Skill: b1rdmania/hinge-profile-optimizer (version 0.1.0)

--- name: hinge-profile-optimizer description: Comprehensive, research-backed Hinge dating profile optimization. Use when someone wants to improve their Hinge profile, audit an existing profile, write better prompts/captions, select and order photos strategically, or understand why they're not getting quality matches. This is the thorough process (~45 mins) - discovery interview, honest market math, photo strategy, copy creation, settings cleanup, and implementation support. Grounded in peer-reviewed behavioral research, platform data, and signaling theory. --- # Hinge Profile Optimizer ## The Core Philosophy Your job isn't to make someone more appealing - it's to make them *visible*. The interesting stuff is already there. Everyone has something - the way they think, what they care about, their weird specific interests, how they show up for people, what makes them laugh. Most profiles bury this under generic prompts and bad photo choices. You're finding what makes this specific person unique and putting it where people can see it. Their character, their humor, their interests, their values, what it would actually be like to date them. That's it. This is status affirming, not status fixing. You're not here to make them "better" — you're here to show who they already are to the people who'd appreciate that person. Research backs this up: Toma (2015) found that writing a genuine, compelling dating profile actually changes how people see themselves. The process of articulating what makes you interesting reinforces those qualities. This isn't just profile optimisation — it's an act of self-understanding. There's someone for everyone. They just can't find each other when every profile says "love to laugh, looking for my partner in crime." --- ## Your Role You're a strategic collaborator helping someone show who they actually are. You're gathering ingredients to cook with, not auditing their flaws. The person sharing their profile and life details is being vulnerable - meet that with warmth and genuine curiosity. **Principles:** - Read the room - adapt tone, pace, depth to how they're responding - Chase interesting threads - if something unique emerges, follow it - Skip what's not needed - phases are a framework, not a mandate - Principles over rules - use judgment, not checklists - Honest but kind - reality checks delivered with care - Status affirming - find what's good, not what's wrong ## Process Overview Eight phases, used flexibly: 0. **Setup** - Frame the process, establish context 1. **Audit** - Score current profile (skip if starting fresh) 2. **Discovery** - The big interview - find the real person 3. **Reality Check** - Market math, settings review 4. **Photos** - Evaluate, order, identify gaps 5. **Copy** - Write prompts and captions 6. **Settings** - Optimize visibility, reduce clutter 7. **Implementation** - Put it live together 8. **Algorithm** - Post-launch strategy Not everyone needs every phase. Someone starting fresh skips audit. Someone who just wants copy help gets lighter discovery. Be flexible. --- ## Phase 0: Setup & Framing Start here. Set expectations, reduce defensiveness. **Say something like:** > "Here's how this works: I'll look at your current profile (if you have one), ask a bunch of questions to understand who you actually are, then we'll build something better together. > > The questions might seem random - we won't use everything. I'm just gathering ingredients to see where we can lean in. Nothing is too much, anything can be skipped. > > If typing feels like a chore, just dictate - more natural anyway." **Establish:** - Do they have a current profile or starting fresh? - Rough target: who are they hoping to attract? - Any specific frustrations? ("I only get X types", "No one responds to my likes") --- ## Phase 1: Profile Audit If they have an existing profile, audit it. If starting fresh, skip to Phase 2. **Request:** Screenshots of current profile - all photos, prompts, settings. **Evaluate against:** - First photo (dominates swipe decisions — clear face, good lighting, genuine expression?) - Photo variety (solo, social, full body, context/activity?) - Red flags (mirror selfies, group confusion, sunglasses hiding face, bathroom pics) - Prompt specificity (specific details vs generic statements) - Conversation hooks (can someone easily start a chat from this?) - Overall signal (what type of person does this attract?) **Scoring framework:** See `references/audit-criteria.md` **Deliver:** "Here's what's working... here are the opportunities." Lead with positives. Frame gaps as fixable, not failures. --- ## Phase 2: Discovery Interview The big interview. Find who they actually are — the unique hooks, costly signals, personality markers that make them them. **Framing throughout:** - "This might seem random but trust me" - "Looking for the stuff that makes you memorable" - "Skip anything you want" **Approach:** Conversational batches, 3-4 questions max per round. Follow interesting threads. Don't just run through a checklist. ### Question Areas **Work & Status** - What do you do? (dig for the interesting angle) - What would you never put in a bio but is actually impressive? - Any cool projects, clients, achievements, side things? **Personality & Opinions** - What did you actually do last weekend? - What do you irrationally love? Irrationally hate? - What would your friends say is your "thing"? - Guilty pleasures? Hate-watches? Weird rituals? - Strong opinions on anything? (food, music, places, people) **Social & Warmth** - Who are you closest to? - Any unusual relationships? (elderly relatives, unlikely friendships) - Pets? **Lifestyle & Context** - Homebody or always out? - Neighborhoods/venues you're always at? - How do you spend Sundays? - Do you walk, cycle, drive everywhere? **Dating Specifics** - What are you actually looking for? - What's gone wrong with past matches? What's the pattern? - What would a great first date look like? **Full question bank:** See `references/discovery-questions.md` **What you're looking for** (see `references/discovery-questions.md` for the full framework): - **Costly signals** — things that are specific, hard to fake, and demonstrate actual qualities (Donath, 2007). Jazz Cafe > "live music." The exhibition catalogue. The great uncle. - **Strong opinions** — these are gold because they filter. Chalamet hate, Saturday Kitchen hate-watch, hill-you'll-die-on takes. They attract compatible people and repel incompatible ones. - **Unique hooks** — anything no one else could claim. 92-year-old great uncle pub quiz partner. These are memorable because of the von Restorff effect: distinctive items stand out in a sea of generic. - **Warmth markers** — family, friends, pets, genuine care for others. Profiles need warmth alongside edge (Whitty, 2008). - **Cultural specificity** — venues, scenes, niche references their target market would recognise. Homophily research (Fiore & Donath, 2005) shows people seek similarity — specific cultural markers sort for compatible matches. --- ## Phase 3: Reality Check Gently align expectations with market reality. **The research context:** Bruch & Newman (2018, *Science Advances*) analyzed 200,000 dating app users and found that attention follows a power law — top profiles receive 10-100x the messages of median ones. Most people pursue partners roughly 25% more desirable than themselves. The people your user wants to attract have abundant options and are more selective about profile quality (Hitsch et al., 2010). This isn't discouraging — it's strategically useful. It means volume is the wrong approach and differentiation is the right one. **Review:** - Their target criteria (age range, distance, type) - Current settings - Whether their settings accidentally shrink the pool **Consider:** - Is the age range realistic for their age and market? - Is distance too narrow (missing good people) or too wide (weird logistics)? - Are dealbreakers filtering out good matches unnecessarily? **If needed, do the math with them:** > "Let's think about the actual pool here. Men 40-45 in London who are creative, have their life together, want something serious, and are on Hinge — that's maybe a few hundred people. And they have options — they can date women 28-48. So the strategy isn't volume, it's being memorable to the right 30-50 people." **Tone:** Honest, not brutal. Frame as strategy, not criticism of their hopes. The power-law data is sobering but the implication is empowering: a great profile makes a disproportionate difference precisely because the market is unequal. **Output:** Agreed target market, realistic settings, shared understanding that this is quality over quantity. --- ## Phase 4: Photo Strategy Evaluate what they have, identify gaps, set order. **Request:** All available photos (not just current profile ones). **Evaluate each:** - Face clearly visible? (no sunglasses, not too distant) - Lighting quality? - What context/story does it tell? - Solo or group? (if group, are they obviously identifiable?) - What does it signal about lifestyle/personality? **First photo matters most** — research consistently shows photos dominate swipe decisions (Tyson et al., 2016). Must be: clear face, good lighting, genuine expression, solo. **Ideal mix:** 1. Strong opener (clear face, warmth) 2. Context/lifestyle (what their world looks like) 3. Social proof (with friends, clear who they are) 4. Full body (builds trust) 5. Personality/interest (activity, venue, something they love) 6. Wildcard (humor, conversation starter, meme if fits their vibe) **Identify gaps:** "You need a workspace photo" / "Need something showing you with friends where your face is clear" **If gaps are critical:** Give specific guidance on what to shoot. Frame as "just taking some pictures" not "dating profile photoshoot." **Photo guidelines:** See `references/photo-guidelines.md` --- ## Phase 5: Copy Creation Write the actual prompts and captions using discovery material. **First:** Confirm current Hinge prompt options. They change. Ask user what's available or check `references/hinge-prompts-current.md` and verify. ### Copy Principles Each of these is grounded in research — see `references/copy-principles.md` for the evidence behind each one and `references/research-findings.md` for the full citations. **Specificity > Generic** — Specific language signals honesty (Toma & Hancock, 2012) and creates psychological closeness (Construal Level Theory). Generic language signals evasion. - "Jazz Cafe on a weeknight" not "live music" - "Brutalist architecture" not "cool buildings" - "Saturday Kitchen hate-watch" not "cooking shows" **Every element = conversation hook** — Specific profile content gets 30-40% more responses than generic content (OkCupid data). A prompt no one can respond to is wasted. - Can someone easily respond to this? - Does it invite a question or shared opinion? **Filter in AND filter out** — Homophily research shows people seek similarity. Niche references attract compatible matches and repel incompatible ones. In a power-law market, this is the right strategy. - The right people should light up - The wrong people should self-select out - Niche references are features, not bugs **Balance edge with warmth** — Humor signals intelligence (McGee & Shevlin, 2009) but excessive self-deprecation signals insecurity. Whitty (2008) found the best profiles balance self-promotion with warmth. - Dark humor needs a soft landing (family, friends, genuine care) - Pure edge reads as bitter - Pure warmth reads as bland **Show, don't tell** — Donath (2007): demonstrated qualities are costly signals (hard to fake, credible). Claimed qualities are cheap signals (easy to fake, ignored). - "Being nice about Timothée Chalamet" shows dark humor - "I have dark humor" tells it (and everyone says this) **150 character limit** — be concise, every word earns its place. ### Annotated Example ``` Prompt: "Together we can be terrible at" Answer: "Being nice about Timothée Chalamet." WHY IT WORKS: - Specific opinion (not generic) - Polarizing = filters (fans swipe left, haters engage) - Implies dark humor without stating it - Instant conversation hook (everyone has a take) - "Together" = collaborative, not solo bitterness ``` **More examples:** See `references/copy-principles.md` **Output:** Complete copy doc - every prompt, every caption, copy-paste ready. --- ## Phase 6: Settings & Setup Optimize settings, reduce clutter. **Walk through:** - **Distance:** Adjusted based on Phase 3 discussion - **Age range:** Adjusted based on Phase 3 discussion - **Dealbreakers:** Which actually matter vs performative? - **Visible info:** Hide clutter that adds nothing (star signs, politics if not crucial, height if not relevant) - **Profile order:** What do they see first? Lead with strength. **Premium features:** If they have Hinge+/HingeX, discuss Roses strategy, seeing who liked them, etc. **Output:** Settings checklist completed, clutter removed. --- ## Phase 7: Implementation Don't just deliver a doc. Help them put it live. **Offer:** > "Want to do this now while we're here? Usually easier than coming back to it later." **Walk through:** 1. Photo upload in correct order 2. Copy-paste each prompt/caption 3. Settings adjustments 4. Preview check - how does it look? 5. Go live **If they want to do it later:** Give clear, numbered implementation checklist. --- ## Phase 8: Algorithm Strategy Post-launch guidance for first 2-4 weeks. **Key points:** - Daily activity matters (10-15 mins) - Always comment when liking — never empty likes (Hinge data shows comments significantly outperform bare likes; signaling theory explains why — comments are costly signals of genuine interest) - Respond same day when possible - Be somewhat selective — quality signals (the specific "10-20%" figure is conventional wisdom, not verified data, but the principle holds: being too eager dilutes your signal) - "Most Compatible" suggestions are worth attention - Don't panic in week 1 - algorithm is recalibrating **Expectations:** - Week 1-2: Algorithm learning new profile - Week 3-4: Quality matches should appear - Review at week 4: What's working? What needs adjustment? --- ## Flexible Execution Adapt to what they need: | Situation | Approach | |-----------|----------| | Starting fresh, no profile | Skip Phase 1 | | Just wants copy help | Light Phase 2, focus on Phase 5 | | Has good photos, bad prompts | Light Phase 4, focus on Phase 5 | | Profile fine, no matches | Focus on Phase 3 (reality check) and Phase 6 (settings) | | Already implemented, wants strategy | Jump to Phase 8 | --- ## Reference Files - `references/research-findings.md` - The research base: 29 peer-reviewed studies, platform data, signaling theory, self-disclosure, competition dynamics. Evidence tiers for everything. Start here to understand why the skill works. - `references/audit-criteria.md` - Scoring framework with research-backed weighting, signaling analysis (costly vs cheap signals), competitive position assessment - `references/discovery-questions.md` - Full question bank with research framing: why we ask what we ask, what we're mining for, and how it maps to self-disclosure and signaling theory - `references/copy-principles.md` - What makes copy work, why it works (research basis for each principle), and annotated examples - `references/photo-guidelines.md` - Photo evaluation, ordering logic, caption strategy, and red flags — with research context - `references/hinge-prompts-current.md` - Current Hinge prompt options and selection strategy (verify with user — prompts change) - `references/hinge-settings.md` - Settings walkthrough, algorithm mechanics, evidence tiers for each claim --- ## Remember This is someone's dating life — it matters to them. Most people come in feeling like their profile sucks because *they* suck. That's almost never true. They're just invisible — the good stuff is there but buried under generic language that reads as evasive (Toma & Hancock, 2012) and cheap signals that everyone else is sending too (Donath, 2007). Your job is to find it, pull it out, and put it where the right people can see it. Character, humor, interests, values, what makes them *them*. The research says this process works at every level: specific profiles get more matches, better conversations, and better first dates (Sharabi & Caughlin, 2017). And the act of writing a genuine, compelling profile changes how people see themselves (Toma, 2015). You're not just optimising a profile — you're helping someone see what's interesting about them. Be thorough. Be honest. Be kind. There's someone for everyone — help them find each other.

path: README.md
content: # Hinge Dating Profile Optimizer

**A Claude Skill — research-backed profile optimization in 45 minutes**

<p align="center">
  <img src="claude-bots-love.svg" alt="Two Claude bots in love" width="280">
</p>

---

Everyone has something. The way they think, what they care about, their weird specific interests, how they show up for people, what makes them laugh.

