Duolicious is the dating app that has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.>View public profiles:https://web.duolicious.app/search>Gerbert Johnson shows you around (please say hi to daddy gerby):https://youtu.be/wB1MgHgGAAM?t=125>Join the /soc/ club to filter out other boards:https://duolicious.gg/%2Fsoc%2F>Shit's open source - Tell your programming sock wearing friends:https://github.com/duoliciousI'm taking feature requests. I'll probably add a Spotify integration this weekend. /mu/ can shit-up the place with k-pop fanboyism.
Huh. My tripcode changed. Is it because of the sharty attack from last year, or did I forget how to use this shit?
>>35238760>join Duolicious expecting a site for non-normies >browse and it's all the same roasties with slutty pics you'd find on tinder and bumble There's really no point in this site anymore. At least in the early days there were still some cool people it was easier to get a match with a regular person, now you might as well just stick to Tinder or Hinge. Duolicious is nothing but sellers now
>>35238790>it's all the same roasties with slutty pics you'd find on tinder and bumble
This app is shit. 98% of the women there are bots and scammers and the remaining 2% are women just looking for attention.
>>35238928You're right the bots are becoming a big problem. About a third of new female sign-ups are bots. Lately I've been checking for bots daily and banning them, but by the time I do, they've already sent as many messages as their intro quota would allow. I've banned a lot of VPNs, but I'd say about half of the bots who currently make it through are using IP addresses from residential ISPs or anonymization services that aren't blacklisted (yet). I've also tried auto-modding, but the effect is limited because romance scammers typically bump into the intro quota before they're auto-modded. Verification is a deterrent but a lot of bots still make it through. I'm running out of ideas, to be frank. I think social media integrations (e.g., Spotify) could help identify real users, but it still won't eliminate the bots.By the way, where are you seeing the bots? Do you notice them because they're messaging you, or because they're elsewhere, like search or the feed?
>>35238973>Verification is a deterrent but a lot of bots still make it through.Well your verification is weak. I think they use AI to fool your AI. I've seen these fake women with verified images and the images that had verified badges didn't even have a face on them. When they contacted me and I made them do a verification test of my own, they refused and stopped talking. >where are you seeing the bots? Do you notice them because they're messaging you, or because they're elsewhere, like search or the feed?A bit of both, although I haven't searched for months. They mostly just contact me. And they have images of some 9/10 girl, and an intro that's generic as fuck. They're like "hey handsome how's it going". And their account age is no more than a day or two old. And it says they give replies to like 80% of people.
I'm not cool with showing my full face on duo just with the sheer volume of batshit insane schizos. But if I don't show full face, I can't verify, and if I can't verify I'm locked out of messaging a lot of accounts. There's no real way to resolve the privacy concerns but every time I make an account I have such a small pool of profiles to message. I wish there was just a way to see every profile that suits your settings rather than using a cuck match %.
>>35239094>if I don't show full face, I can't verifySome anons said a while ago that you can just upload a photo (while keeping your profile hidden so nobody else can see it), get verified, and then delete the photo.
>>35239116I heard that used to work but doesn't anymore, idk
>>35239125At this moment, I can see several profiles that are verified despite not having any verified full-face photos.
There’s like nobody here.
>>35239146Also, it's literally in the official FAQ.
>>35239237https://api.duolicious.app/stats
>>35239251And what's the gender balance? Even NYC only has like 20 women max within a 100 mile radius, compared to probably hundreds of men
>>35239146There's an option that let's you hide your profile to unverified users (or something close to that) some people have it on, some don't. Either way, there have been profiles I've not been able to message because I wasn't fully verified.
I just want a wife, man It’s so hard to find a woman and this app is just BPD retards loosh farming and unserious people
>>35239283
4chan dating app full of hostile antisocial males that scared off all the females within 2 years and still can't figure out why? Shocker
>>35238760>I'm taking feature requests.When you open the report dialog, you should be able to read the rules at the same time. I find it rather weird that, when I want to report a profile, I have to open duolicious.app/guidelines in a separate tab to check whether the profile is actually breaking any rules.
I met my current gf on duo a few months agoShe's a really cool person (we're both europe-based, she's british) and we're both happier in our lives thanks to itThnks duodaddy
this app sucksat least on Pure i can get laid
Once again asking you to make it possible to separate 4chan users from the rest. I am still somehow unable to find any man that uses 4chan, I don’t understand how this is possible. And yes, I did use the clubs, there were 0 men in any of them. No, my search filters are not at 6’4+.Furthermore, has the search function changed in the past 2 years, is that why I’m barely seeing any men to begin with? Is it my location, despite my distance limit being at the maximum number? Or some sort of shadow ban type of thing? I only got around 40 men showing on there.
>>35242083Furthermore, why am I only seeing verified accounts? Can you not see unverified accounts anymore if yours is verified? I saw some setting that I thought would let me see unverified accounts, but I still see none.
>>35242099In privacy settings there's "verification level" you can change it to whatever you want if you have verified pics
>>35242112I already did, nothing changed.
