Men on AM talking to fake women and other men?

[Anonymous]

I'm a woman that joined to look up my ex. Didn't pay money, though.

Those stats seem right from what I've seen in the data. Tons of men and probably a few women checking up on their man .

[Anonymous]

I'm not an AM employee (PP who posted about meeting men and about my APs meeting women). Look on explicit - people, including me, regularly talked about meeting people on AM. With 36M users, the numbers of females they say responded to messages doesn't make sense based on the number of women I know in life and online who have met men through this site.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not an AM employee (PP who posted about meeting men and about my APs meeting women). Look on explicit - people, including me, regularly talked about meeting people on AM. With 36M users, the numbers of females they say responded to messages doesn't make sense based on the number of women I know in life and online who have met men through this site.

The analysis shows that virtually no women responded and a huge percentage of the 'women' on there was generated from an isp that matches with AM. So that means there were about 30 plus men corresponding for every real woman on there who was doing likewise.

Now, given those stats, it is entirely likely that women had a much easier time hooking up than men. One woman said she got 200 initial emails in the first 24 hours. But also extremely likely there were a LOT of men that never did.

[Anonymous]

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.

This doesn't make sense.

[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.

This doesn't make sense.

Either way, I had a friend on the website. She certainly had affairs with married men. She's newly divorced.

[Anonymous]

The articles' numbers are total horseshit.

I suspect 80% of all the women that cheat were on AM

You really think married women preferred Tinder or Cupid ? No, they were on AM. Or do you prefer to think women don't actually cheat !

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
The articles' numbers are total horseshit.

I suspect 80% of all the women that cheat were on AM

You really think married women preferred Tinder or Cupid ? No, they were on AM. Or do you prefer to think women don't actually cheat !

Let's see. There a reputable group who did a thorough analysis of the AM data and put forth their findings and then there is your uneducated opinion. Come on, 80% of all women who cheat on AM? Considering how few women who were real on AM that means that virtually no women in the US is cheating. So if I am going to consider anything horseshit it is your unsubstantiated opinion.

Oh, facts are that more people have affairs with people they know on some level than random strangers. ESPECIALLY women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The articles' numbers are total horseshit.

I suspect 80% of all the women that cheat were on AM

You really think married women preferred Tinder or Cupid ? No, they were on AM. Or do you prefer to think women don't actually cheat !

Let's see. There a reputable group who did a thorough analysis of the AM data and put forth their findings and then there is your uneducated opinion. Come on, 80% of all women who cheat on AM? Considering how few women who were real on AM that means that virtually no women in the US is cheating. So if I am going to consider anything horseshit it is your unsubstantiated opinion.

Oh, facts are that more people have affairs with people they know on some level than random strangers. ESPECIALLY women.

That through analysis you quote has many holes in it. Read all the comments from that Article. Several things don't add up. One explanation given was the fact that the Hacker had months to corrupt and manipulate the data before dumping it. Do you really feel a Hacker is trustworthy ? In addition, the data is likely not being analyzed correctly because A.M. did not have totally clean and accurate ways to store or display many functions. None of that Articles assumptions add up. "If you believe it does, then one of the Villages are missing their Idiot"

[Anonymous]

thorough

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

I know. I have to laugh when people are so vehemently INSISTING that they talked/met real women..... when the numbers are there, for anyone to see.

I guess they just want to give up the fantasy?

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt....

[Anonymous]

^And to clarify, I don't think it's "people" supporting AM. Given the similar tone of the posts, I believe there is one person in here who is very dedicated to defending AM, and willing to sockpuppet as a female to do so.

Maybe they work for the company, maybe they just cherished the idea of AM as a place to meet "real, live women!" but either way- they seem to have a very "intense" emotional connection to the site- one which cannot be overridden by logic or data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
The articles' numbers are total horseshit.

I suspect 80% of all the women that cheat were on AM

You really think married women preferred Tinder or Cupid ? No, they were on AM. Or do you prefer to think women don't actually cheat !

If they are using a website, it's Tinder, where they can find young, HOT, shirtless men in droves. Not AM, with a bunch of middle aged, flabby horndogs.

The evidence seems to support this.

[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.

This doesn't make sense.

But what about that seemingly odd disparity between the numbers of women checking messages (1492), and replying to messages (9700)? Even that can be explained by looking at how actual humans use Ashley Madison.

When you log into your Ashley Madison account, you’re prompted to answer messages before you visit your inbox. A dialog box pops up, suggesting that you reply to all your messages in bulk, with a canned reply like “I only reply to full messages,” or “Please send me a message and photo.” In other words, you can reply to several mails at the same time without ever actually checking or opening your mail. So it’s easy to imagine that perhaps a few thousand real women had accounts, and replied to almost 10 thousand messages after being prompted. But only about 1500 of them ever clicked the button to open their inboxes.

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

[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.

This doesn't make sense.

But what about that seemingly odd disparity between the numbers of women checking messages (1492), and replying to messages (9700)? Even that can be explained by looking at how actual humans use Ashley Madison.

When you log into your Ashley Madison account, you’re prompted to answer messages before you visit your inbox. A dialog box pops up, suggesting that you reply to all your messages in bulk, with a canned reply like “I only reply to full messages,” or “Please send me a message and photo.” In other words, you can reply to several mails at the same time without ever actually checking or opening your mail. So it’s easy to imagine that perhaps a few thousand real women had accounts, and replied to almost 10 thousand messages after being prompted. But only about 1500 of them ever clicked the button to open their inboxes.

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

Your focusing on one part of the entire and I suggest you get more into the details of the whole. Particularly the number of women on there. Fact is...there were a LOT of fake women's profiles and a HUGE disparity between men and women. And in chats, guess what, there are a lot of transgender and gay men that pretend to be women in chats. That's common knowledge. So who knows how many set up free women's profiles, played as women but were in fact men.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^And to clarify, I don't think it's "people" supporting AM. Given the similar tone of the posts, I believe there is one person in here who is very dedicated to defending AM, and willing to sockpuppet as a female to do so.

Maybe they work for the company, maybe they just cherished the idea of AM as a place to meet "real, live women!" but either way- they seem to have a very "intense" emotional connection to the site- one which cannot be overridden by logic or data.

Maybe their afraid that they were having a cyber affair with a man who they thought was a woman. Or had a running email love affair with one of those interns and can't bear the thought it wasn't real.