Tinder Matches – Guys vs. Gals: How many likes do equally attractive profiles get?

It’s no secret that it is easier for women to get likes and matches on Tinder than it is for men. But have you ever wondered just how many more? Well I have, so I tested it with the help of some friends.

As you probably know, the first two rules of Tinder are:

  1. Be attractive
  2. Don’t be unattractive

With that in mind, I set out to find two people who follow these rules to a dot.

Unfortunately, it turns out model agencies don’t bother even responding to inquiries about having some of their talent create Tinder accounts for a test.

Fortunately, a couple of acquaintances who fit the bill have agreed to help, as long as their pictures aren’t published. Let’s call them John and Jane. They have been in a relationship (with each other) for years and have both never been on Tinder before.

First off, J&J read our guide on what kind of pictures to use on Tinder and had some of their better choices tested on photofeeler. Finally they created their Tinder accounts from six great pictures, the same Job (Lawyer), and the same bio:

“Hi, just moved here for an exciting career opportunity and don’t really know any good places to eat yet. Any recommendations?”.

Then they purchased Tinder Gold, so we could count their likes and experiment with different locations.

Rules

To get any meaningful results from this, we established some rules about how they had to use Tinder during this test.

  • Space out activity throughout the day, and spend about 10 minutes every two hours swiping, to stay equally “recently active”.
  • Try not to be too picky nor too loose in order not to anger the algorithm.
  • Never swipe in the “likes me” queue, only in the regular section.
  • Use your one free boost at the same time.
  • Don’t contact matches. (This might not affect their numbers, but it seemed more ethical to not give anyone (more) false hope.)

Day 1 – Boston

Having just spent ten minutes to set up her profile, Jane already had 32 likes waiting for her by the time she was ready to start. John was greeted by a golden doughnut and started swiping.

24 hours later, these were their match screens:

John scored 25 likes while Jane netted a whopping 2122.

None of the women John liked throughout the day had liked him back yet, leaving him with 25 who liked him, but which he did not come across yet. IF left swipes are actually removed from the gold queue that is. Still, 25 likes (probably a lot more that he rejected) is not bad for most guys, and if he lowered his standards a bit he might have gotten some matches too.

Meanwhile, Jane had netted 2’122 likes on top of the 32 matches she had chosen. “Chosen”, because she basically matched with (almost) anyone she swiped right on.

You’ll notice from the pictures that she opted to search for both women and men, but that shouldn’t skew the numbers all too much seeing as only about 1-2% of the profiles she was presented with were female.

Like John, she may have been a bit picky if we compare the number of matches to the number of open likes, but hey, I would be too if every right swipe results in a match. See also “The vicious circle of Tinder”.

Days 2-6 – Berlin, Munich, Copenhagen, London, Paris

Curious about the Situation in Europe, and in order to take advantage of the traveler’s boost, Jane and John “visited” some highly populated cities they both liked and hid their distance on their profiles.

Jane’s experiences:

  • Concerning matches and likes, things continued much the same as on her first Tinder day. A slightly lower but steady 500-1000 likes per day, probably due to the lower population density, the hidden distance, and the English bio.
  • Her boost on day 6 probably netted her another 300 likes on top.
  • She became somewhat pickier yet, in her own words, because why not.

John’s experiences:

After the first or second day, John started seeing more and more attractive potential matches in his queue. He still had about 20-30 open likes left over at the end of his days, but now he was also getting around 10 matches per day. It’s difficult to say if this was due to his score slowly catching up and rating him as more and more attractive, thus showing him more attractive profiles, or simply because of the location change. Possibly a mix of both, but seeing as this happened gradually I think it’s safe to say the former played a leading role.

Boosting seemed to help John get noticed more, just about doubling his likes that day. At the same time, the boost didn’t get him any more matches than usual because, well, “the extra likes seemed to come from a much broader population than my usual match queue”. (Read: less attractive).

Day 7 – New York

Weary of swiping through hundreds of profiles daily and yet not being able to talk to any matches, John and Jane were happy to spend their final day on Tinder.

