November is not even half over and I have already billed an inordinate number of hours this month. Who says a recession is bad for lawyers? Not I.
As a result of work, I must say that my social life has taken a bit of a nosedive, particularly because I wind up getting done work late and am often too tired to go out except on weekends. This is going to have to change, as this sort of non-stop work is sure to lead to an ulcer or other health related side effects which I don't need.
On a related note, I am going to give a shot at this online dating thing again. I figure being in a much larger city should give me a few more options. I'm not sure I'm going to go into as much detail as Law With Grace has done, but I think I can be general enough not to trigger anyone who may stumble across this blog. I purposely did not write anything about the previous dates I have been on during the clerkship, mainly because there was nothing out of the ordinary with any of them. None of them worked out for any long amount of time, plus with me moving away with no intention of staying didn't help for any long-term potential either.
Despite my previous disasters with Match.com, I think I'm going to give it one more shot, or at least something like it. At least now I don't have to explain what a clerk is, and my work schedule accommodates more casual post-work drinks. Plus it will give me something to write about since I feel compelled to bill anything legal-related. But the job is fun so far, don't get me wrong.
Anyway, so long as I stay away from those who describe their occupation as "designer of things" (which is a real one by the way), I have a good feeling about this time around. Then again, I'm not going to set the bar too high either.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Incredibly long days and another attempt at online dating
Monday, April 07, 2008
Conclusions of Match.com part deux: Still not worth the money
My second attempt at Match.com, this time as an entry-level employee as compared to as a student had much less success. My conclusions as to why are strewn throughout this entry, but essentially echo those found in these other sites: Match.com sucks for the professional type, if there is such a thing. See Life's Little Vent Sessions: Internet Dating: Why it sucks... (correctly positing the three most common dating types found on the match.com site); Looking for Love in all the wrong places with Match.com (explaining why "about average" is a little misleading in most cases among other lessons to be learned); Online Dating: Great for Women, sucks for men (explaining why it appears at first to be a supply and demand issue, but only for women and providing further explanation); and Why Match.com sucks (providing a funny example of an email).
Perhaps these sites are all biased because they are written by guys (my opinion included), and I would be curious to see what Law With Grace would have to say about Match from a woman's perspective. Or if anyone else has comments or anecdotes, I am slightly curious whether my experience is unique or commonplace. I just hope I never have to become associated as a client number.
For what it's worth, my own experiences this time (and last time) are much the same. Most women, ages 23-33, are just as clueless as I am as to what I think would "work" in a relationship; these same women, however, are not as receptive as to just going out to see if there is a spark beyond the internet screen. I base this statement on the large numbers of winks I would get, which I would wink back at, and then nothing. The couple times I would write rather than wink back, I would get a response less than 10% of the time. And this was keeping to the general rule of writing less than 4 sentences in an email.
While I could deconstruct myself as to why I'm much more successful at in-person introductions than online ones, I am left to think that maybe it was my "about me" description. If I try this again (and I may once I relocate to the city of BigFirm), I'll be less descriptive. Even so, I think that it's still simply going to be a matter of looking at pictures first, then a description, in which case online dating is really no different than going to a bar except that it's much harder to translate charm into written wit without coming across as creepy or desperate.
I also decided to see if it is just the part of the country I am currently in or something else. So I tried LA, Dallas, Chicago, Topeka, Miami, Nashville, Augusta, Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and D.C. to see if more areas had contact than others. Success in this effort? Zero. Maybe I deactivated my profile by mistake; who knows.
Other things of note: At least three of the girls who I contacted complimented me for having no spelling errors in my profile, which I have accepted as a compliment, even though I thought this was a pretty strange introduction. Another wrote that she liked my profile because I had actually written more than a few lines to give an insight into my personality, which she thought was nice. The opposite however, at least upon my reading, did not appear to be true.
I also attempted to email a few women who I thought matched up with me pretty well - other professionals, doctors, teachers, that sort of thing. Of the emails I sent, only one even looked at me. Now, this either means that they were not paying members (so they could not tell who had sent the email) or that they simply saw my picture and thought, nah, or thirdly, what I wrote did not merit a further response. At first I thought it would be nice to have the closure of "no thanks," but after getting a few emails myself, I'm thinking that saying nothing is probably just as polite. Conclusion: Politeness in the virtual online dating world is satisfied by not responding to barrages of emails.
