Perhaps the most interesting AshleyMadison result: Almost Nobody Was Actually Cheating

[The Cadet]

http://gizmodo.com/almost-none-of-the-women-in-the-ashley-madison-database-1725558944

Then, three data fields changed everything. The first field, called mail_last_time, contained a timestamp indicating the last time a member checked the messages in their Ashley Madison inbox. If a person never checked their inbox, the field was blank. But even if they’d checked their messages only once, the field contained a date and time. About two-thirds of the men, or 20.2 million of them, had checked the messages in their accounts at least once. But only 1,492 women had ever checked their messages. It was a serious anomaly.

The pattern was reflected in another data field, too. This one, called chat_last_time contained the timestamp for the last time a member had struck up a conversation using the Ashley Madison chat system. Roughly 11 million men had engaged in chat, but only 2400 women had.

[...]

Overall, the picture is grim indeed. Out of 5.5 million female accounts, roughly zero percent had ever shown any kind of activity at all, after the day they were created.

The men’s accounts tell a story of lively engagement with the site, with over 20 million men hopefully looking at their inboxes, and over 10 million of them initiating chats. The women’s accounts show so little activity that they might as well not be there.​

Mayhaps we were too quick to call Josh an adulterer. After all, it's not like he was particularly likely to find anything on that website.

 

[wing2000]

....after all scandal we find out the actual usage data reveals a bunch of men talking to...each other.

 

[SuperCloud]

I'm not very good at math, so, I'm not quite understanding this conclusion. The inference from the numbers I mean.

I only say that because via the request of a friend in prison I had checked his online dating page two or three times. It was some dating website but I can't remember which one. Basically the women were like a singular woman on an island full of 2 million men. The most cocky (the women) you have ever seen in life. They had there pick of men in astronomical numbers and blatantly stated in their profiles their inboxes are so full daily they rare respond to most.

I only read over the messages of profiles and I think I made a response to one woman in his inbox (I don't think I ever logged back on to follow up). I had no idea why dudes wanted to be on those things. And I see why so many men have complained online dating sites are a trillion times in the female favor.

Put a wig on Hitler or Stalin or the Queen of England. That's what you've got on those sites from alpha females through betas to even the not-so-good-looking omega females.

If you go on backpages you'll find the women vastly outnumber the men in selling themselves. They imply in their posts they are inundated with phone calls and texts too.

But like I said... I'm not very good at math, so, perhaps the best inference or only inference to draw from the numbers is that no to few women existed or that men were talking to each other.

Or maybe that just a feminist vision of a sexually equal world in which men have as easy a time standing on street corners selling themselves to women as women do as prostitutes on street corners marketing themselves to men.

 

[bhsmte]

http://gizmodo.com/almost-none-of-the-women-in-the-ashley-madison-database-1725558944

Then, three data fields changed everything. The first field, called mail_last_time, contained a timestamp indicating the last time a member checked the messages in their Ashley Madison inbox. If a person never checked their inbox, the field was blank. But even if they’d checked their messages only once, the field contained a date and time. About two-thirds of the men, or 20.2 million of them, had checked the messages in their accounts at least once. But only 1,492 women had ever checked their messages. It was a serious anomaly.

The pattern was reflected in another data field, too. This one, called chat_last_time contained the timestamp for the last time a member had struck up a conversation using the Ashley Madison chat system. Roughly 11 million men had engaged in chat, but only 2400 women had.

[...]

Overall, the picture is grim indeed. Out of 5.5 million female accounts, roughly zero percent had ever shown any kind of activity at all, after the day they were created.

The men’s accounts tell a story of lively engagement with the site, with over 20 million men hopefully looking at their inboxes, and over 10 million of them initiating chats. The women’s accounts show so little activity that they might as well not be there.​

Mayhaps we were too quick to call Josh an adulterer. After all, it's not like he was particularly likely to find anything on that website.

I am not surprised the majority of people who signed up for this site, never actually connected with anyone.

The more interesting question is, why did they sign up for the site?

 

[cow451]

I am not surprised the majority of people who signed up for this site, never actually connected with anyone.

The more interesting question is, why did they sign up for the site?

Being single, you wouldn't understand.

 

[bhsmte]

Being single, you wouldn't understand.

There was a time, where I could.

 

[cow451]

There was a time, where I could.

Two-thirds of heterosexual divorces are initiated by wives. Just sayin'...... One of my wife's most quoted stats.

 

[bhsmte]

Two-thirds of heterosexual divorces are initiated by wives. Just sayin'...... One of my wife's most quoted stats.

Yep, that is very true.

As a general rule, I think many women tend to be more proactive than men.

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

I'm not very good at math, so, I'm not quite understanding this conclusion. The inference from the numbers I mean.

I only say that because via the request of a friend in prison I had checked his online dating page two or three times. It was some dating website but I can't remember which one. Basically the women were like a singular woman on an island full of 2 million men. The most cocky (the women) you have ever seen in life. They had there pick of men in astronomical numbers and blatantly stated in their profiles their inboxes are so full daily they rare respond to most.

I only read over the messages of profiles and I think I made a response to one woman in his inbox (I don't think I ever logged back on to follow up). I had no idea why dudes wanted to be on those things. And I see why so many men have complained online dating sites are a trillion times in the female favor.

Put a wig on Hitler or Stalin or the Queen of England. That's what you've got on those sites from alpha females through betas to even the not-so-good-looking omega females.

If you go on backpages you'll find the women vastly outnumber the men in selling themselves. They imply in their posts they are inundated with phone calls and texts too.

But like I said... I'm not very good at math, so, perhaps the best inference or only inference to draw from the numbers is that no to few women existed or that men were talking to each other.

Or maybe that just a feminist vision of a sexually equal world in which men have as easy a time standing on street corners selling themselves to women as women do as prostitutes on street corners marketing themselves to men.

I sort of gave up on those things. I signed up for a plenty of fish account. I am not looking for one night stands, but you have women who have nothing but boob and butt shots and then say they aren't into one night stands. They then have huge long rants on their profiles explaining that. Don't sell yourself like a hooker if you don't want to be treated like one. The hypocrisy was too much, and I gave up on the online dating scene.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Mayhaps we were too quick to call Josh an adulterer. After all, it's not like he was particularly likely to find anything on that website.

He copped to the affair. Now, one of the tabloids is running a story about a stripper claiming that she had an affair with Duggar and that he liked to get rough with her.

 

[SuperCloud]

I sort of gave up on those things. I signed up for a plenty of fish account. I am not looking for one night stands, but you have women who have nothing but boob and butt shots and then say they aren't into one night stands. They then have huge long rants on their profiles explaining that. Don't sell yourself like a hooker if you don't want to be treated like one. The hypocrisy was too much, and I gave up on the online dating scene.

That was it!!! That was the site! Thanks.

Yeah, I don't blame you for getting off of there. Maybe I'm too lazy... but those women take too much work. If they were analogous to regular jobs it'd be like working for Republicans paying you 10 cents an hour to build Egyptian pyramids. And the attitudes? Naw, forget it. I'll holla. Peace.