>>35242083>Once again asking you to make it possible to separate 4chan users from the restHow do you suggest I do this (other than clubs)?>>35242083>Furthermore, has the search function changed in the past 2 years, is that why I’m barely seeing any men to begin with?The search function has changed such that a *greater* proportion of users will be visible to you. If I recall, only gender is a two-way filter now. Previously distance and age were too.>>35239146It's probably only their basics which are verified. Link?>>35239062>I think they use AI to fool your AIThey do. Humans can see it easily but AI can't. So the bots get consistently reported, which is good. But the challenge is automating bot detection so that human users don't need to see it in the first place. Something else I considered was checking if a new user's claimed location matches their IP's location. The trouble is that I've noticed anons claiming they live in North Korea. Obvious and harmless jokes like that shouldn't get penalized.
>>35242333Also I think it probably should be that you still have your status as online for at least several minutes after closing the app.
>>35242352So that when you click out because the other person isn't replying or to check something it doesn't instantly show you as offline.
>>35242333Jesus christ you people are pathetic. No wonder you're single
lmao this is false advertising manain't no woman of your dreams here
>>35242256>The search function has changed such that a *greater* proportion of users will be visible to you. If I recall, only gender is a two-way filter now. Previously distance and age were too.Then..where is everyone? I doubt there’s only 40 straight men between 23-31 above 182cm who don’t do drugs on the whole app.
>>35242534>I doubt there’s only 40 straight men between 23-31 above 182cm who don’t do drugs on the whole app.I somehow don't doubt that at all.
>>35238760Echoing this >>35239856 guy. You could consider making it a drop-down menu of most common violations that also has a custom option with a text field. >>35238973I'll send you an email with few suggestions as to how to counter-measure scammers.>I think social media integrations (e.g., Spotify) could help identify real users, but it still won't eliminate the bots.I suggest using Steam as every young adult has one. Details in the mail.>>35239094I'm assuming you're male, so just hide your profile and do the verification. Most (real) women don't message anyways, so you don't lose on that account and you get to manage who gets to see your profile.>I wish there was just a way to see every profile that suits your settings rather than using a cuck match %.Clubs let you bypass the match-%, so start adding and browsing them.
>>35242599Lmao malding faggot
>>35242689If you really want to know about my sex life, most recent was last night with your mom, XD!
>>35242256>It's probably only their basics which are verified.Yes, they have just two or three checkmarks, not all four.
>>35242638>Echoing this guy.It's been implemented. https://github.com/duolicious/duolicious/commit/98e718fa6f1dac448843b771277d4468638d609b
>>35243443Why are you on duolicious then stupid bitch kys
>>35238760Why would you build a dating website and advertise it... here?Like, did you want it to be a sausage party?You basically have to start all over now.
>>35242539I do. That’s abnormal considering how many men there are on this app, and considering how 2 years ago there were way more men showing up.
>>35242534>I doubt there’s only 40 straight men between 23-31 above 182cm who don’t do drugs on the whole app.Ah, sorry. I was about to ask what boards you browse to see if we had common interests, but it appears I'm 2 cm short. Never mind, miss.>tfw https://youtu.be/u4dAG0X4ksQ?si=hDREh3s3LQaG0Wq0
>>35244735Why would a 6'+ guy who's not a fuckup be looking for a girlfriend on the 4chan dating app™
>>35245122Cuz I'm awkward as fuck And that makes it hard to get along with people i don't meet at places like anime conventions where the girls are at least somewhat as awkward as i am
>>35244735>>35245125Sounds like you two are perfect for eachother
>>35244735Quick math would indicate that statistically the age and height brackets already narrow your search down to less than 5% of the global male population. I recommend going to Denmark to improve your chances
>>35245357I'm 34, out of the desired rangeNo one's into old dudes without dad bod
When a foid states that she's looking for younger nerdy guys, that's a catfish right?t. younger nerdy guy
>>35245122My ex who I met on there was over 6ft and was a fuck up, but without doing drugs or being a faggot. And multiple men I spoke to briefly before, same thing. Height doesn’t magically cure inceldom, and you can be fucked up in many other ways, so I don’t believe that it’s rare for a man to be at that height and also enough of an autistic loser to use this app.>>35245428Have you considered that the percentage is because Europeans/white people in general make a very low percentage worldwide to begin with? And since western/northen Europeans are taller on average than the rest of the world, the percentage will also be low? I’m not dating an indian or an asian or a mexican or a black person, I’m dating someone from my own race. Besides, whites have higher rates of autism on average, so I would’ve expected more of them on this app.
>>35242083Check out the individual board clubs? Ive got a couple on mine but not the 4chan general tag so I assume a lot of others will as well
>>35245122>>35245744i'm over 6' without being a drug addict freakwomen really don't care about height unless a guy already has other attractive qualities like chad face/body and rich or charismaticthough i don't currently have a profile on thiscame to see if maybe it's improved before i considered trying again but it seems like it's probably still shit
>>3524253428 185 UK, I only have a picture of a hamster though because its my first week and I'm still feeling out the site
>>35245744>My ex who I met on there was over 6ft and was a fuck up, but without doing drugs or being a faggot. And multiple men I spoke to briefly before, same thing. Height doesn’t magically cure inceldom, and you can be fucked up in many other ways,I am 6'3 and somewhat fit. Not overweight, some muscle mass. There were times in my life when I was extremely fit. Either lean or very muscular.I wouldnt call myself a fuckup. I am a virgin despite being 31. But it's not my fault that I don't have a chad face and therefore I am not good enough for women to care about me.Even if I somehow get a foid to like me she's already talking to 20 guys with a better looking face so it's all pointless.Women dont even see non chad men as people. We are objects to you. Maybe usable for a brief period. Maybe after a breakup or rejection from chad.
