FabSwingers.com > Forums > Fabswingers.com site feedback > No thank you generic response
No thank you generic response
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I think an invite full of rejection could be bad for peoples self-esteem. No reply is the same thing but without putting it into actual words. For some people to see their inbox light up with a message message, feel excitement, just find its people telling them they are not for them. I just feel it could make them a little sad. " That's the same as if they'd received a not for us/me reply anyway. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Hi Given that, unlike many swinging and dating sites, this site actually has real people behind the profiles and not some random sex worker in a faraway place, might it be an idea to facilitate a quick and easy, generic response button that people could press after having read a message from someone in whom they have no interest. Simply needs to be something like: Thanks for your message but you're not for me. Happy Fabbing I'm sure many people would be more content with this response rather than none at all. Also, have you considered using the swipe function like in Tinder within search mode so that the same people don't keep reappearing in a search? Just thoughts really! Very much enjoying the site although I wish people would stop using it as a social media extension of the club; a way of arranging to meet at a club. Surely that's the point if a swingers' club - you go, you mingle, you play, you leave. Rich x " A long time ago Fab had something similar to what you suggest. People complained the automated reply was impersonal and it doesn't take long to type no thanks. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I think an invite full of rejection could be bad for peoples self-esteem. No reply is the same thing but without putting it into actual words. For some people to see their inbox light up with a message message, feel excitement, just find its people telling them they are not for them. I just feel it could make them a little sad. " I agree. Why would anyone want to have loads of emails saying no thanks? You are not going to feel great after reading loads of no thank you emails. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
" A long time ago Fab had something similar to what you suggest. People complained the automated reply was impersonal and it doesn't take long to type no thanks. " Fab has never had it | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Admin had this on another site of theirs and the complaints changed from I never get a reply to I never get anything other than an automated reply It just proved that it doesn't matter which way it was, people would complain"  | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"The trouble with the current system is when a message is deleted you don’t know if it is a “no thanks” or just part of a mass delete. " But then isn't it technically still a no? Same end result. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
" Very much enjoying the site although I wish people would stop using it as a social media extension of the club; a way of arranging to meet at a club. Surely that's the point if a swingers' club - you go, you mingle, you play, you leave. Rich x " Confused by this comment. Are you saying people shouldn’t use it to keep in touch with people they’ve met in clubs and to arrange club meets? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"A no thank you reply is much more polite than ignoring a message someone took time to type to you. It’s simple courtesy. I personally find it rude when people choose to ignore. " When people write “hey”. “Hi” “lush tits” “have your tits been milky” “mmmmm” No they don’t deserve a reply. I’m not the rude one. When people send a copy and paste message that is obviously not for us at all, no they don’t deserve a reply. But every time you say no thanks you run the risk of having someone Either try to convince you to say yes, or someone hurling abuse. For the people who get hundreds of messages a day, I see why they don’t reply to any that they’re not interested in. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
" Also, have you considered using the swipe function like in Tinder within search mode so that the same people don't keep reappearing in a search? Just thoughts really! Very much enjoying the site although I wish people would stop using it as a social media extension of the club; a way of arranging to meet at a club. Surely that's the point if a swingers' club - you go, you mingle, you play, you leave. " I completely disagree with this, I've made many friends at clubs who I've kept in touch with through fab, also made friends and then subsequently met in a club, I'd say this is one lifestyle where social media really adds, in fact I'd love to see more Facebook like features on fab.....timelines etc.. Xxxxxx | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"If someone doesn't message you back, it's essentially a no thanks. I don't know why that's difficult to grasp " Yup, this. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"If someone doesn't message you back, it's essentially a no thanks. I don't know why that's difficult to grasp " Because it's obviously not necessarily a no thanks, for all that the FAQs and many people on here insist that it is. Many messages go unread. As has been pointed out already, mass deletes mean that it's not possible for the sender to know for sure whether a message has been read or not. How can you be saying 'no thanks' to a message you don't even know you've had? Also, there's a difference between 'no thanks, not ever' on 'no thanks on this occasion'. If say a couple put up a meet with a single guy, get 100 replies, 80 are awful, 20 are decent, they like 10 of these guys and choose one of them, presumably the other 9 would have a chance of being selected on a future occasion when they are also looking for a single guy? How is it helpful if these guys, having not been selected, assume as they keep being told to that it's a no thanks and they should not contact the couple again? Feedback is always helpful to decent single guys, and I'd very much rather the clarity of knowing that somebody is not interested at all over the slight disappointment of finding that they're not, or of not knowing at all. I completely understand and appreciate the reasons why people can't or don't reply but if a button - or preferably two, one for something like 'not on this occasion' and one for 'not interested at all' - would make it a little easier for people to do so, I'd like it introduced. I was interested to hear it's been tried before, that must have been some years ago and Fab will have grown a lot since, so I would think it's worth trying again. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"If someone doesn't message you back, it's essentially a no thanks. I don't know why that's difficult to grasp Because it's obviously not necessarily a no thanks, for all that the FAQs and many people on here insist that it is. Many messages go unread. As has been pointed out already, mass deletes mean that it's not possible for the sender to know for sure whether a message has been read or not. How can you be saying 'no thanks' to a message you don't even know you've had? Also, there's a difference between 'no thanks, not ever' on 'no thanks on this occasion'. If say a couple put up a meet with a single guy, get 100 replies, 80 are awful, 20 are decent, they like 10 of these guys and choose one of them, presumably the other 9 would have a chance of being selected on a future occasion when they are also looking for a single guy? How is it helpful if these guys, having not been selected, assume as they keep being told to that it's a no thanks and they should not contact the couple again? Feedback is always helpful to decent single guys, and I'd very much rather the clarity of knowing that somebody is not interested at all over the slight disappointment