her company to fund her projects. She was re-reading LOTR when we started dataing. Yes, you got that right. Re-reading.

Re:I searched for "Looking for fat nerd programmer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46035985)

You just keep telling yourself that.

Re:I searched for "Looking for fat nerd programmer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46036759)

Yes, you got that right. Re-reading.
 
Wowzer!!! Impressive!!! All the BBT styled geeks are ruing you right about now.
 
LOL. She's got a side man, trust me. You ain't worth her time.

Re:I searched for "Looking for fat nerd programmer (1)

phoenix03 (3348193) | about 3 months ago | (#46035591)

At 5'4, I'm screwed. As an additional bummer, I prefer to date women shorter than me... Luckily, I'm perfectly happy with my 5'2 girlfriend.

Re:I searched for "Looking for fat nerd programmer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46035655)

Aww, midget porn, how cute.

Re:I searched for "Looking for fat nerd programmer (1)

RogueWarrior65 (678876) | about 3 months ago | (#46035841)

Same here. Congrats. And you suck. ;-)

Re:I searched for "Looking for fat nerd programmer (1)

cellocgw (617879) | about 3 months ago | (#46036969)

Same here. Congrats. And you suck. ;-)

Wait... there's a category for people who are looking for *that* on okCupid?

Re:I searched for "Looking for fat nerd programmer (1)

smooth wombat (796938) | about 3 months ago | (#46035967)

every single woman wanted a guy who was between 5'8" and 6'2".

And I want a woman who isn't fat, doesn't freak out every time they get their period and don't use the "reality" shows as a template for how to live one's life.

Looks like we're both out of luck.

Re:I searched for "Looking for fat nerd programmer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46036071)

I doubt that. Most women want a guy who is 5'10" or taller, with no upper limit on height as long as it isn't freakish. I can't imagine a woman turning down a guy who is 6'3". 5'8" is too short for most women.

Women Are Like A Software Project (4, Funny)

Ukab the Great (87152) | about 3 months ago | (#46036945)

They always start out with an super-long, totally unreasonable requirements list that includes stuff that's totally irrelevant to any imaginable scope. Through hard work and negotiation and development of what you initially bring to the table, you need to bring down the client's impossible functional specification to something workable she can reasonably be satisfied with (also beer helps). It's called "game" for a reason.

Re:I searched for "Looking for fat nerd programmer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46036295)

That's a pretty stupid description to look for.
Presumably they want someone to take them on trips.
I like to travel, and I travel often. But I assume they don't mean for me to travel around the world while they sit at home.

Re:I searched for "Looking for fat nerd programmer (1)

doggo (34827) | about 3 months ago | (#46037325)

You forgot "honest". A lot of pleas for an "honest" man. "Honest" about what?!

Sheldon would say it's all "hokum" (2)

RogueWarrior65 (678876) | about 3 months ago | (#46035561)

Even though Howard wanted to say "mumbo jumbo"

Re:Sheldon would say it's all "hokum" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46035595)

BBT is for low lifes. It's making a bunch of wanna-be geeks thinking they're hip and in the know. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Re:Sheldon would say it's all "hokum" (1)

smash (1351) | about 3 months ago | (#46035631)

it's funny, laugh. not everything is a fucking science contest

Re:Sheldon would say it's all "hokum" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46035863)

it's funny, laugh.
 
I laugh plenty and BBT isn't funny. It's only funny to wanna-bes.
 
  not everything is a fucking science contest
 
True but there is a definite upswing in the number of people without a real science background running around with their Science Channel education thinking that they have a leg up on Joe Sixpack. In all reality they don't, they look like asses and they make real geeks look bad. Most of these self-appointed nerds couldn't pass a high school level Physics I midterm. They know little to no math. They have no appreciation of computing history. They've never written code. They think that running a Raspberry Pi is 1337. And they all know that the OS on their phone makes them cooler than the other guy even though they've never done more than Facebook with it.
 
I'm sick of these morons in the geek culture who aren't really geeks at all. So you can laugh all you want but they're part of the problem and so are you.
 
BTW; your homepage sucks.

It IS funny - we're laughing at you, not with you (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | about 3 months ago | (#46035951)

BBT is reasonably funny for a sitcom, though it is getting stretched thin. If you don't find it funny, the stereotypes which form the basis of the jokes are probably hitting to close to home, or you aren't comfortable with your own interpersonal shortcomings. You should work on that - laughing at yourself is the first step to being a happy person. And, lets face it, we're all laughing at you anyway; you may as well join in.

