Men on AM talking to fake women and other men?

[Anonymous]

According to this they were either responding to fake women profiles, getting no responses or if in chat talking to me. And I did read a report from a woman who stated that within 24 hours of placing her ad on AM without a picture got 200 emails. Sounds like a desperate swarm to me.

First, the official numbers. The info that the hackers published contained about 31 million accounts apparently belonging to men, and about 5 million apparently belonging to women.

But when Newlitz dug deeper, she found a bunch of test accounts that ended with ashleymadison.com, suggesting that they were created internally (90% of them were for women), and 350 female accounts for people with the same and very unusual last name.

Then, she found three really damning pieces of data:

Only 1,492 of the women in the database had ever checked their messages on the site. That's compared with more than 20 million men.
Only 2,409 of the women had ever used the site's chat function, versus more than 11 million men.
Only 9,700 women had ever responded to a message from another person on the site, versus almost 6 million men.

So if that is reality then there were a LOT of men paying but not playing.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ashley-madison-bunch-dudes-talking-233158251.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:According to this they were either responding to fake women profiles, getting no responses or if in chat talking to me. And I did read a report from a woman who stated that within 24 hours of placing her ad on AM without a picture got 200 emails. Sounds like a desperate swarm to me.

First, the official numbers. The info that the hackers published contained about 31 million accounts apparently belonging to men, and about 5 million apparently belonging to women.

But when Newlitz dug deeper, she found a bunch of test accounts that ended with ashleymadison.com, suggesting that they were created internally (90% of them were for women), and 350 female accounts for people with the same and very unusual last name.

Then, she found three really damning pieces of data:

Only 1,492 of the women in the database had ever checked their messages on the site. That's compared with more than 20 million men.
Only 2,409 of the women had ever used the site's chat function, versus more than 11 million men.
Only 9,700 women had ever responded to a message from another person on the site, versus almost 6 million men.

So if that is reality then there were a LOT of men paying but not playing.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ashley-madison-bunch-dudes-talking-233158251.html

CORRECTION...talking to MEN not me. lol

[Anonymous]

Hilarious. Isnt that the story of life? Men always think they can cheat so easily and it's always so much harder in reality.

You know the ONLY guys who ever got any women off that site were either super shredded and gorgeous and young. Or wealthy as fuck and willing to spend money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Only 1,492 of the women in the database had ever checked their messages on the site. That's compared with more than 20 million men.

Only 9,700 women had ever responded to a message from another person on the site, versus almost 6 million men.

Don't believe everything you read. I have had probably 50 plus real women that I have messaged thru their email after we first made contact on the site. That's over a 3 year period. 9700 / 50 states = 194 per state. Which represents a 5 year hacking file I think. 194 / 5 = 38.8 women per year in my State. My 50 / 3 yrs = 16.66 per year in my State. My 16.66 per yr / 38.8 women per yr = 42.9% So if I am to believe the article, I'm responsible for almost half the women in my State that have responded to messages. That article is total BS being used as a cover.

Stop trying to argue with me about what I have experienced. It is what it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Only 1,492 of the women in the database had ever checked their messages on the site. That's compared with more than 20 million men.

Only 9,700 women had ever responded to a message from another person on the site, versus almost 6 million men.

Don't believe everything you read. I have had probably 50 plus real women that I have messaged thru their email after we first made contact on the site. That's over a 3 year period. 9700 / 50 states = 194 per state. Which represents a 5 year hacking file I think. 194 / 5 = 38.8 women per year in my State. My 50 / 3 yrs = 16.66 per year in my State. My 16.66 per yr / 38.8 women per yr = 42.9% So if I am to believe the article, I'm responsible for almost half the women in my State that have responded to messages. That article is total BS being used as a cover.

Stop trying to argue with me about what I have experienced. It is what it is.

Hahahahaha. Sure. AM has been called out multiple times for making fake accounts, and reputable news sources have actually done the research and come up with the statistics. But YOU, a random person on DCUM, are right, and everyone else is wrong. Definitely- that makes sense.

Somewhere, a village is missing their idiot...

[Anonymous]

There are the AM Angels, so OP probably isn't that far off. They're in the user agreement, not an internet myth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Only 1,492 of the women in the database had ever checked their messages on the site. That's compared with more than 20 million men.

Only 9,700 women had ever responded to a message from another person on the site, versus almost 6 million men.