of finding that they're not, or of not knowing at all. I completely understand and appreciate the reasons why people can't or don't reply but if a button - or preferably two, one for something like 'not on this occasion' and one for 'not interested at all' - would make it a little easier for people to do so, I'd like it introduced. I was interested to hear it's been tried before, that must have been some years ago and Fab will have grown a lot since, so I would think it's worth trying again." You've thought really hard about it! | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"If someone doesn't message you back, it's essentially a no thanks. I don't know why that's difficult to grasp Because it's obviously not necessarily a no thanks, for all that the FAQs and many people on here insist that it is. Many messages go unread. As has been pointed out already, mass deletes mean that it's not possible for the sender to know for sure whether a message has been read or not. How can you be saying 'no thanks' to a message you don't even know you've had? Also, there's a difference between 'no thanks, not ever' on 'no thanks on this occasion'. If say a couple put up a meet with a single guy, get 100 replies, 80 are awful, 20 are decent, they like 10 of these guys and choose one of them, presumably the other 9 would have a chance of being selected on a future occasion when they are also looking for a single guy? How is it helpful if these guys, having not been selected, assume as they keep being told to that it's a no thanks and they should not contact the couple again? Feedback is always helpful to decent single guys, and I'd very much rather the clarity of knowing that somebody is not interested at all over the slight disappointment of finding that they're not, or of not knowing at all. I completely understand and appreciate the reasons why people can't or don't reply but if a button - or preferably two, one for something like 'not on this occasion' and one for 'not interested at all' - would make it a little easier for people to do so, I'd like it introduced. I was interested to hear it's been tried before, that must have been some years ago and Fab will have grown a lot since, so I would think it's worth trying again. You've thought really hard about it!" I don’t know anyone who doesn’t scan or have a way of deciding which messages they need to not bother opening eg age or location is out of preferences. If there’s potential, they’ll open your message and make a decision from there. Anything left is what gets mass deleted. Trust me, it’s hard enough to find decent people. Most aren’t going to skip a chance of someone fits the bill. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"If someone doesn't message you back, it's essentially a no thanks. I don't know why that's difficult to grasp Because it's obviously not necessarily a no thanks, for all that the FAQs and many people on here insist that it is. Many messages go unread. As has been pointed out already, mass deletes mean that it's not possible for the sender to know for sure whether a message has been read or not. How can you be saying 'no thanks' to a message you don't even know you've had? Also, there's a difference between 'no thanks, not ever' on 'no thanks on this occasion'. If say a couple put up a meet with a single guy, get 100 replies, 80 are awful, 20 are decent, they like 10 of these guys and choose one of them, presumably the other 9 would have a chance of being selected on a future occasion when they are also looking for a single guy? How is it helpful if these guys, having not been selected, assume as they keep being told to that it's a no thanks and they should not contact the couple again? Feedback is always helpful to decent single guys, and I'd very much rather the clarity of knowing that somebody is not interested at all over the slight disappointment of finding that they're not, or of not knowing at all. I completely understand and appreciate the reasons why people can't or don't reply but if a button - or preferably two, one for something like 'not on this occasion' and one for 'not interested at all' - would make it a little easier for people to do so, I'd like it introduced. I was interested to hear it's been tried before, that must have been some years ago and Fab will have grown a lot since, so I would think it's worth trying again. You've thought really hard about it!" Yes, I have, I've been meaning to post about all this for a while actually! I think the FAQs guidance badly needs rewriting and to be much more extensive, but ideas about relatively simple innovations like buttons are very welcome. This has started me thinking about winks, but that's probably one for another thread!! | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"If someone doesn't message you back, it's essentially a no thanks. I don't know why that's difficult to grasp Because it's obviously not necessarily a no thanks, for all that the FAQs and many people on here insist that it is. Many messages go unread. As has been pointed out already, mass deletes mean that it's not possible for the sender to know for sure whether a message has been read or not. How can you be saying 'no thanks' to a message you don't even know you've had? Also, there's a difference between 'no thanks, not ever' on 'no thanks on this occasion'. If say a couple put up a meet with a single guy, get 100 replies, 80 are awful, 20 are decent, they like 10 of these guys and choose one of them, presumably the other 9 would have a chance of being selected on a future occasion when they are also looking for a single guy? How is it helpful if these guys, having not been selected, assume as they keep being told to that it's a no thanks and they should not contact the couple again? Feedback is always helpful to decent single guys, and I'd very much rather the clarity of knowing that somebody is not interested at all over the slight disappointment of finding that they're not, or of not knowing at all. I completely understand and appreciate the reasons why people can't or don't reply but if a button - or preferably two, one for something like 'not on this occasion' and one for 'not interested at all' - would make it a little easier for people to do so, I'd like it introduced. I was interested to hear it's been tried before, that must have been some years ago and Fab will have grown a lot since, so I would think it's worth trying again. You've thought really hard about it! I don’t know anyone who doesn’t scan or have a way of deciding which messages they need to not bother opening eg age or location is out of preferences. If there’s potential, they’ll open your message and make a decision from there. Anything left is what gets mass deleted. Trust me, it’s hard enough to find decent people. Most aren’t going to skip a chance of someone fits the bill. " That's really interesting to hear. It doesn't chime with my own experiences; I've seen on numerous occasions single girls in particular say on status updates or in forum threads that they have simply too many messages to look at and have had to mass delete. I've also had the experience of messages I've sent to people who have already indicated they are interested and with whom I'm trying to chat further having been missed amongst the quantity they've received. They've then sometimes picked up a subsequent message I've sent. These kind of chats usually end up moving to kik or whatsapp in the end, but there is a risk of contact just being lost. I wonder if there is a significant difference for those of us in London though? The size of population here, which must also be reflected in the Fab population, as it were, must mean that couples and single girls receive an awful lot more messages than those elsewhere. I'd be interested to know given what you say - if you were looking for a meet, having chosen somebody, would you always reply to everybody else you thought was decent, advising them that you would be interested another time? If so, my impression is that you would be very untypical - but again, there may be a difference in perspective from being in London. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"That's really interesting to hear. It doesn't chime with my own experiences; I've seen on numerous occasions single girls in particular say on status updates or in forum threads that they have simply too many messages to look at and have had to mass delete. I've also had the experience of messages I've sent to people who have already indicated they are interested and with whom I'm trying to chat further having been missed amongst the quantity they've received. They've then sometimes picked up a subsequent message I've sent. These kind of chats usually end up moving to kik or whatsapp in the end, but there is a risk of contact just being lost. I wonder if there is a significant difference for those of us in London though? The size of population here, which must also be reflected in the Fab population, as it were, must mean that couples and single girls receive an awful lot more messages than those elsewhere. I'd be interested to know given what you say - if you were looking for a meet, having chosen somebody, would you always reply to everybody else you thought was decent, advising them that you would be interested another time? If so, my impression is that you would be very untypical - but again, there may be a difference in perspective from being in London." None of my friends or the people I’ve chatted with in clubs get so many decent messages that they wouldn’t chat to the people who’ve sent them. The volume tends to be a large amount of people who are too far away, out of age range, have crap profiles with nothing in them, have no pics etc. To find the ten they’re interested in and the one they pick, they’ve got to be using some sort of selection process. It’s not just happy coincidence that they opened those ten. If I stop chatting to someone it’s more I lost interest - it was like pulling teeth etc. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"The trouble with the current system is when a message is deleted you don’t know if it is a “no thanks” or just part of a mass delete. " I agree with you on this . I know lots of single female friends on here that can get up to 1000 messages per day. It frustrates them as they loose the ones they were chatting to that they were interested in. It's not possible to read them all so like you say .. Mass delete is pretty common | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Hi Given that, unlike many swinging and dating sites, this site actually has real people behind the profiles and not some random sex worker in a faraway place, might it be an idea to facilitate a quick and easy, generic response button that people could press after having read a message from someone in whom they have no interest. Simply needs to be something like: Thanks for your message but you're not for me. Happy Fabbing I'm sure many people would be more content with this response rather than none at all. Also, have you considered using the swipe function like in Tinder within search mode so that the same people don't keep reappearing in a search? Just thoughts really! Very much enjoying the site although I wish people would stop using it as a social media extension of the club; a way of arranging to meet at a club. Surely that's the point if a swingers' club - you go, you mingle, you play, you leave. Rich x " Or people could just read the FAQ's and accept that not reply = no thanks. I wouldn't use the automated reply feature, I'd continue deleting messages from people I'm not interested in. The swipe thing, just block people, that's essentially the same thing. Honestly, do you want fab to find you meets and shag them for you aswell? The tools are there, you just need to use them. Your comment about social media is odd, are you implying we ought to only use the site the way YOU want us to? There is no rule to say we can't use it to arrange meets in clubs, they have a dedicated club review section, two dedicated forums and allow clubs to advertise so clubs are certainly accepted by fab. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"If someone doesn't message you back, it's essentially a no thanks. I don't know why that's difficult to grasp Because it's obviously not necessarily a no thanks, for all that the FAQs and many people on here insist that it is. Many messages go unread. As has been pointed out already, mass deletes mean that it's not possible for the sender to know for sure whether a message has been read or not. How can you be saying 'no thanks' to a message you don't even know you've had? Also, there's a difference between 'no thanks, not ever' on 'no thanks on this occasion'. If say a couple put up a meet with a single guy, get 100 replies, 80 are awful, 20 are decent, they like 10 of these guys and choose one of them, presumably the other 9 would have a chance of being selected on a future occasion when they are also looking for a single guy? How is it helpful if these guys, having not been selected, assume as they keep being told to that it's a no thanks and they should not contact the couple again? Feedback is always helpful to decent single guys, and I'd very much rather the clarity of knowing that somebody is not interested at all over the slight disappointment of finding that they're not, or of not knowing at all. I completely understand and appreciate the reasons why people can't or don't reply but if a button - or preferably two, one for something like 'not on this occasion' and one for 'not interested at all' - would make it a little easier for people to do so, I'd like it introduced. I was interested to hear it's been tried before, that must have been some years ago and Fab will have grown a lot since, so I would think it's worth trying again." You're trying to over complicate things, just accept no reply means no thanks, if they were interested they would reply, I don't understand why you can't grasp this simple concept. You say about the mass delete issue, that's just tough luck really, try messaging again in a month or two if they haven't blocked you. I'm honestly suprised at the amount of men (mostly) who struggle to accept this. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"That's really interesting to hear. It doesn't chime with my own experiences; I've seen on numerous occasions single girls in particular say on status updates or in forum threads that they have simply too many messages to look at and have had to mass delete. I've also had the experience of messages I've sent to people who have already indicated they are interested and with whom I'm trying to chat further having been missed amongst the quantity they've received. They've then sometimes picked up a subsequent message I've sent. These kind of chats usually end up moving to kik or whatsapp in the end, but there is a risk of contact just being lost. I wonder if there is a significant difference for those of us in London though? The size of population here, which must also be reflected in the Fab population, as it were, must mean that couples and single girls receive an awful lot more messages than those elsewhere. I'd be interested to know given what you say - if you were looking for a meet, having chosen somebody, would you always reply to everybody else you thought was decent, advising them that you would be interested another time? If so, my impression is that you would be very untypical - but again, there may be a difference in perspective from being in London. None of my friends or the people I’ve chatted with in clubs get so many decent messages that they wouldn’t chat to the people who’ve sent them. The volume tends to be a large amount of people who are too far away, out of age range, have crap profiles with nothing in them, have no pics etc. To find the ten they’re interested in and the one they pick, they’ve got to be using some sort of selection process. It’s not just happy coincidence that they opened those ten. If I stop chatting to someone it’s more I lost interest - it was like pulling teeth etc. " Thanks, interesting. Yes, I get this about the majority of messages being likely to be unsuitable and needing a quick selection process. If I sent a message, saw the message had been unread but my profile had been looked at - this has happened, but not often - then I'd twig what was going on and assume 'not interested'. If the profile has been looked at in stealth mode than I'm none the wiser. But if as you suggest recipients are often doing this then that's reassuring. I hadn't thought it would be typical. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"If someone doesn't message you back, it's essentially a no thanks. I don't know why that's difficult to grasp Because it's obviously not necessarily a no thanks, for all that the FAQs and many people on here insist that it is. Many messages go unread. As has been pointed out already, mass deletes mean that it's not possible for the sender to know for sure whether a message has been read or not. How can you be saying 'no thanks' to a message you don't even know you've had? Also, there's a difference between 'no thanks, not ever' on 'no thanks on this occasion'. If say a couple put up a meet with a single guy, get 100 replies, 80 are awful, 20 are decent, they like 10 of these guys and choose one of them, presumably the other 9 would have a chance of being selected on a future occasion when they are also looking for a single guy? How is it helpful if these guys, having not been selected, assume as they keep being told to that it's a no thanks and they should not contact the couple again? Feedback is always helpful to decent single guys, and I'd very much rather the clarity of knowing that somebody is not interested at all over the slight disappointment of finding that they're not, or of not knowing at all. I completely understand and appreciate the reasons why people can't or don't reply but if a button - or preferably two, one for something like 'not on this occasion' and one for 'not interested at all' - would make it a little easier for people to do so, I'd like it introduced. I was interested to hear it's been tried before, that must have been some years ago and Fab will have grown a lot since, so I would think it's worth trying again. You're trying to over complicate things, just accept no reply means no thanks, if they were interested they would reply, I don't understand why you can't grasp this simple concept. You say about the mass delete issue, that's just tough luck really, try messaging again in a month or two if they haven't blocked you. I'm honestly suprised at the amount of men (mostly) who struggle to accept this. " Ah. I think you've misunderstood some of my points. With the mass delete, I meant that messages are as a result often being deleted unnoticed, even though, confusingly, to the sender they will show up as read. So if that's been the case, then there's no chance that if I'm the sender that I will have been blocked as the recipient will not know that they had been sent a message before... Other messages go unread but are not deleted. You say 'if they were interested they would reply'. Yes, perhaps that's the case even if the message is unread as they may have seen it's there and looked at my profile - if in stealth mode, I won't be able to tell this - or it may automatically have been ruled out as being of interest for some reason. On the other hand though, it may never have been seen at all. There is no way I can tell. I'd like to be able to tell. If somebody really isn't interested in me, then I'd prefer to know. I don't want to send somebody who definitely isn't interested in me any further messages on the basis that they might well never have known about the first one and could be. If they did in fact read the first one then I'm pestering them by sending another. I don't want to pester people. Also: it's wasting my own time! I'd rather not waste my time. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"If someone doesn't message you back, it's essentially a no thanks. I don't know why that's difficult to grasp Because it's obviously not necessarily a no thanks, for all that the FAQs and many people on here insist that it is. Many messages go unread. As has been pointed out already, mass deletes mean that it's not possible for the sender to know for sure whether a message has been read or not. How can you be saying 'no thanks' to a message you don't even know you've had? Also, there's a difference between 'no thanks, not ever' on 'no thanks on this occasion'. If say a couple put up a meet with a single guy, get 100 replies, 80 are awful, 20 are decent, they like 10 of these guys and choose one of them, presumably the other 9 would have a chance of being selected on a future occasion when they are also looking for a single guy? How is it helpful if these guys, having not been selected, assume as they keep being told to that it's a no thanks and they should not contact the couple again? Feedback is always helpful to decent single guys, and I'd very much rather the clarity of knowing that somebody is not interested at all over the slight disappointment of finding that they're not, or of not knowing at all. I completely understand and appreciate the reasons why people can't or don't reply but if a button - or preferably two, one for something like 'not on this occasion' and one for 'not interested at all' - would make it a little easier for people to do so, I'd like it introduced. I was interested to hear it's been tried before, that must have been some years ago and Fab will have grown a lot since, so I would think it's worth trying again. You're trying to over complicate things, just accept no reply means no thanks, if they were interested they would reply, I don't understand why you can't grasp this simple concept. You say about the mass delete issue, that's just tough luck really, try messaging again in a month or two if they haven't blocked you. I'm honestly suprised at the amount of men (mostly) who struggle to accept this. Ah. I think you've misunderstood some of my points. With the mass delete, I meant that messages are as a result often being deleted unnoticed, even though, confusingly, to the sender they will show up as read. So if that's been the case, then there's no chance that if I'm the sender that I will have been blocked as the recipient will not know that they had been sent a message before... Other messages go unread but are not deleted. You say 'if they were interested they would reply'. Yes, perhaps that's the case even if the message is unread as they may have seen it's there and looked at my profile - if in stealth mode, I won't be able to tell this - or it may automatically have been ruled out as being of interest for some reason. On the other hand though, it may never have been seen at all. There is no way I can tell. I'd like to be able to tell. If somebody really isn't interested in me, then I'd prefer to know. I don't want to send somebody who definitely isn't interested in me any further messages on the basis that they might well never have known about the first one and could be. If they did in fact read the first one then I'm pestering them by sending another. I don't want to pester people. Also: it's wasting my own time! I'd rather not waste my time. " Women don't want to waste time trawling through loads of messages and individually deleting them. I'd say the best bet is to simply delete sent messages then you won't be checking to see what has it hasn't happened to them. If you don't receive a reply take it as they weren't interested. Your idea with the buttons, if used as you hope them to be, would mean the woman would have to open and respond to every message, do you not think that's also wasting time? I think eventually people will just have to accept that if you don't get a reply, likely the person wasn't interested. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"If someone doesn't message you back, it's essentially a no thanks. I don't know why that's difficult to grasp Because it's obviously not necessarily a no thanks, for all that the FAQs and many people on here insist that it is. Many messages go unread. As has been pointed out already, mass deletes mean that it's not possible for the sender to know for sure whether a message has been read or not. How can you be saying 'no thanks' to a message you don't even know you've had? Also, there's a difference between 'no thanks, not ever' on 'no thanks on this occasion'. If say a couple put up a meet with a single guy, get 100 replies, 80 are awful, 20 are decent, they like 10 of these guys and choose one of them, presumably the other 9 would have a chance of being selected on a future occasion when they are also looking for a single guy? How is it helpful if these guys, having not been selected, assume as they keep being told to that it's a no thanks and they should not contact the couple again? Feedback is always helpful to decent single guys, and I'd very much rather the clarity of knowing that somebody is not interested at all over the slight disappointment of finding that they're not, or of not knowing at all. I completely understand and appreciate the reasons why people can't or don't reply but if a button - or preferably two, one for something like 'not on this occasion' and one for 'not interested at all' - would make it a little easier for people to do so, I'd like it introduced. I was interested to hear it's been tried before, that must have been some years ago and Fab will have grown a lot since, so I would think it's worth trying again. You're trying to over complicate things, just accept no reply means no thanks, if they were interested they would reply, I don't understand why you can't grasp this simple concept. You say about the mass delete issue, that's just tough luck really, try messaging again in a month or two if they haven't blocked you. I'm honestly suprised at the amount of men (mostly) who struggle to accept this. Ah. I think you've misunderstood some of my points. With the mass delete, I meant that messages are as a result often being deleted unnoticed, even though, confusingly, to the sender they will show up as read. So if that's been the case, then there's no chance that if I'm the sender that I will have been blocked as the recipient will not know that they had been sent a message before... Other messages go unread but are not deleted. You say 'if they were interested they would reply'. Yes, perhaps that's the case even if the message is unread as they may have seen it's there and looked at my profile - if in stealth mode, I won't be able to tell this - or it may automatically have been ruled out as being of interest for some reason. On the other hand though, it may never have been seen at all. There is no way I can tell. I'd like to be able to tell. If somebody really isn't interested in me, then I'd prefer to know. I don't want to send somebody who definitely isn't interested in me any further messages on the basis that they might well never have known about the first one and could be. If they did in fact read the first one then I'm pestering them by sending another. I don't want to pester people. Also: it's wasting my own time! I'd rather not waste my time. Women don't want to waste time trawling through loads of messages and individually deleting them. I'd say the best bet is to simply delete sent messages then you won't be checking to see what has it hasn't happened to them. If you don't receive a reply take it as they weren't interested. Your idea with the buttons, if used as you hope them to be, would mean the woman would have to open and respond to every message, do you not think that's also wasting time? I think eventually people will just have to accept that if you don't get a reply, likely the person wasn't interested. " We're going to have to agree to disagree on this, I think! If a message has been opened - I realise they won't always be - then clicking a button takes almost no additional time at all, surely? And part of my thinking is that if guys get a clear 'not interested' reply then they shouldn't be bothering the woman or couple again. So they'll get fewer messages, and have more time to attend to them. A virtuous circle is created. But you obviously see it differently. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"But bulk deleting or not reading them, just deleting them straight out of the inbox is much quicker than opening each message and pressing a button. I think what you're failing to take into account is that people have lives outside of fab, often very limited free time and most are looking for something in particular, there simply isn't enough time to manage accounts the way you want them to. Plus, why should they have to? No reply means 'not interested', as stated in the sites own FAQs, why can people not just accept it?" I think all I can say is that we clearly see this very differently. Ah well. Interesting to chat to you about it anyway, thanks for responding to my comments. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"But bulk deleting or not reading them, just deleting them straight out of the inbox is much quicker than opening each message and pressing a button. I think what you're failing to take into account is that people have lives outside of fab, often very limited free time and most are looking for something in particular, there simply isn't enough time to manage accounts the way you want them to. Plus, why should they have to? No reply means 'not interested', as stated in the sites own FAQs, why can people not just accept it? I think all I can say is that we clearly see this very differently. Ah well. Interesting to chat to you about it anyway, thanks for responding to my comments. " Indeed | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"If someone doesn't message you back, it's essentially a no thanks. I don't know why that's difficult to grasp Because it's obviously not necessarily a no thanks, for all that the FAQs and many people on here insist that it is. Many messages go unread. As has been pointed out already, mass deletes mean that it's not possible for the sender to know for sure whether a message has been read or not. How can you be saying 'no thanks' to a message you don't even know you've had? Also, there's a difference between 'no thanks, not ever' on 'no thanks on this occasion'. If say a couple put up a meet with a single guy, get 100 replies, 80 are awful, 20 are decent, they like 10 of these guys and choose one of them, presumably the other 9 would have a chance of being selected on a future occasion when they are also looking for a single guy? How is it helpful if these guys, having not been selected, assume as they keep being told to that it's a no thanks and they should not contact the couple again? Feedback is always helpful to decent single guys, and I'd very much rather the clarity of knowing that somebody is not interested at all over the slight disappointment of finding that they're not, or of not knowing at all. I completely understand and appreciate the reasons why people can't or don't reply but if a button - or preferably two, one for something like 'not on this occasion' and one for 'not interested at all' - would make it a little easier for people to do so, I'd like it introduced. I was interested to hear it's been tried before, that must have been some years ago and Fab will have grown a lot since, so I would think it's worth trying again. You're trying to over complicate things, just accept no reply means no thanks, if they were interested they would reply, I don't understand why you can't grasp this simple concept. You say about the mass delete issue, that's just tough luck really, try messaging again in a month or two if they haven't blocked you. I'm honestly suprised at the amount of men (mostly) who struggle to accept this. Ah. I think you've misunderstood some of my points. With the mass delete, I meant that messages