>>34732638
Woops, well that's a good start.
>Living situation and status/history
should read
>Living situation and work status/history

I'm the type that's not what one would call winsome in my desired demographics. Being realistic here, not self-defeating.
Should I, and others like myself, apply or will you be flooded and would rather keep the intake smaller?

File: raf,360x360,075,t,fafafa_(...).jpg (29 KB, 360x360)

29 KB JPG

>>34732638
It's another episode of guy makes a pseudo-matching thread just to get contacts of femanons for himself and match absolutely no one

>>34732701
I don't participate in the matchmaking myself and I am happy to provide proof of this. Open to suggestions. Obviously it's not like I can give out my address and passport number though.

>>34732691
Overall I would rather help match people who believe they are not desirable than those who believe they are desirable. People with more desirable profiles/stats have a lot more options after all, so they will not benefit as much from these threads I think.

Unless I get like a thousand applications I should be able to handle it at a decent pace. Certainly way faster than the other two current threads.

>>34732708
I see. Thanks.

>>34732701
Yup lmfao. There's a reason why so many copycats of this retarded thread concept started popping up. People realized that women are retarded and fall for this every time for whatever reason.

>>34732701
>>34733451
can't tell if this is bait or actual room temp iq posters

>>34732638
Some questions
>How does the verification system work, especially the text verification
>How detailed would you like the responses to be e.g., if I write a novel are you going to muddle through it
Some suggestions
>Sexual interests e.g., dom/sub/fetishes, might be important to know
>Relationship type e.g., open/poly/traditional
Both the above might fit into the existing questions and I'm being autistic so lemme know if that's the case. I imagine most people are going to want a traditional relationship so that's not likely to be hugely important, but sexual incompatibility is a real killer.

>>34733704
Thanks for the feedback. Right now I am opting for fewer, more open-ended questions to capture what most people think about. Sexual interests and relationship types should be captured in desired qualities and dealbreakers in general.
People who are looking for less traditional arrangements seem to be more forward with it, as they know it's not an easy sell to the average person.
They're both good points, though, and might deserve to be promoted to dedicated items.

>How does the verification system work, especially the text verification
In the questionnaire, people submit information about their ASL, looks, and credentials. When I say 'through text' I also include pictures, to be clear. The most basic level of verification is basically "is this a bot". Just a few message exchanges can check for this. For claim verification, I accept any document with sufficient evidence level, including censored pics, certificates, receipts, etc. and do mild forensics (reverse image search, except on people's faces; check for basic signs of manipulation or AI use, etc., nothing too extensive). I can also do voice checks to verify people's stated gender for those who would rather not share pics. I can also do videochats for the full verification.

The verification level for the various claims that have been validated will be marked and shared with matches, but not the evidence used. So for example someone may be "25F (video verified)" or someone could be "NASA engineer (image verified)" or of course "18/M/USA (unverified)".

Verification is purely on a voluntary basis but I will provide feedback if lack of validation has blocked potential matches for example.

Additionally, I will start reaching out for verification when there is a match on paper, before the pairs are contacted about it.

The responses are as short or long as you want. I will ask followups if there aren't enough details or if there may be a match but more clarity is needed.

Here comes the first update for the Matcher9000 matchmaking.

Total applications: 7
...of which incomplete: 1
M:F ratio: 4:3
Most common location: US
Most common education level: highschool
Most desired location for a partner: US
Matches so far: 0
Potential matches (requires further questioning): 1
Age range of cohort: 18-35

The most sought-after profile is a 25F in the US with at least a highschool degree who works fulltime and lives alone.

Stats should become more interesting over time, as more people join in.

As always, if anyone has any comments or feedback, please don't hesitate.

>>34732638
ive done 3 of these now and radio silence lol

>>34734262
Same. These cupid threads are all shit.

Quick note since it seems I was not clear in the OP: when answering the questionnaire, there are a total of 3 parts.

1. The top part of the questionnaire (between "Questionnaire:" and "Repeat the above [...]")
2. The same part as the above, but with answers relating to your preferred partner rather than yourself
3. The bottom part of the questionnaire, below the "Repeat the above [...]" part of the post.

Since the previous update, 7 more people applied. Of these, 3 have not yet answered the questionnaire. More stats will be posted tomorrow.

There is now another potential matching pair which may require a followup question or two to check.

I believe I have answered all applicants who have submitted a questionnaire so far. If you have submitted one as of this post, please ping me again on discord. At any rate, I will get back to everyone as soon as possible.

>>34734389
Clarification: if you have submitted a questionnaire and have not received any answer, please ping me. No need to reach out otherwise, aside from the usual (any questions, comments, etc.)

