Prozentsatz der Wischbewegungen nach rechts, die bei Tinder zu Übereinstimmungen führten, gruppiert nach der Art und Weise, wie wählerisch Männer waren[OC]
Prozentsatz der Wischbewegungen nach rechts, die bei Tinder zu Übereinstimmungen führten, gruppiert nach der Art und Weise, wie wählerisch Männer waren[OC]
Data source: 1,000 anonymized Tinder profiles from GDPR data exports. Tools: Python (pandas, matplotlib) for analysis, HTML/CSS for final charts. [OC]
Homerbola92 on
They are picky for a reason. That reason is the real cause behind the better return per like ratio.
BTW even if the data you’re showing is interesting, if it was a tinder profile it wouldn’t be a selective swiper.
SkepticITS on
This is true. But at every level being less selective got more matches in absolute terms. So if you’re just trying to maximise matches, liking more profiles seems to be more effective.
ThoughtfulPoster on
„Percentage of cities that experienced rain, grouped by how wet the sidewalks were.“
Leafymcleafersons on
Interesting that even though the most selective has better return per like, the least selective still has higher overall return
Kinesquared on
Correlation is not causation. I bet this doesn’t imply that if YOU are more selective then YOU will get a higher rate of return, I imagine it just shows that people who know theyre attractive can afford to swipe right less
Acaraje_com_pimenta on
Ok on percentages, but percentages are only half of the story. People with less selectivity still have 4.5x more matches so they have a lot more chances to get to meet someone.
Grundlage on
I’d be really interested to see similar data from the other dating apps. The last time I was on tinder, I got a single digit number of matches over an entire summer; meanwhile, I was getting something like a 20% match rate on Hinge.
WillTheyKickMeAgain on
So, it pays not to be selective.
SpinIx2 on
In the data you’ve presented it recommends that men should swipe 100% of profiles to maximise matches. Which is exactly what logic would tell you without any analysis of data at all and also, I suspect, the opposite of what you were hoping to show as a recommendation.
Leave A Reply
Du musst angemeldet sein, um einen Kommentar abzugeben.
10 Kommentare
Data source: 1,000 anonymized Tinder profiles from GDPR data exports. Tools: Python (pandas, matplotlib) for analysis, HTML/CSS for final charts. [OC]
They are picky for a reason. That reason is the real cause behind the better return per like ratio.
BTW even if the data you’re showing is interesting, if it was a tinder profile it wouldn’t be a selective swiper.
This is true. But at every level being less selective got more matches in absolute terms. So if you’re just trying to maximise matches, liking more profiles seems to be more effective.
„Percentage of cities that experienced rain, grouped by how wet the sidewalks were.“
Interesting that even though the most selective has better return per like, the least selective still has higher overall return
Correlation is not causation. I bet this doesn’t imply that if YOU are more selective then YOU will get a higher rate of return, I imagine it just shows that people who know theyre attractive can afford to swipe right less
Ok on percentages, but percentages are only half of the story. People with less selectivity still have 4.5x more matches so they have a lot more chances to get to meet someone.
I’d be really interested to see similar data from the other dating apps. The last time I was on tinder, I got a single digit number of matches over an entire summer; meanwhile, I was getting something like a 20% match rate on Hinge.
So, it pays not to be selective.
In the data you’ve presented it recommends that men should swipe 100% of profiles to maximise matches. Which is exactly what logic would tell you without any analysis of data at all and also, I suspect, the opposite of what you were hoping to show as a recommendation.