> 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!
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!