Re:It IS funny - we're laughing at you, not with y (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46036039)

If you don't find it funny, the stereotypes which form the basis of the jokes are probably hitting to close to home, or you aren't comfortable with your own interpersonal shortcomings.
 
Or, I dunno... maybe the stereotypes are wrong? Ever think of that? While I won't go as far as to call it bigotry I will say that it has all the social trappings of claiming that "black culture" is mirrored by a Little Black Sambo cartoon.

Re:It IS funny - we're laughing at you, not with y (0)

geminidomino (614729) | about 3 months ago | (#46036235)

Except it's only funny if you're the kind of mouth-breathing mundane who thinks Dane Cook is hilarious. The gags are all the same low-hanging fruit trolls have been rolling out since Chips & Dips -- the one guy even lives in his mom's basement FFS.

Personally, I'm a big fan of self-deprecating humor. Stupid humor, not so much.

Re:It IS funny - we're laughing at you, not with y (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46036883)

BBT is reasonably funny for a sitcom,

maybe, like 10% of the time, but as a geek/nerd/whatever, most of the time the' jokes' are shite and basically subtle put-downs. Of course this washes with 99% of those who watch it because they like seeing 'smart' pepole be 'stupid'. The canned laughter doesn't help.

maybe he/she doesn't find it funny because most of the time it simply isn't funny.

bbt is so overrated it isn't funny.

Re:Sheldon would say it's all "hokum" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46035663)

Yeah, I hate that show too. It surprises most of my colleagues because they think I share some qualities with the characters in the show. I find it insulting.

Re:Sheldon would say it's all "hokum" (1)

mrhippo3 (2747859) | about 3 months ago | (#46035963)

Getting the first date is truly a matter of chance. Despite his massive efforts to "perfectly select" a viable companion, he had an effectiveness of approximately zero (88/[population of OKCupid] = ~ 0.00%. Even his 88 dates are vanishingly small considering the gross number of potential candidates he reviewed.
The real effort is in making/having the relationship last. While my wife and I are very different, we come from a compatible SES and religious philosophy. While she was humanities, I was engineering all the way. The kicker was that the night future spouse and I met, I was playing the rating game with another engineer, en francais. Wife to be heard that and the decision was made. As McKinlay discovered, sometimes a single parameter model does work.

Big Bang Theory (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46035581)

Just use the "Wolowitz coefficient."

What a Try-Hard Beta (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46035607)

Talk to me about "true love" after 20+ years of marriage, pal.

He's a modern marketer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46035747)

Why does the word marketing not appear anywhere in the writeup or article? With the magic of data, he's just doing what radio producers are doing to create the next hit song, or retailers are doing to sell more goods to customers with loyalty cards.

A related story (2)

Vlad_the_Inhaler (32958) | about 3 months ago | (#46035855)

Just the headline reminded me of a story I read a couple of years ago. That site needs registration but he also posted it on a site which does not. 99 First Dates. [literotica.com] Hilarious.

Warning - Adult Content if you worry about that kind of thing.

Which is why he's having trouble (1)

Madman (84403) | about 3 months ago | (#46035865)

Maybe if he showed more interest in potential partners and less interest in python scripting he'd actually get a date!

Guy is foolish. (5, Insightful)

gurps_npc (621217) | about 3 months ago | (#46035923)

He did three things.

1) Categorize women into 7 categories. That looks to me to be valuable, but the article did not discuss all 7 categories. It ignored the only interesting thing this guy did!

2) Set up multiple profiles and use machines to initiate action with thousands of potential women.

3) Went on hundreds of dates in a relatively short amount of time.

His 'success' was statistically insignificant AND totally unrelated to his math. Anyone that goes on hundreds of dates and find the right woman.

You want to impress me? Have the algorithm pick 5 women and have them all be very interested in you. Picking 100's of women with lots of failed dates is just a NORMAL DATING LIFE.

Re:Guy is foolish. (1)

gurps_npc (621217) | about 3 months ago | (#46035957)

Correction, he only went on 88 dates, not 100. Still, not that strange.

You go on 88 dates, all pre-screened for normal things and you should find someone.

Re:Guy is foolish. (3, Interesting)

Dr_Barnowl (709838) | about 3 months ago | (#46037083)

Yeah, for me the problem is getting that date count up.

