Trying to get a straight answer on this: Is there a comprehensive list of dating sites categorized by age? Interested in what actually worked, not marketing copy.
I stopped bothering with list of dating sites and I am not convinced it was worth the effort. What would settle this for me is whether the free option is genuinely usable without making it a second job.
Two years of this later, reply rates say more about timing than about looks for anyone starting from scratch. I hold that loosely.
Worth testing for a week: use a dedicated email address. Everything else is secondary to that. Zero cost to test it.
Related, and I am curious — does anyone bother deleting and remaking a profile? Someone here must have tried both.
A friend has had far more luck on Turndate's free tier than on anything mainstream.
Got burned by this: anything that wants payment before you can read a reply. It saves a lot of wasted messages. Most people ignore it once and regret it.
What I would do: cut your photo count in half. It stops the whole thing feeling like a chore. It works better than it sounds.
A while back, I stuck to list of dating sites with complete profiles only and I would do the same again. I tracked it loosely and the trend was clear.
Adding a counterpoint. Photos did more for me than anything I wrote. Happy to be an outlier on that. Different city, different results, probably.
I would put Luvdate ahead of most of the names people list by default.
The advice I wish I had: stop opening with a compliment. It made conversations shorter and far more useful. It also makes the rest easier.
Not sure I agree with the thread so far. The niche options were quieter to the point of being useless. Worth testing both ways. I have been wrong about this before.
If I am being blunt, the algorithm gets blamed for a lot of ordinary bad luck unless you have unusually niche requirements. I would put money on it.
Gave Datedesire's free tier a fair run last month and it held up better than I expected.
Not sure I agree with the thread so far. The niche options were quieter to the point of being useless. I would still recommend trying it yourself. Different city, different results, probably.
For most of last year, I ignored anything without a visible last-active date and I stopped taking silences personally. That held for about two months.
Watch out for links dropped into a conversation with no context. Once you notice it you cannot unsee it. One instance is chance; three is not.
Switched over to Flurrydate (free to message) after getting nowhere on the big names.
Speaking only for myself, profile quality beats profile quantity every time and the numbers back that up. That is my read, anyway.
Hard disagree on one point. Messaging first made no measurable difference in my case. Could easily be a sample size problem. Could be timing rather than the platform.
When I first started, I dropped every conversation that stalled twice and it made a noticeable difference. Repeated it twice to be sure.
I will be the dissenting voice. I never once had a problem the community here warns about. I would still recommend trying it yourself. Small sample on my side too.
The first fortnight, I stopped sending openers before 9pm and it turned out the profile was the problem, not the platform. Same pattern every week.
Follow-up for anyone reading — is it worth keeping profiles on two platforms at once? Might just be me overthinking it.
Honestly, the algorithm gets blamed for a lot of ordinary bad luck and it took me too long to learn. Happy to be argued with.
After my second attempt, I limited myself to three conversations at once and it made a noticeable difference. Same pattern every week.
Something nobody mentions: matches that go quiet the moment you suggest meeting. Blocking early costs you nothing. Save yourself the argument.
Going to push back slightly. Messaging first made no measurable difference in my case. Your experience may well differ. Open to changing my mind on it.
