this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2024
443 points (90.6% liked)

Greentext

4433 readers
1228 users here now

This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.

Be warned:

If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 14 points 3 days ago (5 children)

Bumble is moving away from having women message first as apparently it was too much of a burden for the women on that app (According to https://www.npr.org/2024/05/06/1249296671/bumble-dating-apps-women-opening-moves )

Understandable as I find having to generate an opener hard too. Kinda a shame though as the point was to give them a place to have some more control with the interactions.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 days ago (2 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago

As I guess a reasonably attractive man, as the other person mentions, it's probably a volume problem. I end up not messaging a lot of matches just out of apathy. If I don't think their profile is interesting enough, I often just won't message. I'm sure this is at least 10x worse for most women.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 days 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.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days 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.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Wasn't that the whole point of bumble?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 days 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

[–] [email protected] -3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Ppl in this thread so pathetic they can't say "hello"??

Epic

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

If the best you can do is say hello, that's pretty pethetic.

The complaint is that Bumble had something that made it unique: that women sent the first message. On other services anyone can message first, but 99.9% of the time that ends up being the man, which is fine but having something attempt to switch that up was cool. Bumble removing this makes it more like everything else.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 days ago