I return to writing about Internet Dating after a longer than expected pause. As I discussed in earlier posts, I have been in the process of moving to a new residence – a process that has throughly occupied my energy and attention for the last month and a half. If any of my readers are interested, I did end up purchasing a used mobile home and am very close to having found a place in it for [most of] my belongings. Everyone, welcome to my new home.

Though I have not been writing about Internet Dating, I have continued to maintain my online presence and have been in contact with a few ladies. In fact, for the first time in my Internet Dating career, I actually met with a real live woman last Sunday. We met on my favorite online dating site, OKCupid.com on Saturday – she actually “winked” at me, chatted for about an hour, and decided to meet at an agreed upon location the following day. We had a nice conversation and a good cup of coffee but I have to admit that there weren’t any sparks flying around the room. I think she would agree with that statement. I did write her a “thanks for meeting me” email mostly because I was brought up right.

So, I’m back. Boy, am I back.

jd

Technorati Tags: Internet Dating, online dating, dating sites                                                 

The Internet dating quest continues. I am starting to realize that there is no “one best online dating site” to be found. Consequently you find yourself signing up at an Internet dating site and “working it” until you have exhausted all the acceptable possibilities (Yes, I am discovering exactly how shallow I really am) or hitting the brick wall (i.e. you must cough up some cash if you want to “communicate” at all). When activity (if any) subsides you are on your way to the next dating site like any itinerant farm worker would.

My latest “work site” is  Matchmaker.com. This dating site is one of those sub-sites of a larger brand. I have learned that many Internet dating sites sell would be matchmakers access to their “catalog” of dating profiles and (probably) their software which they allow their customer to “re-brand” with a new name. It looks like Matchmaker.com is an affiliate of Date.com. I haven’t signed up with the main dating site Date.com yet (though it is only a matter of time) but I am interested in seeing if I am presented with the same line-up of perfect matches when I do.

I’ll keep you posted.
jd

Technorati Tags: online dating, online dating sites, dating sites, Internet dating

Just for fun I took the “Death Test” at OKCupid.com. Looks Like I have around 21 years to hook up with someone!

jd

Technorati Tags: Dating Sites, Internet Dating

This Internet dating thing isn’t exactly proving to be the cake-walk I was expecting. I’ve read a lot of promising member profiles and seen some very attractive photos. I’m starting to wonder if these ladies are not literate. Somehow they get a profile posted but they don’t seem to know how to write or respond to email. Still, though, I can’t imagine what I would be doing without these cyber venues.

It seems like the only other options open (which would have been the only options prior to Internet sites) would have to be Churches or Bars. Neither one of these venerable institutions are places that I frequent. Of course there is my place of employment but I am a long standing proponent of the “Don’t get your hunny where you get your munny” philosophy. I really don’t want to change jobs if things don’t go well.

So, I guess I’m stuck. My new plan is to spruce up the old profile and see if that helps.
Stay tuned,
jd

Technorati Tags: dating sites, internet dating sites, interenet dating, relationships

Having tried a less mainstream Internet dating site (GreatDatingSite.com) I decided to take the big plunge into one of the better known online dating venues. If you haven’t guessed already, that site is Chemistry.com. So far the experience has been good by which I mean I was not immediately bombarded with messages from “ladies” in California who said they wanted to get to know me (I’m in Pittsburgh, PA). I guess the reason for this is that Chemistry.com does not let you browse the member roster. They use a true matchmaker approach to the whole deal. They pick the ladies they think you might hit if off with. How do they decide which of their members to present? Frankly, I’m not sure.

Signing up at Chemistry.com is a bit different from most other dating sites. You start by taking a test. Not a pass/fail kind of thing but more of a personality determination questionnaire. Some stuff you could probably fudge on the answers a little but there were a couple that completely mystified me. Both of these had you look at two different sized objects (lines in one example, octagons in another) and then had you adjust the smaller one until you perceived that it was the same size as the bigger. There are also some other lines and patterns in the picture to make this sizing exercise harder than it sounds here. What does this have to do with finding a date? When the test is over you get a chance to fill out the more expected types of profile items. You know - who I am and who I am looking for etc etc. Once all this is done they let you know what type of a personality you have - I am a Director/Builder. Then they present you with three potential matches - each with a picture, a brief bio, and their personality type. Mostly they match me up with Negotiator/Explorer types. From here you can express interest in one (or all) of the potential matches and (if you are willing to pay) move on to the next step.