are as a result often being deleted unnoticed, even though, confusingly, to the sender they will show up as read. So if that's been the case, then there's no chance that if I'm the sender that I will have been blocked as the recipient will not know that they had been sent a message before... Other messages go unread but are not deleted. You say 'if they were interested they would reply'. Yes, perhaps that's the case even if the message is unread as they may have seen it's there and looked at my profile - if in stealth mode, I won't be able to tell this - or it may automatically have been ruled out as being of interest for some reason. On the other hand though, it may never have been seen at all. There is no way I can tell. I'd like to be able to tell. If somebody really isn't interested in me, then I'd prefer to know. I don't want to send somebody who definitely isn't interested in me any further messages on the basis that they might well never have known about the first one and could be. If they did in fact read the first one then I'm pestering them by sending another. I don't want to pester people. Also: it's wasting my own time! I'd rather not waste my time. " Mate, just focus on the people that do reply. Trust me - if I log in to 50 new messages, I’ll scan quickly through and reply to the ones I’m interested in. Sorry to be blunt, but if they’re not replying, they’re not interested. It’s not that you’re just getting lost, you’re not what they’re looking for. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"If someone doesn't message you back, it's essentially a no thanks. I don't know why that's difficult to grasp Because it's obviously not necessarily a no thanks, for all that the FAQs and many people on here insist that it is. Many messages go unread. As has been pointed out already, mass deletes mean that it's not possible for the sender to know for sure whether a message has been read or not. How can you be saying 'no thanks' to a message you don't even know you've had? Also, there's a difference between 'no thanks, not ever' on 'no thanks on this occasion'. If say a couple put up a meet with a single guy, get 100 replies, 80 are awful, 20 are decent, they like 10 of these guys and choose one of them, presumably the other 9 would have a chance of being selected on a future occasion when they are also looking for a single guy? How is it helpful if these guys, having not been selected, assume as they keep being told to that it's a no thanks and they should not contact the couple again? Feedback is always helpful to decent single guys, and I'd very much rather the clarity of knowing that somebody is not interested at all over the slight disappointment of finding that they're not, or of not knowing at all. I completely understand and appreciate the reasons why people can't or don't reply but if a button - or preferably two, one for something like 'not on this occasion' and one for 'not interested at all' - would make it a little easier for people to do so, I'd like it introduced. I was interested to hear it's been tried before, that must have been some years ago and Fab will have grown a lot since, so I would think it's worth trying again. You're trying to over complicate things, just accept no reply means no thanks, if they were interested they would reply, I don't understand why you can't grasp this simple concept. You say about the mass delete issue, that's just tough luck really, try messaging again in a month or two if they haven't blocked you. I'm honestly suprised at the amount of men (mostly) who struggle to accept this. Ah. I think you've misunderstood some of my points. With the mass delete, I meant that messages are as a result often being deleted unnoticed, even though, confusingly, to the sender they will show up as read. So if that's been the case, then there's no chance that if I'm the sender that I will have been blocked as the recipient will not know that they had been sent a message before... Other messages go unread but are not deleted. You say 'if they were interested they would reply'. Yes, perhaps that's the case even if the message is unread as they may have seen it's there and looked at my profile - if in stealth mode, I won't be able to tell this - or it may automatically have been ruled out as being of interest for some reason. On the other hand though, it may never have been seen at all. There is no way I can tell. I'd like to be able to tell. If somebody really isn't interested in me, then I'd prefer to know. I don't want to send somebody who definitely isn't interested in me any further messages on the basis that they might well never have known about the first one and could be. If they did in fact read the first one then I'm pestering them by sending another. I don't want to pester people. Also: it's wasting my own time! I'd rather not waste my time. Mate, just focus on the people that do reply. Trust me - if I log in to 50 new messages, I’ll scan quickly through and reply to the ones I’m interested in. Sorry to be blunt, but if they’re not replying, they’re not interested. It’s not that you’re just getting lost, you’re not what they’re looking for. " Noted, and it's fine to be blunt. From your and other responses in the thread, if scanning, not reading messages, going straight to profiles of the minority of messages in which you might be interested is, as you say, typical of how women manage their mailbox then this indicates that men would be better off sending very brief messages such as 'Hi. Interested?' or a wink, then spending time and effort composing personalised messages which are not likely to be read. Do you agree? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"If someone doesn't message you back, it's essentially a no thanks. I don't know why that's difficult to grasp Because it's obviously not necessarily a no thanks, for all that the FAQs and many people on here insist that it is. Many messages go unread. As has been pointed out already, mass deletes mean that it's not possible for the sender to know for sure whether a message has been read or not. How can you be saying 'no thanks' to a message you don't even know you've had? Also, there's a difference between 'no thanks, not ever' on 'no thanks on this occasion'. If say a couple put up a meet with a single guy, get 100 replies, 80 are awful, 20 are decent, they like 10 of these guys and choose one of them, presumably the other 9 would have a chance of being selected on a future occasion when they are also looking for a single guy? How is it helpful if these guys, having not been selected, assume as they keep being told to that it's a no thanks and they should not contact the couple again? Feedback is always helpful to decent single guys, and I'd very much rather the clarity of knowing that somebody is not interested at all over the slight disappointment of finding that they're not, or of not knowing at all. I completely understand and appreciate the reasons why people can't or don't reply but if a button - or preferably two, one for something like 'not on this occasion' and one for 'not interested at all' - would make it a little easier for people to do so, I'd like it introduced. I was interested to hear it's been tried before, that must have been some years ago and Fab will have grown a lot since, so I would think it's worth trying again. You're trying to over complicate things, just accept no reply means no thanks, if they were interested they would reply, I don't understand why you can't grasp this simple concept. You say about the mass delete issue, that's just tough luck really, try messaging again in a month or two if they haven't blocked you. I'm honestly suprised at the amount of men (mostly) who struggle to accept this. Ah. I think you've misunderstood some of my points. With the mass delete, I meant that messages are as a result often being deleted unnoticed, even though, confusingly, to the sender they will show up as read. So if that's been the case, then there's no chance that if I'm the sender