25–35 · 6′0″+ · $100K+ · Any education
Whose standards leave the bigger pool?
One location. Two filter sets. Men and women stay visible the whole time.
No account, name, or saved profile required.
This compares modeled pool size, not compatibility or relationship odds. No names, accounts, or challenge answers are stored.
A standards comparison needs the same ruler.
Location stays locked
A shared challenge uses one national or state population for both filter sets. That prevents a New York result from being compared casually with a Texas result.
Both pools stay visible
Each person’s standards are applied to men and women on the same receipt. No gender switch hides the competitive comparison.
Observed and modeled stay labeled
Age, personal income, education, and current marital status are jointly counted in 2024 ACS PUMS. Height and optional BMI are separately modeled from CDC/NCHS measurements.
Rarity is not compatibility
The result cannot observe orientation, attraction, intent, values, app activity, personality, or whether anyone would choose each other. Read the full model card.
Before the group chat argues.
01How do you compare dating standards fairly?+
Use the same geography, source year, population definition, and modeling rules for both people. This comparison locks the location and applies each person’s selected filters to both male and female pools.
02Does the friend comparison save our answers?+
No. The filter sets travel in the shared URL and are calculated in the browser. No account, name, email, or challenge-response record is created.
03Does a smaller pool mean someone is unrealistic?+
No. Pool size describes demographic rarity, not whether a preference is morally right, personally important, or likely to produce a relationship.
04Are these people active on dating apps?+
Not necessarily. The base population is weighted Census microdata, not a dating-app roster. Orientation, app activity, mutual attraction, intent, and compatibility are outside the model.