Current statistics
>Cohort statistics
Total adds: 173
...of which retracted before answering the questionnaire: 4
...of which have answered the questionnaire: 157
...of which haven't answered yet: 7
...of which incomplete: 4
...of which retracted: 11
M:F ratio: 7:1
Age range of cohort: 18-45
Most common location: US
Most common education level: Highschool
Most commonly requested minimal education level: Highschool
Most desired location for a partner: US
Most undesirable political stance: Any extremes
Soft-banned profiles: 1
Hard-banned profiles: 3

>Match statistics
Matches considered: 64
People considered for matches: 64
Lowest match score: -117
Highest match score: 68
Matches rejected: 19
Matches accepted: 15
Matches not considered: 3 (due to low score)
Matches delayed (partner already in another match): 0
Matches awaiting confirmation: 2
Matches failed in less than 1 week: 5
Matches failed in more than 1 week and less than 2 weeks: 3
Matches still going strong: 4

There are currently 0 additional adds awaiting to be accepted, and an unknown number (estimated at around two dozens) that have added me and never answered the questionnaire.

I believe I have processed all questionnaires. I may have missed someone, so if you haven't received confirmation, please ping me.

Interesting fact: 1/7 men in the pool are either OK or actively looking for a transsexual partner.
Furthermore, 1/12 men in the cohort are bi or pansexual. There are, however, very few homosexuals of either sex, and virtually all women are exclusively straight.

>>34815505
"of which have answered" should be 162 and not 157, which was the old figure. Rest is actual.

Well damn. Now I know why you didn'y participate in the anonmade thread, m9k you've been busy!!

>>34815505
So when do you plan on doing another matching round?

>>34815713
I will do another round tomorrow evening. I had originally planned to do it yesterday, but as very few people came in between the previous round and now, likely on account of a lack of thread, I have elected to delay the round a bit. I will perform it tomorrow even if, for example, nobody else joins the round though.

>>34815505
>M:F ratio: 7:1
Which are MtF trannies counted as here?

>>34815769
Oh shit that ratio includes trannies? Oh fuck that's fucked

>>34815505
>Interesting fact
1/7 men are straight up fags and 1/12 are faggots that swear they're not fags (but they really are just homosexual). ivr said this before, and ill say it again and again: if you like to put penis into your mouth and or butthole, you are gay. there is no such thing as a "bi sexual" male, only straight and homosexual. same thing applies to (biological) women (trannies fall under homosexual male catagory).

>>34816402
Prision gay you uncouth swine. They want women but will settle for less.

Quick PSA: please stop claiming to be slightly chubby when you have a BMI of 46.7. For the record, Arnie at his peak had a BMI of 30.2. You are not Arnie. BMI does in fact accurately apply to you. You will get the highest quality matches if you are accurate and outward about anything that could be a problem: this means you will be matched with people who won't waste your and their time for days or weeks before one of you reveals a dealbreaker and everything falls apart.
Also note that you will be soft-banned if you "deliberately" lie about your characteristics. If you give me your weight and height, I will correct your assumptions about your body type and there is no ban risk. But if I match you with someone and that person reveals to me that you had been lying in such a way that a dealbreaker could not be identified in advance, you will be deprioritized.

>>34817322
Should people who have submitted the old questionnaire adjust their info for the V2? If not but in case anything like that is required would you be sending a general copy+paste message or would you give a heads-up ITT?

>>34817418
No need, the main purpose of the v2 questionnaire is to make data entry more efficient (except for the addition of the sexual expectations question). I am still evaluating if that question is redundant with personality questions or not. If it turns out to be different and a good predictor of match success, I will ask in these threads that people who have answered a previous version also answer directed questions that I can use to upgrade their profiles. In the meantime, there should be no issue.

>>34817322
Hambeast frauds btfo

How many of the, supposed, women are 25+, resides in the US, and Catholic? Because your blog posts hint at this thing being a time waste

>>34817742
Of course this is a time waste
1:7 F:M right now means that there are more likely 98% males 1% trans that want to feel like girl and the rest are trolling

"Matching" can only really work if there are enough people and datasets with both genders participating equally and a way to block trolls
None of those are given.
This is nothing more than a bad US Gaydar

>>34815505
grim stuff. submitted to make the m/f ratio worse

>>34817322
How many fatties and uggos are in the pool?

>>34817978
Uggos are probably too well hidden to make a good judgement call about, unless Matcher starts forcing face verification. But there's probably a good amount of fatties.

