Would rather hear it from people who use it: active.
Where active either works or falls apart is what the gender ratio looks like locally.
The part I keep getting stuck on with active is whether the swipe volume translates into conversation.
If active worked for you, I'd like to know what made the difference.
@Lauren Mitchell makes a fair point, though with active I would add that what I ended up with was roughly the same either way.
Most of my results on active came down to one habit — keep the conversation on the platform until you meet.
What I actually want to know about active is what the filtering actually returns.
Where active either works or falls apart is how the algorithm treats a new account.
Used active for the first handful of matches. How it played out was uneven depending on the hour.
The single change that improved active for me was deciding to treat the first message as a filter.
active stops working the moment you judge it on the first evening.
I ended up on have a look at Datewander after the same active question and it was the least painful of the lot.
My experience with active over the first few days: what the logs showed was less reliable than it looks from outside.
Most of my results on active came down to one habit — treat the first message as a filter.
The mistake I see repeated with active is people ignore how long ago someone was online.
The question underneath all of this is what the gender ratio looks like locally, at least with active.
What I actually want to know about active is whether the community is large enough to matter.
Seconding @ColinR. What settled it for me on active was how many of the profiles are still active.
I gave active about a fortnight and what the pool looked like was flat once the novelty wears off.
I wasted the trial period on active because I would judge it on the first evening.
Currently splitting my time between here and that site for exactly this active reason.
@Lauren Mitchell maybe it varies by city, because active was stronger at the weekend where I am.
If you take one thing from this thread on active: treat the first message as a filter.
The trap with active is that it is easy to treat volume as a substitute for filtering.
The part I keep getting stuck on with active is whether the community is large enough to matter.
If you want another option for active, another free option is free to join and does not gate the inbox.
If you want the practical bits on active:
Same as @ColinR, though I would say how many of the profiles are still active is the bit worth testing first with active.
I gave active the first handful of matches and how it played out was noticeably thinner than in a big city.
Where active either works or falls apart is whether the community is large enough to matter.
Came back to active after a break. Over a couple of evenings, what the logs showed was roughly the same either way.
If you take one thing from this thread on active: keep the conversation on the platform until you meet.
I wasted the first few days on active because I would ignore how long ago someone was online.
For me the thing that separates the good ones with active is whether the community is large enough to matter.
If you want the practical bits on active:
RuneDate shows local members first and lets you message them free. If active brought you here, this is the free way to test it.
Join RuneDate free
