Online Dating Contest – The Winning Profiles and Other Results

Online Dating

Get Free Email Updates!

Join us for FREE to get instant email updates!


Online Dating Contest – The Winning Profiles and Other Results

Just in case you didn't know, I had guys submit their online dating profiles without photos to be judged on a scale from 1 to 10 by 13 unmarried female judges, the winner getting $300. The pictures of the judges and the exact details of the contest are here. The goal was to get some empirical data on what kinds of profiles appeal best to a broad range of women.

-By Caleb Jones

Well, the results are now in. The first place winner of $300 is "Saprian". Congratulations to you and the two runner-ups! All three of their profiles are pasted below in their entirety, so if you want to just skip ahead and read them, go for it. First I will give you some data on our specific findings. It was very interesting.

Finding 1 - Profiles varied wildly from woman to woman.

This was by far the most surprising thing to me. Some women would rank a profile a 10 or a 9, and others would rank the exact same profile a 1 or 2, even if the woman was a similar or identical age. Amazing. So many women out there not only have extremely different personalities and tastes, but are also at different points in their lives even if their ages are around the same. Some women are looking for a "fun" guy, while others are looking for a "deep" guy. Some women are looking to date and have fun, others are looking for a husband, others don't really know what they're looking for. These factors are all going to come into play when a woman reads your profile. Some hot chicks are going to love your profile, others are going to absolutely hate it...and you don't have much control over which ones are which.

Finding 2 - Most scores were either very bad or very good. Scores of 4-6 were rare.

This is the "Amazon book reviewer" syndrome. You'll notice on Amazon book reviews, where books are ranked 1 to 5, most people rank books at 1, 4, or 5. Mid-level rankings of 2 or 3 are rare. People either like something a lot or hate it, and apparently online dating is no different. I've always known this instinctively but this contest was strong empirical evidence of this. That is, when a woman reads your profile, she's most likely going to really hate it or really like it. Rarely will she be neutral about it.

Finding 3 - Generally speaking, the older the woman was, the tougher she was on the profiles.

To be fair, it wasn't a huge difference, but it was certainly a clear mathematical difference. This should be no surprise at all. I've been talking about this for years and this was yet more evidence, as if you needed any. The older women in the study were definitely tougher on the profiles. The top three overall toughest judges were all age 30 or higher. The most lenient judges were all age 28 or under, with the exception of one (she was 32, but notice that's still under the "cutoff of death" age 33).

That being said  you should also realize that most guys who submitted their profiles are guys who are a little more sexual and player-ish, simply because of the nature of this blog and its audience. Of course this is going to turn off some older women while turning on younger women. If we ever do this contest again, and I think we will, perhaps I will do an age-split where I have three sets of judges, one set 18-23, one 24-32, and one 33-45. Then each guy can submit one profile for each age group. That might yield some interesting results. I'll have to think more on this, and your comments and suggestions are welcome.

Finding 4 - The highest-ranked profiles were around 1500 characters long. 

This one surprised me initially until I read into the profiles more deeply. The top-ranked profiles averaged around 1500 characters (with spaces). Most, but not all, of the bottom-ranked profiles were far from 1500 characters. Either they were very close to the 3000 character limit we had for the contest or were the opposite extreme and really short, like just a few sentences.

So based on the results of the contest, 1500 characters does indeed seem to be some kind of "sweet spot". The odd thing is that this conflicts with my own online dating testing, in that the longer my profiles are, the higher response rate I tend to get. This may simply be because I'm a good writer (I've been writing for fun or work since I was in high school) and I've been playing the online dating game for a very long time. Frankly, most of the high-ranking profiles were very well-written no matter how long or short they were.

So I guess the advice you could infer from all of this is: If you are a poor or mediocre writer, keep your profile to around 1500 characters or so. If you are a good writer, write as much as you can.
Finding 5 - The highest ranked-profiles described both Alpha and Disney concepts.

You'll see this as you read the three winning profiles below. The best-ranked profiles were very careful to incorporate both Disney/romance/provider fantasies AND masculine/sexual/Alpha stuff, while the lower ranked profiles went overboard on either one or the other. The "too sexual" profiles clearly turned women off, and the "too nice guy" profiles the women said were "boring". Lesson? Include both when you write a profile.


Here now are the three winning profiles in their entirety. The second and third place winners are guys I know, the first place winner was a complete unknown to me until he won the contest today.