>>35245744You sound fun and I am interested in you. Want to talk sometime?
>>35245839My ex looked like Asmongold if he had lips, and he was the one to dump me, so no, the face doesn’t really matter unless you’re a fatass.
>>35245885On where? Furthermore, you can’t be interested in a woman who’s face you haven’t seen, unless you’re also a woman, that’s a tad ludicrous.
>>35245122Because I'm a 6' drug free fuckup, things can happen in life brother. Being tall makes some things easier but not a lot>>35245939To be fair romantic attraction can happen without seeing someone's face but this guys probably just shooting shots at any potential target on here because just being on 4chan qualifies people as in his range
>>35238928This seems to be the ratio on all apps. Even look at /soc almost no women. Many seller/scammers.
>>35245939I am not exactly sure, would you like to email? Faces, bodies, voices, they do nothing for me to be completely honest. Living in a city my whole life has essentially desensitized my feelings towards physical appearances for them to matter. I am interested in you because I find you to be passionate and driven.
>>35245991No, this is my first time in a general like this to be completely honest. I also have no romantic interest in the person I was interested in.
>>35245744Miss you!
>>35245937>My ex looked like Asmongold if he had lips, and he was the one to dump me, so no, the face doesn’t really matter unless you’re a fatass.Yeah. So many women claim the same exact shit. Reality on the ground is different.You might give me a chance as one of 15 other meh looking guys and then you d drop me the second you get bored or finally score a chad.I look way better than asmongold yet you d never be my girlfriend
>>35246093Maybe if you weren't a doomposter you'd have a better shot bro. You've internalised these dreadful notions about yourself and others, people will pick up on that consciously or otherwiseGotta fix your mental. The reason you see ugly fat fucks with women way out of their league is because those people are joyful and bring joy to those around them
>>35246108>Maybe if you weren't a doomposter you'd have a better shot bro. You've internalised these dreadful notions about yourself and others, people will pick up on that consciously or otherwise>Gotta fix your mental. The reason you see ugly fat fucks with women way out of their league is because those people are joyful and bring joy to those around themYea. Reminds me of the time I predicted the outcome only for the shitty person saying its a self fullfilling prophecy. Like I ve made them into what they are.Anyways I dont see ugly guys with attractive women at all. Nobody does. Maybe a tiny portion of ultra wealthy but thats just prostitution.Nobody picks up on anything. Normies have no senses. Thats why they get cucked found out by cops or beaten by thugs. I dont need to fix my mental. I am right every single time about everything. I even predict other peoples relationships. I ve predicted an attack on myself. I can spot a person trying to hit me or rob me and i can detect when a woman is about to cheat before she does it.
>>35246065What did you mean by this?
Ah, the /r9k/ colony.
>>35246146Just having fun as you almost describe me if I look aside from the Asmongold comment.I can see in the thread that you're filtering me out by just a year so I'm pretty sure you're not my ex.Can't promise you'll find me though if you are logged into your old account as I can see there's a lot of people in my chat archive from two years ago.Anyway, good luck out there.Have fun.
>>35246108>experiences a particular aspect of life>rightfully complains about that aspect>"yeah but no bro you just need to change your mindset that's what your problem is, it's your fault actually"he could be less cynical, but he's certainly not wrong in his assessment
>>35245614the "nerd" in question
Not sure how you'd fix that without jeopardising the report system somewhat but sometimes I talk to very obvious catfishers and they manage to catch on and skip me before I can report them. Happened twice already actually.
>>35245744You're looking for a universally desired demographic which is also relatively rare in Europe (which are a marginal group in themselves as you said) from a extremely specific Internet community. I can respect your preferences. Lord knows I have even more specific ones, but have a sense or realism here.
>>35246133>Anyways I dont see ugly guys with attractive women at all. Nobody does.I see it all the time. With manlets, fatties and even occasional fedora neckbeard too. I think a lot of it is dating habits that have changed between generation. They did statistic analysis in Finland on this behavior and for Zoomers:35% via online23% via acquaintances20% via studies7% via hobbies6% via work5% via bar equivalent5% via otherBasically Zoomers meet via Discord groups, a wing man or school. Having these things apply to you is a considerable advantage that helps many to break these supposed "social norms."Lastly, you sound like a quintessential incel which extremely off-putting everyone and I say this as a 30 yo virgin. It makes me occasionally wonder why I even bother coming to these threads.
Hey duodaddy, I think you should revise the criteria for who is able to see your profile. Why should people who are outside my desired location and age range be able to see my profile? I mean, I get that the intention is to "broaden our horizons" but if you really have to, it should be something like 20%+/- at most. I have no interest in people on the other side of the continent or with a 10+ age difference. If they send an intro, it's a waste of time for both parties.
>>35247916>I see it all the time. With manlets, fatties and even occasional fedora neckbeard tooSigh. Thats because you over-rate women. Its really that simple at the end of the day. When people see a looksmatched couple they ree about the "ugly" guy getting the girl.Most women without makeup are extremely meh like men.Also women are on average fatter than men and less in shape so how are all these fat men getting hotties?
