Remeber when greentext was something interesting or toughtfull? Instead of fariytales for incels?
this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2024
446 points (90.7% liked)
Greentext
4437 readers
974 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Not in the last 15 years.
Honestly, no. It was exactly this bad in the early '00s
load more comments
(1 replies)
Elo?
Personally, I don't like the fact that every team-based video game uses ELO, a system designed for a 1 on 1 game, to determine an individual's skill.
While Elo (and side note: it's a person's name, not an acronym) isn't perfect and systems like Glicko-2 are better even for 1v1s, is there a better system than Elo that could be used to rate players in team games? Especially if there's a mix of pre-made teams and random teams thrown together by matchmaking?
Edit: extra bonus if it can be applicable in games that have both 1v1 and team game components where there might be a desire for some form of bleed between the two. (e.g. AoE2 where your starting Elo in one of them is based on your Elo in the other, if you've played a lot of one type of game before trying the other.)
I suspect games tinker with the formula behind the scenes, to accurately place people faster if nothing else. The more players the longer it could take for the skill of any one to show up in the numbers, so I bet they factor in other game specific metrics at least at first. There would be some risk of this being abused, but that's less if they keep it a secret and maybe the progress numbers shown to players aren't quite the same as the real numbers used to decide who to match them against.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
'ello mate!
load more comments
(1 replies)
What’s a foid?
It stands for female humanoid and is exactly as dehumanizing as it sounds
It was femoid originally but anon got even lazier.
I think that the part being dehumanized is the one that uses that word.
load more comments
(6 replies)
I think it's supposed to be some kind of derogatory label for women, but is really just an identifier that the person using it is a worthless being whose opinion is as relevant as a gnats thoughts on the economy.
load more comments
(12 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
what is tinder elo?
~~ELO is a term used in ranked competitive video games. Part of this author's sense of humor is that tinder is a ranked game~~
edit: see correction below
load more comments
(3 replies)
I think this is an unrealized thought experiment by op. I don't believe the Chad he imagines has any relation to the man most woman are looking for.
Op creates profile that makes him look rich and stupid.
Gets targeted by bots using ai generated images of mildly attractive women.
Thinks he’s actually attracting human beings.
Anon still has never willingly gotten the attention of a human woman besides his mother
Can women message people on Tinder they haven't matched with?
And if this was effective wouldn't it lower all women's Elo scores? Unless he only ignored one group and catfished everybody else. Sounds like a lot of work.
No, only tinder premium can do so IIRC.
Bumble? From memory women can only message first, men must wait to be messaged before they can.
It's been a while since I used those platforms so my information could be incorrect.
Bumble is moving away from having women message first as apparently it was too much of a burden for the women on that app (According to https://www.npr.org/2024/05/06/1249296671/bumble-dating-apps-women-opening-moves )
Understandable as I find having to generate an opener hard too. Kinda a shame though as the point was to give them a place to have some more control with the interactions.
As a man who would often get matches but rarely get so much as a "hi" to allow the conversation to start (i'd say only 1/8 of the matches would say anything in the 24h), I really wonder why. A number of women apparently never read that they were supposed to send a message first when using bumble (I did hear that more than once on the app), but others? Why?
Well, although I'm not so sure about bumble, I know women on tinder have a volume problem, a few friends have shown me the number of matches and current conversations and wow, it's actually absurd. I could not maintain that many interactions either. So perhaps if not an issue with formulating an opener there's just too many matches to reasonably get through them?
That makes me actually wonder if a match limit would be a worthwhile feature on some of these. Just a stray shower thought
Tinder is a wholly different problem because of that. If memory serves, it's roughly 80/20 distribution of male/female profiles, so women are absolutely bombarded with conversations, as pretty much every man will want to try and get attention without knowing how deep his last message is buried among all others.
Bumble had less people in my area last I used it (late 2023), but I can imagine that men vastly outnumbered women even there, but again, since they had to start a conversation first, I suspect it'd be slightly more manageable than tinder. The idea of limiting matches sounds useful and perhaps good for the end user, ie: you won't show up on searches and you can't swipe as long as you have 10 or more matches, you have to actually unmatch to "get back". Don't expect any app to ever implement anything similar without figuring a way to make it a very shitty experience.
I can see how it'd be less money for the app and better for the User, so definitely not gonna happen lmao. IIRC choice fatigue grows wildly with anything beyond a few options so, yeah, being bombarded like that suuuuucks.
As I guess a reasonably attractive man, as the other person mentions, it's probably a volume problem. I end up not messaging a lot of matches just out of apathy. If I don't think their profile is interesting enough, I often just won't message. I'm sure this is at least 10x worse for most women.
Yeah, the old Bumble model was better (in my opinion as a man). It creates incentive to have an interesting profile with stuff people can comment on. The newer "opening move" thing incentivizes generic responses. Bumble (in my experience) still has women message first far more often than Tinder though. You may just have to wait and not message immediately.
Creating an opening message is only really difficult if someone has a generic boring profile, so if it's an issue for anyone maybe that's why.
I agree it was a better model. I've never found it easy to begin a conversation even with someone who has a good profile. I just struggle with the formulation of an opener. Way easier in person IMO, though a good profile makes a conversation continuation much easier.
load more comments
(3 replies)
view more: next ›