|
crumpets -> RE: What do senders do that they can so quickly POUNCE on juicy profiles? (11/4/2015 11:04:05 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MistressRage
@OP I have set everything up so that potential subs create a self-selection bias. Normally I would consider this a bad thing as a scientist, but in my case it works. You see, potential subs divide themselves into one of two groups; group one reads the profile and follows the directions thus guaranteeing a response (sooner or later). The second group doesn't read the profile, and I can tell immediately upon opening said mail; thus, they are instantly deleted without my reading anything they have written. The latter group is far more common than the former which saves me ass loads of time.
Thank you very much for this clarification.
Given the male half of the experiment only received that one spam, all my data revolves around the female half.
In all those responses, as you intimate above, about half (or so) actually read the profile, while the other half almost certainly didn't even bother. All responded within the hour (because the profile was only left alive for a short while), so, they probably just manually pounced on the the female profile, the moment it showed up in their login screen.
I think, as someone mentioned, it's not an ACTIVE waiting for prey that they responded to; I think it's more likely that they simply saw "her" as a new user, and they quickly glanced at the profile, and said, "what the heck", and made an attempt. That none were within a reasonable distance simply proves that they're all almost certainly shooting in the dark, since it's not really likely that a relationship will develop from thousands of miles away.
What surprised me was that I don't act that way toward profiles.
In general, I am passive in that I wait for women to contact me (not always, but most of the time). I may certainly "admire" a profile (perhaps multiple times, as it's my habit to read, re-read, and re-read anew a profile that I like, just for the pleasure of getting to know more about someone who interests me).
I don't generally read the profiles of people responding to posts; however, I certainly do bother to read any profile of anyone who contacts me by CS mail. I read every single word BEFORE I respond, and, I have been known to click on their forum posts, and read every single journal entry. In your case, as in AAkashas, who is a friend of yours, I also bother to go to the web site hinted about in your profile and read up on that public web site, well before replying in a collarspace email response.
All this, as you can tell from the response I have already sent you, takes just a few minutes. Maybe four to six minutes.
If some consider that "stalking", well then, we just need to agree that we have different definitions of that term.
In your case, I was delighted (as I was in AAkasha's) to feel your innate intelligence exuding from every well written word you published (e.g., Dommes don’t provide a service, they provide a place to serve) and every professionally lit photograph (e.g., your "red room" versus your "brown room" photos). Both of you, as professionals, have a wonderfully ineffable way of describing things in very simple sentences (e.g., "I want to enjoy you, not be annoyed by you.") and your advice is stellar (e.g., What Dommes Want, and How to Session with a Domme).
|
|
|
|
