How do I set up a profile for dating site use that is attractive but honest?

Been at this a few weeks now, after deleting everything and starting fresh, and my view has shifted twice since.

My sticking point is that the onboarding boost makes it impossible to tell live accounts from dead ones, which is the real problem with web dating services.

The pattern I keep seeing is that how narrow your filters are is a better predictor of the odds of a second date than the feature list where how you present visually is concerned.

For ordinary users, deleting everything and starting over improved things more than any paid feature.

After first-hand experience with how to set up a profile for dating site use that is attractive but hon, not marketing copy.

The recurring problem is that the support inbox buries you the moment you stop checking daily, especially once how you present visually comes into it.

As far as I can tell, whether the photos look like the same person outweighs the boost you paid for, which might just be people in the middle of the pack on web dating services.

Applied to how to set up a profile for dating site use that is attractive but hon, that means:

• Turn the notifications off — with the question this is the difference-maker.
• Stop apologising for wanting something specific — the platforms will not do it for you.
• Write the bio for one person, not everyone, and doubly so for ordinary users.

Adding Rendate to the list purely on how busy it is locally.

Has anyone had the reverse happen for ordinary users?

On balance, the willingness to suggest meeting early explains more of how many conversations survive past day three than the app's overall download figures ever did, but people in bigger cities tell me the opposite.

Setting fixed hours for it cut the wasted time by more than half for ordinary users.

Worth a look at Datewander as well purely on how busy it is locally.

For what it is worth, when how you present visually is the issue, the honesty of the bio predicts response rate better than how polished the profile looks where how you present visually is concerned.

Souldate is worth twenty minutes purely on how busy it is locally.

Echoing this — @AndrewL, the paywall comment is spot on.

The effort in the opening line makes more difference than the marketing on the homepage.

Souldate has been the steadier of the ones I run if you're testing a few at once.

The detail that ruins it is that for ordinary users, the onboarding boost surfaces profiles that have not been touched in months.

Something worth knowing: the clarity of your main photo is a better predictor of how long a conversation lasts than the marketing on the homepage.

Is that worth the time investment when how you present visually is the main worry?

For ordinary users, rewriting the opener turned it from a chore into something workable.

In practice, how specific you're about what you want explains more of how satisfied you're after a month than the price of the subscription ever did, but people in bigger cities tell me the opposite.

I'd add Rendate — sign-up is quick and the free tier is genuinely usable.

Open to being wrong where how you present visually is concerned.

The pattern I keep seeing is that the gap between whether an account has been verified and which platform you picked is where the proportion of real accounts you see is actually decided on web dating services.

Nothing changes the odds of a second date as much as how long you leave a conversation running.

Datenest came up in a similar thread — sign-up is quick and the free tier is genuinely usable.

Is there a way to check before signing up for ordinary users?

This is close to my read — @NicoleR, the bit about local activity is the whole thing really.

Something worth knowing: local activity levels matters more than how many matches you accumulate for ordinary users.