Post: #1

Amidst the usual banter of my female colleagues, I overheard someone today mention the app Hinge. Apparently it's a new type of Tinder, but it attempts to match you better based on mutual FB friends and interests. Also, it may not use your location settings as much from what I understood.

Has anyone tested this new interface out? Any notches? My concern was that it may be more "relationship" oriented based on the supposed pairing algorithms.

Post: #2

I don't want any hookup app making matches based on my "personal network".

Post: #3

PC lets have a Russia update.

Post: #4

(02-11-2014 06:03 PM)presidentcarter Wrote:  I don't want any hookup app making matches based on my "personal network".

eh, if you have that much of a problem with it, you could make a separate facebook profile for dating and keep everything private but simply have hundreds of even thousands of 'liked' pages like bands, tv shows and movies or retailers.

Post: #5

I just started using this. I haven't looked too closely but two things I've noticed so far:

1. Every single girl I've gotten so far was a highly bangable white girl. 7+, all of them, and my Facebook friends aren't all that cool either.

2. Not a single girl has written a profile. It's all prewritten stuff, boxes checked off, etc.

I think this is a means to filter out the creeps and deter creepy behavior by men. Meanwhile girls don't do shit and continue to attention whore.

No bangs or matches to report yet. That's the real test.

Post: #6

(07-02-2014 02:20 AM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  I just started using this. I haven't looked too closely but two things I've noticed so far:

1. Every single girl I've gotten so far was a highly bangable white girl. 7+, all of them, and my Facebook friends aren't all that cool either.

2. Not a single girl has written a profile. It's all prewritten stuff, boxes checked off, etc.

I think this is a means to filter out the creeps and deter creepy behavior by men. Meanwhile girls don't do shit and continue to attention whore.

No bangs or matches to report yet. That's the real test.

Please give us updates, I'm gonna download this tonight.

Post: #7

2/10. No one in my social circle had this app. I saw a lot of cute chicks but I feel like it's.. eHarmony for mobile. I prefer Tinder.

Post: #8

Update:

The app is full of upper class attractive white girls. Ivy Leaguers, expensive private schools, posh suburban public schools, lots of Jewesses... They're all very well represented on the app.

But... I was getting a couple matches a day, with girls who were consistently hotter than from any other service. But the girls would hardly respond at all. Were they swiping right but still not that into me? I don't know. My game was fine, but they would just go silent inexplicably - this has been perhaps the most frustrating app for that reason. I didn't have this problem nearly as much with Tinder, whose quality has declined.

The extreme flakiness of these girls may owe to the app's structure where you're given a batch of matches daily. I encountered the exact same flakiness from Coffee Meets Bagel which I stopped using. I think this automatic batch of matches feature just leads to female keyboard jockeying. Maybe these girls just keep holding out for something better. Plus, attractive, upper class white girls have plenty of guys to choose from in the real world. This app is just another validation booster for yuppie white girls. By far the girls on this app, as a group, have been the laziest conversationalists I've ever encountered. Like where you'll write a sentence and they'll consistently respond with poor English and one word responses despite an Ivy League education (not joking). Fuck I hate this app lol.

Also, another telling feature - almost no girls wrote a profile, aside from checking off some prescripted boxes. I'd put it at under 10%, possibly under 5%. I found girls on Tinder were far more likely to have written profiles.

The app even implores people to ask out their matches for a real date, but that doesn't amount to shit of course.

So this app is a total tease.

Post: #9

(07-16-2014 12:53 PM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  Also, another telling feature - almost no girls wrote a profile, aside from checking off some prescripted boxes. I'd put it at under 10%, possibly under 5%. I found girls on Tinder were far more likely to have written profiles.

Sounds like Ashley Madison with pictures.

Post: #10

Coffee meets bagel is a joke, basil nailed the description, hinge is even weaker.

Shit i'll stick to tinder and okc

Post: #11

Someone should send Hinge and CMB copies of the respective threads hating on them. We are the canaries in the coal mine. If we, seasoned OKC and Tinder users, cannot achieve much success on an online dating app, what hope do average guys have?

Until these apps offer effective rewards and incentives for girls MEETING YOU IN PERSON, they will just be attention whoring devices.

Post: #12

Isn't all social media whoring devices for girls...

Post: #13

I changed my strategy a little, and I'm seeing early signs of success (2 #s in the past 12 hours).