Being the most densely populated city of the US, we expected to end this test with a spike in likes, a like spike. Surprisingly, it seems New Yorkers really didn’t like our two subjects all that much. Well, at least John. Jane still got around 500 likes there. He got about 5 open likes and no additional matches. That is apart from the one he got from cheating and snooping through his gold queue.

Maybe the cause for the drop in likes is that they had both used their boost the day before, albeit in a different city. Maybe New Yorkers are just pickier.

Anyway, let’s get to the gruesome business of the scores:

At the end, John was left with 55 matches and 19 open likes, while Jane got 88 matches and 7506 likes.

The winner of this round of “Tinder – Guys vs. Gals”, without the shadow of a doubt, is Jane with a whopping 7506 unseen likes on top of 83 matches that braved the test of ultimate pickiness.

The consolation prize goes to John and his 19 remaining likes and 55 matches. Good effort out there, John. Good effort.

Conclusion(s)

No, this test wasn’t exactly scientific. We only had two subjects instead of thousands, and their supposedly equal attractiveness could be all too subjective. It’s also possible John was too picky and would have gotten a better score and more matches if he swiped right more, or had a more interesting bio, or messaged any of his matches. A rule that does not seem to apply to attractive women it seems, though who knows what her numbers would have been if she just randomly swiped right 50% of the time.

Although, judging by the attractiveness of their matches and match suggestions, it’s fair to say Tinder thinks they are both very attractive people themselves.

Yes, there are problems with this test and the results are not representative. But the difference in these two results is so vast, and supported by so much anecdotal evidence, that we can draw some conclusions from it.

Tinder does still work for men (somewhat), given that they are very attractive.

Years ago, John’s results would have been more or less normal. Recently though, many male users get a few likes on their first day, and then all but 0 from day 2 onward. Unless they pay for boosts, that is. Just to make sure, we had John stay somewhat active in Boston for another week, and he continued getting 10-15 likes daily. So yes, you can still get matches as a guy on Tinder without paying. You just have to be ridiculously attractive.

The male/female ratio of Tinder users has to be completely skewed.

Yes, women are generally pickier than men. Yes, this is exacerbated on Tinder through a feedback loop. Yes, boosters are displacing non-boosters in people’s match queue. Yes, “top picks” is skimming off the top. No, these reasons alone cannot be responsible for a 100 times higher like+match count for women than for men.

Were there always more men than women on Tinder? Probably. Has Tinder been bleeding female users since its glory days? Maybe. Is it possible their business decisions are just doing their part to worsen the problem to the point where average guys get almost no matches anymore without paying? Definitely.

Tinder has effectively gone pay to play (for men)

Which is fine, it’s just that they forgot to tell everyone. Now the decision left to you is whether you’re willing to spend hundreds of dollars a month on a dating app, or if you’d rather explore other options. Which other options, you ask? Well there’s Bumble, or… bars? The match group has a habit of buying out and applying their special touch to any app that shows even the slightest chance of becoming a danger to Tinder.

Would you like to tell us about your experience? Something to add or correct? Feel free to leave a comment below, or visit the SwipeHelper Subreddit. See you there 🙂

 

15 Comments

  1. I’m not crazy attractive or anything, gen z, Asian American, and 5’4. I’m very picky with who I swipe right on, usually, only on girls I rate from a 7 and above on my scales so the ratio would be 1 swipe right to every 5 swipe left. I’ve had my account for 2 weeks and accumulated a total of 80 matches. The past few days I’ve been using Tinder passport to put my location in Seoul, Korea and until now I have 99+ likes and 300 matches. My style and pictures don’t attract a lot of Korean women, but I find a lot of other women also using Tinder passport in Seoul. My demographics are about 30% of 9s and 10s white females from Europe, 40% of very attractive Asian American girls and about 30% of mix races. Give Tinder passport a try, you might not be considered as attractive within your area but in other parts of the world you might just be a stud! Happy swiping fellas.