>>34817755
>1:7 F:M right now means that there are more likely 98% males 1% trans
Phenomenal math skills you got there

>>34818256
kek

>Cohort statistics
Total adds: 182
...of which retracted before answering the questionnaire: 4
...of which have answered the questionnaire: 171
...of which haven't answered yet: 7
...of which incomplete: 4
...of which retracted: 11
M:F ratio: 7:1
Age range of cohort: 18-45
Most common location: US
Most common education level: Highschool
Most commonly requested minimal education level: Highschool
Most desired location for a partner: US
Most undesirable political stance: Any extremes
Soft-banned profiles: 1
Hard-banned profiles: 3

>Match statistics
Matches considered: 67
People considered for matches: 67
Lowest match score: -117
Highest match score: 68
Matches rejected: 19
Matches accepted: 15
Matches not considered: 3 (due to low score)
Matches delayed (partner already in another match): 0
Matches awaiting confirmation: 2
Matches failed in less than 1 week: 5
Matches failed in more than 1 week and less than 2 weeks: 3
Matches still going strong: 4

>>34817978
About half of the cohort is chubby or fat (but not very or morbidly obese). The vast majority are above average in looks.

>>34818454
>About half are overweight
Damn, time to get more serious about losing weight then.

>>34815490
>>34818454
Why not put us all in a discord server so we can directly talk to each other ?

>>34818589
I have thought about this option either as a secondary channel or as a main channel (using threads as secondary).
However, I think the current format allows for more privacy especially as data is exchanged. This reduces the likelihood of a malicious match dumping info on the server for everyone to see, for example.
Additionally, this gives me more visibility in the process, which has pros and cons. Pros are that I can tune the process based on the data and improve it over time, so the match success rate should increase as time progresses. The cons is that it requires significantly more involvement, of course.

Also, another PSA: if you no longer want to be part of the match pool, you can request to be retracted. Please do not add me, answer the questionnaire, and then unadd or block me. Doing so will result in a hard ban (whereas a retraction has no penalty).
I would like to understand the behavior of the people who have added me, answered, and immediately disappeared or asked to retract. Some of you have found partners through other channels: congratulations. As for the others, could you share if that was also the case? Most of these kinds of retractions happened within 3 days of the profile being processed, often less.

>>34818454
>The vast majority are above average in looks.
kek

>>34818612
>As for the others, could you share if that was also the case?
Personally, I felt like the odds of getting a match were slim to none and I decided it was not worth it to stay in the match pool.

>>34818454
>above average looks

I'm above average fitness (not like that takes much effort), but I never sent you a pic. Is that an issue?

>>34818689
No need to send any documents in advance. Validation happens at the behest of potential matches. When matches are available, both parties get the option to match, pass or ask followup questions to decide. Among the questions, either party may request some information to be validated. This is where pics, voice, and other such documents come into the picture. After that, I tag your profile with which features have been validated and by which method (but the documents used for validation are never saved or shared).

>>34818697
I'll validate through a voice call if I get a match.

>>34818668
Thanks for your answer.
I will repeat publicly what I recommend in this case: so long as you are in the pool, your chances of a match are non-0, no matter how slim based on your profile. You also don't have the visibility I have in the pool to determine how likely you would be to match. Therefore, it is more beneficial to stay in the pool but not count on a match, than to retract yourself from the pool (which guarantee 0 matches through this service).
After that, the decision is always up to the users. I process retractions for any reason (or no reason), my question itt was to try to figure out if something could be improved.

>>34818646
>m9k is a gay architect
This man gets a little more based with every update.

>>34818454
>Most common location: US
How many euros? Can you give as a number?

>>34817742
I am but I only got two matches and only one responded and then fizzled out fast. Matcher can’t screen for chemistry unfortunately.
Discord?

>>34817742
>resides in the US, and Catholic
ICE deported them all. Sorry

>>34820854
Woah woah woah, there’s a lot of us who are white, right wing recent converts who have accepted the one true Church

>>34821828
You've become orthodox?

File: 20260218_183205.jpg (222.8 KB)

222.8 KB JPG

I gotta be the only applicant to these things that's ever from or anywhere close to Luxembourg.. It's something you get used to, though

>>34818589
I’m technologically illiterate but someone who knows how to make a public discord with bots + rules, please make an unofficial m9k fan club singles discord

>Cohort statistics
Total adds: 187
...of which retracted before answering the questionnaire: 4
...of which have answered the questionnaire: 177
...of which haven't answered yet: 6
...of which incomplete: 4
...of which retracted: 12
M:F ratio: 7:1
Age range of cohort: 18-45
Most common location: US
Most common education level: Highschool
Most commonly requested minimal education level: Highschool
Most desired location for a partner: US
Most undesirable political stance: Any extremes
Soft-banned profiles: 2
Hard-banned profiles: 3

>Match statistics
Matches considered: 66
People considered for matches: 66
Lowest match score: -117
Highest match score: 68
Matches rejected: 19
Matches accepted: 15
Matches not considered: 3 (due to low score)
Matches delayed (partner already in another match): 0
Matches awaiting confirmation: 2
Matches failed in less than 1 week: 5
Matches failed in more than 1 week and less than 2 weeks: 3. Matches failed in more than 2 weeks but less than 1 month: 1.

A new matchmaking round is planned for tomorrow.

>>34823067
It has to be expected with such a small applicant pool for such a small country. Your requirements are not so strict as to block you on the level of location, though, and there are a few people nearby Luxembourg. However, your age has made matching a little tricky (you're too old for the young ones, but too young for the older ones). That said, you almost got a match in the previous round (there was a dealbreaking issue that was on the cuff though).