I also attempted to find my "ideal" match by searching for what I thought were things I look for in women (namely height, age, education, profession, body type), and then figured that I could increase my search by plugging in a 3000 mile radius. To my surprise, 792 women matched. Upon clicking through a few, however, I am nearly positive that the match.com algorithm does not attempt to connect with what you are trying to search for.
At the risk of exposing my secret identity, I will say that I attempted to keep my introduction short, put five or six pictures of myself online, and really only limited what I was searching for by height, age, and education. Knowing that the searches only show you either a picture or a 10-15 word description before seeing the whole thing, I attempted to portray myself in such a way that my cleverness would come through. After three months of doing this, I must conclude that I missed the mark completely. I would say it's frustrating, and it is, but I'm not sure what I can do at this point. For now I will simply put on an optimistic hat and continue the assumption that things happen for a reason. That, and I will simply have to return to the bar scene.
For now though, a couple closing thoughts on the topic: Could you meet your ideal match through an on-line dating service? Theoretically yes, but in reality, probably not. At least not for this under-29 year old. Is it worth the money for a one, three, or six month subscription? I would think that if you can't find success after three months, the match.com market will not change dramatically over the next three or six months. Either try another venue (which may or may not have equal results) or join some local group or organization and hope for better sails. Don't spend another dime on this particular dating service.
Bottom lines: Save your $60 for a real date and ask your co-workers to fix you up with someone. Some other thoughts for those who have read so far: Despite my own inconsistency in practicing this, I think it still may be better to do the auto reply "no thanks" rather than doing nothing. At least this provides closure for either an email or a wink. I fully admit that no response after a couple of days should accomplish the same thing because the need to be polite online unfortunately wears thin quickly, at least in my experience.
Without any response, one is left to about whether the responses went through, which could produce real awkwardness. For me, I assumed that they did and simply ignored it, but I could see how others could "try try again." That doesn't work in real life, so why would it work in the virtual online dating world?
Also, if there is a response: The winks back and forth are fine, but I think there needs to be a response after the wink back by the winker, followed by a response by the winkee. Otherwise it doesn't count as flirting.
How much time is enough time in online dating? I think if you haven't gotten a phone number or set up some sort of meeting at a bar within three emails or a week and a day, whichever is first, you are wasting your time or the other person is wasting yours. Meet up or move on.
While I'm on the topic of suggestions as to a better service, I wonder outloud whether there is the need for another online dating source that is highly targeted (e.g., at professionals). If I think all of this warrants a further entry, I'll write one. For now, my opinions about Match.com are even lower than they were before: If you're thinking about subscribing to it, think about it some more. Are there better services? Perhaps, and maybe some others will chime in on them or with their thoughts on this one. Please post away. For me, I'm going to pass on online dating until I'm finished with the clerkship.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Law clerks and internet dating
By coincidence and not by New Years resolution, I signed up for a three month long Match.com account earlier this month. I'll save my comments for intra-office clerk dating for another day. Here are my initial and brief thoughts, since I have to go into work to do some stuff and I am delaying that as much as I can today. The bottom line is that after less than a month, I remain unimpressed with Match.com. My reasons follow.
So far, my experience is similar to that of when I tried this once before in law school. Of course, I am in a different city now, and I fully admit that maybe it's just me, but I just don't see a lot of serious daters on this site. There seems to be less fraud though, so that's at least helping those who were probably voted in high school as being the "most likely to be in the bottom rung of a pyramid scheme."
When I first started, I either winked or emailed someone I was interested in, or respond to a wink or email, even if I wasn't interested. Now, if I get a wink or email from someone who I have no interest in, I simply say "no thanks." I'm not sure why the same courtesy can't be extended to me since some girls I've winked/emailed never responded or even looked at my profile, so I'm left to conclude that (as with my screwy email system), they never got it to begin with, that they are inundated with so many winks and emails that mine gets lost in the shuffle, or I have failed in reaching their initial Part I hurdle. With that, I feel it prudent to offer some free advice for those thinking of putting themselves out there on an online profile.
Part I. Importance of Photos.