I thought it was necessary to have a solid conversation of some sorts. That's unlikely to happen with this app. So I'm experimenting with a new strategy:

Build attraction: 2-4 messages to build attraction - I have a special all purpose neg for this. When they say "haha" or "lol," preferably at least twice, move to the next step. I do a lot of cold reading here - Did you ___ or are you ____, something cheeky. Or make a cheeky comment about something in her pictures.

Transition: Say we could talk on the phone in a funny "cute" way - the humor breaks down their barrier and then they laugh and express interest

# Close: Then you say ha and say your phone number.

Basically, the build attraction phase is much shorter on this app. I still expect these chicks to be super flaky and catatonic though, compared to other channels.

Post: #14

I'm strongly against all online dating sites/ apps. Beta traps imo.

Post: #15

I don't think meeting any girl through a screen is a good way to go. Incorporating technology into the natural dating game...Eh just not authentic.

HuffPost had an article labelling it Anti-Tinder

Article done by the Washington Post about it. Kinda old though.

Best of luck with the app.

Post: #16

This app sounds perfect for my niche, but it's not available outside of the USA

Post: #17

Finally started getting matches on this. This is definitely a haven for upper-middle class, yuppie, attractive white girls. Every single girl I've seen on here is at least a 7, it's pretty impressive honestly. Their bitch shields might be higher though.

Post: #18

I'm actually a big fan of this app, for a few reasons:

1) Very high match rate: For whatever reason, I generally match with at least half of the girls I'm presented with each day. I attribute it to the small batch size, plus the presentation format. I look good on paper (height, educational background, employment), and Hinge presents that stuff upfront without it looking like I'm bragging.

2) Pre-screen: having friends (or friends of friends) in common seems to make these girls more comfortable. My response rate from matches is much higher on this app than on Tinder. The downside is I have to be less aggressive, since bad game could theoretically get back to me.

3) Nostalgia bangs: I didn't run great game in college, and there were some hot girls in my extended circles I never made a move on. Thanks to Hinge's algorithm I'm now getting matched with these chicks. Even though they aren't objectively hotter than the girls I now bang normally, there's a special satisfaction in hooking up with a chick I lusted after back in the day.

Post: #19

If you have friends who have hot friends, it might work out well. For me, I just match with a lot of uglies from my college. The girls were terrible there. Worst place in the world unless you like gross girls that think they are modals.

Post: #20

Based on friends huh?

Step 1 - Create fake facebook profile.
Step 2 - Friend all the hotest girls you know.
Step 3 - Friend all their hotter friends.
Step 4 - Use app, bang.

Post: #21

Resurrecting this thread as I just got on board with this app. First thought- Wins hands down over all other dating apps in terms of the girls being consistently bangable. I've yet to come across a single member of the landwhale or neon-haired freak crowd that comprises the majority of OKC's user base. Nothing below a 5.

Second positive- Every profile must have exactly 16 photos. With that many pics, it's extremely difficult for a girl to be a SIF (Secret Internet Fatty). 16 shoulders-up shots in a row, and any guy with half a brain knows exactly what's up.

The downside- No one seems to fill out their profile, and most of these girls' photos give off that vapid WHOOOOO GIRLZ NIGHT OUTTTTT! sort of vibe. Aside from the fact that those types are almost always dreadfully boring to talk to, this also means that you must spend some time dissecting group photos to figure out which is the girl in question. Rapid-fire swiping won't work unless you just say yes to everyone.

Overall it looks worth pursuing.

Post: #22

(02-24-2015 07:58 PM)DrewP Wrote:  Resurrecting this thread as I just got on board with this app. First thought- Wins hands down over all other dating apps in terms of the girls being consistently bangable. I've yet to come across a single member of the landwhale or neon-haired freak crowd that comprises the majority of OKC's user base. Nothing below a 5.

Second positive- Every profile must have exactly 16 photos. With that many pics, it's extremely difficult for a girl to be a SIF (Secret Internet Fatty). 16 shoulders-up shots in a row, and any guy with half a brain knows exactly what's up.

The downside- No one seems to fill out their profile, and most of these girls' photos give off that vapid WHOOOOO GIRLZ NIGHT OUTTTTT! sort of vibe. Aside from the fact that those types are almost always dreadfully boring to talk to, this also means that you must spend some time dissecting group photos to figure out which is the girl in question. Rapid-fire swiping won't work unless you just say yes to everyone.

Overall it looks worth pursuing.

Have you actually had matches and had girls respond?