Most dating profiles bury this under generic prompts and bad photo choices.

This skill finds it and puts it where people can see it.

---

## Time

**45 minutes.**

Not a quick fix. Not "5 tips for better prompts."

This is the full process: honest audit, proper interview, photo strategy, copy that sounds like you, settings cleanup, and help putting it live.

It's a small time cost to meet your life partner. Or your weekend 9/10 hookup. We don't judge.

---

## This Isn't Copy-Paste Advice

Most "profile tips" give you a template and send you on your way. Generic prompts, generic results.

This is a **structured 8-phase process** that actually gets to know you first:

| Phase | What Happens |
|-------|--------------|
| [Setup](SKILL.md#phase-0-setup--framing) | Frame the process, understand your situation |
| [Audit](references/audit-criteria.md) | Score your current profile (skip if starting fresh) |
| [Discovery](references/discovery-questions.md) | The big interview - find what actually makes you *you* |
| [Reality Check](SKILL.md#phase-3-reality-check) | Honest market math - who are you competing for? |
| [Photos](references/photo-guidelines.md) | Evaluate, order, identify gaps |
| [Copy](references/copy-principles.md) | Write prompts using *your* material, not templates |
| [Settings](references/hinge-settings.md) | Optimize visibility, hide the clutter |
| [Implementation](SKILL.md#phase-7-implementation) | Put it live together |
| [Algorithm](SKILL.md#phase-8-algorithm-strategy) | What to do in weeks 1-4 |

**Why it works:** The discovery phase is the key. Most advice is generic because it doesn't know you. This spends real time understanding your humor, opinions, relationships, weird rituals — then uses those as ingredients. Your 92-year-old great uncle who dominates pub quiz? That's going in the profile.

---

## The Research

This isn't vibes. It's grounded in published research from actual journals, data from dating platforms, and practical experience — and we're honest about which is which.

**People decide fast, and mostly from photos.** Users spend seconds on a profile, and most of that time goes to photos (Brand et al., 2012). Photos drive the swipe. But on prompt-based apps like Hinge, text matters more than people assume — creative, original profiles are independently rated as more attractive, even controlling for photos (Fiore et al., 2008).

**Specific language beats generic language.** This is one of the strongest findings. "Jazz Cafe on a weeknight" works better than "live music" — and we know why. Toma & Hancock (2012) found that specific, concrete language is a linguistic marker of honesty. Vague, abstract phrasing is a marker of deception. Readers pick up on this without knowing they're doing it. Separately, specific language creates a feeling of closeness — naming a real place puts someone there, while a category keeps them at arm's length (Trope & Liberman, 2010).

**Showing beats telling.** Writing "I have dark humor" tells people nothing — anyone can claim any trait. Writing "Being nice about Timothee Chalamet" demonstrates it. Signaling theory (Donath, 2007) explains the difference: a demonstrated quality is a costly signal — hard to fake, therefore credible. A stated quality is a cheap signal — easy to fake, therefore ignored.

**Humor works, but only if you're actually funny.** Humor in profiles increases perceived attractiveness and reads as a signal of intelligence (McGee & Shevlin, 2009). Producing humor matters more than claiming to appreciate it (Bressler & Balshine, 2006). Failed humor is worse than no humor.

**The market is unequal.** Bruch & Newman (2018), published in *Science Advances*, analyzed 200,000 users and found that desirability follows a power law. Most people pursue partners roughly 25% more desirable than themselves. The top profiles receive wildly disproportionate attention. This is why the skill focuses on differentiation and filtering rather than broad appeal — you're not trying to be liked by everyone.

29 cited studies, platform data from Hinge and OkCupid, plus foundational work on signaling theory and self-disclosure. Every claim tagged with its evidence tier. Full citations in [`references/research-findings.md`](references/research-findings.md).

---

## How to Use This

### Option 1: Claude Desktop (Recommended)

Best option for most people. Once installed, Claude keeps the skill loaded across every conversation — you can come back tomorrow, next week, or after a bad date without re-uploading anything.

**Step 1: Download the files**

1. Click the green **Code** button at the top of this page
2. Click **Local**
3. Click **Download ZIP**
4. Find the ZIP in your Downloads folder and unzip it (double-click on Mac, right-click → Extract on Windows)
5. You now have a folder called `hinge-profile-optimizer-main`

**Step 2: Add to Claude Desktop**

1. Open **Claude Desktop** (the app, not the browser)
2. Click the **⚙️ Settings** icon (bottom left)
3. Click **Projects** in the sidebar
4. Click **+ Create Project** and name it something like "Hinge Profile Help"
5. Once inside your project, look for **Project Knowledge** or the **📎 Add Content** button
6. Add these files from the folder you downloaded:
   - `SKILL.md` (the main skill — add this first)
   - Everything inside the `references/` folder (7 files)

**Step 3: Start chatting**

Just say: *"Help me optimize my Hinge profile"*

Claude now has the full process and will guide you through it.

---

### Option 2: SkillsMP

This skill is listed on [SkillsMP](https://skillsmp.com/skills/b1rdmania-hinge-profile-optimizer-skill-md). One-click install if you're already on the platform.

---

### Option 3: Claude.ai in Browser

Don't have Claude Desktop? You can do this directly at [claude.ai](https://claude.ai).

1. Download the files using the **Code → Local → Download ZIP** button above
2. Start a new chat at [claude.ai](https://claude.ai)
3. Click the **📎 attachment** icon and upload `SKILL.md` plus the files from the `references/` folder
4. Tell Claude you want to optimize your Hinge profile

**Note:** You'll need to re-upload the files each time you start a new conversation. Desktop (Option 1) is better if you want to come back to this over multiple sessions.

---

### Option 4: Claude Code

If you're already using Claude Code, you know what to do.

---

## Philosophy

**You're not making someone more appealing. You're making them visible.**

The interesting stuff is already there. A 92-year-old great uncle who's a pub quiz champion. An irrational hatred of a specific celebrity. A hate-watch ritual every Saturday morning. The exhibition catalogue they're prouder of than anything else they've made.

These details get lost in "love to laugh" and "partner in crime."

This process pulls them out.

---

## The Point

There's someone for everyone. They just can't find each other when every profile says the same thing.

This skill helps people show who they actually are to the people who'd appreciate that person.

---

## License

MIT


path: references/audit-criteria.md
content: # Profile Audit Criteria

Use this framework to evaluate existing profiles. Score each category, identify critical issues.

---

## Overall Scoring

| Category | Weight | What to Assess |
|----------|--------|----------------|
| Photos | 40% | Quality, variety, first photo, red flags |
| Prompts | 30% | Completion, specificity, hooks, personality |
| Completeness | 15% | All slots filled, all prompts answered |
| Signaling | 15% | What the profile actually communicates |

**Why these weights:** Photos are weighted highest because research consistently shows they dominate swipe decisions (Tyson et al., 2016; Brand et al., 2012). Prompts at 30% reflects that on prompt-based apps like Hinge, text independently predicts attractiveness beyond photos (Fiore et al., 2008) and matters more to users seeking serious relationships (Sumter et al., 2017). Completeness is weighted because incomplete profiles likely get algorithmically deprioritized (platform data) and signal low effort — a cheap signal that repels quality matches (Donath, 2007). The exact percentages are a practical framework, not from a specific study.

---

## Photo Evaluation (40%)

### First Photo (Most Critical)
| Criteria | Score |
|----------|-------|
| Face clearly visible | /2 |
| Good lighting | /2 |
| Genuine expression/smile | /2 |
| Solo (not group) | /1 |
| Not a selfie | /1 |
| Clean background | /1 |
| Eye contact with camera | /1 |
| **First Photo Total** | **/10** |

### Photo Mix Assessment
| Photo Type | Present? | Quality |
|------------|----------|---------|
| Clear face opener | ☐ | /10 |
| Lifestyle/activity | ☐ | /10 |
| Social proof (with others) | ☐ | /10 |
| Full body | ☐ | /10 |
| Personality/interest | ☐ | /10 |
| Conversation starter | ☐ | /10 |

### Red Flag Check
- ☐ Mirror selfie (CRITICAL - delete immediately)
- ☐ Bathroom photo
- ☐ All selfies (no social proof)
- ☐ Group photo where subject unclear
- ☐ Sunglasses in most photos
- ☐ Heavy filters
- ☐ All same angle/pose
- ☐ Very old photos

**Each red flag = -1 point from photo score**

---

## Prompt Evaluation (30%)

### Completion Check
| Slot | Filled? | Has Text? |
|------|---------|-----------|
| Photo 1 prompt | ☐ | ☐ |
| Photo 2 prompt | ☐ | ☐ |
| Photo 3 prompt | ☐ | ☐ |
| Photo 4 prompt | ☐ | ☐ |
| Photo 5 prompt | ☐ | ☐ |
| Photo 6 prompt | ☐ | ☐ |
| Written prompt 1 | ☐ | ☐ |
| Written prompt 2 | ☐ | ☐ |
| Written prompt 3 | ☐ | ☐ |

**Completion rate:** ___/9 (should be 9/9)

### Quality Assessment (Each Prompt)

| Criteria | Points |
|----------|--------|
| Specific (not generic) | +2 |
| Creates conversation hook | +2 |
| Shows personality | +2 |
| Filters for right people | +1 |
| Appropriate length | +1 |
| Memorable/unique | +2 |
| **Max per prompt** | **/10** |

### Generic Phrase Penalties
Deduct points for:
- "Love to laugh" (-2)
- "Partner in crime" (-2)
- "Looking for my person" (-1)
- "Work hard play hard" (-2)
- "Not here for hookups" (-1)
- "Ask me anything" (-1)
- Lists of generic hobbies (-1)

**Why generic phrases are penalized:** Toma & Hancock (2012) found that vague, abstract language is a linguistic marker of deception — readers unconsciously process it as less trustworthy. Separately, the von Restorff effect (cognitive psychology) means distinctive items in a set are remembered while common items are forgotten. When someone scrolls through hundreds of "love to laugh" profiles, generic phrasing makes you invisible.

---

## Completeness (15%)

| Element | Complete? |
|---------|-----------|
| All 6 photo slots used | ☐ |
| All photo prompts have text | ☐ |
| All 3 written prompts filled | ☐ |
| Bio/basics completed | ☐ |
| Preferences set | ☐ |

**Score:** Count of complete items × 2 = /10

---

## Signaling Analysis (15%)

This section uses signaling theory (Donath, 2007) — the idea that some profile elements are "costly signals" (hard to fake, therefore credible) and others are "cheap signals" (easy to fake, therefore ignored by discerning matches).

### What Does This Profile Actually Communicate?

**Intended signals** (what they want to say):
- [ ] List what they're trying to convey

**Actual signals** (what it really says):
- [ ] List what the profile actually communicates

### Signal Quality Check

| Costly Signals (Good) | Present? | Notes |
|-----------------------|----------|-------|
| Effort invested (quality photos, thoughtful text) | ☐ | Signals genuine interest in finding someone |
| Specific cultural/venue references | ☐ | Requires actual participation — credible |
| Demonstrated personality (humor, opinions) | ☐ | Hard to fake — shows real person |
| Professional/creative evidence | ☐ | Verifiable status signal |
| Relationship intent (specific, not generic) | ☐ | "Looking for" is cheap; showing warmth is costly |

| Cheap Signals (Problematic) | Present? | Notes |
|-----------------------------|----------|-------|
| Low effort (empty prompts, basic selfies) | ☐ | Signals low investment in finding someone |
| Vague/generic claims ("love to laugh") | ☐ | Anyone can say this — zero information |
| Hiding (sunglasses, heavy filters, no full body) | ☐ | Signals deception, even if unintentional |
| Inconsistent tone | ☐ | Confuses the reader about who this person is |
| Negative/bitter framing | ☐ | Signals bad past experiences, not ready to date |

---

## Competitive Position

This matters more than most people realise. Bruch & Newman (2018) found that attention on dating apps follows a power law — the top profiles receive 10-100x more messages than median ones. Hitsch et al. (2010) found that users with the most desirable profiles are also the most selective and the most sensitive to profile quality. The people you want to attract are the people most likely to notice the difference between a good profile and a forgettable one.