This online dating world has a certain voyeuristic quality to it, so I'm surprised by the people who have contacted me without any pictures. At first I responded, mainly because I'm in the benefit of the doubt business, but it's unrealistic for someone who isn't blind to not look first. Looks aren't everything, this is true, but if I wouldn't go up to someone who I didn't think was remotely cute in a bar or a bookstore, why would I do it on good faith online? So, no pictures = no dialog from me.
Second, I recognize that most people aren't very photogenic. I will say that this holds true for 75% people who aren't models or actors/actresses, myself probably included. Regardless, this is a digital world, and you need to post more than just your best floating head photo. One photo isn't enough. Further, I can't tell you how many profiles I've seen that have photos of their dogs, cats, landscapes, etc. Maybe it's just me, and I admit it may create some conversation, but pictures that speak a thousand words belong in your house, not online in a dating profile.
That being said, I am also surprised by the number of drunken pictures and pictures with guys and babies that girls put online. Unless you have kids or boyfriend issues, I find these photos just odd. If it's a group picture at a party, that's one thing, but when everyone of the photos (save the headshot) has you holding a beer in it, it makes me that less inclined to bother. The photos of what must be an ex-boyfriend cut (or cropped) out of the picture are also a bit tacky. I'm not one to judge, but I think someone who is taking this semi-seriously needs to have five or six pictures (some with friends so I know they have some), including a full body shot, are necessary. This doesn't mean just to have wedding party photos or photos that were obviously taken by you holding a digital camera and pointing it at yourself - it should be easy enough to get your friends to take a good picture of you (that is recent), and if that is a problem, I'm beginning to see that as a yellow flag.
So, if it's a bad picture up front, I'm not going to look further, at least very closely. But, if they seem cute enough after my quick glance, I'll then look at the rest of their profile. There's a way to search with just pictures, but since I'm in the reading business, I tend to search with pictures and description.
Part II. Importance of Description.
Although it's sort of like photographs, in that most people don't appear to be very good writers, I think that description comes across more harsh than I intend. I think most people are handicapping themselves by trying to create a mystique about them, which is good if you're playing a numbers game, but bad (I think) if you're trying to take this seriously. I fully admit that I may be talking out of both sides of my mouth with this part, but I think the underlying aspect is right.
I'm not looking for a novel, but I am looking for something that tells me that you're taking this semi-seriously. I can't tell you how many profiles begin with "well, it's hard to describe myself in 4000 characters." No, it's not. I think if it's going to be done right, it probably takes 3 or 4 paragraphs. Spelling counts, and I look for something more than just "I'm tired of the bar scene." Since this aspect of the profile is pretty unique to the individual, I'll just say that "less is more" works to some degree, but it's a sliding scale.
Basically, the descriptions that prompt me to consider "winking" or even emailing are able to provide, succinctly, some humor, the reasons why you are internet dating (without admitting, as anyone on there is also thinking, that it's still sort of shady), and a couple aspects about your personality. I'm not looking for your life story. I'm not even sure I want to know that you haven't had a date in the last three or four years because you've been in another relationship (although I'm sure that will come out in the course of a couple emails or drinks). Basically, I'm looking for something that we would talk about if we happened to be waiting in a long line and engaged in some sort of short, meaningful conversation. Easier said than done, I admit.
Part III. The General Descriptors.
I think this gets overlooked by a lot of people. For me, this is probably just as important as the text, mainly because this is the sort of thing that people would love to know before going up to someone at a bar and either hitting or missing. For me, I look for the age, the age range they are looking at, education, whether they want kids, to some degree religion, and their occupation. While these are probably the most judgmental things one can box someone into, they also provide the "things in common" that warrant further follow up. In reality, they give you something to talk about.
Part IV: Email courtesy.
I generally try and follow what I thought was a good rule of thumb: If someone took the time to email you, you should take the time to email them. After a couple of strange experiences with this, I have decided to agree that the social mores of online dating are less than in real life, and it's okay to just stop emailing. I still think the courtesy of saying "no thanks," while harsh, is better to provide closure for initial contact cases.
Conclusion.
Although I tried to follow each of these parts in creating my profile, I must be honest and say that I may be putting too much effort into this, and maybe I should instead approach this as a numbers game. Because I have tried to be more selective so far though, I think this strategy is not right, or at least isn't going to work on Match.com.