I've so far been online dating for about 9 months, I've dated only 6 women. Of these :

* The first one entered into a relationship with me that lasted a couple of months, during which I didn't bother with dating sites for obvious reasons
* The most recent is promising, but we've only been on one date, and because of distance and logistics, the next date is proving hard to organise

I'm on two subscription dating sites (one is match.com) and two free ones (Plenty of Fish and OKCupid). Of these, I've had two dates from OKCupid, two from POF, one from Match and one from the other subscription site, so on this tiny sample the free sites work better than the paid ones... although they all barely work at all.

I estimate I've probably messaged around 120 women, being picky*, sending proper tailored messages that actually respond to things in their profile, mostly concentrated in POF, OKC, and Match. (the last site is an odd one that only lets you browse a certain number of women per day that it picks out for you, and most of the profiles on there are very poor because their sign-up process numbs the brain). When I actually get a response, I think my "date rate" is around 50%

In contrast, I went speed dating and out of a pool of 13 women I got two "mutual matches" and 5 / 13 expressed an interest in dating me. Clearly something is wrong with the way I express myself online. I've had women turn me down on the grounds that I was "too intellectual for them"... I'm not sure if this is a reflection on me, or the dating pool concerned (POF and Match.com seem to be more "everyman" than OKCupid which is definitely more artsy, professional, and intelligent in tone).

The main surprise for me so far has been how many vegetarians OKCupid matches me up with....

* defined as only messaging women that I actually find attractive

Re:Guy is foolish. (1)

Hatta (162192) | about 3 months ago | (#46036489)

1) Categorize women into 7 categories. That looks to me to be valuable, but the article did not discuss all 7 categories. It ignored the only interesting thing this guy did!

No kidding. Where's the code?

Re:Guy is foolish. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46036651)

I think his approach was better than you give credit. He observed that OKCupid was being too granular in their attempt to find a perfect match. So he filtered the candidates into larger sets and started working his way through the two sets that interested him. After a few dates he realized that one of the two was a poor fit so he focused on the one remaining set and eventually hit a match.

Re:Guy is foolish. (1)

gurps_npc (621217) | about 3 months ago | (#46036971)

OK Cupid offers MULTIPLE ways to filter people. If one of their method was too granular, he could have used another. You can filter by specific their match formula, specific questions you find OR creeate yourself, their personality categories.

Analysis? More targetted scattergunning (5, Insightful)

Mr_Silver (213637) | about 3 months ago | (#46035935)

Whilst what he did was very clever, at the end of the day he manipulated the scoring so that his profile was placed in front of thousands of womens search results because it had a high match percentage (that normally would never have been seen).

The TL;DR version of this story is that if thousands of women see your profile and, at the same time, are told by a website that you're a high match to them, then you've got a very good chance they'll contact you. Which shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

That, to me, is the digital equivalent of (the old advice) that you'll never meet someone unless you get yourself out there.

I'm gonna say something funny now. (0)

Vitriol+Angst (458300) | about 3 months ago | (#46036185)

You will think it's crazy and maybe dismiss it -- it doesn't alter the fact that my crazy ramblings end up being proven true.

Screening for personality types and likes and dislikes is not the true way to find someone who will be compatible with you -- at least for the first few dates and a relationship of about 3 years (longer term relationships take emotional compatibility and interests -- but some people lower expectations and muddle through that bit anyway.

Dating sites would be better off taking a swab and bacteria culture from your mouth and gut to find someone you will "spark the magic with" -- because it isn't YOU that's in control of these indefinable attractions -- it's the bacteria in your body looking for a compatible colony. It's likely the bacteria that create the pheromones -- just like they make you crave chocolate or beer without regard to any nutrition or well being.

Do you crave some food or person right now? How are those two cravings different, really? OK, you don't get your feelings hurt by Chocolate ignoring your phone calls,... ... but the SECRET that will be learned perhaps in a decade or two to a "keeping the sparks" going in your relationship; eat the same food.

Go ahead and laugh, I'm used to it. *sniff*

Re:I'm gonna say something funny now. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46037127)

I don't crave chocolate or beer. Blech. I mean chocolate is not that bad except for the stomach and head aches. Beer tastes terrible. The only reason anybody "likes" it is because of the alcohol, you're better off drinking moonshine or vodka.

The question is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46036933)

does any potential date want to see his Python?

thank you - I'm here all week

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...