In that vein, I think it’s important to keep in mind that a list of your Perfect Mate Metadata demands can exist, sure, but it has to be a list that can flex and get reexamined in a less obsessively data-driven lens, because we live in a world that’s far more subtle and nuanced than a Mensch spreadsheet.I don’t think Amy would agree with me here; her spreadsheet approached worked great for her. But I’ve met and worked with oh so many singles for whom a list of qualifications has continually backfired.Later, she expanded her brief presentation into a provocative and thought-provoking TED Book.
In most cases, specific details are the best way to stand out from other profiles, to seem more like a human than just a profile URL, and to reach users who are astute enough to tinker around with manual searches on specific terms or titles.
Yes, it’s possible someone might be dismissive about your love of The English Patient (her example), but generally, if you annotate your media passions with something that shows a little wit or self-deprecation, or provides a window into your thought process, then you’re going to be able to win over those few skeptics, and your writing style will be a breath of fresh air compared to the many boring and boilerplate profiles out there.
Amy’s own personal algorithm worked for Amy specifically, but its primary characteristic was a ton of effort on her part.
Most of my clients wouldn’t do well to mimic her approach, but they WOULD do well to put out the same amount of energy in different ways than Amy did.
Amy behaved like a human who happens to have a penchant for data, but she didn’t behave like the kind of algorithm sites like e Harmony and Ok Cupid are using to suggest potential dates to you.