First Place Winner - Saprian ---

The first one is our first-place winner of $300, Saprian. This profile blew all the others away by far, scoring almost 10% higher than the next highest profile. It had an average score of 8.0 out of 10, and the next highest was 7.3. Amazing. When I read it, I could see why. It really is fantastic. Here it is:

Is the glass half empty, half full, or just twice as large as it needs to be? I dislike seeing things in just black and white. I like to measure life not by the breaths I take, but by the moments that take my breath away - when the volume-knob of life is turned all the way down, and I am snuggling up by the fireplace with someone special under a blanket. Or when the volume-knob is turned all the way up, and I am having the time of my life sipping a cocktail on some tropical island wearing a dorky Hawaiian shirt with Lei flowers around my neck.

Basically: You better love to have fun, or we won't get along. I like to think of myself as confident, but not arrogant. I'm a very humble man. I don't run away from problems. Also I watched my sister get her heart broken many times, and this made me realize how important it is to treat a woman right. My mother also taught me how to have inner strength and not get walked on. I am easy going, and I love to put a smile on people's faces, no matter where I am or who I am with. Some stuck up people may think it's strange, but you might find me making faces back at the kids in the car in front of me.

Are you able to handle masculine energy? I can be quite a handful. Do you consider yourself a bit dorky rather than "hot", educated rather than just "street-smart", a creator rather than a consumer, and happy rather than content? In that case, we should talk. "Everybody dies, not everybody lives." -- I love the quote, but have no idea where it's from. 10 brownie points if you can tell me. 100 points and a cereal box top can be redeemed for the best brownie recipe in the world. Anyways... I just want to hang out casually to see if there is some chemistry between us. That, or potential for a friendship. I'm fine with either outcome - or neither. Maybe I'll meet someone special online - maybe you will, too. Send me a quick email with why you think we would get along well, and we'll take it from there.

Second Place Winner - Dennis ---

This one makes me proud. Second place goes to our very own Dennis, long time commentor on this blog and a hell of a guy I met last year at the Chicago Blackdragon Retreat. His average ranking was 7.3, with most of the voting judges giving him a ranking of 8 or higher. The confident, efficient vibe of his profile is very similar to when I write my own profiles. (I would bet that Dennis is an INTJ or close to it.)  Here it is:

I am a very active, youthful and thinking man who has both sides of the brain working full blast. I am interested in virtually everything... travel, music of all kinds, books, food, restaurants, wine, art, movies, etc. But hey, if it's not fun, I'm not going to do it. Fortunately I am pretty easily entertained so there are a lot of things that qualify.

I trade futures intraday and enjoy the instant decision challenges that trading presents. I pride myself in my work, accomplishments, and continue to be success-driven. My work affords me the free time to pursue other passions in my life and to set my own hours. I enjoy working out hard, clearing the mind and the zen of martial arts. I have great friends and am very happy with my life, but am not a man to brag. People see me as a variety of things; bold, self confident, laid back, non-judgmental, honest and very physically fit, but I’ve always considered the whole “who am I” thing to be kind of limiting.

About what I'm looking for: I will not make a list, because I do not fall in love with a list of attributes, but with a real person whose aura and character so resonates with me. What I'd really like to find is more than a pretty face that I can actually connect with on a deeper level. What matters most is how we make each other feel, the excitement, energy, passion, tension, and simply enjoying each others company. Rare, I know, but for my myriad of shortcomings, I am what some would call "delusionally optimistic."

I care little for writing clever profiles nor messages back and forth, I’d rather talk to a woman face-to-face. Email me and lets get together and share a few laughs and stories over coffee or drinks, no pressure, just something fun and relaxing... and see where this will go.
Third Place Winner - Funny Guy

Our third place winner is "The Funny Guy From Vancouver" (that would be B.C.). He writes: By writing this profile, I want to demonstrate to guys that it's easy to turn a so-called boring personality like an accountant into something fun and enjoyable for women to read. Well, he accomplished exactly that, because this profile was rated the third-highest of all our entries, with an average score of 7.3, just a tenth under Dennis' profile. Funny Guy is another guy I've worked with briefly and he has definitely incorporated some of my advice into writing his profile. Here it is:

I AM an accountant, which means I’m sensible, but I’m by no means a boring geek. In fact, once I leave the office, I don’t take myself too seriously. On a typical Friday night, I’m not calculating debits and credits, I’m actually partying like a rock star—literally—I’m the lead singer in my rock band. We tend to play a lot of the hits from the ‘80s… but we love it! If I invite you to my show, and you’re really nice, I may just play your request, as long as the song is in English J. On weekends, you can find me getting my adrenaline fix by bungee jumping or skydiving.

If you’re still reading my profile, then we may just be a match. But if you stop now, I won’t go spreading your name across the internet. I will never know anyway!

