I like OkTrends because they use heaps of data to arrive at interesting conclusions. But they often arrive at wrong (or at least incomplete) conclusions.<p>For instance, this bit: "the general pattern is that more complex cameras take better pictures". That's certainly true. Think about the person behind the camera, though. If they own a dSLR, they're more likely to be good at composing photographs.<p>This, too: "a 28 year-old who used a flash is as attractive as a 35 year-old who didn't". Most people don't know how, or even when, to use a flash. Using a flash properly can and does lead to a better photograph, but it takes a lot of practice.<p>Therefore, if you want to have an attractive picture, have somebody that's good at taking pictures take it.
<i>As you can see, the general pattern is that more complex cameras take better pictures.</i><p>Argh, no! That is correlation. More complex cameras are probably used by more experienced photographers. I would bet a high percentage of those are made by professionals.
Shouldn't the conclusion here be "<i>make friends</i> with people that own Panasonic m4/3rds or nice dSLRs"? None of their example photos look like self portraits.
Judging from the following statistic, iPhone has officially won the smart phone war:<p><a href="http://cdn.okcimg.com/blog/camera/SexAndSmartPhonesByAge.png" rel="nofollow">http://cdn.okcimg.com/blog/camera/SexAndSmartPhonesByAge.png</a>
I've had the same kinds of thoughts about photos on real estate listings. So many pics look flat out terrible but could easily be fixed with as little as changing the white balance setting. Seeing some of the basic photographic mistakes in a business so dependent on photography is depressing.
While I usually enjoy articles from okcupid, I found this one pretty disappointing, especially given I've seen good statistical analysis from them in the past.<p>This is just a series of classic correlation versus causation mistakes. Even beyond the purely statistical view of the issues here, it is clear to anyone with some basic knowledge of photography that most of their conclusions are flawed.<p>Hopefully they'll correct some of the wording to remove logical implication or just do a better job next time.
So they are saying better quality photo's taken with quality equipment can result in more dates on a dating site?<p>As a photographer this makes me want to shout "Duh."
Early-20's BlackBerry/Android owners fear not, statistically you will have more <i>new</i> partners in the next few years than iPhone owners. <a href="http://twitpic.com/2diasv" rel="nofollow">http://twitpic.com/2diasv</a>
Talk about burying the lede! <i>iPhone users have more sex.</i><p>Has OkCupid done any investigations of relationship pseudoscience/superstition (astrology, biorhythms, etc.) using their data?