>>34732708
>I don't participate in the matchmaking myself and I am happy to provide proof of this. Open to suggestions. Obviously it's not like I can give out my address and passport number though.
Why not?

Bump for a real thread for real human beans.

Good morning everybody. I am back and will start processing the pending applications shortly. I have also received 6 more adds which have been accepted, feel free to post your questionnaire answers at any time.

>>34734403
Mostly because the reputation risk is too high given my position irl to be honest. Under some magical circumstances where some person who is both trusted by this thread and is unlikely to cause me trouble were to appear, I could actually even do that for the sake of proving myself.

Here comes the 2nd update.

>Cohort statistics
Total adds: 20
...of which retracted before answering the questionnaire: 1
...of which have answered the questionnaire: 13
...of which haven't answered yet: 6
...of which incomplete: 0
M:F ratio: 10:3
Age range of cohort: 18-40
Most common location: US
Most common education level: highschool
Most commonly requested minimal education level: highschool
Most desired location for a partner: US

>Match statistics
Matches considered: 4
People considered for matches: 6
Lowest match score: -62
Highest match score: 45
Matches rejected: 2
Matches not considered: 1 (due to low score)
Matches awaiting confirmation: 1

>>34736569
>-62
Hey that's me

>>34736612
Scores that low are typically caused because there was an item in the dealbreaker list that I didn't catch before beginning match scoring.
Normally I only issue scores to couples who match the right location requirement (not 'ideal location' but 'most general allowable location'), sexual orientation, and age range.
In this case the age range were off but the other characteristics were looking good.

Update #3 (and last update of the day).

>Cohort statistics
Total adds: 22
...of which retracted before answering the questionnaire: 2
...of which have answered the questionnaire: 17
...of which haven't answered yet: 3
...of which incomplete: 0
M:F ratio: ~3/4 (i.e. 75:25)
Age range of cohort: 18-40
Most common location: exaequo US and eurozone
Most common education level: highschool (but college degree is gaining ground)
Most commonly requested minimal education level: highschool
Most desired location for a partner: US
Most undesirable political stance: extreme right

>Match statistics
Matches considered: 7
People considered for matches: 10
Lowest match score: -62
Highest match score: 63
Matches rejected: 4
Matches not considered: 1 (due to low score)
Matches awaiting confirmation: 2

Most common reason for match rejection: not in preferred age range, not of preferred ethnicity (exaequo)

I would like to improve the M:F ratio further. My current strategy is to identify suitable threads and to advertise, but open to additional suggestions.

>>34737613
How many extremely mentally ill applications have you gotten? Extreme as in personality disorders, mentions of multiple stays in a mental hospital, etc

Advertising in all dating oriented threads might be a good idea. I'm unsure if you'd get banned, but r9k is full of single men and women, so trying there could help. I think cgl has a lot of single women as well. If you want to spend money you could buy an ad slot, I have a feeling women are more likely to be phoneposters and not use adblock.

>>34737643
judging by who he told me a potential match was Cassie is doing it so at least 1

>>34735941
Sir, you are posting on /soc/. There is no reputation nor a position. Only way to prove anything is to post your valid ID with a timestamped pic, so people can doxx you in case of failure.

>>34737657
im trying to understand why im receiving unnecessary hate. i am NOT extremely mentally ill. maybe slightly mentally ill but everyone on 4chan is at least slightly mentally ill so whats your point? why does everyone attack me for no reason? i literally mind my own business and its random pieces of garbage that go out of there way to try to make me mad and it works! let me tell you something little bitch, Cassie is extremely powerful, gorgeous, and intelligent. Watch your mouth. the difference between me and you is that you depend on this crappy matching tool to find you a mate. im just doing it for the kicks and giggles. worry about yourself before you worry about me. worry about losing weight and becoming intelligent. because as for me, i am perfect

>>34738378
>Cassie is extremely powerful, gorgeous, and intelligent.
Ur growing on me i hate to say it

>>34738439
nigs aren't smart enough to bait this is just pure unfiltered 60 iq jabbering and if that grows on you I'd recommend moving to the south side of Chicago

>>34738448
>60 iq jabbering
my responses are not supposed to be at academic level. i say what needs to be said and that is it. im not trying to appeal to anyone here. i have written on behalf for Bill Gates, Donald Trump, Tom Cruise, and other highly intelligent and successful white men. My IQ is 135. Do not try me. I am an academic scholar and loved by the white men in power.