  2. lol, I get like 1 like a week, even though I swipe tinder for like 1 hour every day, 5 secs per woman.
    I mostly swipe left though (~90% of the time), but I still swipe many right based on the high number of swiped I do a day.
    My profile is quite good, different pictures etc, I also use a bit of make up and am not unattractive.
    I do live in a city with roughly 100k people in it in germany.
    I think the app is just trash tbh and wants me to pay to work properly

  3. There is a glaring issue with this experiment. Jane had women in her likes and – unless I misread – there was no breakdown of the percentage of men vs women in her likes.

    Some of your conclusions may become invalid given that men/women ratio in Jane’s likes. Especially, #2: “The male/female ratio of Tinder users has to be completely skewed”.

    Also, John either wasn’t “very attractive” as you say or he doesn’t have a good profile. As a man in NYC, I’ve gotten the same amount of matches as John total in maybe the first day of use; all from having an interesting/cool/polarizing profile.

    The real conclusion should be that men need to be more creative with their aesthetic presentation to capture the ideal that your average woman on tinder has in their head (which generally is based on the idea of celebrity or alleged high social status men in the art world).

    Hope this helps you with your ideas and of course your readers.

    Cheers brother.

    • I believe I have already addressed all you concerns in the post, including the ratio of women Jane was presented with / had liked her (1-2%). She herself liked about 50/50 men and women. That she could have had more matches if she was less picky was also addressed.

      As for John’s number of matches: Yes, he could have had more if he himself wasn’t as picky (he swiped left about 90-98% too, especially in New York).

      I also already covered everything you’re saying in one part of the post or another.

      • No. The issue is with the amount of “Likes” she has in her “Likes” section. You cannot use that without knowing what the ratio of men to women those “Likes” consist of.

        No. John’s lack of matches weren’t because he was picky, but because his profile was set up poorly. Look at the amount of “Likes” he has. Atrocious for someone allegedly very attractive; especially so in NYC.

        You should do this experiment again and let me conduct it for you. I’ve made profiles with 300+ likes in less than 24 hours as a male without even showing my face. You can easily put more thought into this to get to the bottom of what is really going on.

        P.S: I think you are correct in your conclusions. However, I take offense in the logic gaps leading to that conclusion. It is clear that Tinder has programmed a forced deficit intended to make men pay money but it isn’t something insurmountable. With the right model, it’s easily done.

        • >No. The issue is with the amount of “Likes” she has in her “Likes” section. You cannot use that without knowing what the ratio of men to women those “Likes” consist of.

          Yes you can. Just open the queue and look. It was 98-99% men.

          > No. John’s lack of matches weren’t because he was picky, but because his profile was set up poorly. Look at the amount of “Likes” he has. Atrocious for someone allegedly very attractive; especially so in NYC.

          The number of likes decreases when you swipe left on those people. If you’re very picky and active, you’ll have fewer likes in that queue. Tinder also doesn’t like picky men, so that may have lowered his score. It was also after boosting, which from experience means fewer likes until you buy another boost.

          The logic gaps are yours. The rest I have already addressed in the article, even some of the points you made yourself (Yes, John’s profile could have been better). Just read.

          • I am exchanging information. All comments are intended to assist your readers in their attempts to use this application with a high degree of success.

            My issue is – and remains – that you are drawing conclusions(which I believe to be true with conditions that you have left out) based on imprecise logic (not as helpful to your readers as it could be).

            Your initial posting did not include the 98-99% statistic. This is very important for your readers, like me.

            Furthermore, the number of likes DO NOT decrease when you swipe left on those people. This was only true during the Beta testing period of Tinder Gold. Perhaps your subjects had an old build but if not… the current meta does not hold such a feature: swiping left does not decrease the number of “likes” in your “likes” section.

            I bring up John needing a better profile because your conclusions are only valid in that John has a shit profile:

            “Tinder does still work for men (somewhat), given that they are very attractive.”

            I stated before that I had a profile where I didn’t show my face with 300+ likes in the first 24-48 hours.

            “Tinder has effectively gone pay to play (for men)”

            Once again, only true with a poor profile.