I am very passionate about helping others. I am currently putting together a marathon to raise money for prostate cancer. I’m dedicating it to one of my best friends who passed away recently from the disease.

Six Things I Could Never Do Without:

1. Exercise and playing sports
2. Good food
3. Family
4. Friends
5. Great music, movies, and tropical vacation spots
6. That’s none of your business 😛

When it comes to love, I’m a hopeless romantic. In fact, I have the phrase “love conquers all” tattooed (it’s fake but whatever, I’m not THAT crazy!) on a certain part of my body which I cannot reveal until we meet…

My type of girl is beautiful and stylish (in your mind at least, confidence goes a long way with me) compassionate, intelligent, witty, giving, and friendly.

I receive messages frequently but I promise to respond to all of them as soon as I can.
Just say Hi and I’ll take it from there.

That's it! I was tempted to go into these three profiles and critique them on exactly why they work, but instead today I'll just let them stand on their own. If you want to really want me to get into these profiles let me know in the comments and I can do that in a future post. In terms of publishing the other profiles that were submitted, because I know some of you have asked, let me think about that.

Thanks to everyone who submitted a profile, our independent overseer Illuminatus (whose skills with Microsoft Excel caught some of my errors!), and all of our lovely judges. This was a lot of fun and very educational. Let's do this again!

Want over 35 hours of how-to podcasts on how to improve your woman life and financial life? Want to be able to coach with me twice a month? Want access to hours of technique-based video and audio? The SMIC Program is a monthly podcast and coaching program where you get access to massive amounts of exclusive, members-only Alpha 2.0 content as soon as you sign up, and you can cancel whenever you want. Click here for the details.
This article was originally published on February 18, 2013
<<Previous Article
Next Article >>


  • Marellus 2013-02-18 19:50:55

    ... those bitter jests ... those subtle verbs ... those frigid fests ... that march of blurbs ... the price of trust ... a flight of birds ... now hide I must ... in a mush of words ...

  • Z 2013-02-18 20:32:43

    Those are next-level.

  • Nick 2013-02-18 20:48:12

    Enjoyed them! Would love an analysis of the profile. See things from all three that I can emulate. One question, even if you are only interested in sex, is it important let them know the type of woman you want, that way they can pre-select themselves.

  • Kevin Velasco 2013-02-18 21:09:40

    Congrats, guys. Thanks for hosting, BD.

  • Onyx 2013-02-18 21:54:50

    I'm a bit disappointed, frankly. Saprian wrote the very definition of a classic bs disney lame-ass profile. It wasn't "a mix" as you said before. I would hang myself before ever posting such a thing. Dennis won in my book. I know my own wasn't that good and it's because a gave up when I realized I'm much, much better in person. Point being, I can't believe that is what won. Throwing together a bunch of stupid girl cliche quotes was the winner?! I don't see these girls (judges) having too much fun on their first date. He is almost out of girlish quotes. As an alpha-male web site, this was a serious let down.

  • Onyx 2013-02-18 21:56:17

    ps. z- not next level haha never quote ninja for something like that.

  • Blackdragon 2013-02-18 22:01:45

    Onyx, the issue is not whether or not you or other men like it. The issue is what gets women to schedule dates with you. That's all that matters. Us toughguy Alphas may not like what works for attracting women online, but that's irrelevant. If I could write a profile that *I* liked, I would end up with an awesome, badass, masculine profile that I would love, and I would never get laid.

  • eek 2013-02-19 01:01:50

    Ha, I can relate with Onyx's sentiment. But BD is spot on that this is about what gets women to respond (the market), not what we like. I could def. live and represent Dennis' profile. Definitely INTJ-and-related vibe. First guy's? Errr, not so much 🙂 Thanks for doing this BD, good insights all around!

  • Kevin Velasco 2013-02-19 01:06:35

    Onyx, that's the cons of online dating. There are elements of writing for an audience (male/female), marketing, copywriting, storytelling, perception management, etc. Some of the women I've crossed paths with through online dating are masterful manipulators, for sure.

  • Greg 2013-02-19 03:50:32

    If the contest is run again in 6 months times, it should include 10 photos submitted, in addition to profile text, since photos are what almost all females who aren't hideous looking, go for and primarily look at, with profile text often being partially, or totally ignored.

  • Catalyst 2013-02-19 04:10:52

    I'd really like to see some of the ones that scored poorly, just to see what mistakes to avoid.

  • maldek 2013-02-19 04:42:43

    Nice profiles! Bit "Ken style" but certainly effective. Blackdragon your view on these would be highly welcome.