Even though I have expressed interest in two interesting looking ladies and paid for a month’s membership, I have not progressed to the next step - so I can’t really talk about that. The problem? It appears that neither of my two sirens spends any time at all on Chemistry.com. I have heard nothing back. I guess the bright side of that is that I haven’t been rejected. At least, not yet.

jd

OK. I know I just recently went off on the quality of the photographs that I have encountered on Internet Dating Sites. But I missed another issue that is not exactly quality related. Apparently it is necessary to also mention the actual content of the images.

If you are posting to a dating site on the Internet I think that the most important factor is that the photo should be a recent picture of YOU. I’ve seen a lot of shots of two (or three) girls hugging without the member profile making any effort to identify which person in the image is them. This could really backfire on you if someone expresses an interest in the other lady (or ladies) in the shot.

In addition to your dating site photo not including other women (or men for that matter), members of your family should also not be included. This is especially true in regard to your mother and your children. It is an age old male axiom that if you want to see what a lady will look like in her “golden” years - be sure to check out her mom. Not including your children is a no-brainer. This is especially true if the tyke happens to be an infant. This last point might not be quite as true for males. Nothing gets a girl’s eyes moistening as quickly as a hunky guy with a helpless little baby in his arms.

My last problem point on dating site photo content is the location or background of the photo. You really need to be careful here. You may come off to prospective dates as too loose if you are sitting on your bed. You may appear too pious if there is a church in the background. Do I need to mention shots taken in bars? Same for self portraits in the bathroom mirror. Really - it isn’t that much trouble to get a friend to take a shot of you outside in front of a pine tree - is it?

I’m coming to the realization that the majority of Internet Dating Site users out there in cyberlonelyland are looking at these sites as places where they have to “sell” themselves. I’m not speaking here in terms of the “oldest profession” (though I’m sure that is out there too) but more in terms of trying to simply get attention by standing out from the crowd. It seems that the major focus of this effort becomes apparent in the applicant’s selection of a user or “screen” name. Unfortunately, most dating site members fail to grasp that this is a trickier task than it first appears. Personally, I think the dating site enrollee walks a tightrope between coming off as being either too boring or way too loose. I guess my problem is that I’m not sure which is the more egregious error.

As the old saying goes, “You never get a second chance to make a first impression”. Your choice of a screen name at your chosen Internet Dating Site can really drive this saying home. I mean is the “attention” attracted from the screen name DoMe69 really going to be from the type of gal/guy you are hoping to meet? By the same token, a screen name that is too flowery or idyllic may not attract anyone at all. (As I noted in a previous post - SoulMate means No Date.) So what do you do? Go for humor with NotDeadYet33? Try to be unbearably adorable with CutiePie72? Try to generate some mystery with ForbiddenFruit55? Show you don’t really care with HappyAlone7? Be pitiful with LostPuppy75? I tell you, it’s tough.

For myself I’ve decided to stick with a strictly neutral name. Just the facts. I use my initials and year of birth - JD1952. Boring? Yeah, a little. Psycho bait? Don’t think so. I guess we’ll find out in the days to come.

OK - here is the message I got today from an “admirer” on the Internet dating site greatdatingsite.com. What do ya think?

Hello Dear

How are you doing??,I was just going through my profile here and luckly for me i came accross your lovely profile and i decided to message you and inform you that i like what i see and read about you.i was overwhelmed by your personalty,i really appreciate every seconds that i spent going through your lovely profile.Am sending this mail in refference to knowing much more about you,and hoping we could be friends and move from there and see what the future has got to offer.i am very much intrested to meet you. After several years of feeling quite all right about being a “single divoice” woman, I am sick of it and very interested in finding a male companion with great interests, good health and the ability to find joy in each day.I am glad to say,I like to travel, read, garden, play the French horn, sing in a choir, cook,dinningout,with lots of outdoors and do a little entertaining,and also play Golf. I hope we could get to know much more about each other and i must tell you that i want an everlasting relationship,that will be full of trust,care and love i will be waiting so anxiously to get a write back and maybe we could then connect properly from there. hey you can be free to write me …..<sorry not gonna help you>@yahoo.com…..
Do have a great week- ahead and God bless… i will be looking forward in hearing back from you …

Christine

My forays into Craigslist’s Women Seeking Men section have not been totally in vain. I’ve picked up some clues on what makes a date search posting on an Internet dating site good or bad. In a lot of ways its what you leave out of a post that can make it interesting. People really don’t want to spend their time reading a post that is based entirely on what you don’t like. Nor do they want to read a detailed description of the partner you seek - you have to leave a little wiggle room if you want to get a date at all. You really need to dwell (if you dwell at all) on the positive aspects of your search. Be upbeat but not unbearably perky. Try to reveal the inner you without drifting into what I call, “soul mate” territory. When you go that direction I think the results can be predicted with mathematical precision: Soul Mate = No Date.