Since I'm a paying member, I can see who clicked on me (even after I clicked on them), so that provides an in sometimes, but again, I'm not trying to play a numbers game, so I may be handicapping myself from the start. While it's flattering that over a hundred girls have glanced my way, I've only emailed with a handful, and unlike last time, have yet to meet up with any. I was supposed to meet up with someone a couple of times, but it wound up falling through, mainly because of me and my unusually hectic work schedule. A couple girls who had sent cool emails a couple of times all of a sudden stopped being members, so I'm not sure what happened there. I've only had one bad experience so far, which has prompted me to be more vigilant in my emailing process.
None of these are good excuses though, and as one of my friends pointed out, I'm just meeting up for coffee or dinner, and I shouldn't go into these things with over-hyped expectations. Further, if I'm that busy now as a clerk, how's this going to work once I'm billing time at a big firm in a new city? I'll have to address this latter question later this year. In the meantime, we'll see what happens next month.
P.S. There was an amazing girl who on paper seems to have several things in common with me. I emailed and never got a response. She did look at my profile. Is it a safe assumption that she probably said "thanks but no thanks" and it's not worth following up to? I think the answer to this question is yes.
P.P.S. There are some amazing girls on this site. I find it hard to believe that a) they are single, and b) they are serious. If they are serious, I believe there is an untapped market for single professionals looking to date, and I'm not sure Match.com adequately fulfills this demand. I'm not sure that Millionaire Matchmaker gets it exactly right either, but there's an in between system waiting to be created. I base this conclusion on the story that was aired a few months back. See New York Rich Speed Dating.
Follow-up Conclusion:
I suspect (without any foundation) that if you're a girl, you can pretty much have your pick of the litter when it comes to online dating. If my one friend's experience was representative, she said that she often got three or four emails a day and twice as many winks. She said that her screening process was much more strict as a result. If that's the case, it makes it that much more important for the guy's profile to stand out and hope that the girl finds you attractive enough to respond.
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Some thoughts for 2008
As is often the case at the end of a year, one contemplates the past and looks toward the future. These "looks" are better known as "resolutions."
Since my main goal in 2007 was to pass the bar (and in 2005 and 2006 to put myself in a position to pass), I can now look toward 2008 to make new goals. I think the main one is to prioritize things differently. For the past three years, most of my free time has been spent working toward the bar exam and landing as high up as I can on the so-called "lawyer totem pole." Between this clerkship, my post-clerkship job, and soon being able to afford to pay off this massive law school debt much sooner than later, I think I landed just fine. So, given that these priorities were self-centered (sort of), I can now shift my priorities toward more important things, like planning a vacation to Europe or buying a house.
I realize how arrogant this may come across, and I certainly don't intend it this way. Plenty of my law school friends had much different priorities and were able to balance many more complex issues than my simple and mundane ones. But since I didn't have to balance important things such as a wife or kids or a job or whatever (other than my work and school, really), these priorities tended to fall by the wayside. Not anymore past 2007. Because most of my career and professional goals are in order, it's time to create more personal ones. Hence, I have decided to give this online dating concept another shot. After all, it seems that all the other people I meet nowadays are other lawyers, and those conversations can sometimes leave a lot to be desired in terms of variety.
As I wrote about once before, I made some marginal effort at online dating with poor results. And, granted, I probably handicapped myself because most of the time I had some test or paper or law review crap to work on. And, as a matter of priority to achieve certain goals, those types of things had to come first. And now they can fall a distant eighth or ninth (if not lower).
So, I think I'm going to spend some of my free time going on a series of first dates (which, hopefully aren't all bad). While I may eventually write up my thoughts on this issue, I don't exactly want my blog to turn into some sort of dating review, nor would I want to write something and have it misconstrued as mean spirited. (On that note, there is a blog that basically posted a bunch of fake ads to Craigslist to elicit funny responses, which he posted). However, if I find something noteworthy, I'm sure I will mention it if it's worth mentioning.
In addition to taking suggestions about the pros and cons of being a future lawyer tackling the online dating world, I'm also taking suggestions as to where I should go on my post-clerkship vacation. I've been to most of Europe, but obviously there is plenty left to see (or see again).
In the meantime, I'm going to read some briefs and watch some tv. Some more thoughts on the writers' strike, my current tv shows, etc. will be posted throughout this week.