  • yousowould 2013-02-19 05:07:11

    Good stuff - as some have mentioned, the winning profile is more feminine than I would have written - but then again it is supposed to appeal to women, not men, so it makes sense that this sort of style proved to be popular. The profile only exists to give you the best chance of getting a face-to-face meeting with the highest quality girl possible, and once you're actually on a date you can let your "super masculine awesome bad boy alpha" personality do the rest, if that's your style. Why do I get the feeling that these profiles are suddenly going to start spreading like a rash all over popular dating sites!

  • Oxyjinn 2013-02-19 06:17:57

    I can see why these profiles won. There are some fine points which I will surely incorporate in mine in the future. The question is - would it be the same way if the judges were anonymous, i.e. it would be a real online situation? I think there would be a few or more differences. Also women are highly emotional, so what works today may not work tomorrow. p.s. Would also like to see some profiles that scored the least.

  • sadie23 2013-02-19 06:54:55

    As one of the judges, I can attest to the fact that a lot of thought was given to reading these profiles and some of them were outright horrendous. As for Saprians profile, it was one of the best and all I can say is haters will be hating. Gentlemen, get your hand out of your boxers, turn off the porn, and get to editing your online game 🙂 Thanks BD as always for your support <3

  • Magik 2013-02-19 09:21:43

    I understand why Saprian's profile won. IF his pics are good, AND his opener is good, he will get many responses. However, he will then have to weed the non-serious women out, which is a huge pain in the ass for me, but it may not be for him. I have had profiles and openers that had huge response rates, but that method never worked for getting more lays. You must choose a strategy. Do you want a high response rate and then weed the women out who aren't serious? Or do you want a low response rate but your responses are women who are serious about meeting you? My opinion is you want to be somewhere in the middle. Of course if you are going with the shotgun method, you need to have the TIME to weed these women out, then go on a lot of dates (some of which will go nowhere). I don't have that kind of time. I don't want tons of dates, as I'm INTJ and get bored as hell chatting with tons of women that go nowhere. The point is that you MUST have a system with online dating, and it must match up with your lifestyle, your agenda, and the amount of free time you have to devote to it. You either cast a wide net and then weed through the time wasters (there are many, and I'm sure some of these judges would be) or you weed out the time wasters to begin with, or some combination thereof. Your profile and opener do this, but ultimately the best profile in the world will do nothing if your pics are shit. Take Cobi for example (from the forum), this guy has about 2 sentences on his profile. However, his pics are good, he weeds out the time wasters by being very sexual, and his game in person is air tight. He gets laid a lot, and almost every meet he has results in a lay. Needless to say, I'm a huge fan of that guy. My profile (which didn't win) is very direct and probably came across as arrogant to most of the judges. Using this same profile, I messaged 20 or so women on OKCupid, got only one response, and ended up having sex with her on the second date. My system is meant to weed out, not to have a full inbox. Since doing this, the quality of responses have gone up, and the quality of women I meet has gone up. The only tweak I'm going to make is to make it slightly less cocky and a bit more Disney like Saprian (just not too emotional). I think I am currently weeding out a few too many women, and could benefit from having a slightly higher response rate, so that will be my adjustment. I could never make a profile like Saprian, because chicks would not meet the same guy as described. However, for a guy who is more extroverted and emotional, this profile is fantastic. I do like his use of "the king's english" and I am going to make a point to upscale my vocabulary a bit more. Next time, let's do this contest focused more on specific age groups. The results will be more revealing. Also, I think there should be a way for us to see the judges remarks on the bad profiles, so we can learn from them too. Cool experiment BD!

  • Kurt 2013-02-19 09:43:39

    PLEASE post some good examples of the losing profiles. I think that would be just as educational, if not more so. Thanks!

  • Blackdragon 2013-02-19 10:27:39

    Magik - Your experience and online style is very similar to mine. Lower response rates, but extremely high date-to-day rates. I too wrestled with many sexless 2nd and 3rd dates back in the day when I was figuring all of this out. Never again! Regarding posting the losing profiles, I really don't want to do this. For two reasons. One, I don't want this blog to become a place were spend our time insulting and poking fun at everyone like grammar school. The PUA community has plenty of that already, and I'm trying to run a more adult blog here. If we do this again we need more guys to submit more profiles without worrying about being publicly excoriated (even if their profiles are anonymous; that won't change the feelings people will feel). But the main reason is that I promise you the absolute worst profiles are not educational in any way. They suck, and it's very obvious why they suck, making their educational value nil. Illuminatus read more profiles than I did and he can back me up on this. The educational value is in the profiles that worked, not the ones that did not. I promise. Posting more profiles that got high scores, perhaps the top five or ten, that I would be open to.

  • Jack 2013-02-19 12:30:58

    @sadie23: The reason we hated Saprian's profile is because we are NOT homosexuals. It's really that simple, if you think about it. A bunch of "mushy-gushy, pukey-pukey" Disney, Mickey Mouse, cliche, "snuggle up by the fire with my blanky" (please kill me) crap should only work on women who are actually attracted to the feminine nice guy. I think that in real life, such a guy would get a kiss on the cheek from you while you fuck the bad boy on the motorcycle. But because women are in denial about what they secretly really want (because they're embarrassed by it and don't want Dr. Phil to judge them), you deliberately threw the contast and went for the feminine nice guy who cries during sunsets. What you did was despicable, dishonest, and meant to serve the female provider hunting agenda by deliberately leading the beta males on a wild goose chase (because you need providers who do what doesn't work so you can take advantage of their resources without them being attractive to other women). Shame on you! @BD: You've got a problem with these judges man! You need to fire all of them. This isn't about what women like versus what men like. I know what women like and I KNOW that they like masculinity in their men while pretending to like the feminine nice guy like Saprian who wants to "snuggle up with his blanky." Come on, man! You know I'm right! These judges lied to you, and they did it because they need providers doing the wrong things because they want most men to give them their resources while they fuck only the few alphas. That's the female agenda! ALL MEN READING THIS: DO NOT COPY SAPRIAN'S PROFILE UNLESS ALL YOU WANT IS A KISS ON THE CHEEK!!!!!! Here's what I suggest, BD: Fire these so called "judges," get some new ones for next time, and segregate them based on what they want: A husband? A provider? A lover? A fuck buddy? A mangina boyfriend? Or to make it easy, just segregate them based on their ages (over 33 and under 33) since that's pretty much the same thing as segregating them based on their interests. Then feed each profile to each one and see the amazing difference of opinion. Also, segregate these judges from each other so that there is no group peer pressure to conform to the female betaization agenda. We want every judge to be honest instead of "supporting the sisterhood."

  • Matt T. 2013-02-19 12:45:06

    @Jack: Dude, the point of a profile is to get a woman to reply to you only. She will not remember much of the profile once she meets you in person. You can set yourself up as a masculine manimal with your emails, texting, and talking in person. The profile is only for replies. Saprian's profile is great. He sets himself up as a fun-loving, carefree guy. His profile does is not laden with aggressive, ballsy, testosterone-filled ideas because that shit is creepy to most women. The masculine profile usually works late at night when women are lonely and horny looking for short-term fun. And there aren't too many of those.

  • Jack 2013-02-19 12:55:03

    @Matt T: There is a balance between "testosterone-filled caveman-style" and Saprian's "Disney, marshmellowy mush." I liked Dennis's profile. His was waaaay better. I felt the third profile was almost as bad as Saprian's (describing himself as a "hopeless romantic" and demonstrating low self esteem by saying "if you're still reading this"). Again, BALANCE!

  • maldek 2013-02-19 13:49:46

    @Jack: The troll is strong in you @BD: " Illuminatus read more profiles than I did and he can back me up" If you said this to make us NOT want to see the bad ones, you faild. Bait taken. Now I am super curious what the girlies did NOT like and why.

  • Ken 2013-02-19 13:55:33

    Part of the problem in a contest like this is that the female judges may be, perhaps unconsciously, rating profiles in accordance with what they think they're "supposed to want" vice what they would actually go for when nobody else is looking. The judges may feel that they themselves are being judged, and they probably wouldn't admit to that. One way to confirm or falsify that hypothesis would be to try both types of profiles out in the real world, using two guys of similar age, wealth, looks, etc to control for all of those variables.

  • Blackdragon 2013-02-19 14:37:07

    Jack - If I fired all the judges and got 10 new ones, we'd have your exact same complaint all over again. You want young, single, female judges who behave completely rationally and whose words and actions are 100% congruent. I don't think I've ever met a woman like that, much less 10 of them. I will probably take your advice about splitting the age groups though; that's easily done. I will repeat yousowould's point that once you have her on a first date, you can (and should!) act as masculine as you want no matter what your profile said, and Matt's accurate point that once a woman is meeting you in real life, what was on your profile is usually out of her brain, especially if you have strong game. I can tell you from vast experience this is usually the case.

  • Reckless Tex 2013-02-19 15:04:37

    All three profiles appeal to the exact type of woman BD rails against. A provider seeking 30-something. The profiles (mine included) that target the type of woman BD (and I) bang (the 1st or 2nd date lay) wouldn't touch any of the 3 "winning" profiles with a ten foot stick. I imagine my profile was the one that garnered the following comment from one of the judges: 1. “FAIL!!!!!!! You come across as a self important dooooooosh!!!! I don’t even know how to rate this or even if there is a number/sign/letter/word that would be appropriate.” Which is EXACTLY the reaction I WANT from the type of woman my profile is designed to screen out (30 something provider hunters). Based on my online dating experience in the last 2 years, in which I've had over 20 "first date" lays, the profile I submitted attracts the exact type of woman so desired and written about on this blog. BD -- Looks like you have a panel of judges who are either: a. Provider hunters b. Too ashamed to admit they like a masculine profile c. Delusional d. Flat out liars Quick critique of the 3 winning profiles: 1. Bad -- "I want to be your husband" written ALL over it. 2. Pretty good -- He's managed to appeal to the Disney lovin' crowd of women so prevalent on the dating sites by using the clever "connect with on a deeper level" BS. Whether he's sincere about it or not is the question. No matter though, as long as it triggers a first meeting, I'd definitely be connecting on a deeper level ASAP. 3. Best -- Although the "hopeless romantic" stuff is a bit over the top (this guy's a lead singer in a rock band -- how much romance can there be when you're bangin the groupie in the dive bar bathroom?) 4. Kickass -- My profile -- The one that didn't place. I could go on but I'm short on time and long on chicks to bang.. Love the blog BD

  • Jack 2013-02-19 15:09:58

    @Maldek: Just telling it like it is. There's no need to censor the truth just because it might cause hurt feelings. Stigmatizing me with the "troll" label will not change a thing. My goal is just to give guys stronger bullshit detectors about women's opinions, especially if these opinions are as politically correct as these. If you disagree, then by all means copy Saprain's style. See how it works out. @Ken: Totally agree. @BD: Well at least your next contest will be more interesting when the ages are segregated.

  • Jack 2013-02-19 15:14:49

    @Reckless Tex: With the exception of you stating that the 3rd was the best, you nailed my thoughts perfectly. That's just what I was trying to say.

  • Hawkeye 2013-02-19 15:33:48

    You guys need to remember one thing: pictures weren't allowed in this contest and, based on my and a lot of other people's experiences, pictures are really what's important in a profile. I can garantee the results would have been different, would they have been allowed. No surprises here; the juges based their scores on something that is usually of minimal signifiance at best. The contest was entertaining and all, but it doesn't work that way in real life. Don't forget the picture factor guys; they truly are what makes or breaks a profile. If you've got good pictures it doesn't really matter what's written underneath. No reason to be pissed by the results, in my opinion. In short, you don't need one of these long borderline-try-hard profiles; if your pics turn women on, just make sure the written part of your profile is not a turn off, and you're golden.

  • Hawkeye 2013-02-19 15:48:43

    P-S: also I personnaly think that posting BAD profiles would be more informative, since, as I said, I think that the only important thing about your profile is that is that it doesn't suck...

  • Johnny Caustic 2013-02-19 16:02:48

    Just writing to add one more vote for an analysis post. I, for one, am completely mystified why those profiles did so well. (When one commenter wrote "I can see why these profiles won," my thought was "Really? Really?")

  • Jack 2013-02-19 16:29:56

    Yes, BD, I hope you post the profiles that the judges didn't like so I can re-work my profile to imitate those.

  • Matthew Walker 2013-02-19 17:33:17

    I'm no expert in this shit, but what got my attention about Saprian's profile is that after I stopped puking rainbows late in the first paragraph, he spent the rest of the profile qualifying the reader. He says he treats women right, but then immediately says he won't get walked on. When he's not reassuring them with one hand and shooing them away with the other, he's painting himself as extroverted and adventurous. Islands, interacting with people's kids in traffic, "everybody dies, not everybody lives". He closes by telling women to email him and give them a good goddamn reason to bother replying! He's saying three things: 1. I'm a decent, safe dude. 2. I will lead you on adventures. 3. If you are worthy of me. I can't believe nobody's seeing ballsy masculinity in that profile. It sprays the stuff. @Jack 2/19 4:29: Well-named!

  • Matthew Walker 2013-02-19 17:34:45

    Oops, typo: "give them a good goddamn reason" -> "give HIM a good goddamn reason"

  • Maldek 2013-02-19 18:15:24

    Jack wrote: "There’s no need to censor the truth " Your truth is not my truth. The winning profile is good and it is by no means beta. Read what Matthew had to say about it, if you dont believe my word alone. You had one good idea and that is the age of female judges. I would split it 18-28 and 29+. (how did you come up with 33?) When I started the whole girls stuff, nobody had internet nor smartphones. So online profiles are nothing where i claim to be good, still learning here. On the other hand I do have some knowledge about female braintwists. All 3 winning profiles WILL get response. It just might not be your target audience Jack. Certain girl-types simply can not read and understand a text with more than 50 words and for these the profiles are way too complicated. So who are you targeting?

  • infantry 2013-02-19 20:44:59

    I'll be integrating these into my profile for my next round of online fishing. BD I picked up a 40yo at a beach bar last night. I've never had to work so hard in my life. Deliberately created obstacles for no purpose, disproportionate shit testing and dramatic LMR. If most older women are like this, I will stick with the younger ones thanks.

  • infantry 2013-02-19 21:06:22

    Also I find it hilarious that some guys are complaining about what the judges "should have" picked. While I see some benefit in screening for girls who are obviously DTF, the first rule of online dating is that it is all meaningless unless you can get a girl to meet with you. Once that happens you are running game, not before. You can change a girls agenda pretty quickly if you know what you are doing, but only once she's in arms reach. FFS this is bread and butter stuff. Stop being pissed off and start doing what gets results. I'll fart rainbows if it gets me a date with a 9. She'll be paying me back in spades for the hoop jumping later.

  • zylya 2013-02-20 05:01:47

    One thing I'd like to see is some of the profiles that didn't win deconstructed and shown how they can improve - it's one thing to see a profile that works, but sometimes it's hard to take your own profile and get it up to that sort of level without knowing the process. I think there would be a lot of value in taking a decent, but not great profile and showing the specific areas of improvement and how to identify these, possibly more value than just in showing a good profile. A side-by-side comparison of a good profile and a decent, but needs work profile would be more interesting than just a simple deconstruction of a good profile.

  • lifeofalovergirl 2013-02-20 08:13:11

    As a 36 year old woman, when I was reading Saprian's profile, the first paragraph had me rolling my eyes. If I were actually on a dating site I would probably stop reading after that and just skim. I get way too many guys hitting me up to bother with reading their whole profile unless its really attention grabbing. The judges were forced to read the entire thing for the purpose of the contest and he redeems himself after that paragraph. "You'd better love to have fun, or we won't get along" is a great line. It's confident and challenging her. Saying he is humble might be going a tad too far into "nice guy category" but the part about how he learned to treat women well from his sister is NOT a bad thing. Women are not looking for men who treat them like shit. That is not what they mean by "bad boy". They mean a guy who is sexual and exciting. Most of us want that AND want him to be a guy who knows "how to treat a woman". Men are the ones who separate this (with their madonna/whore complexes). His mother taught him not to get walked on (big plus, we don't want a pushover), putting a smile on people's faces is another plus (implies he's going to put a smile on ours) and making faces at the kids behind him is cute in a good way. We are all attracted to men who are good with kids because even if we aren't looking to have them right now our biology is saying "dad potential" and that's ALWAYS a good thing. YOU all may not think so but from a woman's point of view the possibility, no matter how remote, that he could get you pregnant and be a GOOD DAD is a turn on. Asking if we can "handle" his "masculine energy" is great because it implies he is strong and challenges us. The next part I'm not so fond of. I don't consider myself "dorky", pride myself in being street smart and could give a fuck less about being happy vs content. But for women who see themselves in that light that might work. I liked the "everybody lies, not everbody lives" quote and the promise of redeemed brownie points but the 100 points and a cereal box top part could be taken out. Its uneccessary and the part about the best brownie recipe in the world doesn't even make sense to me. I'd just remove that. No need to be too wordy. I like the low pressure let's just hang out casually part but he might be carrying it a little too far into friendzone category saying its okay if we just have a friendship or nothing. I'd leave that out. Also saying maybe we will find someone special can be iffy. A bit of that makes him sound desperate when he adds "maybe I will too". I'm extra paranoid about neediness though. Still the idea that we can be special for each other is always positive because it shows he's looking for more than just a pump and dump (hopefully). I don't like the end. I don't respond to guys who want me to "tell them why" we'd be a good match. It takes too much effort. I don't want to have to expend any in that department. Its more like he needs to impress ME. But that may just be because I am used to easily getting guys. Hope that helps.

  • lifeofalovergirl 2013-02-20 08:27:32

    "Everybody dies" not "everybody lies" haha...though that might be true too! Sorry for the typo, lol

  • lifeofalovergirl 2013-02-20 08:33:07

    My favorite profile of the three was probably Dennis. I don't have a lot to criticize about it either. Straight and to the point.