>>35248463Dude you're twisted on a level that's beyond help, so I'm not even going to bother. Thank God I'm not you
>>35238760The problem with using dating apps is that I'm socially, and possibly mentally, retarded. I unironically probably need a dating coach just to set up profiles because I make my profile look as unappealing and approachable as possible, and several coworkers that have previewed my messages said I sound like I'm as monotone and fake human as ChatGPT. Dating apps make my brain short-circuit like I'm doing abstract algebra and I dont know what the fuck to do about it. It's over for me.
>>35248624>Dude you're twisted on a level that's beyond help, so I'm not even going to bother. Thank God I'm not youIf 35% people meet online where women are rejecting between 90-95% of men clearly the odds of mismatched couples in favor of women are much bigger than the other way around.Man you have this website to observe where any ugly woman gets more positive attention than a chad
>>35238760I met my boyfriend of 5 months on here. Its the first relationship for both of is where we really felt connected to the other person, i think honestly we are gonna get married:) Sometimes it happens guys
>>35248624>Pearl-clutching about incels on the incel forum Lmao
>>35246401Update: She skipped me because I didn't respond yesterday.If you read this, I was dead tired from work and didn't bother with anything. Don't be so hectic, jeez
>>35251191It might've just been a scammer who had their account deleted. I get messages from obvious fakes and sometimes within a day or two the account is gone.
>>35251191What was the name?
>>35242333Have you tried not caring?>>35242599>so many apps have this featureidk, seems like a very specific feature>>35242534I have no idea. There's definitely more than 40 which fit that description. I just checked. Do you have your gender set to something only a few people are looking for, like "Other"? Or are you only looking at users who are online now?It also helps to keep in mind that the pool of candidates literally narrows exponentially with each added requirement. That's how you can have what seem like reasonable requirements yet still have those "dating delusion calculators" tell you that only a fraction of a percent of the population meets them. But I'm pretty sure your issue is your search filter or gender in this case>>35242638>You could consider making it a drop-down menuI've raised a ticket:https://github.com/duolicious/duolicious/issues/1383Speaking of which, a contributor added the ability to only show your country on your profile today:https://github.com/duolicious/duolicious/pull/1380
>>35242638>>35239094The "cuck match %" no longer has a 50% cut-off in search. The only constraint on who you can see is currently gender - You're only shown users in search who want to see people of your gender - But I'll make that optional too in a day or two.>>35244684neets need love too, anon>>35246000>This seems to be the ratio on all apps. Even look at /soc almost no women. Many seller/scammers.The ratio on Duolicious was only comparable to mainstream dating apps when I wasn't banning romance scammers. Now that I'm moderating scammers more carefully, the ratio's started to worsen. That makes me wonder what proportion of accounts on Tinder are fake>>35247350Scammers are idiots. They often report *other* people for being scammers, not realising that it only draws attention to them. This is probably why they appear to be skipping you>>35248188I'm sorry for removing the two-way filters on location and age. I'll add them back in soon but make them optional.I've also given users the ability to filter intros, which will hopefully help women who get lots of messages find better matches.My philosophy now is that people should be given the ability to search for almost anyone, but be given filters to help find receptive members, and filter-out bad matches, rather than having the app/site decide unilaterally as that "cuck match %" anon pointed out>>35248848>The problem with using dating apps is that I'm socially, and possibly mentally, retardedThis is the point of DuoliciousAlso, someone emailed to say someone was pretending to be duodaddy, so here's my trip: https://duolicious.app/tripcode/
>>35254154Based, I'm glad you're listening to what people want.
>>35254282I want friends then
I hate talking to these girlsI just want pussyI don't want to put the effort into having some retarded conversation with these terrible women though
>>35254375This message was paid for by Tourism Australia™.
>>35254382I wouldn't give any of these women a dollar
>>35254154>That makes me wonder what proportion of accounts on Tinder are fakeLarge portion of it. Bumble, Okcupid, Hinge. All of them are likely infested with abandoned or fraudulent accounts. The sex ratio is always going to be fucked because men by nature are more sex driven, so having those fake or dead accounts there helps to drive engagement (large user base attracts user) and serves as something to show to advertisers and shareholder. Given this, I wouldn't be shocked if some of the fakes were made by the service providers themselves.It also would make sense with the anecdotes I hear from female acquaintances about how women (they know) are mostly abstaining from the perceived dating market. Choosing to either trust that they will just meet someone randomly either via friend or school or simply outright just not looking for any intimate relations.>I've also given users the ability to filter intros, which will hopefully help women who get lots of messages find better matches.Out of curiosity, how did you plan to do that? The way I see it, women getting overwhelmed by messages is a real issue that might even decrease their engagement due to exhaustion. If I was a woman, I would private the account when chatting with an interesting guy to limit new intros and social exhaustion but that's something that the user would have to do themselves which I don't think many do.What comes to my mind in terms of a system solution would be to decrease men's daily intro amount, preferably to 1/day but I know that's not a popular opinion. Sure it might drive away some male users but that would improve the gender ratio and nobody likes the intro spammers why play the numbers game anyway
>>35254375>I don't want to put the effort into having some retarded conversation with these terrible women thoughLink me some of these girls who are willing to converse. Lot of them message me back but actual conversations are few and far between. Usually a week of silence until I block them
I really wish the last online and seen bullshit wasn’t added to the app. I haven’t logged on in over a week because of how stressful it feels to have to respond to someone every time I’m online or else they’ll think I’m ghosting/ignoring them. I’d rather not use it at all. This level of jewery isn’t even present in normie dating apps.