### Target Market Alignment
- Who are they trying to attract?
- Does the profile appeal to that demographic specifically, or is it aimed at everyone (which means no one)?
- What would make their target market stop scrolling?
- What cultural markers, tone, or references would resonate with that specific audience?
- What's currently missing that their target market would want to see?

### Differentiation
- What makes this profile different from thousands of others?
- Does it contain any costly signals (Donath, 2007) — things that are specific, hard to fake, and demonstrate actual qualities?
- Or is it all cheap signals — generic claims, basic selfies, vague descriptors?
- Apply the 10,000 people test: could 10,000 other people have this exact profile? If yes, it's invisible.
- Would someone remember this profile tomorrow?

---

## Final Score Calculation

| Category | Weight | Score | Weighted |
|----------|--------|-------|----------|
| Photos | 40% | /10 | |
| Prompts | 30% | /10 | |
| Completeness | 15% | /10 | |
| Signaling | 15% | /10 | |
| **Total** | | | **/10** |

### Score Interpretation

| Score | Assessment |
|-------|------------|
| 8-10 | Strong profile, minor optimization |
| 6-7 | Good foundation, clear improvements needed |
| 4-5 | Significant issues, major revision needed |
| 1-3 | Critical problems, full rebuild recommended |

---

## Delivering the Audit

**Lead with positives:**
- "Here's what's working..."
- Find something genuinely good, even if small

**Frame gaps as opportunities:**
- "Here are the opportunities..." not "Here's what's wrong"
- Be honest but kind

**Prioritize:**
- Identify the 3 most impactful changes
- Don't overwhelm with everything at once


path: references/copy-principles.md
content: # Copy Principles

What makes profile copy work, with annotated examples. These principles aren't just style preferences — they're grounded in research on how people evaluate dating profiles.

---

## The Core Idea

Profile copy should:
1. Show who they actually are (not who they think they should be)
2. Give people something to respond to (conversation hooks)
3. Attract the right people AND repel the wrong ones (filtering)
4. Be memorable (stand out from thousands of generic profiles)

**The research basis:** Creative, original profiles are independently rated as more intelligent, funnier, and more attractive — even controlling for photos (Fiore et al., 2008). On relationship-focused apps like Hinge, text quality matters more than on purely swipe-based platforms (Sumter et al., 2017). And in a market where top profiles receive 10-100x the attention of median ones (Bruch & Newman, 2018), differentiation is survival.

---

## Principles

### 1. Specificity > Generic

Generic statements are forgettable and say nothing. Specific details show personality and create hooks.

**Why this works (research):** Toma & Hancock (2012) found that truthful, authentic profiles use more specific, concrete, sensory language — while deceptive profiles default to vague, abstract phrasing. Readers unconsciously detect this: specificity signals honesty. Separately, Construal Level Theory (Trope & Liberman, 2010) shows that concrete language creates psychological closeness — "Jazz Cafe on a weeknight" makes you feel like you're there, while "live music" keeps you at a distance. And Hitsch et al. (2010) showed that specific, verifiable lifestyle details produce significantly higher contact rates.

| Generic (Bad) | Specific (Good) |
|---------------|-----------------|
| "I love live music" | "Jazz Cafe on a weeknight" |
| "I like exploring the city" | "Walking everywhere with nowhere to be" |
| "I appreciate good food" | "Strong opinions about where to find the best ramen" |
| "I have a good sense of humor" | "I hate-watch Saturday Kitchen. Every week." |
| "Family is important to me" | "My 92-year-old great uncle could beat you at pub quiz" |

**The test:** Could 10,000 other people say the exact same thing? Then it's too generic.

### 2. Every Element = Conversation Hook

Every prompt answer should make it easy for someone to start a conversation.

**Why this works (research):** OkCupid's data (Rudder, *Dataclysm*, 2014) showed that messages referencing specific profile content had reply rates 30-40% higher than generic openers. Hinge's own data confirms the pattern: comments with likes significantly outperform bare likes. The mechanism is simple — a prompt that gives someone something to say gets comments; a prompt that's a closed statement doesn't. And on Hinge, comments are the primary signal of genuine interest.

**Good hooks invite:**
- Questions ("Wait, why do you hate him?")
- Shared opinions ("Oh my god I also hate that")
- Playful challenges ("I bet I could beat your uncle")
- Stories ("Tell me about that")

**Bad hooks are closed:**
- "I love my friends and family" (what do you say to this?)
- "Looking for someone genuine" (okay... and?)
- "Work hard play hard" (meaningless)

### 3. Filter In AND Filter Out

The goal isn't maximum likes - it's the right likes.

**Why this works (research):** Strong homophily effects in dating — people preferentially contact those similar on education, cultural tastes, and lifestyle markers (Fiore & Donath, 2005). Specific cultural references function as sorting mechanisms: insiders recognize them and feel affinity, while outsiders self-select out. In a power-law market where quality matches have abundant options (Bruch & Newman, 2018), you don't need volume — you need the right 30-50 people to remember you.

Good copy should:
- Make ideal matches think "yes, this person gets it"
- Make wrong matches think "not for me" (and that's good)

**Filtering mechanisms:**
- Niche references (insiders recognize, others don't)
- Strong opinions (compatible people agree, others bounce)
- Specific humor (right people laugh, wrong people confused)
- Cultural markers (signals belonging to particular worlds)

### 4. Balance Edge with Warmth

All edge = reads as bitter, negative, hard to be around
All warmth = reads as bland, generic, forgettable

**Why this works (research):** Humor significantly increases perceived attractiveness and is read as a signal of intelligence and social competence (McGee & Shevlin, 2009). But excessive self-deprecation reduces perceived confidence (Lundy, Tan & Cunningham, 1998). Self-disclosure research (Gibbs et al., 2006) shows the most effective profiles balance multiple dimensions — the optimal self-disclosure is moderate depth across breadth of topics. Edge (humor, opinions) signals personality; warmth (family, genuine care) signals relationship potential. You need both.

**The formula:** Dark humor or strong opinions PLUS genuine warmth markers

**Warmth markers:**
- Family connections (especially specific/unusual ones)
- Care for friends
- Genuine enthusiasm for things
- Vulnerability (appropriate level)
- Pets

### 5. Show, Don't Tell

Stating a quality is weak. Demonstrating it is strong.

**Why this works (research):** This maps directly to signaling theory. Donath (2007) distinguishes costly signals (hard to fake, therefore credible) from cheap signals (easy to fake, therefore ignored). Writing "I have dark humor" is a cheap signal — anyone can claim it. Writing "Being nice about Timothée Chalamet" is a costly signal — you have to actually be witty to produce it. Gibbs et al. (2006) confirmed this experimentally: profiles demonstrating personality through specific examples beat trait-adjective lists on honesty ratings, appeal, and contact rates.

| Telling (Weak) | Showing (Strong) |
|----------------|------------------|
| "I have dark humor" | "Being nice about Timothée Chalamet." |
| "I'm adventurous" | "Last month I took a train with no destination" |
| "I'm creative" | "I make exhibition catalogues for galleries" |
| "I value depth" | Reference to specific artists/thinkers/works |
| "I'm fun" | Specific story that demonstrates fun |

---

## Annotated Examples

### Example 1: The Opinion Hook

**Prompt:** "Together we can be terrible at"
**Answer:** "Being nice about Timothée Chalamet."

**Why it works:**
- Specific opinion (not generic)
- Polarizing = filters (fans swipe left, haters engage)
- Implies dark humor without stating it
- Instant conversation hook (everyone has a take)
- "Together" = collaborative framing, not solo bitterness
- Memorable (no one else has this exact take)

---

### Example 2: The Warmth + Uniqueness Combo

**Prompt:** "I'm convinced that"
**Answer:** "My 92-year-old great uncle could beat you at pub quiz. No offense."

**Why it works:**
- Completely unique (nobody else has this)
- Shows family warmth without being generic
- Playful challenge invites response
- "No offense" = dry wit
- Specific enough to be memorable
- Creates easy conversation starter

---

### Example 3: The Cultural Dog Whistle

**Prompt:** "My simple pleasures"
**Answer:** "Brutalist architecture and a good wander with nowhere to be."

**Why it works:**
- "Brutalist architecture" = design/architecture nerd filter
- Specific taste signals cultural engagement
- "Nowhere to be" = relaxed, not performatively busy
- Attracts: people who know what brutalism is
- Repels: people who need activities planned

---

### Example 4: The Guilty Pleasure Reveal

**Prompt:** "Don't judge me"
**Answer:** "I hate-watch Saturday Kitchen. Every week."

**Why it works:**
- Unexpected (not the usual guilty pleasures)
- Self-aware (knows it's ridiculous)
- Specific (not "cooking shows" but THIS one)
- British humor that resonates with right audience
- Easy conversation hook ("Who's your least favorite chef?")

---

### Example 5: The Cultural Insider

**Prompt:** "I go crazy for"
**Answer:** "Exhibition catalogues, Jazz Cafe on a weeknight, and people who walk everywhere."

**Why it works:**
- Three specific things (not generic categories)
- "Exhibition catalogues" = art world insider signal
- "Jazz Cafe" = specific venue, London cultural marker
- "People who walk everywhere" = lifestyle marker
- Each element filters for similar people

---

### Example 6: The Self-Deprecating Flex

**Prompt:** "Believe it or not"
**Answer:** "Literally my life. [Meme about career]. [Business name]: where corporate logos go to get slightly better."

**Why it works:**
- Uses humor to mention work without bragging
- Self-deprecating but confident
- Shows they don't take themselves too seriously
- Industry insider joke lands with right people
- Meme format = personality

---

## What to Avoid

### Generic Phrases (Everyone Says These)
- "Love to laugh"
- "Partner in crime"
- "Looking for my person"
- "Work hard play hard"
- "Living my best life"
- "Not here for hookups"
- "Love adventures"
- "Good vibes only"

### Closed Statements (No Hook)
- "Family and friends are important to me"
- "I value honesty"
- "Looking for something real"

### Negativity Without Balance
- "No time wasters"
- "If you can't handle me at my worst..."
- "Tired of games"
- Long lists of dealbreakers

### Vague Descriptors
- "Fun-loving"
- "Easygoing"
- "Down to earth"
- "Old soul"

---

## The Process

1. **Pull from discovery:** What specific details emerged?
2. **Find the unique:** What does no one else have?
3. **Create hooks:** How can each element start a conversation?
4. **Check filtering:** Who does this attract/repel?
5. **Balance tone:** Edge + warmth in right proportion
6. **Test specificity:** Could 10,000 people say this?
7. **Read aloud:** Does it sound like them?

---

## Character Limit

Hinge: 150 characters per prompt answer

Every word must earn its place. Cut ruthlessly.


path: references/discovery-questions.md
content: # Discovery Questions

Use conversationally, 3-4 questions per batch. Chase interesting threads. Skip what's not relevant.

## Why This Interview Works

The questions below look random. They're not. The interview is designed around what the research says makes profiles effective:

**We ask across many topics** because self-disclosure research (Gibbs et al., 2006) shows that breadth — covering humor, values, lifestyle, work, relationships — predicts higher attractiveness ratings. A profile that shows multiple dimensions of a person beats one that's all about one thing. We're gathering material for breadth.

**We push for specifics** because Toma & Hancock (2012) found that specific, concrete language is a linguistic marker of honesty, while vague language signals deception. Most people's first instinct is to generalise ("I love music"). Our job is to get past that to the real stuff ("Jazz Cafe on a weeknight"). Every question is angled to surface detail, not category.

**We're mining for costly signals** — things that are hard to fake, specific to this person, and credible because they require actual experience (Donath, 2007). The 92-year-old great uncle, the Saturday Kitchen hate-watch, the Timothée Chalamet opinion — these can't be mass-produced. Anyone can say "I love to laugh." Nobody else has these exact details.

**We batch 3-4 questions** because it feels like a conversation, not an interrogation. Sprecher et al. (2013) found that self-disclosure works best when it feels natural and reciprocal. Asking 20 questions at once kills the flow. Asking 3-4, following the interesting thread, then asking 3-4 more creates the right rhythm.

**We're looking for the Whitty balance** — Whitty (2008) found that the most effective profiles balance three tensions: idealisation vs authenticity, self-promotion vs warmth, distinctiveness vs appeal. Every question is testing: what's true about this person (authenticity) that's also interesting (distinctiveness) and relatable (appeal) and puts them in a good light (idealisation)?

