Number of people I'm interested * Number of people who respond
(1 / 60) * (1 / 60) = 3600 people to get one match.
Times 300 = 1.08 million profiles I'd have to view.
Maybe you like 1 of 6? (is it that high, for most people I don' think so). And you manage to get a response from 1 of 10 (because I'd expect the other side to also be at best 1 of 6 + less likely to respond)
So, that's basically saying you went through a minimum of 18k profiles to get your 300 matches.
Did you get 300 matches or is that just a statement that you did well and the numbers aren't actual numbers?
> (1 / 60) * (1 / 60) = 3600 people to get one match.
What are those numbers? According to the article, those numbers should be (1 / 4) * (1 / 25) if we use the median man randomly matching with the median woman, respectively.
Those numbers will trend much higher, if both of them are attractive, of course. In the long tails plottet for the article, there are still quite a number of men 1 out of 3 woman will like, and there's plenty of woman 9 out of 10 men will like.
Number of people I'm interested * Number of people who respond
(1 / 60) * (1 / 60) = 3600 people to get one match.
Times 300 = 1.08 million profiles I'd have to view.
Maybe you like 1 of 6? (is it that high, for most people I don' think so). And you manage to get a response from 1 of 10 (because I'd expect the other side to also be at best 1 of 6 + less likely to respond)
So, that's basically saying you went through a minimum of 18k profiles to get your 300 matches.
Did you get 300 matches or is that just a statement that you did well and the numbers aren't actual numbers?