  • DC 2013-02-20 18:07:40

    Sorry I am a bit late to the party, but WOW, very interesting results! Definitely a worthwhile contest. Great idea Blackdragon! To be honest (and to echo some of the views voiced by others here) all three winning profiles do not seem all that “cocky”/”alpha male” to me at all, and as you seemed to advocate coming across that way it tripped me up a bit with my own profile effort. I’ll definitely have to “tone it down” in future, but lesson learned (hopefully). I’m now guessing you use a completely different writing style in your dating profiles than you do on your blog or in the forums. I noticed some commentors suggested that a “feminine”/”Disney” profile be used to get the date, allowing you to demonstrate your “super masculine bad boy alpha” personality when you’re face to face with a woman, but I wonder if this strategy would backfire for being too “incongruent” with your true “alpha” self? I’m guessing it would mostly bother provider hunters who are more interested in seeking a stable guy to settle with than younger women who are more open to just having a good time, so perhaps extra screening is needed if the former is not your target market? Saprian’s profile reminded me of the net2bed system by Grant Adams, which was one of the leading online dating ebooks a few years back. Adams recommended a style of writing of embed female “hotwords” in the dialog. “Is the glass half empty, half full?”, “inner strength”, “masculine energy” definitely remind me of a few of the examples Adams gave in his ebooks. Call it “SWL” (stuff women like) if you like 😉

  • Johnny Caustic 2013-02-20 22:32:19

    @lovergirl, thanks for your analysis. It makes this whole post much more useful to me.

  • Kevin Velasco 2013-02-20 22:32:54

    Online dating profiles are like social media profiles - they're a creation/manifestation/projection of a False Self. To use Carl Jung's terms, these profiles are a blend of a narcissist's shadow, complexes, images, archetypes, and repressed material from childhood.

  • MrChem 2013-02-24 10:34:40

    @Kevin: Then again, as DC, Ken, Reckless and others have hinted, if your manifestation of self (online profile) is too far from your real self then you are just wasting everyone's time. @BD: Great experiment, and let's all remember that this is just 1 isolated experiment done in a virtual lab, I'd echo the votes for you to deconstruct the ins and outs of these profiles and throw in some snippets of poor elements from "bad" profiles. Not to get too clinical here but for a potential new experiment I suggest a more scientific approach to get more valuable/reliable results. First of all, I think we can all agree that adding a profile pic would be a MAJOR factor in bringing this closer to how women judge profiles in real life. Secondly, how about using the same profile pic combined with different description types to assess the impact of the description, and the reverse which would use the same description but with different profile pics. We all have our assumptions and experiences but this might yield some interesting combination (pic + profile) findings. The profile description types can be: 1) Disney/romantic heavy 2) Alpha strong 3) A balance of Disney + alpha 4) Plain old funny So we'd have description #1 with hot guy pic vs. description #2 with same hot guy pic vs. description #3 with same pic, and so on. And/or description #1 with hot guy pic / with average guy vs. and description #2 with hot guy / average guy and so on. A below average looking guy could also be used to confirm that good looks are the #1 factor, or will we find that specific combinations outweigh looks? Of course the results would be further enhanced as suggested above if the women would be segmented into age or needs groups, and the profile pics were all headshots to eliminate the effect of the action portrayed in the pic (a whole separate experiment in itself).

  • buzz 2015-02-02 03:57:37

    OK this is ancient history by now I guess. I do not want to display the negativity of some of the posters. I want to thank BD for running this very interesting experiment. But something went drastically wrong. The experiment was flawed somehow. BD himself has said never ask women for dating advice because they can not communicate clearly what they would really do. There are just lots of violations of everything BD has taught us in all these profiles.

  • Kate D. 2015-04-23 23:52:53

    Comment deleted per user request.

  • Blackdragon 2015-04-24 00:39:47

    The date was quick, his masculine energy WAS in fact too much to handle, and we ended up at his place, where we had passionate, raw, rough sex.
    Tell that guy he needs to thank me for getting him laid. 🙂
    And in the end, it wasn’t even his writing.
    Correct. Kidding aside, you didn't have sex with him because of his profile. That simply got him a date with you. Getting from the date to the sex was something he did, not the profile.

  • Kate D. 2015-04-24 22:19:29

    Comment deleted per user request.

  • Jacknimble 2016-04-18 05:34:33

    It's too bad we can't actually see these profiles, since presumably they included pictures right?

  • Blackdragon 2016-04-18 10:41:53

    It’s too bad we can’t actually see these profiles, since presumably they included pictures right?
    You missed the point of the contest. It was to see how women judged the profiles on the text alone. We already know that hotter guys are going to get more responses.