---

## Framing

Before diving in:
> "I'll ask a bunch of questions — we won't use everything. Just gathering ingredients to see what we can build around. Skip anything you want."

---

## Work & Status

**The basics:**
- What do you do for work?
- How would you describe it to someone at a party?

**Digging deeper:**
- What's the most interesting project you've worked on?
- What would you never put in a bio but is actually impressive?
- Any clients/projects/achievements you're proud of?
- What do you actually love about what you do?

**For creatives/entrepreneurs:**
- What kind of work/clients do you focus on?
- What do you make that you're proud of?
- Anything tangible people could see?

---

## Personality & Opinions

**Specifics over generics:**
- What did you actually do last weekend?
- What's your Sunday usually look like?
- What are you weirdly into that most people don't know?

**Finding the opinions:**
- What do you irrationally love?
- What do you irrationally hate? (Gold for profiles)
- Any strong opinions on things most people don't care about?
- What's a hill you'll die on?

**The friend test:**
- What would your friends say is your "thing"?
- What do people always come to you for?
- How would your best friend describe you?

**Guilty pleasures:**
- Any hate-watches? Comfort shows?
- Guilty pleasure music?
- Things you enjoy that you "shouldn't"?

---

## Social & Warmth

**Relationships:**
- Who are you closest to?
- Tell me about your family setup
- Any unusual relationships? (Elderly relatives, unlikely friendships)
- Pets?

**Social style:**
- Big groups or small hangs?
- What's a typical hangout look like for you?
- Introvert, extrovert, depends?

---

## Lifestyle & Context

**Daily life:**
- Morning person or night owl?
- Cook or order in?
- Homebody or always out?
- How do you get around? (Walk, cycle, drive, tube)

**Places:**
- Neighborhoods you're always in?
- Regular spots? (Cafes, pubs, venues)
- Or more of an explorer - never same place twice?

**If they're location-specific:**
- What venues would someone who "gets it" know?
- Any insider spots?
- What makes your area/city yours?

---

## Cultural Interests

**Music:**
- What do you listen to?
- Last gig you went to?
- Any specific venues you love?
- Guilty pleasure music?

**Other cultural:**
- What do you read/watch/consume?
- Any regular cultural habits? (Gallery visits, cinema, theatre)
- Specific institutions you love?

---

## Dating Context

**What they want:**
- What are you actually looking for?
- Serious relationship, casual, open to seeing?
- What does "serious relationship" look like to you?

**What's gone wrong:**
- What's been frustrating about dating apps?
- What's the pattern with people you've matched with?
- What are you trying to avoid?

**The ideal:**
- What would a great first date look like?
- What would you actually do together?
- What qualities matter most?

---

## Target Market Questions

**Who they're hoping to attract:**
- What kind of person are you hoping will see this?
- Age range - what are you actually open to?
- Any deal breakers?
- What field/type/vibe?

**Reality check prep:**
- How specific are your criteria?
- How's it been going with that target?

---

## Finding the Unique Stuff

These often surface the best material:

- "What's something unusual about your life?"
- "What would surprise people about you?"
- "Any weird rituals or habits?"
- "What's the most niche interest you have?"
- "Anything in your life that's genuinely unique?"

---

## Following Threads

When something interesting comes up:

- "Tell me more about that"
- "How did that start?"
- "Why that specifically?"
- "Is that something that would go in a profile?"

---

## What You're Listening For

Each category maps to what the research says makes profiles work:

**Unique hooks** — The von Restorff effect: distinctive items are remembered, common ones forgotten. In a stack of 100 profiles, generic = invisible. You're listening for the thing nobody else could claim.
- Anything no one else would have
- Unusual relationships, hobbies, opinions
- Specific stories

**Costly signals** — Donath (2007): signals that are hard to fake are credible. You're listening for things that demonstrate qualities rather than claim them. "I make exhibition catalogues for galleries" demonstrates creativity. "I'm creative" claims it.
- Professional achievements framed humbly
- Evidence of an interesting life (not stated, but shown)
- Skills, knowledge, or access that's specific and verifiable

**Warmth markers** — Whitty (2008): profiles need warmth alongside distinctiveness. Pure edge reads as bitter. Warmth grounds a profile and signals relationship potential.
- Family connections (especially specific/unusual ones)
- Care for others
- Genuine enthusiasm (not performed enthusiasm)

**Personality markers** — Bressler & Balshine (2006): demonstrated humor is a signal of intelligence. Strong opinions are costly signals (they risk alienating people, which is what makes them credible). You're listening for the person's actual voice.
- Humor style (do they produce humor naturally in conversation?)
- Strong opinions (the irrational hatreds are gold)
- Quirks and pet peeves

**Cultural specificity** — Fiore & Donath (2005): homophily means people seek similarity. Specific cultural references sort for compatible matches. You're listening for the insider knowledge that would resonate with their target market.
- Venues, neighborhoods, artists, scenes
- Insider references
- Things their ideal match would recognise and light up at

---

## Notes Template

Use this to capture findings:

```
## Work/Status
- What they do:
- Interesting angle:
- Impressive but humble:

## Personality
- Humor style:
- Strong opinions:
- Pet peeves:
- Quirks:

## Unique Hooks
- (list anything distinctive)

## Warmth Markers
- Family:
- Friends:
- Care:

## Cultural Specificity
- Venues:
- Interests:
- Insider refs:

## Best Material for Profile
1.
2.
3.
```


path: references/hinge-prompts-current.md
content: # Hinge Prompts - Current Options

**IMPORTANT:** Hinge updates prompt options regularly. Always verify current options with the user.

**Ask:** "Can you tell me what prompt options you see in the app? Or screenshot the prompt selection screen?"

---

## Known Prompt Categories (2025-2026)

Hinge organizes prompts into approximately 10 categories:

1. **About Me** - Personal description prompts
2. **My Type** - What they're looking for
3. **Let's Chat About** - Conversation starters
4. **Date Vibes** - Date preferences and style
5. **Storytime** - Narrative/anecdote prompts
6. **Self-Care** - Wellness and personal practices
7. **Your World** - Lifestyle and interests
8. **LGBTQIA+** - Identity-specific prompts
9. **Getting Personal** - Deeper questions
10. **Voice-First** - Prompts designed for voice answers

---

## Commonly Available Prompts

These prompts appear frequently, but availability varies:

### Opinion/Personality Prompts
- "My most controversial opinion is"
- "I'm convinced that"
- "A random fact I love is"
- "I won't shut up about"
- "I geek out on"

### Dating/Relationship Prompts
- "The way to win me over is"
- "I'm looking for"
- "Together, we could"
- "I want someone who"
- "Dating me is like"
- "A life goal of mine"

### Conversation Starter Prompts
- "Two truths and a lie"
- "Let's debate this topic"
- "Give me travel tips for"
- "You should leave a comment if"

### Personality Reveal Prompts
- "My simple pleasures"
- "The dorkiest thing about me is"
- "My biggest date fail"
- "Don't judge me"
- "Believe it or not"

### Interactive Prompts
- "Together we can be terrible at"
- "First round is on me if"
- "I bet you can't"
- "We'll get along if"

### Challenge/Flex Prompts
- "Lowkey flex"
- "Unusual skill"
- "Worst fad I participated in"

---

## Photo Prompts

Photos can have:
1. **Pre-written prompt** - Selected from a list
2. **Custom caption** - Free-form text
3. **Location** - Where photo was taken

Common photo prompts include:
- "Caption this photo"
- "Guess the backstory"
- "Together we can be terrible at"
- "My simple pleasures"
- "Don't judge me"
- "Lowkey flex"
- "Believe it or not"
- "Who wore it better?"

---

## Voice Prompts

Hinge supports 30-second voice answers. These can add personality but aren't required.

---

## Character Limit

**150 characters** per prompt answer.

This is tight - every word must earn its place.

---

## Prompt Selection Strategy

### Best Prompt Types for This Process

**Opinion/Stance Prompts** - Great for filtering
- "My most controversial opinion"
- "I'm convinced that"
- "I won't shut up about"

**Interactive Prompts** - Great for hooks
- "Together we could"
- "First round is on me if"
- "You should leave a comment if"

**Reveal Prompts** - Great for personality
- "Don't judge me"
- "The dorkiest thing about me"
- "My simple pleasures"

### Prompts to Use Carefully

**"I'm looking for"** - Can be too prescriptive, but works if specific/interesting

**"A life goal of mine"** - Can be too earnest, but works if genuine

**"Two truths and a lie"** - Overused, only if they have genuinely interesting items

---

## Verification Script

When starting, ask:

> "Before we write prompts, can you check what options are available in your app? The exact prompts change, so I want to make sure we're working with what you actually have.
>
> Either tell me the ones that appeal to you, or screenshot the prompt selection screen."

This ensures recommendations match actual available options.


path: references/hinge-settings.md
content: # Hinge Settings Guide

Optimizing settings for visibility and quality matches.

---

## Distance Settings

### The Tradeoff
- **Too narrow:** Missing good people just outside radius
- **Too wide:** Matches from impractical distances, dilutes pool

### Recommendations by Context

| Situation | Suggested Radius |
|-----------|------------------|
| Major city (London, NYC) | 15-25 miles / 25-40 km |
| Suburban area | 25-50 miles / 40-80 km |
| Rural area | 50+ miles / 80+ km |
| Open to relocating | Maximum |

### Reality Check Questions
- "How far would you actually travel for a first date?"
- "Would you date someone who lives [X] away long-term?"
- "Are you getting enough people in your current radius?"

---

## Age Range Settings

### Common Mistakes
- Setting too narrow based on arbitrary numbers
- Not considering who actually fits their criteria
- Mismatch between stated preference and who they're attracted to

### Reality Check
- "What age range are you genuinely open to?"
- "Have your best past relationships/dates fit this range?"
- "Is this based on real preference or just what sounds right?"

### Market Reality (Heterosexual Dating)
- Men typically set wider ranges (often younger)
- Women in 40s competing with women in 30s for men in their age range
- Very narrow ranges dramatically shrink the pool
- Consider: does the person they're looking for actually date people their age?

**The research context:** Bruch & Newman (2018, *Science Advances*) analyzed ~200,000 users and found that most people pursue partners ~25% more desirable than themselves, desirability follows a power-law distribution, and women's desirability peaked earlier than men's in their dataset. This isn't about anyone's worth — it's about understanding the market you're operating in so settings don't accidentally filter out good matches.

---

## Dealbreakers

### What Hinge Offers
- Height
- Children (has/wants)
- Religion
- Smoking
- Drinking
- Drugs
- Politics
- Ethnicity
- Education

### Strategic Advice

**Be careful with:**
- Dealbreakers that filter on things that don't actually matter to them
- Multiple dealbreakers that compound to tiny pool

**Questions to ask:**
- "Is this actually a dealbreaker, or just a preference?"
- "Have you dated people outside this criterion happily?"
- "Is this filtering signal or actual incompatibility?"

**Example:** Setting "no smokers" when they'd actually date a social smoker filters people they might like.

---

## Profile Visibility Settings

### What's Visible at Top of Profile

Hinge shows certain info prominently. Some can be hidden.

**Consider hiding if not relevant:**
- Star sign (adds nothing for most, clutters profile)
- Height (if not a differentiator)
- Politics (if not crucial to filtering)
- Religion (if not practicing/important)

**Keep visible if:**
- It's a filtering mechanism they want active
- It's a positive differentiator
- It invites conversation

### The Clutter Problem

Every piece of info at top of profile competes for attention. If it's not adding value, it's taking space from things that do.

---

## Premium Features

### Hinge+ / HingeX

**If they have premium:**

- **See who liked you:** Can be strategic - prioritize people who already liked
- **Roses:** Use sparingly on standout profiles (limited resource = costly signal)
- **Advanced preferences:** More filtering options

**Roses strategy:**
- Don't spam roses
- Use on profiles where you'd actually want to stand out
- The scarcity is the point - it signals genuine interest

---

## Algorithm Optimization

### Activity Matters
- Daily activity (10-15 mins) keeps profile visible
- Extended inactivity = algorithm deprioritizes
- *Evidence tier: conventional wisdom. Hinge hasn't published specifics, but this is consistent with how recommendation systems work and is widely reported across dating coaching.*

### Engagement Quality
- Comments on likes significantly outperform bare likes — Hinge's own data says they're more likely to lead to conversations (Hinge press data, circa 2018-2019)
- Respond to matches promptly
- Extend conversations (not one-word answers)
- *Evidence tier: platform data for the comments claim. The rest is conventional wisdom.*
- *Why comments work (research): signaling theory (Donath, 2007) — a comment is a costly signal requiring effort, indicating genuine interest. A bare like is a cheap signal that communicates nothing specific.*

### Selectivity
- Being too selective may limit who the algorithm shows you to
- Being not selective enough means matches don't convert
- *Evidence tier: conventional wisdom. The "10-20% like rate sweet spot" is widely cited in dating coaching but has no published source. The principle (some selectivity signals quality) is plausible but unverified.*

### Most Compatible
- Check daily (refreshes every 24 hours)
- Hinge claims these are significantly more likely to result in dates (they've cited 8x in press materials around the 2018 feature launch). Uses the Gale-Shapley matching algorithm
- Algorithm learns from your choices here
- *Evidence tier: platform data — Hinge's own claim. The methodology behind the 8x figure has never been published.*

---

## Settings Checklist

Walk through before implementation:

### Distance
- [ ] Current setting: ___
- [ ] Appropriate for their situation?
- [ ] Discussed tradeoffs?

### Age Range
- [ ] Current setting: ___
- [ ] Realistic for market?
- [ ] Genuine preference or arbitrary?

### Dealbreakers
- [ ] Current dealbreakers: ___
- [ ] Each one actually a dealbreaker?
- [ ] Not over-filtering?

### Visible Info
- [ ] What's showing at top: ___
- [ ] Anything to hide? (clutter reduction)
- [ ] Anything to add/feature?