>>35254735You don't necessarily have to respond immediately. IMO:>If you don't respond in 24 hours, I'll start getting suspicious>If you don't respond in 48 hours, I definitely will think that you're ignoring meAlso, you can WRITE in your profile's "about" section that you often are slow to respond, and you can ASK your interlocutor how quickly he expects you to respond. Allegedly, communication is important in romances.
>>35254149I have my gender to female. And I’m looking at everyone, I don’t recall there even being a filter for people who are currently online. My search filter isn’t even that strict, I have everything set to all and my location set to the max, besides for the following:>Sex: Male>Age: 23-31>Height: 182-max>Sexuality: Straight>Does drugs: No, Unanswered>Wants kids: No, MaybeThat’s it. I tinkered with them a little bit last time I went online, I set my filters to “Wants kids: Yes”, it barely changed much, I only got like 5 extra people, so it’s not that. I increased the age filter to 35, that also only got me very little extra men. I didn’t test out the other ones, though. I don’t understand what the problem is. Again, last time I used the app 2+ years ago I had the same exact filters and a lot more men showed up. Did they all just perish? Or is my age filter too high maybe since the app is full of young zoomer newfags nowadays? I noticed that most of the messages I get are from men under the age of 23, so maybe that’s it.
>>35254758>Height: 182 cm (5'11.7")
>>35254757It takes me longer than that to respond, as I’m very busy, and a single paragraph I write at the beginning of conversations with people take at least 30 minutes to write, since I only speak to people who write huge paragraphs. > you can WRITE in your profile's "about" section that you often are slow to respondI could and should, but I already started speaking to someone I liked a bit over a week ago, and since I haven’t been active since, I’m afraid it’s too late for that now. Besides, I felt like writing that on my profile would be dubious and make me seem like I’m not serious about it, which I am, but I just suffer from anxiety and I’m just very busy. I mean, I personally wouldn’t buy that excuse from others, so I don’t expect them to buy it from me.> you can ASK your interlocutor how quickly he expects you to respondSame thing as above, too late now, and seems suspicious. I felt like I’d miss out on quality people if I brought that up, but I’m missing out on them anyway now since I couldn’t keep up with it. I guess I’ll try if I ever get the balls to open the app again after doing such a bitch move.
>>35254762Most men are around that height, at least in my country, and I’m not even from a western European country. So I don’t see how that impacts my search results, especially since, again, 2 years ago there were many, many more men showing up.
>>35254777182 is average in a few countries (so you only eliminate around 50%) but is 20% or less of the population in USA (the most populated English speaking area and primary userbase)So best case scenario you're eliminating half the people on the app, adjusting for the fact that tall men are more likely to have found partners due to being more desirable and the low user count in most countries as Duo isn't exactly mainstream it isn't suprising that you struggle to find results
kek
>>35254432>men by nature are more sex drivenI'll find you 1000 male virgin before you'll find me one female one nigger
>>35255898>male virginmale virgins*
>>35254735Consider noting that in your profile. I find that the cause of any anxiety in a silent beginning is due to not knowing. If silence is not a sign of disinterest but fatigue, being accommodating is no issue. Most people have busy periods too, so most can relate.>>35254768>Besides, I felt like writing that on my profile would be dubious and make me seem like I’m not serious about itYou're over thinking it. As I said above, the issue is not knowing and like the other anon said, communication is key and blunt communication is better than none
>>35254154Regarding scammers. There's a rather common pattern of behavior where women upload the same image from their profile, assumably to stay on top of the feed. What's your take on it? Is it organic or scammer behavior?
>>35238790FPBPand don't forget: I love being treated like a subhuman by 300 people!!!!! Wow!! What a good singleplayer world we live in!!
>>35255898Pretty clear solution is to sacrifice the excess male virgins. Everyone wins and the Gods are happy and no one is miserable anymore :)
>>35252581No, she was authentic I think>>35253087Something to do with a certain weird family
>>35254432>how did you plan to do that?Letting them apply search filters to their intros. They can already do it actually, though the option currently only becomes visible when they've got 10+ intros>>35254735Okay, I've added a privacy setting to hide when you were last online from your profile. It's on web app now. It'll take a few day to be released on the mobile app, but changing the setting in the website will still hide your online status for yet-to-be-updated mobile users>seen bullshitAre you talking about read receipts?>>35254758>last time I used the app 2+ years agoDid you sign up while it was going viral on Twitter? There were definitely more users back then>>35256070I don't think they're doing that. The feed just recycles content
>>35256912>Letting them apply search filters to their introsSimple and effective. Approved.>The feed just recycles contentA system feature? This is good to know
I ask Grok to generate replies for a lot of my messages and it's insisting that I do not message this girl telling her that I think she seems like a whore that talks to a lot of men, that she should tighten up and I'm about to ghost you.
>>35256912>Okay, I've added a privacy setting to hide when you were last online from your profileYou’re a hero, thank you, that is such a weight off my shoulders.> Are you talking about read receipts?Yes. Now, I don’t know how many people use it, I hope not many, but it was also a source of paranoia for me (and probably others too), but definitely not as bad as the “last online” part.
>>35238760Welcome back dd
I came back to the app but it's just not it man. It was a lot better before you advertised it everywhere. Met her when this shit was 4chan ONLY our relationship lasted two years but in the end she wanted to break things off. Anyways you should really just sell the app man nothing but scammers, bots, and girls wasting people's time.
>>35260821> you advertised it everywhereI didn’t. If I wanted to advertise to normies, the website’s home page wouldn’t have 4chan screencaps on it. Though I take the point that the bots aren’t a solved problem. Though even when it was 4chan only, catfishing was a big problem. It’s just that it used to be autists larping as women instead of Nigerians.
>>35261086>Though I take the point that the bots aren’t a solved problem.Did some browsing and whipped up a pool of 25 suspicious profiles and made quick analysis of them:>Repetitive Words:>>48% use "meaningful,">>48% use "kind,">>40% use "honesty.">Targeting:>>64% Generic:** One-size-fits-all spam.>>36% Specific:** Targets sex, money, older men, or lonely people.>Length:>>Short (24%): 15–35 words (Quick hook).>>Medium (48%): 36–60 words (Standard).>>Long (28%): 60+ words (Fake depth).>100%: Every profile asks you to message them.There were a lot more conclusions one could get from the population. Point being is that wast majority uses words, phrases or has patterns that could be automatically identified. And just for laughs, here's a perfected scammer description if anyone wants to take notes:>"I'm a [Adjective: kind, honest, independent] woman who values [Abstract Noun: honesty, trust, loyalty]. I enjoy [Hobby: travel, nature, reading] and [Hobby: gym, yoga, pilates]. I believe the best relationships are built on [Abstract Noun: trust, respect] and [Abstract Noun: laughter]. I'm looking for a [Adjective: genuine, kind] man who is ready for a [Abstract Noun: real connection, meaningful relationship]. If you are [Adjective: honest, mature], let's see where this can go."
Duo daddy, I deleted the email attatched to my profile, (might have even deleted the profile I don't remember)Is there anyway to change that email provided the account still exist?
>>35261439I've actually seen those on Alovoa too. This is not a shill post, it sucks and has no users at all
>>35262669They are everywhere to the point that I think most profiles regardless of app are fake. The people they impersonate makes me chuckle at times though.>https://duolicious.gg/p/natalia19>tfw no qt slavic prosecutor gf
>resurrecting 2+ year old profilesoh shit nigga what are you doing
>>35263607There's a new filter for last online, looks like yours is set to all-time. You can shrink it to a month, a week, a day or who's online right now.
>>35261439I've noticed this pattern though I haven't taken the time to ban it yet because not all scammers follow it, and I suspect that if I banned accounts with this pattern, they'd just start doing other things. I've started noticing scam accounts with anime profile pictures, so it feels as if they're adapting their tactics. I might start seeking out those accounts automatically soon but right now, I feel like the return on investment is low-ish>>35261460Can you modify your profile's description to prove it's you? Otherwise, there's no way without accessing the original email address. A two or three years ago, I used to allow users to prove their identify in other ways, like submitting verification selfies. But these days AI makes that too unreliable>>35263607Pic related. If you ignore the "A month ago" setting which is only used by 202,394 people because it's the default, "All time" is second-most popular. So people seem to like lurking the old profiles. I think I'd be a shame to disallow matching with someone altogether just because they haven't been online in a month. Users often do come back after that. And they're also more likely to come back if they see they get a notification saying that someone visited or messaged rather than the old notification which said that their account had been deactivated because they haven't been online in a month
>>35270442>I feel like the return on investment is low-ishFair enough. I suppose it would be more worthwhile to pursue other alternatives like adding new features real users can use to emphasize their authenticity. Like the social media integration that was brought up earlier?
Encountering a weird bug. I can load the site up fine, browse through everything but the inbox won't load at all. Not even on the app. What's up with that?
>>35272742I've had three reports about it during the past few hours. I'm currently investigating and expect to fix it in a few hours.What I know so far is that it only affects some users. For those users, the app asks the server for the inbox but the server never sends a response. The affected accounts I've seen so far have been a day or two old.
>>35272941Strange. My account's about a month old. Thanks for the response in either case.
>>35273029Can you try again and let me know if's working?
>>35273089Working perfectly. Thanks for the quick fix.
>>35262749https://web.duolicious.app/ursula_von_ded_leyen>tfw no bEUrocrat gf
>Dwindling user base editionDoes that mean app is likely to go back to its roots with mostly anons userbase?Anyway I'm willing to finally give it a try after just watching from side for a year or so. Tbh I enjoyed it from "scientific" approach and was curious how you would handle all the usual problems of those apps.Care to share what did you learn through this whole process?Remind me current verification process. I'm hesitant to post much due to nature of website this project came out from.
>>35276118>Does that mean app is likely to go back to its roots with mostly anons userbase?No. Fewer sign-ups from real users will result in a greater proportion of bots, which will make the app feel more normie-infested than ever. The lack of real/interesting users will drive away other real users. It'll be a death spiralThe way you phrased the question makes me wonder if you hold the popular belief that I somehow actively encouraged normies to sign up, maybe by advertising to them>Care to share what did you learn through this whole process?Few things have been more blackpilling. It's shaken some strongly held beliefs. I think "problematic" dating apps exist because that's what the market selects for. It's just what users collectively ask for (in some sense), despite complaining about what they get. It's difficult to operate a dating app in a manner which isn't exploitative. Users just respond more positively to exploitative tactics than being asked nicely - Both from exploitative apps, and from romance scammers. I know that one scammer received over a thousand dollars from possibly dozens of people, which is more than people donated to the app during the time she was operating. (Users reported her to the police but the police did nothing.)It's also been interesting to see things which I, as the app's creator, know are incorrect but which nonetheless become popular consensus online. Prior to running the app, I was a strong believer in free speech, democracy, privacy, etc. But seeing so much bullshit upheld as fact has made me reevaluate that belief. It's practically harmless when they're just talking about some meme app. But these people get to vote. Nowadays I understand why even some of the most liberal governments in the world frequently want to curtail free speech>Remind me current verification process.It's not required outside the UK. Some users hide their profiles from unverified users
>>35276232>I know that one scammer received over a thousand dollars from possibly dozens of people, which is more than people donated to the app during the time she was operating. (Users reported her to the police but the police did nothing.)lol people are stupid all over
>>35276232>The way you phrased the question makes me wonder if you hold the popular belief that I somehow actively encouraged normies to sign up, maybe by advertising to themWasn't putting it on usual stores the point of it?>It's shaken some strongly held beliefs. I think "problematic" dating apps exist because that's what the market selects for.Elaborate. I can understand funding issue but it feels like you mean also something else here.>I know that one scammer received over a thousand dollars from possibly dozens of people, which is more than people donated to the app during the time she was operatingThat isn't surprising in the slightest. People are more willing to invest into potential relationship than intermediary. If they succeed in their love quest, that person potentially stays with the forever, or at least that's the presumption, while app will no longer be needed. And seeing how hard it it to have success on dating apps, people would be even more hesitant. Even gachas have some safety nets and you get to keep your silly .jpg. Paying for dating app doesn't guarantee you anything. Even I think I'd be more prone to pay as token of gratitude when I'd get some success than just pay upfront. It was the same with Grayjay. Even though it wasn't required to pay, I did it anyway after months of successful use that was less clunky than web alternatives, as a token of appreciation, especially because man behind it also plays by the honor system rules.I can see it being hard from your perspective.>Nowadays I understand why even some of the most liberal governments in the world frequently want to curtail free speechProblem is it's stepping stone towards even more fucked up things. What you describe is just price to be paid for non-oppressive system. You can't have everything and there is always price to be paid. There are no perfect solutions. Peace is kept through balance of power, not giving it all towards one party because humans aren't perfect.
>>35276232>It's not required outside the UK. Some users hide their profiles from unverified usersI meant how is it handled in terms of privacy. What verification options are there and how does data retention work. I imagine verified profiles are looked more favorably upon so if I want some success then I'd have to give this success a chance. There is old joke about it:>every week jew prays and laments how unfavorable god is to him, saying even small win in lottery would let him invest and change his life. After years of listening to these prayers god finally got annoyed and answered jew's prayers saying: "Moshe, believe me, I'd love to grant your wish so you'd stop complaining but please, give me a chance and buy at least one damned lottery ticket!
Alright I've done 500 Q&As, now where is the gf I've been entitled to
>>35277919Amateur.
>>35277940wtf, how many gfs can you afford with that
>>35270442>the old notification which said that their account had been deactivated because they haven't been online in a monthDon't forget to update the website's FAQ to reflect the platform's new behavior.
If I can do this with a "joke" profile (male) you have no excuse
I said I would donate $500 to the site if I met someone worthwhile off it.Two years later, still looking. And with the growing amount of bots and scammers, it's looking grim.
>>35278703I would have to be paid $500 to meet up with any women on this horrible site.
>>35276925>Wasn't putting it on usual stores the point of it?Nah>Elaborate. I can understand funding issue but it feels like you mean also something else here.That's pretty much it>>35276928>I imagine verified profiles are looked more favorably uponI assumed that too until I ran the numbers and found that on average, verification makes no difference to reply rate. I don't know whyThe one sure advantage to getting verified is that you can access more profiles>I meant how is it handled in terms of privacy. What verification options are there and how does data retention workVerification photos are retained for 3 days, or until you delete your account, whichever comes first.Verification verifies that your claimed age, gender, ethnicity, and photos are all accurate portrayals of you. You don't need to add photos or set your ethnicity to get verified. But if those things are present, they'll be verified. But there's two verification tiers, and having your photos verified puts you in the top tier because it's a bit harder to fake those compared to only faking your age and gender. Though verification isn't 100% accurate and you should still exercise caution when meeting strangers on the internet>>35278082Thanks for reminding me. I'll update it soon
>>35278703>growing amount of bots and scammersEven in the past week? I've been checking every new female profile (scammers' preferred gender), typically within a few hours to a day of them signing up. VPN detection's also significantly better than when I started this thread.If the bot problem's still bad, I've also developed a foreign scammer risk score for profiles. It's impressively accurate for such a simple and mechanical rule. But it's still not quite as accurate as a human reviewer. So I'm a bit hesitant to automatically issue bans based on it. Though maybe I can use it to temporarily reduce message quotas on suspicious new accounts, or reduce their visibility. It's bad at detecting catfish accounts made by 4channers, but my feeling is that the foreign scammers are the bigger problem these days.Thoughts?
18+ SFWhttps://discord.gg/duo3ksocial shitpost server, banter and flirting is encouraged (:loosely related to the incel dating app, duolicious
>>35295714tfw epistolary American
For me the issue with duo is geographical one, there simply weren't any females from my country the last time I checked. I see the appeal of hooking up with femanons if I were burger, bong, baquet or German, but as Finnish anon? Duo just seems pointless
>>35296149Sex pest
>>35296315No he's fair, not everyone wants to long distance forever
>>35238760>allowing batshit insane school shooter worshippers on your appayyyyyyyy
>>35296828>whining in the 4chan thread instead of submitting a report on the websiteAlso, I have no idea who that guy is supposed to be.
>>35295714I'm the epistolary guyIt's a good filter
>>35256686>sacrifice excess male virginsWomen, you WILL join the harem and you WILL be happy
>>35296828>>35296866stop being pussies
I didn't have much luck at all so I deleted my account. Maybe I'll try again someday.
>>35299827You're supposed to just log in once a week and wait for your personal Manic Pixie Dream Girl to read your bio, be smitten instantly, and message you (sending an email alert to your email account).If you fail to abide by that advice, you're supposed to deactivate your account (and keep your account age), not delete it.
>>35238760>Duolicious is the dating app that has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.Stellar advertising there chief
>>35305141It's a reference to a famous book.
>>35305158I could never get into adams' books. I loved pratchett, but adams' humor was just too zany.
>>35296149All dating apps are bad because that's not how you're supposed to date.>Bad news for couples who met on dating apps. https://youtu.be/fIKOzxjKDQ8?is=UNgVkNSu_W2V9w8z>The psychology of dating appshttps://youtu.be/YqldQzGV-lY?is=G0zpHBqcgQ79TDsc>Is tinder keeping you single?https://youtu.be/LmJenRFlTJc?is=8L7j6hLSoVpE9Dty>Why your tinder match isn't going to date you.https://youtu.be/KJX-8C7OHmw?is=5u19_jZsFfUgSYm3This is how>Why you should NEVER confess your love.https://youtu.be/xHkcIRZa6lo?si=lFkNnKU3k0mn6lM-
>why you should never confess your loverakesh what are you on about
>>35305367Watch the video and you'll see.
>>35305171You unironically take relationship advice from YouTube influencers?Has it been working for you?
>>35305750It has. They're not Andrew Tate people, nor are they crazy screaming feminist. They actually have hard data ans break everything down autisticly on how socialization and dating works. It's very eye opening if you aren't full blown narcissistic and still have the ability to self reflect.
>>35276928>I imagine verified profiles are looked more favorably upon so if I want some success then I'd have to give this success a chance>>35284652>I assumed that too until I ran the numbers and found that on average, verification makes no difference to reply rateI re-ran the analysis. In my first analysis, I fell for Simpson's paradox by not crunching the numbers by gender. Once you break it down by gender, the average reply rates are:>Unverified man messaging a woman: 16.5%>Verified man messaging a woman: 19.1%It's only a 2.6% increase but it's highly statistically significant (p = 6e-55)>Unverified woman messaging a man: 57.3%>Verified woman messaging a man: 63.5%6.2% increase (p = 2e-6)
>duodaddy still didn't implement a distinction between "account disappeared" and "account skipped you"This makes me sad.Duodaddy, I'll continue creating new accounts to check if a profile exist until you implement this feature.
>>35238760You want more people to join this right?
I just wanted to use it to be dirty with a girl because I've never done that, but despite being white, 6 foot, and average looking, I'm making no traction except for catfish.Some fun conversations with people at least. Before they randomly disappear? I dunno, I've never used dating apps before this.
Why the fuck would I get a notification saying people are visiting my account AFTER I deleted it? Why would my account remain viewable at all? DUOFATTY YOU ARE A DISGRACE... LET ME DIE!
>>35238760>causally open the website>immediately see highly attractive females with e-girl like picturesthere is no way any of this is real, i was expecting regular people with regular looks.
>>35310155They are, but the real real ones are the ones that just have profiles full of meme pictures and bios that are writen like a bad marvel movie. No one on there is actually serious about dating.
>>35310155>there is no way any of this is realThey aren't. 95% of the women on the app are bots.
Duodaddy, for my sake, do one thing better than every other dating app and add a body weight filter + invite users to self-identify their weightNot even for all the lame reasons, I'm just into extremely fat bitches and have no way of seeking them out on any mainstream dating/hookup serviceI understand why Tinder et al. don't do weight filters (would discourage female signups, people would use it for harassment, people would just lie) but I don't see why it would be an issue for a relatively niche dating app attached to an insular web community
Need to openly display what features or options are hidden behind a paywall because its annoying as fuck to get the pop up after i try to change something