>>34820450
Between 1/4 and 1/5 of the cohort are in Europe, ex-UK.

>>34823719
>Between 1/4 and 1/5 of the cohort are in Europe, ex-UK.
lol why did you exclude the UKians

>>34823804
With UK included, a bit less than 1/3 of the cohort are in Europe.

File: 1735856256948x.png (622.9 KB)

622.9 KB PNG

>Catholics still think they're the most traditional religious sect with half of their holy order being open pedophilic homosexuals and the other half protecting said open pedophilic homosexuals
>also commiting more heresies than the most progressive Protestant churches
never change, christcucks, never change
also
>people looking for and expecting attractive partners on 4chan
no words but picrel. actually can barely comprehend how stupid you have to be. probably the same people who are unironically catholic.

>>34824251
>people looking for and expecting attractive partners on 4chan
meh ugly to you is attractive to me so... whatever

>>34824251
I am attractive, just a sperg.
I am aiming for someone in the bittersweet spot that's spergy enough to end up in 4chan but not enough to be utterly disfunctional.
Basically a unicorn, yes I know.

>>34824904
Are you a female sperg?

>>34824920
Nonexistent concept, cease your searching

>>34824251
>>people looking for and expecting attractive partners on 4chan
Lots of people here arent ugly, just asocial or very shy

>>34824920
Of course I'm not.

Quick update: there are now 195 profiles in the pool, with 2 new retractions. I will proceed to a matchmaking round later and post statistics appropriately.

>Cohort statistics
Total adds: 195
...of which retracted before answering the questionnaire: 4
...of which have answered the questionnaire: 185
...of which haven't answered yet: 6
...of which incomplete: 4
...of which retracted: 14
M:F ratio: 7:1
Age range of cohort: 18-45
Most common location: US
Most common education level: Highschool
Most commonly requested minimal education level: Highschool
Most desired location for a partner: US
Most undesirable political stance: Any extremes
Most undesirable vice: 1. use of hard drugs, 2. use of any drugs, 3. smoking.
Most undesirable appearance characteristics: 1. fat 2. black 3. tattoos
Soft-banned profiles: 2
Hard-banned profiles: 3

>Match statistics
Matches considered: 69
People considered for matches: 68
Lowest match score: -117
Highest match score: 68
Matches rejected: 19
Matches accepted: 15
Matches not considered: 3 (due to low score)
Matches delayed (partner already in another match): 0
Matches awaiting confirmation: 2
Matches failed in less than 1 week: 5
Matches failed in more than 1 week and less than 2 weeks: 3. Matches failed in more than 2 weeks but less than 1 month: 1.

Matchmaking has started, but it will take a bit more time to complete and to execute.

>>34827135
What percentage of females are mtf?

File: 1000021773.jpg (26.1 KB)

26.1 KB JPG

>>34827135
>tfw fat and black
It's over for nigcels

>>34827135
>Most undesirable appearance characteristics: 2. black
Ah fuck me, see I knew it was because I'm black.

>>34827135
>Half the applicants are fat
>Most undesirable appearance characteristic is fat
lol
lmao

>>34827847
A lot of these fucking people are single for a reason

>>34827847
>Most common location: US
Also,
>Matches failed: 9
Hiw many of those do you think were women that got the 'ick' vs men goin '2/10 elbows too pointy'?

Place your bets, Anons.

>>34828292
There is only one case where the man had trouble with the woman's appearance as far as recorded, but that was because I interpreted a statement as a preference when it was in fact a dealbreaker. In all other cases, it is about even on who stops the conversation on account of lack of chemistry. Usually it's because the two simply aren't a good match, so they have trouble keeping conversations going. It is the correct decision to try for a few days and then stop if it doesn't work in these cases, regardless of who decides to stop the exchange. Otherwise, there were 2 cases of failed matches due to mental issues. These profiles have only been annotated to that effect, and the issues in question will be communicated to further matches.

Matches:
There are now 88 matches past the filter, involving 78 unique persons. I have about 1/3 more people to clear at the filter phase. After that I will be able to perform scoring, and finally execute on matches.
This round is taking far longer than anticipated because of a large increase in potential matches per person in the pool, i.e. we are getting to a point where more regular matches can be identified.
I will have to start working on automation before I will be able to perform the next round and will have to adjust profile processing schedules to make room for this.
There are currently 3 people waiting to be processed.

>>34828658
>I will have to start working on automation
Time to call in a favor from your buddy, ChatGPT.

Another PSA: if you would like to be removed from the matchmaking service, please let me know. If I do not receive word from you, you will be part of the matchmaking pool and I will be spending a lot of time and effort on matching you for no reason. You will, of course, be banned as a result.
So far, there have been 3 profiles that received match options only for me to discover they have unadded me within a few days of having provided their profile details.

>>34828658
So what does this mean in the long run, shorter and more scoring/matching periods now that you're introducing some automation into the system along with a larger pool in general?