Note that a certain percentage of ‘female senders’ on dating apps have a financial motive. Some are offering various forms of sex work (from nude photos to forms of prostitution), and some are part of an organized scam. (pretending to be an attractive female sender who is just a little short of money and needs gift card number in order to ‘meet’ the recipient).
A quick eyeball analysis of the data you have shows 1-2% of the senders are likely doing this. Look how for medium-high and medium the percentages go down. This is because a scammer is not going to copy a profile photo that isn’t top quintile.
Look how for medium-high and medium the percentages go down.
I’m not sure I understand what you’re pointing at here. Can you explain more? Every category of female sender is monotonically less likely to send messages to less attractive males, as you would expect, without any consideration of spam.
Upper right, 0.03 messages from high->low male receivers.
One row down, 0.02 messages from medium-high->low male receivers.
To me I mentally see this as 0.01 to 0.03 of these messages are motivated by something other than attractivness, aka financial. It could be just noise.
Also, if some fraction of males are presenting an extreme profile (a-la Jacob of putanumonit) they could be rated low attractiveness “on average” while still getting messages from the tiny fractional percent of females of each attractiveness band who are interested in that unique profile.
Note that a certain percentage of ‘female senders’ on dating apps have a financial motive. Some are offering various forms of sex work (from nude photos to forms of prostitution), and some are part of an organized scam. (pretending to be an attractive female sender who is just a little short of money and needs gift card number in order to ‘meet’ the recipient).
A quick eyeball analysis of the data you have shows 1-2% of the senders are likely doing this. Look how for medium-high and medium the percentages go down. This is because a scammer is not going to copy a profile photo that isn’t top quintile.
I’m not sure I understand what you’re pointing at here. Can you explain more? Every category of female sender is monotonically less likely to send messages to less attractive males, as you would expect, without any consideration of spam.
Upper right, 0.03 messages from high->low male receivers.
One row down, 0.02 messages from medium-high->low male receivers.
To me I mentally see this as 0.01 to 0.03 of these messages are motivated by something other than attractivness, aka financial. It could be just noise.
Oh yeah, I agree that’s a bit weird but I would guess it’s just noise.
Also, if some fraction of males are presenting an extreme profile (a-la Jacob of putanumonit) they could be rated low attractiveness “on average” while still getting messages from the tiny fractional percent of females of each attractiveness band who are interested in that unique profile.