I've tried everything. Fake Facebook. Real Facebook. Different photos. Different openers. Nothing has stuck. Quality is hands down the best out of any dating site or app, but it's been fruitless so far for me (and everyone else who posted here last year).

Post: #23

(07-16-2014 12:53 PM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  Update:

The app is full of upper class attractive white girls. Ivy Leaguers, expensive private schools, posh suburban public schools, lots of Jewesses... They're all very well represented on the app.

But... I was getting a couple matches a day, with girls who were consistently hotter than from any other service. But the girls would hardly respond at all. Were they swiping right but still not that into me? I don't know. My game was fine, but they would just go silent inexplicably - this has been perhaps the most frustrating app for that reason. I didn't have this problem nearly as much with Tinder, whose quality has declined.

The extreme flakiness of these girls may owe to the app's structure where you're given a batch of matches daily. I encountered the exact same flakiness from Coffee Meets Bagel which I stopped using. I think this automatic batch of matches feature just leads to female keyboard jockeying. Maybe these girls just keep holding out for something better. Plus, attractive, upper class white girls have plenty of guys to choose from in the real world. This app is just another validation booster for yuppie white girls. By far the girls on this app, as a group, have been the laziest conversationalists I've ever encountered. Like where you'll write a sentence and they'll consistently respond with poor English and one word responses despite an Ivy League education (not joking). Fuck I hate this app lol.

Also, another telling feature - almost no girls wrote a profile, aside from checking off some prescripted boxes. I'd put it at under 10%, possibly under 5%. I found girls on Tinder were far more likely to have written profiles.

The app even implores people to ask out their matches for a real date, but that doesn't amount to shit of course.

So this app is a total tease.

Great post.


Among the demographic you describe, you face the least likely group of girls to meet with you from an online date. I went to a private college, and when Tinder was released, the girls had no problem downloading the app but they actually looked down on their peers who actually met guys from the app.

This may be hard to believe for some of you but many of these girls used Tinder purely for sport. Some were happy with their successful boyfriends, or happy banging athletes/frat boys and the dudes they matched with messaging them were none the wiser.

A couple of the girls I knew who went on dates were with guys from the business school (100K/year cost) who were expected to make well into the 6-figures immediately upon graduating. Hilarious, but sad, one of them I knew met with a guy from the B-school at a local coffee shop, he ended up being 5'6" and when he stood up, she immediately turned around and walked out. She was 5'8"-5'9"ish.

Post: #24

(02-25-2015 12:39 AM)TroubleMaker Wrote:  

(02-24-2015 07:58 PM)DrewP Wrote:  Resurrecting this thread as I just got on board with this app. First thought- Wins hands down over all other dating apps in terms of the girls being consistently bangable. I've yet to come across a single member of the landwhale or neon-haired freak crowd that comprises the majority of OKC's user base. Nothing below a 5.

Second positive- Every profile must have exactly 16 photos. With that many pics, it's extremely difficult for a girl to be a SIF (Secret Internet Fatty). 16 shoulders-up shots in a row, and any guy with half a brain knows exactly what's up.

The downside- No one seems to fill out their profile, and most of these girls' photos give off that vapid WHOOOOO GIRLZ NIGHT OUTTTTT! sort of vibe. Aside from the fact that those types are almost always dreadfully boring to talk to, this also means that you must spend some time dissecting group photos to figure out which is the girl in question. Rapid-fire swiping won't work unless you just say yes to everyone.

Overall it looks worth pursuing.

Have you actually had matches and had girls respond?

I've tried everything. Fake Facebook. Real Facebook. Different photos. Different openers. Nothing has stuck. Quality is hands down the best out of any dating site or app, but it's been fruitless so far for me (and everyone else who posted here last year).

I've gotten a handful of matches in the first couple days. Only one response to my opener though; pretty bad for a group that already "liked" my profile. Agree this one seems to be heavy on the attention-whore crowd, but it can't hurt to play around with.

Post: #25

(07-16-2014 12:53 PM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  By far the girls on this app, as a group, have been the laziest conversationalists I've ever encountered. Like where you'll write a sentence and they'll consistently respond with poor English and one word responses despite an Ivy League education (not joking).

Dude. If you can find me a single dating site where the girls consistently put some semblance of effort into the conversation, I'll marry you (not literally). I have this issue everywhere I try, even on OKCupid where I'll sometimes write an entire paragraph or two, and it drives me up a wall.