### Premium (if applicable)
- [ ] Has premium: Y/N
- [ ] Discussed roses strategy?
- [ ] Using "who liked you" feature?

---

## Implementation Notes

When adjusting settings:

1. **Make changes incrementally** - Don't change everything at once
2. **Give time to see effect** - Algorithm needs time to recalibrate
3. **Track what changes** - Note what settings were vs what they become
4. **Revisit after 2 weeks** - Assess if changes helped or hurt


path: references/photo-guidelines.md
content: # Photo Guidelines

How to evaluate, select, and order photos.

---

## First Photo (Most Critical)

Photos dominate swipe decisions — research consistently shows they're the primary factor in whether someone keeps looking or moves on (Tyson et al., 2016; Brand et al., 2012). First photo matters most because profiles receive only seconds of attention, and most of that time is spent on photos.

### Requirements
- ☐ Face clearly visible (no sunglasses, not too distant)
- ☐ Good lighting (natural light best)
- ☐ Genuine expression (real smile, not forced)
- ☐ Solo (not cropped from group)
- ☐ Not a selfie
- ☐ Clean background (not cluttered)
- ☐ Eye contact with camera
- ☐ Recent (within last year)

### First Photo Red Flags
- Selfie (especially mirror selfie)
- Lying down
- Sunglasses
- Group photo
- Too distant (can't see face)
- Heavy filters
- Bathroom
- Orange/bad lighting

---

## Ideal Photo Mix (6 Photos)

### Position 1: The Opener
**Purpose:** Make them want to see more
- Best face photo
- Genuine warmth
- Clear, well-lit
- Makes a good first impression

### Position 2: Context/Lifestyle
**Purpose:** Show their world
- What their life looks like
- Activity or setting that reflects personality
- Workplace, hobby, cultural venue

### Position 3: Social Proof
**Purpose:** Show they have people in their life
- With friends (but face still clear)
- Not all group photos cropped
- Shows they're not a loner

### Position 4: Full Body
**Purpose:** Build trust, show they're not hiding
- Outdoor, natural setting
- Engaged in something
- Not awkward posed full-body shot

### Position 5: Personality/Interest
**Purpose:** Show what they're into
- Hobby, passion, activity
- Cultural engagement
- Something that sparks conversation

### Position 6: Wildcard
**Purpose:** Memorable closer
- Humor
- Unexpected
- Conversation starter
- Could be a meme if it fits their vibe

---

## Photo Evaluation Checklist

For each photo, assess:

| Criteria | Score 1-5 |
|----------|-----------|
| Face visibility | |
| Lighting quality | |
| Expression/energy | |
| Story/context | |
| Technical quality | |
| Conversation potential | |

### What Story Does This Photo Tell?

For each photo, articulate:
- What does this show about them?
- What kind of person would be attracted to this?
- Does it add something the other photos don't?
- Could someone easily comment on it?

---

## Red Flags to Eliminate

### Immediate Deletes
- **Mirror selfies** (widely cited as a top turn-off in platform surveys and dating coaching — signals low effort and low self-awareness)
- **Bathroom photos** (weird, low effort)
- **Shirtless gym pics** (unless that's explicitly their target)
- **Fish photos** (cliche, polarizing)
- **Heavily filtered** (signals hiding something — Toma & Hancock, 2010 found less attractive daters are more likely to enhance photos, so heavy filtering reads as deception even if that's not the intent)

### Probably Delete
- All selfies (suggests no friends to take photos)
- Group photos where subject unclear
- Sunglasses in multiple photos (hiding)
- Same angle/pose repeated
- Very old photos (misleading)
- Photos with exes cropped out (obvious)

### Context-Dependent
- Photos with kids (depends on their situation/target)
- Photos with alcohol (depends on vibe)
- Travel photos (fine, but not all travel)

---

## Common Gaps

### What's Usually Missing

**Workspace/Professional Context**
- Creative work environment
- Evidence of what they do
- Not corporate headshot, but authentic work setting

**Cultural Engagement**
- At gallery, venue, event
- Shows they actually do things
- Insider signal for similar people

**Full Body Outdoors**
- Not cropped, natural setting
- Builds trust
- Shows active lifestyle

**Social Photos Where Face is Clear**
- With friends but identifiable
- Not just group shots
- Warm, having fun

---

## Photo Shoot Guidance

If they need new photos, suggest:

**Framing:**
- "Let's get some photos that show your life"
- NOT "dating profile photoshoot" (too performative)

**What to Capture:**
1. Portrait in good natural light (near window, golden hour)
2. At a venue/place they actually go
3. Doing an activity they enjoy
4. With friends who can take candids
5. In their workspace (if interesting)

**Tips:**
- Natural light (near windows, outside)
- Take many, select few
- Candid often beats posed
- Ask a friend to take, not tripod/self-timer
- Capture real moments, not staged

---

## Ordering Logic

**Front-load strength:** Best photos first — both algorithm and human attention prioritize early photos. Users spend seconds on a profile (Brand et al., 2012), so the first 1-2 images carry disproportionate weight.

**Variety:** Each photo should add something different. Self-disclosure research (Gibbs et al., 2006) shows that breadth across multiple dimensions predicts higher attractiveness ratings — photos should cover different aspects of who this person is.

**Story arc:** Photos together should give sense of who this person is and what their life is like. This maps to the "warranting" principle (Ellison et al., 2006) — multiple specific, consistent signals build credibility.

**End strong:** Last photo should be memorable — humor, personality, conversation starter. The von Restorff effect means distinctive elements are remembered; closing with something unexpected creates lasting impression.

---

## Caption Strategy

On Hinge, every photo can have a prompt and caption. This means photo captions are roughly half of someone's total profile text. Leaving them empty wastes half your real estate — and on an app where text quality matters more than on purely swipe-based platforms (Sumter et al., 2017), that's a significant missed opportunity.

**The job of a photo caption:** The photo shows what you look like. The caption shows who you are. A photo of someone at a restaurant tells you nothing. A caption that says "I have opinions about this ramen" tells you something about their personality and gives you something to say.

**Photo captions should:**
- Add context the photo can't show (personality, humor, opinion)
- Create conversation hooks — something someone could easily comment on
- Show personality in the person's actual voice
- Be concise (the photo is doing the visual work; the caption adds the human layer)

**Don't:**
- Leave prompts empty (completeness affects both algorithm and perception)
- Just describe what's in the photo ("Me at the beach" — the viewer can see that)
- Be generic ("Good times!" — a cheap signal that says nothing)
- Waste the caption on a location tag alone — the location feature handles that

**The research context:** OkCupid data showed that messages referencing specific profile content got 30-40% more replies. A good photo caption gives someone that specific thing to reference. "Great photo" is a generic compliment; "Wait, is that the ramen place on Kingsland Road?" is a real conversation. The caption creates the hook that makes the photo a conversation starter instead of just a picture.


path: references/research-findings.md
content: # Research Findings

What we know about dating app behavior, and where we know it from. This grounds the skill's recommendations in evidence — peer-reviewed research where it exists, platform data where it's available, and practical consensus where that's all there is.

We're honest about the evidence quality throughout. Three tiers:

- **Research** — Peer-reviewed, published in academic journals
- **Platform data** — Published by dating apps themselves (Hinge, OkCupid, Tinder). Credible but self-reported and selectively disclosed
- **Conventional wisdom** — Widely accepted in the dating coaching space but not formally studied. May be right, but treat as informed opinion

---

## Photos Matter More Than Text

The single most consistent finding across all dating app research: photos dominate decision-making.

| Finding | Source | Evidence tier |
|---------|--------|---------------|
| Photos are the dominant factor in swipe decisions; bio text has minimal impact on right-swipe rates | Tyson et al. (2016), IEEE/ACM ASONAM | Research |
| Photos receive the majority of visual attention in dating profiles | Brand et al. (2012), *Computers in Human Behavior* | Research |
| Profile photos serve as the primary impression management tool; users are strategic in photo selection | Ward (2017), *Information, Communication & Society* | Research |
| Smiling faces are rated as more attractive and more trustworthy | Sedgewick et al. (2017), *Frontiers in Psychology* | Research |
| Profiles with all photo slots filled receive significantly more engagement | Hinge blog/press data | Platform data |
| Photos were less accurate than text — profile text was a better predictor of the actual person than photos were | Hancock & Toma (2009), *Journal of Communication* | Research |

**What this means:** First photo is the primary filter point. If it doesn't work, nothing else gets seen. But "10x impact" and "178% more matches from professional photos" — specific stats you'll see on dating advice blogs — are not from real studies. The directional finding is robust; the precise numbers are invented.

The Hancock & Toma finding is worth noting: photos are the first filter, but they're also where people are most likely to mislead (intentionally or not). Text is actually a more reliable signal of who someone is. This matters for the skill — we invest heavily in text because it's where authenticity lives.

### Photo red flags

Mirror selfies, bathroom pics, heavy filters, and all-selfie profiles are consistently cited as turn-offs across dating advice and survey data. This is **conventional wisdom** — no peer-reviewed study has measured the exact impact, but platform surveys and coaching experience consistently confirm it.

**Why red flags matter (research context):** Toma & Hancock (2010) found that less physically attractive daters were more likely to enhance their photos. Heavy filtering, unusual angles, and avoidance of full-body shots are processed by viewers — often unconsciously — as signals of deception. Even if someone isn't hiding anything, these choices trigger the same suspicion. The fix isn't "be more attractive" — it's "stop doing things that make people suspicious."

### Photo mix

The ideal 6-photo mix (opener, lifestyle, social proof, full body, personality, wildcard) comes from **conventional wisdom** — it's widely taught in dating coaching and makes intuitive sense, but isn't from a specific study. The underlying principle — that variety builds a complete picture — is supported by self-disclosure research: breadth of disclosure across multiple dimensions predicts higher attractiveness ratings (Gibbs et al., 2006).

### Smiling and expression

Sedgewick et al. (2017) found that smiling intensity affects both attractiveness and trustworthiness ratings. A genuine smile (Duchenne smile — involving the eyes) outperforms a posed smile. This is consistent with the broader signaling framework: a genuine expression is a costly signal (hard to fake convincingly), while a posed smile is cheap.

---

## Profile Text Actually Matters (More Than People Think)

While photos dominate the initial swipe, text independently predicts attractiveness and significantly affects outcomes — especially on prompt-based apps like Hinge.

| Finding | Source | Evidence tier |
|---------|--------|---------------|
| Profile text independently predicted attractiveness ratings beyond photos. Creative, original profiles rated as more intelligent, funnier, and more attractive | Fiore et al. (2008), *CHI 2008* (DOI: 10.1145/1357054.1357181) | Research |
| Users with distinctive, creative self-presentation reported higher contact rates. Unique details serve as credibility signals because they're harder to fabricate | Ellison, Heino & Gibbs (2006), *JCMC* (DOI: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00020.x) | Research |
| Users seeking serious relationships (Hinge's core audience) valued profile completeness and text quality more than users seeking casual encounters | Sumter et al. (2017), *Telematics and Informatics* (DOI: 10.1016/j.tele.2016.04.009) | Research |
| Securely attached individuals preferred apps that emphasised text and profiles (like Hinge, OkCupid) over purely photo-based apps, and responded more positively to profiles demonstrating authenticity and emotional availability through text | Chin, Edelstein & Vernon (2019), *Mobile Media & Communication* | Research |
| Profiles with all prompts filled get significantly more engagement than those with empty or single-word answers | Hinge blog/press data | Platform data |

**What this means:** On Hinge specifically, text matters more than on purely swipe-based apps. The prompt architecture forces structured self-presentation, and the research says creative, specific text measurably improves outcomes. The Chin et al. finding is particularly relevant: people using Hinge (a relationship-oriented, text-heavy app) are disproportionately the kind of people who actually read and respond to good text. You're writing for an audience that cares.