            Some of your other readers have touched on this in other posts but every time you find your “likes” beginning to die down the proper thing to do in this meta is to delete and remake your account. I’ve found that you don’t even need to change anything; although I habitually delete the metadata from my pictures before uploading.

            TLDR: The conclusions espoused in this article are ONLY true if you’re a man without an understanding of human psychology, sexual psychology, sexual marketplace, graphic design, popular celebrity/instagram aesthetics. Otherwise, in 2020 you will find tinder to be a place where you will reap much success.

            P.s: The less pictures you put on your profile the better.

          • Your initial posting did not include the 98-99% statistic. This is very important for your readers, like me.

            From the post, unchanged since published: “[…]seeing as only about 1-2% of the profiles she was presented with were female.”

            Furthermore, the number of likes DO NOT decrease when you swipe left on those people. This was only true during the Beta testing period of Tinder Gold. Perhaps your subjects had an old build but if not… the current meta does not hold such a feature: swiping left does not decrease the number of “likes” in your “likes” section.

            Sorry, but this is wrong at least if you have Tinder gold. And it’s easy to test. Whenever you swipe left in your regular queue on someone who is also in your gold queue, the number decreases by one and they vanish from the gold queue.

            With that in mind, his like count would have been much higher if he didn’t swipe left so much.

            And finally, once more quoted from the article:

            No, this test wasn’t exactly scientific. We only had two subjects instead of thousands, and their supposedly equal attractiveness could be all too subjective. It’s also possible John was too picky and would have gotten a better score and more matches if he swiped right more, or had a more interesting bio, or messaged any of his matches.

            Yes, there are problems with this test and the results are not representative. But the difference in these two results is so vast, and supported by so much anecdotal evidence, that we can draw some conclusions from it.

            We have a saying in German: “Du rennst offene Türen ein”, loosely “You’re kicking down open doors”. I know his profile was suboptimal (as was hers), but the effect is not as great as you make it out to be.

            I think you have a deep need to be right and to expose flaws in others’ logic, but unfortunately rush to arguments without properly reading or comprehending what you’re arguing against.
            But I am glad you’re verysmart™ and Tinder is working out well for you.

        • Hey Jim, if you’re having such success with getting matches. Mind helping a stranger out setting up their profile? Please message me on my IG @sherzyberg if you’re willing. Much appreciated

          • Same here, I would be very much interested if you could give me some feedback/pointers on what I can improve! IG: @paganaut

  4. I live in New York. When I still used it – about half a year ago – I swiped right about 1 of every 120 people, less than 1%. I matched with about 80% of the people I liked, went on about 1-2 days per day (museums, coffee shops, movies, the filming of a music video, etc.), didn’t hook up with anyone (since that’s not what I wanted), and had a few thousand unseen likes (I couldn’t swipe them because I didn’t pay for anything). I got ghosted by about half of the people I matched with, had conversations with about half, and went on dates with about half as well (basically anyone who DID send me a message).

  5. This experiment confirms what I’ve known for a while – the “noob boost” has been very much enhanced for about a year now. When I reset, 60-70% of my first week matches come in the first 24 hours, whereas before it was 30-40%.

    The logical conclusion of this is that male users need to be resetting more often. I know your guide claims that Tinder “penalizes” users for this, but that doesn’t seem to offset to clear gains from each noob boost.

    Optimal strategy might be to reset several times a week. It should only take like 20 minutes each time if you have the process down.

    • How does it confirm that? John got about double the likes on his first day than he continued getting the week after.

      I think rather than the noob boost having been enhanced, what you’re experiencing is a sharp drop in matches after the boost ends, as your now calculated attractiveness score doesn’t suffice to show you more often anymore. That is, not enough to compensate the boost feature that was missing in the good ol’ days.

      Do what works best for you, but reset at your own peril.

      • Well, for me, resetting the account from time to time helps me a lot, even using the same phone number, e-mail and google account. Sometimes I keep getting match in a whole week. I think today, Tinder only “penalizes” the ones who likes everyone…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.