Dating Standards Calculator

[iff]

4 hours ago, Picklethewickle said:

I clicked on the link, and on the right side it has suggestions on who to look for, that suggestion being "Trust fund, 6.5, blue eyes." You can't filter for any form of personality or distinguishing aspects of personhood, but you can filter for trust fund baby?

I think the trust fund thing is an ad.

[Picklethewickle]

8 hours ago, iff said:

I think the trust fund thing is an ad.

Thank goodness. It made me feel disturbed.

[Squirrel Combat]

I gave this a go for pure funzies, since I'm not currently browsing around for anyone new, and physically no woman can truly measure up to boots (🤣).

1.68%, or 2,827,612 was my result. That's both really narrow and broad at the same time.

[hagathorn]

Men: 0.0134%

Women: 0.009%

 

good thing I'm not looking for anyone 😅

[Acutely Single]

Edited October 18 by Acutely Single
Latest…

[Qiri]

Apparently, I'm super picky. 

 

0%.

 

Huh?

[Frameshift07]

According to this, non-binary people don't exist or are worth keeping under the rug. So I'd say 0% automatically.

[KVA1983]

1 minute ago, Frameshift07 said:

According to this, non-binary people don't exist or are worth keeping under the rug. So I'd say 0% automatically.

Or the calculator is not advanced enough to consider how truly amazing you are! ♥ xx

[TormentDubz]

On 1/21/2025 at 8:57 PM, Picklethewickle said:

I clicked on the link, and on the right side it has suggestions on who to look for, that suggestion being "Trust fund, 6.5, blue eyes." You can't filter for any form of personality or distinguishing aspects of personhood, but you can filter for trust fund baby?

It’s just a crappy meme reference

[Frameshift07]

1 minute ago, KVA1983 said:

Or the calculator is not advanced enough to consider how truly amazing you are! ♥ xx

You got an actual smile out of me. Don't forget you're awesome yourself, thank you!!

[KVA1983]

2 minutes ago, Frameshift07 said:

You got an actual smile out of me. Don't forget you're awesome yourself, thank you!!

Aww! Thank you! ♥ xx

[Soul Searcher]

 

What?

 

Is there no woman in the US between the age 25-27, 5'5" tall, has a PhD, earns more than 200k?

 

That's not asking for much, is it now?

 

 

 

Also, let it not be said that I did not try. I lowered my standards to basically include everyone, widened all the search criteria to their maximum extremes, and got this.

 

Heaven save those who are actually looking for someone.

 

 

Edited January 26 by Soul Searcher

[hagathorn]

On 1/23/2025 at 5:37 PM, Lilihierax said:

Men: 0.0134%

Women: 0.009%

 

good thing I'm not looking for anyone 😅

OH and let's also factor in people who are also aromantic and asexual. So in total, maybe, like, 2 people in America?

[SkyWorld]

I got 0.196 for women and 0.32 for men. Didn't change any of the "preferences" and just toggled between men and women. 

 

Yeah... I can't say that's very accurate for multiple reasons. Not quite sure what was it was trying to imply.

[Fangorn]

0.48% if I consider drinking to include occasionally drinking a little bit

 

0.024% if I consider drinking to be regularly drinking/actually getting drunk

[J. van Deijck]

I don't have a type anyway and I see the questions are mostly appearance-based, plus income, and I really couldn't care less about things like that. This is a very strange calculator anyway.

[-Tismtastic-]

It didn't even work for me ;-;

[Aro-Acing It]

I'm aromantic, no one meets my standards  

[SleevedAce]

Maybe I'm too much of an outlier and/or don't know what I'm doing, but I don't really get this. Even the notion of using filters (hard constraints) instead of total overall dynamics or even just a tally.

 

I think they might have just taken whatever data they have and tried to make something out of it.

 

Anyway, poking around, I also got the nonsensical results where more constraining gave higher percentages instead of lower or equal. Seeing people still using it after that makes me want to fix it (and scream)!

 

At least get the calculation part right even keeping the rest of the premise and assumptions that may or may not make much sense. I don't think the U.S. Census Bureau has data correlating all these factors.

 

This thread is months old so maybe I shouldn't but there's a strong temptation to recreate this lol.

 

Some website stuff

 

Quote

https://preference-calculator.keeper.dating/api/calculate_percentage_v2?gender=Male&exclude_married=false&exclude_obese=false&max_age=70&min_age=18&min_income=0&max_income=100000000&min_height=122&max_height=244&race=0&debug=true

 

Helpfully, there's a debug parameters that's even left at true.

 

Quote

{
    "result": {
        "ASEC_data": {
            "age_percentage": 33.02123981876751,
            "cumulative_percentages": [
                "100 --- initial_asec_percentage",
                "48.87646334756305 --- gender_percentage",
                "33.02123981876751 --- age_percentage",
                "33.02123981876751 --- marital_status_percentage",
                "33.02123981876751 --- race_percentage",
                "32.96100358798418 --- income_percentage",
                "32.96100358798418 --- education_percentage"
            ],
            "education_percentage": 32.96100358798418,
            "gender_percentage": 48.87646334756305,
            "income_percentage": 32.96100358798418,
            "initial_percentage": 100,
            "marital_status_percentage": 33.02123981876751,
            "race_percentage": 33.02123981876751
        },
        "NHANES_data": {
            "age_percentage": 0,
            "bmi_percentage": 40.903513664249864,
            "cumulative_percentages": [
                "100 --- initial_nhanes_percentage",
                "48.600111544896826 --- nhanes_gender_percentage",
                "40.903513664249864 --- nhanes_age_percentage",
                "40.903513664249864 --- nhanes_marital_status_percentage",
                "40.903513664249864 --- nhanes_bmi_percentage",
                "40.34578918014501 --- nhanes_height_percentage",
                "40.34578918014501 --- nhanes_drinks_percentage",
                "40.34578918014501 --- nhanes_smokes_percentage"
            ],
            "drinks_percentage": 40.34578918014501,
            "gender_percentage": 0,
            "height_percentage": 40.34578918014501,
            "initial_percentage": 100,
            "marital_status_percentage": 0,
            "smokes_percentage": 40.34578918014501
        }
    },
    "resultAvg": {
        "age_percentage": 33.02123981876751,
        "bmi_percentage": 40.903513664249864,
        "drinks_percentage": 40.34578918014501,
        "education_percentage": 32.96100358798418,
        "gender_percentage": 48.87646334756305,
        "height_percentage": 40.34578918014501,
        "income_percentage": 32.96100358798418,
        "marital_status_percentage": 33.02123981876751,
        "race_percentage": 33.02123981876751,
        "smokes_percentage": 40.34578918014501
    },
    "results": {
        "age_percentage": [
            33.02123981876751
        ],
        "bmi_percentage": [
            40.903513664249864
        ],
        "drinks_percentage": [
            40.34578918014501
        ],
        "education_percentage": [
            32.96100358798418
        ],
        "gender_percentage": [
            48.87646334756305
        ],
        "height_percentage": [
            40.34578918014501
        ],
        "income_percentage": [
            32.96100358798418
        ],
        "marital_status_percentage": [
            33.02123981876751
        ],
        "race_percentage": [
            33.02123981876751
        ],
        "smokes_percentage": [
            40.34578918014501
        ]
    },
    "total_probability": 36.65339638406459
}

There site is pretty upfront about using U.S. Census Bureau Data and in here I see its ASEC (Annual Social and Economic Supplement) and NHANES (National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey) from CDC

 

Its not obvious how they're putting these together to get that total_probability. When something's in both ASEC and NHANES like age, gender or marital status, they're using ASEC numbers in resultAvg.

 

Also, wants kids, hair colour, eye colour, and religion must be coming from somewhere else. Changing those will get the same first parts (result, resultAvg and results) but a different total_probability.

 

For recreating this, getting the "want kids" statistics might be hard, especially since it has to include surveying people who already have kids.

 

Other lesson from this site is by formulating something to be about dating, you can get people interested in census data.

[u.amaya]

I got 0.15%, and I was very lenient on all parameters except for "wants kids" (no) and "minimum education" (master's degree). I'm surprised that it was enough to exclude 99.85% of the population, since the there are increasingly more people who pursue higher education and who want to remain child-free 🤔

[Eroell]

In this poll the only things I care about are gender and age, I don;t care at all about income, appearance, education