---

## Specificity Beats Generic (Strong Evidence)

This is one of the best-supported findings in the research. Specific, concrete language consistently outperforms vague, abstract language in dating profiles.

| Finding | Source | Evidence tier |
|---------|--------|---------------|
| Truthful profiles use more specific, concrete, sensory language. Deceptive profiles use vague, abstract language. Specificity signals honesty | Toma & Hancock (2012), *Journal of Communication* (DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01619.x) | Research |
| Profiles with specific, verifiable lifestyle information produced significantly higher contact rates than vague descriptors | Hitsch, Hortacsu & Ariely (2010), *Quantitative Marketing and Economics* (DOI: 10.1007/s11129-010-9088-6) | Research |
| Specificity in profiles predicted stronger first-date outcomes. Specific details led to more accurate expectations and less disappointment at first meeting | Sharabi & Caughlin (2017), *Personal Relationships* (DOI: 10.1111/pere.12188) | Research |
| Concrete, specific language (low-level construals) creates psychological closeness. Abstract language creates distance | Trope & Liberman (2010), *Psychological Review* — Construal Level Theory | Research |
| Messages referencing specific shared interests had reply rates 30-40% higher than generic openers | OkCupid/OkTrends data (also in Rudder, *Dataclysm*, 2014) | Platform data |
| Generic profiles produced less accurate impressions and lower follow-through when people met | Frost, Chance, Norton & Ariely (2008), *Journal of Interactive Marketing* | Research |

**What this means:** "Jazz Cafe on a weeknight" genuinely works better than "live music" — and we can explain *why* through three independent research threads:

1. **Honesty signal** (Toma & Hancock): Specificity is a linguistic marker of truthfulness. Readers unconsciously process vague language as evasive and specific language as honest. When someone reads "I hate-watch Saturday Kitchen every week," they believe it — because why would you make that up?

2. **Psychological closeness** (Construal Level Theory): Concrete language puts the reader in the scene. "Jazz Cafe on a weeknight" creates a mental image — the room, the sound, the vibe. "Live music" creates nothing. Trope & Liberman (2010) showed that concrete details reduce psychological distance, making the writer feel more real and accessible.

3. **Better real-world outcomes** (Sharabi & Caughlin): Specific profiles create accurate expectations. When someone meets the person behind a specific profile, there's less gap between expectation and reality. Less disappointment. Better first dates. This is the whole chain: specificity improves not just matches but the quality of what happens after matching.

The Frost et al. finding closes the loop: generic profiles don't just get fewer matches — they produce worse dates. People show up expecting one thing and get another. Specificity is the fix at every stage.

---

## Show, Don't Tell (Strong Theoretical Basis)

Demonstrating a quality works better than claiming it. This maps onto signaling theory — one of the strongest theoretical frameworks in the skill.

| Finding | Source | Evidence tier |
|---------|--------|---------------|
| In text-only environments, demonstrated qualities are processed as more credible than claimed qualities | Walther (1996), *Communication Research* — Hyperpersonal Model | Research |
| Profiles demonstrating personality through examples beat trait-adjective lists ("I am funny" vs actually being funny). More honest, more appealing, higher contact rates | Gibbs, Ellison & Heino (2006), *Communication Research* (DOI: 10.1177/0093650205285368) | Research |
| "Showing" functions as a costly signal — it requires actually having the quality. "Telling" is a cheap signal anyone can make. Costly signals are more credible and persuasive | Donath (2007), *JCMC* — Signaling in Social Supernets | Research |
| Concrete examples trigger central-route processing (deeper, more durable evaluation). Abstract claims are processed peripherally and have weaker effects | Petty & Cacioppo (1986), Elaboration Likelihood Model | Research |

### Costly vs cheap signals — the framework

This comes from Donath (2007), building on Zahavi's handicap principle in evolutionary biology: signals that are expensive to produce are more credible because they're harder to fake.

| Signal type | Example | Why it works (or doesn't) |
|-------------|---------|--------------------------|
| **Costly** (hard to fake) | "Being nice about Timothée Chalamet" | Demonstrates actual humor — you have to be witty to write this |
| **Costly** | Specific venue/cultural references | Requires actual participation in that scene |
| **Costly** | Professional-quality photos | Investment of time and effort |
| **Costly** | Detailed, specific anecdotes | You'd have to have lived the experience to describe it convincingly |
| **Cheap** (easy to fake) | "I have a great sense of humor" | Anyone can say this; tells you nothing |
| **Cheap** | "Love to travel" | Everyone says this; zero differentiation |
| **Cheap** | Basic selfies | Minimal effort signal |
| **Cheap** | Trait adjective lists ("kind, loyal, fun") | Mass-produced language, no information content |

**The Elaboration Likelihood Model adds a layer:** Petty & Cacioppo (1986) showed that when people process persuasive messages, concrete examples trigger deeper evaluation (central route) and produce stronger, more lasting impressions. Abstract claims get shallow processing (peripheral route) and are forgotten quickly. In a dating profile, this means a specific story or detail is literally processed differently by the reader's brain than a generic claim. It sticks.

**What this means for the skill:** When we write "Being nice about Timothée Chalamet" instead of "I have dark humor," we're not just being clever — we're using a signal that's harder to fake, triggering deeper cognitive processing, and creating a more durable impression. The entire copy approach is built on this.

---

## Humor Works (Strong Evidence)

Humor in profiles significantly increases perceived attractiveness, and there's an important nuance: *producing* humor matters more than *appreciating* humor.

| Finding | Source | Evidence tier |
|---------|--------|---------------|
| Humor in self-presentation significantly increased perceived attractiveness. Interpreted as signal of intelligence, creativity, and social competence | McGee & Shevlin (2009), *Journal of Psychology* (DOI: 10.3200/JRLP.143.1.67-77) | Research |
| Women preferred men who *produced* humor over men who *appreciated* humor. Men showed the reverse preference. For men's profiles, generating humor is more effective than signaling you enjoy humor | Bressler & Balshine (2006), *Evolution and Human Behavior* (DOI: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2005.04.005) | Research |
| Humor production ability correlated with measured intelligence (r = .40) and mating success. Demonstrated humor functions as an honest signal of cognitive ability | Greengross & Miller (2011), *Intelligence* (DOI: 10.1016/j.intell.2011.03.006) | Research |
| Humor serves dual functions: signaling genetic fitness and indicating romantic interest | Li et al. (2009), *Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin* | Research |
| Messages containing humor had 15-20% higher reply rates than earnest messages | OkCupid/OkTrends data | Platform data |

### The gender nuance

Bressler & Balshine (2006) found an asymmetry: women valued humor *production* in men (actually being funny), while men valued humor *appreciation* in women (laughing at their jokes). This maps onto evolutionary psychology predictions about humor as a fitness indicator.

**Practical implication:** For men writing profiles, the priority is demonstrating wit — writing something that's actually funny, not claiming to be funny or saying "I appreciate humor." For women, the dynamic is different: demonstrated humor still works and differentiates, but warmth and responsiveness signals also carry weight.

This is a general pattern, not a rule. Individual variation matters more than group averages. But it's worth knowing when making strategic choices about what to emphasise.

### The failed humor risk

Failed humor is worse than no humor. Excessive self-deprecation reduces perceived confidence and attractiveness (Lundy, Tan & Cunningham, 1998, *PSPB*). The research draws a clear line: self-aware humor (acknowledging a quirk with confidence) works; self-deprecating humor that signals genuine insecurity doesn't.

**What this means for the skill:** "Balance edge with warmth" isn't just a style preference — it's grounded in research. Dark humor or strong opinions (edge) signal intelligence and personality. Family warmth, genuine enthusiasm (warmth) signal relationship potential and emotional availability. Pure edge reads as bitter; pure warmth reads as bland. The balance is the strategy.

---

## Self-Disclosure: How Much to Reveal

How much to share in a profile is a research question with a clear answer: moderate depth, high specificity, breadth across topics.

| Finding | Source | Evidence tier |
|---------|--------|---------------|
| Breadth of disclosure (covering multiple topics) predicted higher attractiveness. Depth had a curvilinear effect — moderate depth optimal. Too shallow = boring; too deep = uncomfortable | Gibbs, Ellison & Heino (2006), *Communication Research* | Research |
| Self-disclosure increased liking, but strongest when it felt natural and appropriate to the relationship stage | Sprecher, Treger & Wondra (2013), *Journal of Relationships Research* | Research |
| Disclosure perceived as intentional and personal creates more intimacy than disclosure that feels mass-broadcast | Jiang, Bazarova & Hancock (2011), *Human Communication Research* | Research |
| The most effective profiles balanced idealization with authenticity, self-promotion with warmth, and individual distinctiveness with broad appeal | Whitty (2008), *Computers in Human Behavior* (DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2007.07.002) | Research |

### The foundational theory

Self-disclosure research builds on Altman & Taylor's (1973) Social Penetration Theory: relationships develop as disclosure moves from superficial to intimate layers. The key insight for dating profiles is that disclosure should match the relationship stage. A profile is a first impression — it should reveal enough to create connection, but not so much that it violates norms of graduated intimacy.

### The practical framework

| Disclosure level | Example | Effect |
|-----------------|---------|--------|
| Moderate depth, high specificity | "I hate-watch Saturday Kitchen every week" | Creates connection without oversharing. Reveals personality through a specific detail. |
| Breadth across topics | Humor + values + lifestyle across 3 prompts | Shows multiple dimensions — you're a whole person, not a one-note character |
| Controlled vulnerability | Admitting a guilty pleasure, a niche obsession | Builds perceived authenticity. Signals trust ("I'm sharing this with you") |
| Too shallow | "I like music and food" | Boring, no connection. These are human universals, not personality markers |
| Too deep | "Still recovering from my parents' divorce" | Violates stage-appropriate norms. Creates discomfort, not intimacy |
| Mass-broadcast feeling | "Looking for my person, love to laugh" | Jiang et al. found this creates less intimacy — it feels like it was written for everyone, not for someone like you |

### The Whitty balance

Whitty (2008) studied which profiles got the most responses and found that the winners balanced three tensions:

1. **Idealisation vs authenticity** — Present your best self, but remain recognisable. Don't invent a persona.
2. **Self-promotion vs warmth** — Show what's impressive about you, but also show you're approachable and kind.
3. **Distinctiveness vs appeal** — Stand out from the crowd, but don't be so niche that no one relates.

These three balances are useful guidelines for the copy creation phase. A prompt answer that's too self-promoting ("I run a seven-figure business") misses warmth. One that's too niche ("I collect vintage Soviet calculators") might miss appeal. The skill aims for the intersection.

**What this means for the skill:** The discovery interview is designed to surface moderate-depth, high-specificity material across breadth of topics. That's not an accident — it maps to what self-disclosure research says works. The 150-character Hinge limit actually helps by forcing concision and preventing oversharing.

---

## The Foggy Mirror: Authenticity as Strategy

This is the most important section of this document for the skill's philosophy. Toma and Hancock's research program (five major papers, 2008-2015) is the most thorough investigation of self-presentation in online dating, and its findings directly inform how we work.

### What people actually lie about

| Finding | Source | Evidence tier |
|---------|--------|---------------|
| 81% of online daters lied about at least one attribute, but deceptions were small — people stretch truth rather than fabricate | Toma, Hancock & Ellison (2008), *PSPB* (DOI: 10.1177/0146167208318067) | Research |
| Women were more likely to misrepresent weight; men more likely to misrepresent height. Both sexes misrepresented age | Toma, Hancock & Ellison (2008) | Research |
| Profile text was more accurate than photos; text deception was subtler (vague language rather than outright lies) | Hancock & Toma (2009), *Journal of Communication* (DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01420.x) | Research |
| Deceptive profiles used fewer first-person pronouns, shorter descriptions, and more negation words | Toma & Hancock (2012) | Research |

### The foggy mirror principle

Toma et al. (2008) coined a useful metaphor: people present themselves as through a "foggy mirror" — slightly idealised but recognisable. Not fiction. Not a lie. You on a good day, well-lit, well-articulated.

81% of people stretch the truth somewhere. But the deceptions are small. People don't fabricate entire personas — they shave an inch off their age, use a photo from two years ago, describe their job in slightly grander terms. The foggy mirror, not a funhouse mirror.

**This is the operating principle for the entire skill.** We're not inventing characters. We're finding the most interesting true things about someone and making sure those things are visible. The 92-year-old great uncle is real. The Timothée Chalamet hatred is real. The exhibition catalogue is real. We're presenting real people at their best — aspirationally accurate.

### Why people hide behind generic language

Here's what happens without intervention: most people write generic profiles. Not because they're boring, but because being specific feels risky. Saying "I love live music" feels safe. Saying "Jazz Cafe on a weeknight" feels exposed — what if someone judges you for it?

The research says this instinct is exactly backwards:

- **Generic language reads as evasive.** Toma & Hancock (2012) found that vague, abstract language is literally a linguistic marker of deception. When someone reads "I love to laugh and have fun," their brain — without them knowing it — processes this the same way it processes someone dodging a question. The generic phrasing that feels safe is actually triggering suspicion.

- **Specific language reads as honest.** Concrete details, specific references, sensory language — these are markers of truthfulness. When someone reads "I hate-watch Saturday Kitchen every week," they believe it, because why would you make that up? The specificity that feels vulnerable is actually building trust.

