Pyramus
Posts: 397
Joined: 5/14/2010
Status: offline
|
Well, it sort of goes something like this ...
1. If a woman contacts me, or if I'm interested in a recently logged in profile, then I might spend about twenty seconds intuitively skimming the wording of the profile, the age, height, weight, journal, and forum entries, etc. of the owner, and then I look critically at the profile pictures (if any).
If any of the above are awry (and they very often are), I simply delete the mail contact, hide the profile, and sometimes click the various report buttons, and I immediately move on with my life, ignoring that profile forevermore.
2. If the profile passes that initial intuitive quick screening, then, before taking the time to respond, I ALWAYS spend a few more seconds physically verifying at the very least, the profile picture. This I do mainly for two reasons. (a) once set up properly in Firefox, it only takes a single click of the mouse to verify against the three major image reverse search engines, and (b) some of the pictures, usually of non-ideal women, are purposefully not intuitively obvious to recognize as misleading.
< OBSERVATION > Some of the profiles which appear perfectly normal, are actually using quite mundane photos of models, which are NOT obvious to the naked eye, but which turn up instantly in the single-click search of billions of images above. Others actually lead to Facebook & MySpace & Fetish style social networking sites, which allows further inspection of the profiles' veracity. More than a few point to social networking profiles which are decidedly different from that of the Collarme profile, and those are clear indications of something badly awry in the veracity of the datapoints. < / OBSERVATION >
These two almost automated steps alone quickly eliminate perhaps half to three quarters of the people who contact me or whom I am interested in (see screenshot below of step 2 in action).
3. Then I glance at the time last logged in date; if it has been greater than, oh, about three months, I ignore (but do not hide) the profile contact, while, at the same time, I take note of the length of time the profile has been in play.
4. If the distance is greater than, oh, say about 25 miles, I again usually ignore (but do not hide) the profile, unless they contacted me first, in which case I respond politely (assuming all other tests are met), in context, yet I mention the distance betwixt us. Generally I don't spend a lot of energy over time maintaining those contacts, even when they approach me with kudos for my profile, as meeting (and a real relationship) probably just won't happen realistically. (Note: If I was interested in an online relationship, the distance obstacle would matter far less.)
Very often the radius mileage doesn't match up with the stated location, which, when grossly off, is proof that the zip code entered is nowhere near the supposedly matching town location, hence, those inconsistent profiles I generally hide and ignore forevermore.
The four steps above take about a minute, give or take, and eliminate the vast majority of profile responses.
If the profile makes the initial cut above, I now begin to delve into the stated personality of the profile owner.
5. For longer profiles, I generally read the profile bottom up. Bottom up is an editing technique which forces me to take each sentence at face value, and it allows me to understand better what the profile owner actually seeks. Coincidentally, a plethora of weeding-out filters are often piled up in the bottom of a profile description, so these are seen first and foremost using this reverse-reading technique.
RANT: The profiles with the amplified text about people using their profiles for research projects irks me to no end, and I generally count that as one point against the owner, as they're just not being realistic in terms of real threats. / RANT
6. If the profile itself measures up, I always read EVERY SINGLE journal entry, taking note of the ad hoc mood swings of the owner and the inherent nature of her wants, needs, and desires. Certainly 'my' stream of consciousness frame of mind sways with my journal entries, and is a light into my soul, so I expect similar of others.
7. Once the journal entries enlighten me, I move on to forum posts. If there are forum entries for this user, I glance at the topics and forums the user has posted to, and, if interesting to me, I click on a few to read her comments in the forums. Unfortunately, many provocative profiles do NOT have forum entries, so, this valuable tools is withheld from us in perhaps 90% of the cases.
8. Personally, I must admit I don't make all that much use of the LOVES/LIKES/DISLIKES interests and skills section, although I must somewhat sheepishly admit that I do glance at the top few loves to see if the series of B's (i.e., blowjobs, bondage, blindfolds, & breast play) are highlighted. If so, the unconscious tingling in my loins secretly, if illogically, tucks a few additional mental points to my evaluation of the profile's veracity.
9. There are a few other, non-essential-but-nice clues that I look for. For example, it's a plus if I find that the user has availed herself the viewing of my complete profile, as evidenced by the "Who's viewing me" button. It almost never happens, but if she has added me to her "Favorites" list, that again tingles me into adding a few points in her favor to the score.
10. Lastly, I look at her "Friends" list. This is a reverse test, of sorts, where the fewer friends, the better (within reason). My untested rationale is that those with a zillion friends are just non-selectively collecting signatures, while those with none don't play games. Having none to an eclectic few is what I generally expect, and therefore those aren't red flags. Of interest on the friends, are any friends that are obvious fake profiles, as again, that indicates a disturbingly uncritical respondent.
Since I seek a R/T relationship, if, perchance, we get this far, I generally insist on an early phone verification at the very least - and then she and I meet for a F2F coffee or lunch tête-à-tête. YMMV.
[mod edit to remove oversized picture]
< Message edited by VideoAdminChi -- 1/29/2013 4:39:08 AM >
|
How much energy do you invest evaluating a provocativel... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread