What really happens inside a dating app

Profile photos & presentation

• Big debate over professional photos: some argue men “need” them; others say staged shots signal desperation, inauthenticity, or even “scam” vibes.
• Many recommend “good but real” photos: candid, well‑lit, natural environment, often shot by a friend (or low‑key paid photographer) rather than studio headshots.
• Several commenters report large gains from optimizing photos, including using rating tools and getting female friends to critique.

Asymmetry, selectivity & matching dynamics

• Discussion echoes OKCupid-era findings: women like a tiny fraction of male profiles; men like far more.
• Women’s “like ratio” seems internally fixed (e.g., ~5%) regardless of how many decent profiles they see; they may also limit active conversations.
• Result: top‑tier men get most matches and often seek casual sex; average men get little or nothing; average women get attention mostly from that same small male elite.
• Some propose percentile-based matching (60th-percentile women mostly see ~60th-percentile men) to reduce “mirage” competition for the top 5–10%, but others note women would simply leave for apps that keep showing them “dream men.”

Algorithms, incentives & enshittification

• Many stress that recommendation is a “solved” problem technically, but apps optimize revenue and retention, not successful relationships.
• Claims that apps deliberately “drip-feed” success or throttle visibility for paying users to keep them on the hook.
• Retention is seen as a perverse metric: good for VCs but opposite of users’ goal (leaving the app with a partner).

User strategies and “hacking”

• Some users treat apps as A/B-testing platforms: iterating photos, bios, timing of likes (e.g., 2–3pm windows), and conversation openers, with large reported gains.
• Others reject this “growth hacking” mindset as dehumanizing, but concede it’s what their competition is doing.

Psychological and social impacts

• Many men describe extreme scarcity of matches, erosion of self-worth, and a sense that average or “ugly” men are effectively locked out.
• Others emphasize that apps amplify existing inequalities and encourage shallow, “window-shopping” behavior, leading to ghosting, “situationships,” and dating fatigue.

Alternatives and “fixing” dating

• Suggestions include in-person matching events, human matchmakers, or apps like Breeze that minimize chatting and push rapid in‑person dates.
• Skepticism remains that any ad-driven, for-profit app can truly align with users’ desire for stable relationships.