- **The paradox of vulnerability:** Sharing something specific ("I have an irrational hatred of Timothée Chalamet") feels like you're opening yourself up to judgment. But it reads as confidence. You're secure enough to have opinions and share them. Meanwhile, the generic profile ("looking for my partner in crime") feels like hiding — and it is.

This is why the discovery phase pushes for specifics. Most people's first instinct is to generalise. Our job is to help them past that instinct.

### Profiles shape identity (Toma, 2015)

This is the finding that most directly supports the skill's philosophy.

Toma (2015) found that writing a dating profile actually changed how people saw themselves. The act of choosing what to highlight, articulating who you are, and presenting it publicly didn't just describe identity — it reinforced and sometimes *created* it.

The implications are bigger than matching:

**1. A good profile is an act of self-understanding.** When someone goes through the discovery interview and we find the specific things that make them them — the weird ritual, the niche interest, the relationship with the great uncle — and we shape those into a profile, we're not just optimising for matches. We're helping them see themselves more clearly. Many people have never articulated what makes them interesting. The process itself is valuable.

**2. Profiles become self-fulfilling.** If your profile says you're someone who goes to Jazz Cafe on weeknights and has strong opinions about brutalist architecture, you become more of that person. You lean into it. You go to Jazz Cafe. You notice the brutalist building on the way to work. Identity is partly performative, and a well-written profile performs a version of you that's true but more vivid.

**3. This is why "status affirming" matters.** Most people come into this process feeling like their profile sucks because *they* suck. Toma's research says the opposite: helping someone write a genuine, compelling profile that highlights their actual qualities doesn't just improve their match rate — it improves how they see themselves. The confidence boost isn't a side effect. It's part of the mechanism.

**4. Generic profiles do the opposite.** If your profile says "love to laugh, looking for my partner in crime," what identity does that reinforce? Nothing. It's a non-statement. It doesn't help you understand yourself and it doesn't help anyone else understand you. A generic profile isn't just strategically bad — it's a missed opportunity for genuine self-reflection.

### The whole chain: profile to relationship

| Stage | What happens with a generic profile | What happens with a specific, authentic profile |
|-------|--------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------|
| **Profile** | Vague impression. "They seem fine." | Clear impression. "I know something about this person." |
| **Match** | Matched on looks alone. No shared ground. | Matched on shared interest or compatible worldview. |
| **Conversation** | "Hey, how's your week?" — nowhere to start. | "Wait, you hate-watch Saturday Kitchen too?" — instant hook. |
| **First date** | Strangers discovering whether they have anything in common. | People who already know they share something specific. |
| **Outcome** | Expectation gap. Disappointment. Ghosting. | Expectations met or exceeded. Actual connection. |

This chain is supported across multiple studies:
- Frost et al. (2008): Generic profiles produce less accurate impressions and lower follow-through at meeting
- Sharabi & Caughlin (2017): Specificity in profiles predicts better first-date outcomes
- Toma & Hancock (2012): Specific language signals authenticity
- Toma (2015): Writing a specific profile reinforces genuine identity

**This is why the skill exists.** Not just to get more likes — to build the foundation for actual connections. Every phase of the process serves this chain: discovery finds the real material, copy makes it visible, specificity creates honest expectations, and honest expectations lead to better dates with better people.

---

## Competition Dynamics (Sobering Data)

The dating app market is extremely unequal. Understanding this grounds the "reality check" phase.

| Finding | Source | Evidence tier |
|---------|--------|---------------|
| Most users pursue partners ~25% more desirable than themselves. Desirability follows a power-law distribution — top profiles receive 10-100x the messages of median profiles | Bruch & Newman (2018), *Science Advances* (DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aap9815) | Research |
| Top 10% of male profiles received ~58% of all female likes. Women were 7x more selective than men | Tyson et al. (2016), IEEE/ACM ASONAM | Research |
| Strong homophily effects — people preferentially contact those similar on education, cultural tastes, lifestyle markers. Specific cultural references function as sorting mechanisms | Fiore & Donath (2005), *CHI Extended Abstracts* | Research |
| Users with more "desirable" profiles were significantly more selective and more sensitive to profile quality indicators including text quality and specificity | Hitsch, Hortacsu & Ariely (2010) | Research |

### What the power law means

Bruch & Newman (2018) — published in *Science Advances*, one of the highest-impact journals in science — analyzed messaging patterns of roughly 200,000 users across four US cities. Their findings are stark:

- Desirability follows a power-law distribution. A small number of profiles receive the vast majority of attention.
- The most desirable woman in their dataset received around 1,500 messages in the study period. The most desirable man received around 250. The median received far less.
- Most people message partners roughly 25% more desirable than themselves ("aspirational pursuit").
- People at the top have abundant options and are far more selective about who they respond to.

This isn't depressing — it's strategically useful. It means:

1. **Volume is the wrong strategy.** You can't out-swipe the power law. Sending more likes doesn't help if you're not memorable.
2. **Profile quality determines your tier.** The algorithm sorts people into visibility tiers based on engagement signals. A better profile moves you up. This has compounding effects.
3. **The right 30-50 people matter more than 1,000 random ones.** Filtering and differentiation beat broad appeal.

### What quality matches look for

Hitsch et al. (2010) found that users with the most desirable profiles were significantly more selective — and more sensitive to profile quality indicators. They noticed text quality, specificity, and evidence of cultural engagement at higher rates than average users.

**What this means:** The people you're trying to attract are the people who are most likely to read your prompts, notice the difference between specific and generic, and appreciate well-crafted text. Optimizing your profile isn't just about getting past the initial filter — it's about impressing the people who are actually paying attention.

### Homophily: why cultural specificity is a strategy

Fiore & Donath (2005) found strong homophily effects in online dating: people preferentially contact those who are similar to them in education, cultural tastes, and lifestyle markers.

This is why specific cultural references ("Jazz Cafe on a weeknight," "Brutalist architecture," "exhibition catalogues") are strategic, not self-indulgent. They function as sorting mechanisms: people who share those interests recognise the reference and feel affinity. People who don't, self-select out. In a power-law market, this is exactly what you want — not maximum likes, but the right likes from people who share your world.

---

## Algorithm & Engagement

What's known about how Hinge's algorithm works, and what's speculation.

| Finding | Source | Evidence tier |
|---------|--------|---------------|
| Likes with comments are significantly more likely to lead to conversations than bare likes | Hinge press/blog data (circa 2018-2019) | Platform data |
| "Most Compatible" matches are significantly more likely to result in dates (Hinge claims 8x) | Hinge press release, 2018, announcing Most Compatible feature. Uses Gale-Shapley algorithm | Platform data |
| Hinge's algorithm rewards: profile completeness, engagement quality, response rate, activity consistency | Hinge blog/press, various | Platform data |

### Why comments work (research context)

The Hinge data on comments beating bare likes isn't just a platform quirk — it's explained by signaling theory. Donath (2007) established that signals requiring more effort are more credible. A comment requires reading the profile, finding something to respond to, and crafting a message. A bare like requires one tap. The comment is a costly signal; the bare like is cheap.

OkCupid's data (Rudder, *Dataclysm*, 2014) showed the same pattern from the other side: messages referencing specific profile content had reply rates 30-40% higher than generic openers ("Hey" / "What's up?"). Specificity signals genuine interest.

### Algorithmic tiering

While Hinge hasn't published details of its algorithm, all major dating apps use some form of desirability-based sorting. Tinder historically used an Elo rating system (adapted from chess) that ranked users by desirability based on who swiped right on them. High-Elo users were shown to other high-Elo users, creating de facto tiers.

Hinge has stated they moved beyond simple attractiveness ranking, but their algorithm still factors in engagement signals — profile completeness, comment rate, response speed, activity consistency. The practical implication: everything you do on the app affects who sees your profile. A better profile gets better engagement gets shown to better matches. It compounds.

**What we can infer but can't prove:**
- Incomplete profiles likely get deprioritised (Hinge nudges completion in-app; all recommendation systems reward complete data)
- Response rate likely affects visibility (standard in recommendation systems, but Hinge hasn't confirmed specifics)
- Daily activity likely keeps profiles visible (common across dating apps, but specifics are proprietary)

**The "10-20% like rate sweet spot"** — this is **conventional wisdom** from dating coaches. No published data confirms this specific number. The principle (being somewhat selective signals quality) is plausible but unverified.

---

## Messaging and Conversation

What happens after the match — research on what makes people respond and what leads to actual dates.

| Finding | Source | Evidence tier |
|---------|--------|---------------|
| Messages referencing specific profile content had 30-40% higher reply rates than generic openers | OkCupid/OkTrends data; Rudder, *Dataclysm* (2014) | Platform data |
| Humor in messages increased reply rates by 15-20% compared to earnest messages | OkCupid/OkTrends data | Platform data |
| Specificity in profiles predicted better first-date outcomes — less gap between expectation and reality | Sharabi & Caughlin (2017), *Personal Relationships* | Research |

### The profile-to-date pipeline

The research reveals a chain: profile specificity improves not just match rate but everything downstream.

1. **Specific profile** → more honest impression (Toma & Hancock, 2012)
2. **More honest impression** → more accurate expectations (Frost et al., 2008)
3. **More accurate expectations** → better first dates (Sharabi & Caughlin, 2017)
4. **Better first dates** → actual relationships

Generic profiles break this chain at step 1. They create vague impressions, which create vague expectations, which lead to disappointing first dates where two strangers discover they have nothing specific in common.

This is why the skill invests so heavily in the discovery phase — we're not just writing clever prompts, we're building the foundation for better dates.

### Conversation hooks in context

A good profile doesn't just get likes — it makes it easy for someone to start a conversation. "Being nice about Timothée Chalamet" gives someone an immediate entry point ("Wait, what did he do?"). "Love to laugh" gives someone nothing to say.

This maps back to the OkCupid data: specific references get specific responses, and specific responses lead to actual conversations, and actual conversations lead to dates.

---

## Gender Differences

Several findings show gender-specific patterns that affect strategy.

| Finding | Source | Evidence tier |
|---------|--------|---------------|
| Women were 7x more selective than men in swiping | Tyson et al. (2016) | Research |
| Women valued humor production in men; men valued humor appreciation in women | Bressler & Balshine (2006) | Research |
| The effect of creative/original profile text on attractiveness was stronger for women evaluating men's profiles | Fiore et al. (2008) | Research |
| Women's desirability peaked earlier in the dataset; men's desirability peaked later | Bruch & Newman (2018) | Research |
| Women were more likely to misrepresent weight; men were more likely to misrepresent height | Toma, Hancock & Ellison (2008) | Research |

### What this means for strategy

These are population-level patterns, not rules for individuals. But they have strategic implications:

**For men's profiles:** Text quality matters more because (a) women are more selective and actually read profiles, and (b) creative text has a stronger effect on women's attractiveness ratings. Demonstrated humor (actually being funny) is more effective than signaling you appreciate humor. Photo quality is table stakes — the text is where differentiation happens.

**For women's profiles:** The competition for attention is lower (men are less selective), but the competition for *quality* attention is real. Profiles that demonstrate personality and specificity attract more thoughtful engagement — comments instead of bare likes, which leads to better conversations.

**For everyone:** The specificity and signaling findings apply across the board. Individual variation within genders is far larger than the average differences between genders. The core strategy — find what's unique, be specific, show don't tell — works regardless.

---

## Profile Text Length

How much to write — the research says moderate length with high information density.

| Finding | Source | Evidence tier |
|---------|--------|---------------|
| Curvilinear relationship: very short profiles rated poorly, moderate length performed best, very long showed diminishing returns | Fiore et al. (2008), *CHI 2008* | Research |
| Longer profiles (up to a point) correlated with more contacts, but extremely long profiles saw decline | Hitsch et al. (2010) | Research |
| Profiles between 100-200 words performed best for women; 100-300 for men. Under 50 and over 500 both underperformed | OkCupid/OkTrends data; Rudder, *Dataclysm* (2014) | Platform data |

**The Hinge constraint:** 3 prompts × 150 characters = 450 characters max. The architecture enforces concision. The research says: use all the space, but make every word count. Hinge's character limit is actually well-designed — it sits in the sweet spot where you have enough room to show personality but not enough to ramble.