Don't believe everything you read. I have had probably 50 plus real women that I have messaged thru their email after we first made contact on the site. That's over a 3 year period. 9700 / 50 states = 194 per state. Which represents a 5 year hacking file I think. 194 / 5 = 38.8 women per year in my State. My 50 / 3 yrs = 16.66 per year in my State. My 16.66 per yr / 38.8 women per yr = 42.9% So if I am to believe the article, I'm responsible for almost half the women in my State that have responded to messages. That article is total BS being used as a cover.

Stop trying to argue with me about what I have experienced. It is what it is.

Real woman here and this person's experience aligns with everything I've heard from people I have met on AM. I have had about 8 APs from the site and met about 12. All of them have said they have met or spoken with multiple, flesh and blood, females for coffee, lunch, sex, whatever. These numbers don't make sense.

[Anonymous]

To clarify, I mean the media's numbers don't make sense.-PP

[Anonymous]

I'm a real woman on the site but had no intention of meeting anyone. I joined to look at my husband's profile when I found out he had one long ago. I don't respond to any messages though because why waste anyone's time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Only 1,492 of the women in the database had ever checked their messages on the site. That's compared with more than 20 million men.

Only 9,700 women had ever responded to a message from another person on the site, versus almost 6 million men.

Don't believe everything you read. I have had probably 50 plus real women that I have messaged thru their email after we first made contact on the site. That's over a 3 year period. 9700 / 50 states = 194 per state. Which represents a 5 year hacking file I think. 194 / 5 = 38.8 women per year in my State. My 50 / 3 yrs = 16.66 per year in my State. My 16.66 per yr / 38.8 women per yr = 42.9% So if I am to believe the article, I'm responsible for almost half the women in my State that have responded to messages. That article is total BS being used as a cover.

Stop trying to argue with me about what I have experienced. It is what it is.

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

[Anonymous]

But are PPs claiming to have met dozens of women ("live girls!") real people or just AM interns again? It seems like the company could just maintain the farce indefinitely given the anonymous nature of the internet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Only 1,492 of the women in the database had ever checked their messages on the site. That's compared with more than 20 million men.

Only 9,700 women had ever responded to a message from another person on the site, versus almost 6 million men.

Don't believe everything you read. I have had probably 50 plus real women that I have messaged thru their email after we first made contact on the site. That's over a 3 year period. 9700 / 50 states = 194 per state. Which represents a 5 year hacking file I think. 194 / 5 = 38.8 women per year in my State. My 50 / 3 yrs = 16.66 per year in my State. My 16.66 per yr / 38.8 women per yr = 42.9% So if I am to believe the article, I'm responsible for almost half the women in my State that have responded to messages. That article is total BS being used as a cover.

Stop trying to argue with me about what I have experienced. It is what it is.

Real woman here and this person's experience aligns with everything I've heard from people I have met on AM. I have had about 8 APs from the site and met about 12. All of them have said they have met or spoken with multiple, flesh and blood, females for coffee, lunch, sex, whatever. These numbers don't make sense.

Real women were rare so sure they were getting big response numbers. As to the men you talked to, do you believe they would want to admit you were the only one?

Sure, there were hookups but the data shows so few women to men who were even replying to emails.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To clarify, I mean the media's numbers don't make sense.-PP

It's not the media. The people that did the analyzing are experts in the field.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm a real woman on the site but had no intention of meeting anyone. I joined to look at my husband's profile when I found out he had one long ago. I don't respond to any messages though because why waste anyone's time.

And many of the real women accounts show they never responded to messages. That said, makes me wonder how many women on there were like you. Odds are, based on the data, even if men went into chat rooms they weren't talking to real women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Only 1,492 of the women in the database had ever checked their messages on the site. That's compared with more than 20 million men.

Only 9,700 women had ever responded to a message from another person on the site, versus almost 6 million men.

Don't believe everything you read. I have had probably 50 plus real women that I have messaged thru their email after we first made contact on the site. That's over a 3 year period. 9700 / 50 states = 194 per state. Which represents a 5 year hacking file I think. 194 / 5 = 38.8 women per year in my State. My 50 / 3 yrs = 16.66 per year in my State. My 16.66 per yr / 38.8 women per yr = 42.9% So if I am to believe the article, I'm responsible for almost half the women in my State that have responded to messages. That article is total BS being used as a cover.

Stop trying to argue with me about what I have experienced. It is what it is.

The capacity for self deception (as well as deceiving others) is extraordinary.