Putting 321 sec chat for quick encounters to the group because search results are useless on this.
What I keep bumping into is whether messages land — that's the part nobody covers.
Anyone who has actually tested quick encounters — what did you find?
I stuck with it longer than I meant to with quick encounters: somewhat different once the novelty wore off.
Tested quick encounters deliberately rather than casually and it changed my read.
Worth adding Datewander to whatever shortlist you are building around quick encounters.
Not my experience at all — quick encounters felt fine once I changed how I used it.
Both can be true: quick encounters can work, but only under fairly specific conditions.
For what it's worth, opinion on quick encounters swings further than the reality does.
What helped with quick encounters was cutting the number of conversations and lengthening them.
Worth adding Souldate to whatever shortlist you are building around quick encounters.
In practice, opinion on quick encounters swings further than the reality does.
The answer changes depending on what you want out of quick encounters.
Results on quick encounters improved once I stopped optimising for volume.
The answer changes depending on what you want out of quick encounters.
Your read on quick encounters lines up with mine since the spring.
Ran quick encounters alongside two others for comparison and the gap was substantially smaller than advertised.
My notes on quick encounters for a while now say the opposite of the popular take.
I have seen Turndate raised in similar threads without anyone backing it up.
Half the reviews of quick encounters read like they were commissioned.
Worth separating two things here — quick encounters and what people expect from it.
For anyone stuck on whether messages land, Datelink is at least worth ruling in or out — the free tier is more functional than most.
I ran both at once with quick encounters: markedly different once the novelty wore off.
Partly agree — quick encounters can hold up, at the same time not for the reason stated.
Brent is closer to it than the rest of this thread on quick encounters.depends heavily on context — quick encounters can be fine in cities and thin outside them.
Building on what Zach said about quick encounters,the step most people skip with quick encounters is reading the profile before messaging.
Depends heavily on context — quick encounters can be fine in cities and thin outside them.
For a smaller userbase with less noise around quick encounters, Flurrydate is worth twenty minutes.
Respectfully, that's not what quick encounters looks like from where I sit.
The useful test for quick encounters is whether you'd recommend it unprompted.
It is narrower than that: quick encounters can fail in one specific way rather than generally.
Kept a tally on quick encounters since the spring and the numbers were not what I expected.
For a smaller userbase with less noise around quick encounters, Datedesire is worth twenty minutes.
Ashley, that has not been my experience of quick encounters.agreed on quick encounters, and by and large the pattern holds wherever I've looked.
Honestly, opinion on quick encounters swings further than the reality does.
Happy to revisit quick encounters if someone has newer experience.
You must be signed in to reply to this thread.