>>34737643
There are no people in the data who have shared any mental illnesses. I will not play psychologist with the matchmaking pool because that is a little too much from an ethical point of view, but I will add notes from matches that have proceeded to be in contact and failed to connect. Such notes may include that one of the matches thought the other was not mentally stable enough.
Those notes are interpreted with a grain of salt and operate on a strike system to avoid the kind of people who try to attack/ban profiles they didn't like, for example.

I can share that there are 3 profiles that will have a particularly hard time getting matches due to personality, quirks, or requirements, however.

>>34737657
I don't discriminate against "famous posters" and I will not reveal if, who, or how many there are in the pool. All assumptions are made exclusively by the users and will never be confirmed or denied.

I also want to be clear that I only share key details of an application, not the whole questionnaire (so that people can break the ice this way, and to prevent identification before a match is performed). This means typically ASL (where L is the greatest common location, never the finer location that may have been shared), a few traits that match the desired profile, and a few traits that differ.

In case of a good paper match including dealbreakers that can classically be interpreted as negotiable, I open with only those and amend the profile data if the dealbreakers are indeed immutable. I also use this information to refine the scoring function I use for match finding.

File: 4788rg.gif (1.22 MB, 190x190)

1.22 MB GIF

>>34738545
>i have written on behalf for Bill Gates, Donald Trump, Tom Cruise, and other highly intelligent and successful white men. My IQ is 135.

The girl I'm talking with is so dry how can I get a refund?

>>34739631
I recommend, in chronological order, until the issue is addressed, to:
>chat for a little while longer to see if that changes
>communicating that you are not enjoying this
>agreeing that you are not a good match and moving on

Not all matches that look good on paper will be good in practice. My goal is to first reduce the amount of impossible/terrible matches to 0, second to improve the likelihood of a successful match as high as possible.
To do so, I rely on your experience through my services, and your feedback to refine the process, identify characteristics that could have predicted undesired outcomes, and improve the system's efficiency. This will, obviously, take time.

If you decide that you are not a match, I encourage you to reach out to me with feedback so that I can start the improvement process.

>>34739631
>how can I get a refund?
Your time will be refunded and deposited into your quantum bank account within 3 business light years. Have a nice day!

Here comes today's update. I will be less active for the rest of the day and will be back tomorrow.

>Cohort statistics
Total adds: 37
...of which retracted before answering the questionnaire: 2
...of which have answered the questionnaire: 24
...of which haven't answered yet: 11
...of which incomplete: 0
M:F ratio: 5:1
Age range of cohort: 18-40
Most common location: Eurozone
Most common education level: Highschool (college degrees a close second)
Most commonly requested minimal education level: Highschool
Most desired location for a partner: US
Most undesirable political stance: Extreme right

>Match statistics
Matches considered: 8
People considered for matches: 11
Lowest match score: -62
Highest match score: 63
Matches rejected: 4
Matches succeeded (i.e. contacts were exchanged): 2
Matches not considered: 1 (due to low score)
Matches awaiting confirmation: 1

Most common reason for match rejection: not in preferred age range, not of preferred ethnicity (exaequo)
Most common reason for otherwise matching profiles to not be matched: not in preferred age range. In one case it was off by 2 years.

I would still like to improve the M:F ratio further and I'm thinking about how to go about it.

>>34739877
>Eurozone
>US
Are Euros asking for Americans or is there something happening like Euros asking for specific EU countries?

>>34740431
A lot of people are open to LDRs. When they aren't, they're more likely to be US based and require a fellow american. So someone in the US would be able to fit into most location requirements, whereas Europeans often get filtered this way.

>>34739877
How are you scoring people?

>>34742523
I use a simple scheme based on a weighted sum of match attributes, with highly negative guardrail components to allow for soft-scoring through otherwise dealbreaking factors either through inadvertence or for trials when attempting to adjust the function.

I will share a new set of statistics soon, and am currently proceeding through profile processing and a new round of matchmaking.

>>34742655
I don't understand a fucking word you said, but you seem fucking intelligent as fuck desu. Can we trust your big computer brain to find us true love?

>>34742790
Every shot at love is less than a single digit % chance at best, anon.
No, you can't trust any one method, you just gotta try and most of the time it won't work, then keep trying. This is just one more option.

Here comes today's first (or only? We shall see) update.