that I will have been blocked as the recipient will not know that they had been sent a message before... Other messages go unread but are not deleted. You say 'if they were interested they would reply'. Yes, perhaps that's the case even if the message is unread as they may have seen it's there and looked at my profile - if in stealth mode, I won't be able to tell this - or it may automatically have been ruled out as being of interest for some reason. On the other hand though, it may never have been seen at all. There is no way I can tell. I'd like to be able to tell. If somebody really isn't interested in me, then I'd prefer to know. I don't want to send somebody who definitely isn't interested in me any further messages on the basis that they might well never have known about the first one and could be. If they did in fact read the first one then I'm pestering them by sending another. I don't want to pester people. Also: it's wasting my own time! I'd rather not waste my time. Mate, just focus on the people that do reply. Trust me - if I log in to 50 new messages, I’ll scan quickly through and reply to the ones I’m interested in. Sorry to be blunt, but if they’re not replying, they’re not interested. It’s not that you’re just getting lost, you’re not what they’re looking for. Noted, and it's fine to be blunt. From your and other responses in the thread, if scanning, not reading messages, going straight to profiles of the minority of messages in which you might be interested is, as you say, typical of how women manage their mailbox then this indicates that men would be better off sending very brief messages such as 'Hi. Interested?' or a wink, then spending time and effort composing personalised messages which are not likely to be read. Do you agree? " Unfortunately, that's more likely to get your message deleted. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"If someone doesn't message you back, it's essentially a no thanks. I don't know why that's difficult to grasp Because it's obviously not necessarily a no thanks, for all that the FAQs and many people on here insist that it is. Many messages go unread. As has been pointed out already, mass deletes mean that it's not possible for the sender to know for sure whether a message has been read or not. How can you be saying 'no thanks' to a message you don't even know you've had? Also, there's a difference between 'no thanks, not ever' on 'no thanks on this occasion'. If say a couple put up a meet with a single guy, get 100 replies, 80 are awful, 20 are decent, they like 10 of these guys and choose one of them, presumably the other 9 would have a chance of being selected on a future occasion when they are also looking for a single guy? How is it helpful if these guys, having not been selected, assume as they keep being told to that it's a no thanks and they should not contact the couple again? Feedback is always helpful to decent single guys, and I'd very much rather the clarity of knowing that somebody is not interested at all over the slight disappointment of finding that they're not, or of not knowing at all. I completely understand and appreciate the reasons why people can't or don't reply but if a button - or preferably two, one for something like 'not on this occasion' and one for 'not interested at all' - would make it a little easier for people to do so, I'd like it introduced. I was interested to hear it's been tried before, that must have been some years ago and Fab will have grown a lot since, so I would think it's worth trying again. You're trying to over complicate things, just accept no reply means no thanks, if they were interested they would reply, I don't understand why you can't grasp this simple concept. You say about the mass delete issue, that's just tough luck really, try messaging again in a month or two if they haven't blocked you. I'm honestly suprised at the amount of men (mostly) who struggle to accept this. Ah. I think you've misunderstood some of my points. With the mass delete, I meant that messages are as a result often being deleted unnoticed, even though, confusingly, to the sender they will show up as read. So if that's been the case, then there's no chance that if I'm the sender that I will have been blocked as the recipient will not know that they had been sent a message before... Other messages go unread but are not deleted. You say 'if they were interested they would reply'. Yes, perhaps that's the case even if the message is unread as they may have seen it's there and looked at my profile - if in stealth mode, I won't be able to tell this - or it may automatically have been ruled out as being of interest for some reason. On the other hand though, it may never have been seen at all. There is no way I can tell. I'd like to be able to tell. If somebody really isn't interested in me, then I'd prefer to know. I don't want to send somebody who definitely isn't interested in me any further messages on the basis that they might well never have known about the first one and could be. If they did in fact read the first one then I'm pestering them by sending another. I don't want to pester people. Also: it's wasting my own time! I'd rather not waste my time. Mate, just focus on the people that do reply. Trust me - if I log in to 50 new messages, I’ll scan quickly through and reply to the ones I’m interested in. Sorry to be blunt, but if they’re not replying, they’re not interested. It’s not that you’re just getting lost, you’re not what they’re looking for. Noted, and it's fine to be blunt. From your and other responses in the thread, if scanning, not reading messages, going straight to profiles of the minority of messages in which you might be interested is, as you say, typical of how women manage their mailbox then this indicates that men would be better off sending very brief messages such as 'Hi. Interested?' or a wink, then spending time and effort composing personalised messages which are not likely to be read. Do you agree? Unfortunately, that's more likely to get your message deleted. " ?!?!?! so you'd advise single guys to spend time and effort carefully writing personal messages, but also for us to understand that there's very little chance they'll be read. We shouldn't expect to know if they've been read, we shouldn't expect a response of any kind and we should understand that the lack of a reply means the recipient is definitely not interested even if they've not read the message or indeed even seen that there is a message. We should accept that this situation is one that works perfectly well for all concerned and make no attempts to suggest anything at all that might alter it. Ok, well, I have that clear now. Thank you. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
" Mate, just focus on the people that do reply. Trust me - if I log in to 50 new messages, I’ll scan quickly through and reply to the ones I’m interested in. Sorry to be blunt, but if they’re not replying, they’re not interested. It’s not that you’re just getting lost, you’re not what they’re looking for. Noted, and it's fine to be blunt. From your and other responses in the thread, if scanning, not reading messages, going straight to profiles of the minority of messages in which you might be interested is, as you say, typical of how women manage their mailbox then this indicates that men would be better off sending very brief messages such as 'Hi. Interested?' or a wink, then spending time and effort composing personalised messages which are not likely to be read. Do you agree? Unfortunately, that's more likely to get your message deleted. " No definitely don’t agree! If it’s a new contract and I can read the whole message without opening it, it’s one of the first up go. The unspoken message I get from that is, I’m sending so many messages I haven’t gone to make any effort. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"If someone doesn't message you back, it's essentially a no thanks. I don't know why that's difficult to grasp Because it's obviously not necessarily a no thanks, for all that the FAQs and many people on here insist that it is. Many messages go unread. As has been pointed out already, mass deletes mean that it's not possible for the sender to know for sure whether a message has been read or not. How can you be saying 'no thanks' to a message you don't even know you've had? Also, there's a difference between 'no thanks, not ever' on 'no thanks on this occasion'. If say a couple put up a meet with a single guy, get 100 replies, 80 are awful, 20 are decent, they like 10 of these guys and choose one of them, presumably the other 9 would have a chance of being selected on a future occasion when they are also looking for a single guy? How is it helpful if these guys, having not been selected, assume as they keep being told to that it's a no thanks and they should not contact the couple again? Feedback is always helpful to decent single guys, and I'd very much rather the clarity of knowing that somebody is not interested at all over the slight disappointment of finding that they're not, or of not knowing at all. I completely understand and appreciate the reasons why people can't or don't reply but if a button - or preferably two, one for something like 'not on this occasion' and one for 'not interested at all' - would make it a little easier for people to do so, I'd like it introduced. I was interested to hear it's been tried before, that must have been some years ago and Fab will have grown a lot since, so I would think it's worth trying again. You're trying to over complicate things, just accept no reply means no thanks, if they were interested they would reply, I don't understand why you can't grasp this simple concept. You say about the mass delete issue, that's just tough luck really, try messaging again in a month or two if they haven't blocked you. I'm honestly suprised at the amount of men (mostly) who struggle to accept this. Ah. I think you've misunderstood some of my points. With the mass delete, I meant that messages are as a result often being deleted unnoticed, even though, confusingly, to the sender they will show up as read. So if that's been the case, then there's no chance that if I'm the sender that I will have been blocked as the recipient will not know that they had been sent a message before... Other messages go unread but are not deleted. You say 'if they were interested they would reply'. Yes, perhaps that's the case even if the message is unread as they may have seen it's there and looked at my profile - if in stealth mode, I won't be able to tell this - or it may automatically have been ruled out as being of interest for some reason. On the other hand though, it may never have been seen at all. There is no way I can tell. I'd like to be able to tell. If somebody really isn't interested in me, then I'd prefer to know. I don't want to send somebody who definitely isn't interested in me any further messages on the basis that they might well never have known about the first one and could be. If they did in fact read the first one then I'm pestering them by sending another. I don't want to pester people. Also: it's wasting my own time! I'd rather not waste my time. Mate, just focus on the people that do reply. Trust me - if I log in to 50 new messages, I’ll scan quickly through and reply to the ones I’m interested in. Sorry to be blunt, but if they’re not replying, they’re not interested. It’s not that you’re just getting lost, you’re not what they’re looking for. Noted, and it's fine to be blunt. From your and other responses in the thread, if scanning, not reading messages, going straight to profiles of the minority of messages in which you might be interested is, as you say, typical of how women manage their mailbox then this indicates that men would be better off sending very brief messages such as 'Hi. Interested?' or a wink, then spending time and effort composing personalised messages which are not likely to be read. Do you agree? Unfortunately, that's more likely to get your message deleted. ?!?!?! so you'd advise single guys to spend time and effort carefully writing personal messages, but also for us to understand that there's very little chance they'll be read. We shouldn't expect to know if they've been read, we shouldn't expect a response of any kind and we should understand that the lack of a reply means the recipient is definitely not interested even if they've not read the message or indeed even seen that there is a message. We should accept that this situation is one that works perfectly well for all concerned and make no attempts to suggest anything at all that might alter it. Ok, well, I have that clear now. Thank you." No one is saying that  we’re saying message people who are looking for people like you and make some effort do you stand out. We’re also saying, just as we have to, accept that just because you think you’re a good fit, the recipient of your message doesn’t have to think so. I don’t moan every time someone doesn’t, or stops, replying to me. Nor do I demand an explanation or assume my message is lost. I just accept and move on. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
" ?!?!?! so you'd advise single guys to spend time and effort carefully writing personal messages, but also for us to understand that there's very little chance they'll be read. We shouldn't expect to know if they've been read, we shouldn't expect a response of any kind and we should understand that the lack of a reply means the recipient is definitely not interested even if they've not read the message or indeed even seen that there is a message. We should accept that this situation is one that works perfectly well for all concerned and make no attempts to suggest anything at all that might alter it. Ok, well, I have that clear now. Thank you." I didn't say that. But remember, you're sending unsolicited messages on a site where it says that no reply = not interested. Nobody here owes you a reply, an explanation or anything else. When you get leaflets put through your door, or get spam emails, do you open every one and respond individually to let them know you aren't interested in their product? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"It's ok. I get it. It's all about me, and I'm moaning. I shouldn't have the temerity to suggest anything needs to change because Everything Is Perfect. Any thinking on my part that I'm suggesting things that might benefit other users of the site are delusional because actually it's all about me and I'm moaning. I am genuinely grateful to those who took the trouble to engage with me, and disagreement is fine, but it's been a dispiriting experience. I shan't be posting to this thread again." Oh dear. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"It's ok. I get it. It's all about me, and I'm moaning. I shouldn't have the temerity to suggest anything needs to change because Everything Is Perfect. Any thinking on my part that I'm suggesting things that might benefit other users of the site are delusional because actually it's all about me and I'm moaning. I am genuinely grateful to those who took the trouble to engage with me, and disagreement is fine, but it's been a dispiriting experience. I shan't be posting to this thread again." Someone replying with a no thanks still isn't gonna get the sender of the original message a shag...so where's the benefit  | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"It's ok. I get it. It's all about me, and I'm moaning. I shouldn't have the temerity to suggest anything needs to change because Everything Is Perfect. Any thinking on my part that I'm suggesting things that might benefit other users of the site are delusional because actually it's all about me and I'm moaning. I am genuinely grateful to those who took the trouble to engage with me, and disagreement is fine, but it's been a dispiriting experience. I shan't be posting to this thread again." Says it all really. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
