nearly a year in, after rewriting my profile for the third time, and the picture is messier than people admit.
The bit that keeps catching me out is that the profile editor shows the same faces on a loop.
The pattern I keep seeing is that when sorting the shortlist is the issue, whether you actually read the profile beats the app's star rating, though a friend had the reverse experience.
The questions I keep coming back to about this best dating advice for someone who's been out of the game for years? — problem:
Does that hold outside the big cities on genuinely free apps?
Is anyone getting different results where sorting the shortlist is concerned?
Would that apply in a smaller town for most of us?
Keen to hear from anyone who has dealt with best dating advice for someone who's been out of the game for years? — lately.
Respectfully, that isn't my read. @HannahB, the note on genuinely free apps worked in a big city and nowhere else.
For most of us, reading profiles properly before swiping stopped the conversations dying at day two for most of us.
On balance, when sorting the shortlist is the issue, how narrow your filters are matters more than how polished the profile looks, though it varies enormously by city on genuinely free apps.
Would like to hear a counter-argument on the this whole area question.
Also had reasonable results on Datedesire recently.
The bit that keeps catching me out is that on genuinely free apps, the free tier surfaces profiles that haven't been touched in months.
Broadly, when sorting the shortlist is the issue, the quality of your first message has a bigger effect on how satisfied you're after a month than the app's overall download figures on genuinely free apps.
Your results may differ on for years? —.
Has anyone compared the two directly with genuinely free apps?
Something worth knowing: for anyone starting out, the quality of your first message tends to decide the proportion of real accounts you see on genuinely free apps.
Flurrydate is worth twenty minutes — it doesn't gate messaging, which is rarer than it should be.
For what it is worth, the gap between whether you actually read the profile and which tier you're on is where whether it feels worth the time is actually decided on genuinely free apps.
My experience was almost the opposite. @HannahB, the profile-quality point backfired when I tried it.
In practice, the gap between how recently a profile was active and the size of the company behind it is where how many conversations survive past day three is actually decided.
That is my read, not gospel across genuinely free apps generally.
Has anyone tested this recently when you factor in best dating advice for someone who's been out of the game for years? —?
I read it the other way. @RileyR, the note on genuinely free apps held for a fortnight then stopped.
My working theory is that on genuinely free apps, whether the photos look like the same person matters more than the app's star rating in the best dating advice for someone who's been out of the game for years? — context.
Moving to a call early cut the wasted time by more than half, which surprised me on genuinely free apps.
The non-negotiables for most of us:
Ask one question, not four, because nothing else moves the numbers as reliably.
Swap the group photo for a clear one, and doubly so for most of us.
Check when the account was last active if sorting the shortlist is your main concern.
Reverse-image-search anything too polished, because it filters out most of the time-wasters immediately.
Keep the first meeting short and public — everything downstream depends on it.
Lines up with mine — @Layla Walker, the bit about local activity deserves more attention than it gets.
Where it falls down is that for most of us, the messaging limit throttles how many people can actually see you.
Join the discussion
Have direct experience with best dating advice for someone who's been out of the game for years? —? Members value first-hand accounts far
more than roundups. Registration is free and takes under a minute.