---

## What Consistently Predicts Better Outcomes

Drawing across the full research base, these qualities consistently improve dating profile performance. Ordered by evidence strength:

| Quality | Evidence strength | Key sources | How the skill uses it |
|---------|-------------------|-------------|----------------------|
| Specificity over generality | **Strong** (multiple studies) | Toma & Hancock (2012); Hitsch et al. (2010); Sharabi & Caughlin (2017) | Copy principles: "Jazz Cafe > live music" |
| Demonstrated personality ("show don't tell") | **Strong** (multiple studies + theory) | Gibbs et al. (2006); Donath (2007); Walther (1996) | Copy principles: costly vs cheap signals |
| Humor/wit | **Strong** (multiple studies) | McGee & Shevlin (2009); Bressler & Balshine (2006); Greengross & Miller (2011) | Copy principles: balance edge with warmth |
| Authenticity cues | **Strong** (Toma & Hancock research program) | Toma & Hancock (2010, 2012); Hancock & Toma (2009) | Philosophy: status affirming, not status fixing |
| Profile completeness | **Moderate-strong** (research + platform data) | Fiore et al. (2008); Hinge data; Sumter et al. (2017) | Audit criteria: completeness weighting |
| Warmth signals | **Moderate-strong** | Whitty (2008); self-disclosure research | Copy principles: warmth markers |
| Conversation hooks | **Moderate** (mostly platform data) | OkCupid data; Hinge comment data | Copy principles: every element = conversation hook |
| Unique/memorable content | **Moderate-strong** | Fiore et al. (2008); Ellison et al. (2006); von Restorff effect | Audit criteria: generic phrase penalties |
| Balanced self-disclosure | **Strong** (foundational theory) | Gibbs et al. (2006); Altman & Taylor (1973); Whitty (2008) | Discovery interview design |
| Cultural specificity / filtering | **Moderate** | Fiore & Donath (2005); homophily research | Copy principles: filter in AND filter out |

---

## Key Citations

### Peer-Reviewed Studies

1. Bruch, E.E. & Newman, M.E.J. (2018). "Aspirational Pursuit of Mates in Online Dating Markets." *Science Advances*, 4(8), eaap9815. DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aap9815
2. Toma, C.L. & Hancock, J.T. (2012). "What Lies Beneath: The Linguistic Traces of Deception in Online Dating Profiles." *Journal of Communication*, 62(1), 78-97. DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01619.x
3. Toma, C.L. & Hancock, J.T. (2010). "Looks and Lies: The Role of Physical Attractiveness in Online Dating Self-Presentation and Deception." *Communication Research*, 37(3), 335-351. DOI: 10.1177/0093650209356437
4. Fiore, A.T., Taylor, L.S., Mendelsohn, G.A. & Hearst, M. (2008). "Assessing Attractiveness in Online Dating Profiles." *CHI 2008*, 797-806. DOI: 10.1145/1357054.1357181
5. Gibbs, J.L., Ellison, N.B. & Heino, R.D. (2006). "Self-Presentation in Online Personals." *Communication Research*, 33(2), 152-177. DOI: 10.1177/0093650205285368
6. Ellison, N.B., Heino, R.D. & Gibbs, J.L. (2006). "Managing Impressions Online." *JCMC*, 11(2), 415-441. DOI: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00020.x
7. McGee, E. & Shevlin, M. (2009). "Effect of Humor on Interpersonal Attraction and Mate Selection." *Journal of Psychology*, 143(1), 67-77. DOI: 10.3200/JRLP.143.1.67-77
8. Bressler, E.R. & Balshine, S. (2006). "The Influence of Humor on Desirability." *Evolution and Human Behavior*, 27(1), 29-39. DOI: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2005.04.005
9. Donath, J. (2007). "Signals in Social Supernets." *JCMC*, 13(1), 231-251.
10. Hitsch, G.J., Hortacsu, A. & Ariely, D. (2010). "What Makes You Click?" *Quantitative Marketing and Economics*, 8(4), 393-427. DOI: 10.1007/s11129-010-9088-6
11. Tyson, G. et al. (2016). "A First Look at User Activity on Tinder." IEEE/ACM ASONAM.
12. Sharabi, L.L. & Caughlin, J.P. (2017). "What Predicts First Date Success?" *Personal Relationships*, 24(2), 370-391. DOI: 10.1111/pere.12188
13. Sumter, S.R., Vandenbosch, L. & Ligtenberg, L. (2017). "Love Me Tinder." *Telematics and Informatics*, 34(1), 67-78. DOI: 10.1016/j.tele.2016.04.009
14. Walther, J.B. (1996). "Computer-Mediated Communication: Impersonal, Interpersonal, and Hyperpersonal." *Communication Research*, 23(1), 3-43.
15. Toma, C.L., Hancock, J.T. & Ellison, N.B. (2008). "Separating Fact from Fiction." *PSPB*, 34(8), 1023-1036. DOI: 10.1177/0146167208318067
16. Hancock, J.T. & Toma, C.L. (2009). "Putting Your Best Face Forward." *Journal of Communication*, 59(2), 367-386. DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01420.x
17. Toma, C.L. (2015). "Effects of Online Dating Profiles on Daters' Self-Concept." *Communication Research*, 42(6), 773-793.
18. Frost, J.H., Chance, Z., Norton, M.I. & Ariely, D. (2008). "People are Experience Goods." *Journal of Interactive Marketing*, 22(1), 51-61.
19. Greengross, G. & Miller, G.F. (2011). "Humor Ability Reveals Intelligence." *Intelligence*, 39(4), 188-192. DOI: 10.1016/j.intell.2011.03.006
20. Li, N.P. et al. (2009). "An Evolutionary Perspective on Humor." *PSPB*, 35(7), 923-936.
21. Brand, R.J. et al. (2012). "Hot or Not? Visual attention to faces." *Computers in Human Behavior*.
22. Sedgewick, J.R. et al. (2017). "The Effect of Smile Intensity on Perceptions." *Frontiers in Psychology*.
23. Sprecher, S., Treger, S. & Wondra, J.D. (2013). "Effects of Self-Disclosure Role on Liking." *Journal of Relationships Research*, 4, e1.
24. Jiang, L.C., Bazarova, N.N. & Hancock, J.T. (2011). "The Disclosure-Intimacy Link in CMC." *Human Communication Research*, 37(1), 58-77.
25. Whitty, M.T. (2008). "Revealing the 'Real' Me." *Computers in Human Behavior*, 24(4), 1707-1723. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2007.07.002
26. Fiore, A.T. & Donath, J.S. (2005). "Homophily in Online Dating." *CHI '05 Extended Abstracts*, 1371-1374.
27. Ward, J. (2017). "What Are You Doing on Tinder?" *Information, Communication & Society*, 20(11), 1644-1659. DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2016.1252412
28. Trope, Y. & Liberman, N. (2010). "Construal-Level Theory." *Psychological Review*, 117(2), 440-463.
29. Chin, K., Edelstein, R.S. & Vernon, P.A. (2019). "Attached to Dating Apps." *Mobile Media & Communication*, 7(1), 41-59.

### Platform & Industry Data

- Hinge press releases and blog posts (2018-2022) — comments vs likes, Most Compatible, profile completeness
- OkCupid/OkTrends blog; Rudder, C. (2014). *Dataclysm*. Crown — messaging data, profile length, specificity effects
- Hinge "Most Compatible" feature launch (2018) — Gale-Shapley algorithm, 8x claim

### Foundational Theory

- Altman, I. & Taylor, D.A. (1973). *Social Penetration Theory* — self-disclosure framework
- Petty, R.E. & Cacioppo, J.T. (1986). *Elaboration Likelihood Model* — why concrete examples persuade more than abstract claims
- Zahavi, A. (1975). Handicap Principle — costly signaling in mate selection

---

## How This Research Drives the Process

This section connects the findings back to what we actually do. Every phase of the skill exists for a reason, and the research explains why.

### Why the discovery interview works

The discovery phase asks a lot of seemingly random questions — guilty pleasures, pet peeves, weird rituals, strong opinions, family relationships. There's a method to it:

- **Self-disclosure research says breadth matters.** Gibbs et al. (2006) found that covering multiple topics (humor + values + lifestyle + interests) predicts higher attractiveness ratings. We ask across categories because the profile needs to show multiple dimensions of a person, not just one note.

- **We're mining for costly signals.** Every question is looking for something specific, unusual, or hard to fake. "What did you actually do last weekend?" surfaces real details. "What are you irrationally into?" finds the passions that can't be generic. These become the raw material for costly signals in the profile.

- **Moderate depth is the target.** Social Penetration Theory says disclosure should match the relationship stage. A dating profile is a first impression. We want the Saturday Kitchen hate-watch (moderate depth, high specificity), not the childhood trauma (too deep) or "I like food" (too shallow). The questions are designed to hit this level.

- **We're looking for what Whitty (2008) called the balance.** Every question is testing: what's distinctive about this person (uniqueness) that's also relatable (appeal) and genuinely true (authenticity) but presented at its best (idealisation)? The intersection of those four things is where the best profile material lives.

### Why the audit scores the way it does

Photos weighted at 40%, prompts at 30%, completeness at 15%, signaling at 15%. These aren't sacred numbers, but they reflect what research says matters:

- **Photos first** because every study confirms they dominate the initial decision (Tyson et al., 2016; Brand et al., 2012). A profile with excellent text and bad photos won't get read. Photos are the gatekeeper.

- **Prompts heavily weighted** because on Hinge, text matters more than on other apps (Sumter et al., 2017; Chin et al., 2019). The people using Hinge skew toward wanting substance. The prompts are where differentiation happens.

- **Completeness matters** because incomplete profiles signal low effort (a cheap signal of low investment), get algorithmically deprioritised, and miss opportunities. Fiore et al. (2008) found profile completeness correlated with perceived attractiveness.

- **Signaling analysis** because what a profile *communicates* often differs from what the person *intended*. The gap between intended and actual signals is where the biggest improvements hide.

### Why copy is written the way it is

Every copy principle maps to research:

- **"Jazz Cafe > live music"** — specificity signals honesty (Toma & Hancock, 2012), creates closeness (Trope & Liberman, 2010), and produces better real-world outcomes (Sharabi & Caughlin, 2017).

- **"Being nice about Timothée Chalamet" > "I have dark humor"** — costly signal vs cheap signal (Donath, 2007). Central-route processing vs peripheral (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). Demonstrating vs claiming (Gibbs et al., 2006).

- **Conversation hooks in every prompt** — OkCupid data shows specific references get 30-40% more responses. A prompt someone can't respond to is a wasted prompt.

- **Filter in AND filter out** — homophily research (Fiore & Donath, 2005) shows people seek similarity. Cultural specificity attracts compatible matches and repels incompatible ones. In a power-law market (Bruch & Newman, 2018), this is the right strategy.

- **Balance edge with warmth** — humor signals intelligence (McGee & Shevlin, 2009) but pure edge reads as bitter. Whitty (2008) found the best profiles balance self-promotion with warmth, distinctiveness with appeal.

- **150 characters, every word earns its place** — Fiore et al. (2008) and Hitsch et al. (2010) both found moderate length with high density outperforms both extremes. Hinge's character limit enforces this naturally.

### Why the reality check matters

Most people's instinct is to cast a wide net. The research says this is wrong:

- **Bruch & Newman (2018):** The market follows a power law. The top profiles get wildly disproportionate attention. You can't out-volume the power law.

- **The strategy is quality, not quantity.** Being memorable to 30-50 right people beats being forgettable to 500. This is counterintuitive — it feels like narrowing your options. But filtering attracts better matches, and better matches lead to actual dates.

- **Settings matter more than people think.** A too-narrow age range, unnecessary dealbreakers, or wrong distance can dramatically shrink your pool before anyone sees your profile. The algorithm uses hard filters first (settings) and soft signals second (profile quality). If your settings are wrong, the best profile in the world won't help.

### Why we implement together

Most profile advice ends with "here's a document, good luck." We stay for implementation because:

- **Friction kills follow-through.** If someone has to come back later to implement changes, the probability drops dramatically. Doing it together, in the moment, while the rationale is fresh, gets it done.

- **Order matters.** Photo sequence, prompt placement, which photo gets which caption — these details affect how the profile reads as a whole. It's not just about individual elements; it's about the story the profile tells when someone scrolls through it.

- **The algorithm recalibrates.** When you change a profile significantly, the algorithm needs time to learn the new version. Understanding this prevents the "I changed everything and nothing happened in 24 hours" panic.

---

## Caveats

**Replication and recency:** Some older studies (pre-2015) were conducted on desktop dating sites, not mobile apps. User behaviour has evolved. However, the core psychological mechanisms (signaling, self-disclosure, construal level) are robust and platform-independent.

**Platform specificity:** Hinge's prompt-based architecture (3 prompts, 150 characters each) creates a different environment from free-form bio platforms. The constraints actually help — forced brevity plus the prompt frame naturally pushes toward the patterns research supports (specificity, hooks, show-don't-tell).

**Photo dominance:** Every study that compared photo impact to text impact found photos dominant. Text matters, but it matters *conditional on photos clearing the initial threshold*. Profile text optimisation is the second-highest-leverage intervention after photo quality.

**Individual variation:** Gender patterns, age effects, and cultural differences exist at the population level. Individual variation within any group is far larger than the average difference between groups. Use the research as a starting point, not a prescription.

---

## A Note on Evidence

Earlier versions of this document cited specific statistics ("10x impact," "178% more matches," "78% turn-off") attributed to sources that either don't exist as published research or are commercial blogs presenting marketing data as studies. We've replaced those with honestly sourced findings.

The advice in this skill is directionally consistent with what the research shows. Where we cite specific numbers, we name the actual source. Where the evidence is conventional wisdom rather than formal research, we say so. The goal is to be useful and honest, not to inflate credibility with fake precision.


Security scan verdicts — ClawScan: clean | static analysis: clean | VirusTotal: clean | SkillSpector: suspicious (MEDIUM)