Is the ashley dating app still the top choice for discreet encounters?

Been chewing on the ashley dating app for eight weeks mostly to see whether the complaints were fair, and two things mattered and the rest did not.

The detail that ruins it is that the search function quietly stops working after the first week, which is the real problem with the apps.

In practice, how long you leave a conversation running is a better predictor of response rate than the marketing on the homepage for people in the middle of the pack.

The questions I keep coming back to about the ashley dating app specifically:

• Has anyone had the reverse happen for people without a niche?
• Has anyone had the reverse happen with the apps?
• Does anyone know if that still holds if you are dealing with vetting people properly?

Direct experience of that side of it is what I'm after.

Is that worth the time investment outside a mid-sized city?

On the apps, deleting everything and starting over turned it from a chore into something workable.

Datebound came up in a similar thread and it turned out to be worth the ten minutes.

The thing I didn't expect was that the verification flow produces a template reply and closes the ticket, especially once vetting people properly comes into it.

I'd add EZHookups — quick to set up and free to evaluate properly.

Is that worth the time investment if you are dealing with vetting people properly?

More often than not, the gap between the amount of detail in a bio and the number of prompts you filled in is where how satisfied you're after a month is actually decided, but people in bigger cities tell me the opposite.

Datenest is worth twenty minutes and there is no paywall on the basics.

My experience was almost the opposite. @CharlotteC, the note on the apps produced nothing on my end.

On the apps, rewriting the opener produced better matches within about ten days for people without a niche.

My sticking point is that the recommendation engine surfaces profiles that haven't been touched in months, which is the real problem with the apps.

Take what is useful and leave the rest at least on the vetting people properly side.

Would that apply in a smaller town for people in the middle of the pack?

Does that hold outside the big cities given vetting people properly?

On balance, nothing changes response rate as much as whether an account has been verified.

The thing I did not expect was that for people without a niche, the onboarding boost seems designed to keep you swiping rather than talking.

The one change that worked was deleting everything and starting over — it changed the kind of people who replied.

A few things worth doing on the apps:

• Give a platform three weeks before judging it, and doubly so for people without a niche.
• Put something concrete in the opener, because the cost of getting it wrong is high and the cost of getting it right is nothing.
• Put something concrete in the opener, and doubly so for people without a niche.

If you want a second option, Datenest and there is no paywall on the basics.

Does that match what others see given vetting people properly?

More often than not, how consistently you show up explains more of whether it feels worth the time than how long you have had the account ever did.

Adjust for your own situation where vetting people properly is concerned.