[CSSer]

As a single woman still barely holding onto this age bracket (praying to the power of anonymity right now), the fact that this exists and is so clearly targeted at men who honestly look fine for such a high price is sad. If you told me you spent this much money on your profile to meet me, I would immediately subtract whatever smart and attractive points I unconsciously added to you and add them to your insecurity score instead.

edit: In case I must spell it out scoring people like this is weird. Also his own photo is terrible. I'm rarely so negative but seriously guys please save your money.

[jfengel]

The best photo for a dating site isn't one that makes you look good, but one that makes you look interesting. That's true now more than ever, when a very polished photo looks like AI.

A good candid is much better. It conveys something of who you actually are: what you like to wear, what you like to do, and ideally looking sincerely happy.

Women are generally less appearance-focused than men like to believe about them. Looking "fine" suffices for most women. Men are convinced that it's their appearance scaring off women, but in fact it's their personalities -- and an over-reliance on appearance is a strong indicator of an unpleasant or boring personality.

(I give similar advice to women, who are more likely to focus on their own appearance. And that's unfortunately expected of them. But at least for me, a good candid is better than a studio shot. Since the custom is usually for men to open the conversation, it helps a lot to give me an opportunity to lead with something more insightful than "Gosh you're pretty.")

[NunoSempere]

> such a high price

For the target audience this is about 5-10% of a month's income, and so is more like a reasonable optimization.

> to meet me

To improve the distribution of dates, which is more valuable than any single one.

[nsokolsky]

> Also his own photo is terrible.

Thanks for the feedback, I've replaced my own photo with a good one.

> I'm rarely so negative but seriously guys please save your money.

You can do it all 100% free per the guide which describes the process end-to-end: https://nsokolsky.substack.com/p/how-to-take-a-perfect-datin...

[CSSer]

> You can do it all 100% free per the guide which describes the process end-to-end

D:

Nooo! Please read.

Your before and afters are good. It's clear you have good qualities, but you can present and pitch them better. The stringent objective approach to your value-add is doing you a disservice. You allude to the fact that it's an art that takes time to get right yourself already.

It's like unit tests vs integration tests. It's easy to think you're testing one thing when you're actually testing another.

You present this as the idea that you understand what objectively makes a portrait flattering (true/verifiable), and the objective evaluation by women using a scoring rubric lends an air of ostensible credibility that suggests the kind of profiling you might see in an integration test named "Good Dating Profile Photo". I think what you have instead is unit tests for acceptability, inoffensiveness, and presentability plus your uniquely gathered insight into their personality. Fluoride makes toothpaste work, not the fact that 4 out of 5 dentists agree. Your learned insight is the fluoride. I guess maybe the men respond to the "4 out of 5" statement already, but it's so easily refutable.

Using your photo as an example, I can see your face clearly now, but I also can't see where you are, your full profile, why you might be there, who you're with, or what you're doing. You also don't seem quite at ease. It's completely sterile. I wouldn't blink if I saw this on your LinkedIn or GitHub profile. On there all I'm trying to verify is that it's you! But on a dating profile I'm looking for a sense of you. I want to see your best qualities, which aren't always visually straightforward in men, presented in a flattering light. You help people find that! By the way, your other photo did have those qualities. I just couldn't see you!

[jrflowers]

> If you told me you spent this much money on your profile to meet me, I would immediately subtract whatever smart and attractive points I unconsciously added to you and add them to your insecurity score instead.

Yeah for two thousand dollars a person could go on a trip and bring back an interesting story, or get therapy, or a puppy. Could probably do all three, actually.

[sn9]

Notably none of these matter on dating apps where profile pics actually help you get matches so you can actually talk to a person.

[jrflowers]

My man for two thousand dollars you could get a picture of yourself holding your Bichon Frisé at Livraria Lello

[sn9]

I don't have a dog and it would be very weird to get a dog for the sole purpose of having one for dating profile pics to meet women.

[jrflowers]

Yes. You should not get a dog if you don’t want a dog. It is a broad example because it is common for people to enjoy having a dog.

It would not be weird though, for example, to visit The House on the Rock and take pictures while you’re there.

[sn9]

But the point is that taking bad pictures doesn't help.

[CSSer]

You don't take photos on trips or with dogs?

[sn9]

I don't have a dog and it would be very weird to get a dog for the sole purpose of having one for dating profile pics to meet women.

[CSSer]

The idea was getting a dog to improve your life, but agreed. That would be quite weird.

[eudamoniac]

It doesn't matter if you think it's weird; it works. I did the same process manually many years ago, with Photofeeler and statistics research, and it made an obvious difference. I am now married. Men don't really care if something is considered weird by random female commenters if it is getting them frequently laid and into romances. As they say, don't ask a fish how to fish.

[jrflowers]

This reads like it was written by a Ferengi

[eudamoniac]

We don't like to make substanceless quips here. Please save them for reddit.