>Cohort statistics
Total adds: 48
...of which retracted before answering the questionnaire: 3
...of which have answered the questionnaire: 41
...of which haven't answered yet: 4
...of which incomplete: 1
M:F ratio: 5:1
Age range of cohort: 18-40
Most common location: Eurozone
Most common education level: Highschool (college degrees a close second)
Most commonly requested minimal education level: Highschool
Most desired location for a partner: US
Most undesirable political stance: Any extremes

>Match statistics
Matches considered: 8
People considered for matches: 11
Lowest match score: -62
Highest match score: 63
Matches rejected: 4
Matches succeeded (i.e. contacts were exchanged): 2
Matches not considered: 1 (due to low score)
Matches awaiting confirmation: 1

Most common reason for match rejection: not in preferred age range, not of preferred ethnicity (exaequo)
Most common reason for otherwise matching profiles to not be matched: not in preferred age range.

I focused on going through the profile backlog, if you have posted your questionnaire answers and did not receive my confirmation that I have processed your answers and have no followup questions at this time, please ping me so I can get back to you.

You may notice the match statistics have not yet changed. I am going to focus on a round of matchmaking when I have time throughout the day, so look forward to it. In the meantime I will be slower to process profiles.

>>34742790
It is ultimately as >>34742985 says.
My goal is to make the process as smooth and likely to work as possible, but I am not a telepath, nor a magician. I believe it should be possible to make 1/5 matches work right off the bat, and maybe 1/3 of these should be able to develop into the desired relationship type (e.g. long-term, short-term, marriage...) with a well-optimized process.
The current process is still early, so this is just a pie in the sky for now.

Updated match statistics.

>Match statistics
Matches considered: 20
People considered for matches: 23
Lowest match score: -62
Highest match score: 63
Matches rejected: 4
Matches accepted: 2
Matches not considered: 1 (due to low score)
Matches delayed (partner already in another match): 2
Matches awaiting confirmation: 10
Matches failed: 1

There is now just enough data to give an idea of the average profile for the M and F in the cohort.

Average M:
26/M/US or Europe. White with brown hair and eyes, average weight. 179cm (5'10''). Looking for long-term, eventually to marry and have children with a white or asian woman. Shy, introverted, into videogames and anmie. Drinks sometimes, doesn't do drugs or smoke. Highest education level was highschool, currently works in tech. Lives alone or looking to do so. Politically a left-leaning centrist. Looking for a relaxed, openminded, caring partner with a positive attitude who shares some interests in common. On average, had 1 previous relationship. His ideal date is one where he can have a great time simply talking together, and he wants a partner he can share a good chat, interests, and life events with.

Average F:
22/F/Europe. Brown hair and eyes, 165cm (5'5'') tall. Average weight. Looking for a masculine, clean, white or asian man at least 5'9''. Glasses a bonus. 2 previous partners on average. Wants to be taken on a coffee or restaurant date and expects to share a lot of affection with a partner.. In it for the longterm, but not sure about having children. Into anime and videogames. The ideal man will obsess over her, and be mature and calm. She is shy and introverted, so he needs to be confident to take things forward. Politically, she is a left-leaning centrist. She has a highschool degree and is currently enrolled in college, living either at home or in the dorms.

Pretty standard I would say, but a lot less crazy than some of the claims I've seen posted around sometimes.

>>34743867
>Average F:
>Looking for a white or asian man at least 5'9''.
oh kek I'm screwed lmao omg I'm fucked hahahaha

>>34743867
White women were a mistake. White men have realistic expectations while women want a chad with glasses because they themselves are nerdy while being whores without much value themselves (more than 1 partner = used up whore). I pitty most men for being cucks or having to stay alone otherwise.

>>34743952
>>34743996
Both the M and F version are an amalgamated average and does not represent any person. Some of these properties are linked at some level. For example, someone who lives independently is more likely to want likewise of their partner, but this isn't captured in this kind of portrait.

>>34744004
>makes generalized statement
>t-that's just a generalized statement
Yeah no shit illiterate.

>>34743867
I am now understanding that the things I want are not normal. I keep not submitting an application but if I'm this far from the norm in my desire then maybe I should
Question:
Do you worry that posting average profiles like this will allow bad actors to lie about themselves more easily and game the system?

>>34743867
I love them and wish they have many wasian babies together.

>>34744083
I avoid providing too many statistics about extremes because I am worried those extremes could be targeted. I am not as worried about averages like these because the likelihood of an average profile matching a real person is very slight (no individual is average, and matches are between individuals and not between populations).
Moreover, I use a strike system to reduce bad actors. This will only become relevant at scale, but also it is only at scale that bad actors can deal real damage.

File: IMG_2182.gif (3.3 MB, 286x374)

3.3 MB GIF

>>34732638
Just submitted my answers, thanks for the effort Anon.
>>34743867
Literally me, except I got rid of my glasses some time ago.