Dating sites real or fake
Here is a sample of those quotes from those letters, including any of my comments in grey.Out of the first 23 letters that I opened, 13 (about 57%) of them, as quoted above, explicitly asserted that the writer had read "Michael's" profile and was interested in him based upon that profile, and three others (about 13%) implied it by writing such things as "I’m very interested in you [...] I believe the first sight , perhaps the first look can doom our fate", "you can't imagine how happy I am at the moment" and "I feel so happy to be here to coonect with you my dear".Concerned that my friend was being scammed, I did some investigating, and came to the conclusion that yes, he was. Here, then, is my research, to warn those considering using against wasting their time and money.My investigations took two forms: direct investigation by registering a fake profile, and indirect investigation by scouring the net for positive/negative reviews.To check that this wasn't some strange anomaly, on 5 July 2014 I created another fake account, "John Smith", aged 88 (the maximum age it is possible to set for men on asiandate.com), with profile description ("A Few Words About Yourself") set to "I am an old and decrepit man with terminal cancer and absolutely no money. As with "Michael"'s account, I provided no photographs.Within two days, the account received 15 letters, with similar results as for "Michael" - many of the writers claimed to have read, and to be attracted to "John" based on, his profile; many of them provided more than one photograph.
For some reason, the women started addressing their messages to "Not" rather than to "Michael", presumably because I had previously registered an account "Not Real", although I'm not sure how that account/name became linked to the "Michael Michaelson" account.In any case, the frequency of the pop-ups didn't abate - if anything, it increased.There were pretty much constantly at least one and often around five chat pop-up windows on the screen at a time.Many of the letter writers purported to have read "Michael's" profile, in which he solicited messages from scammers only - yet here they were messaging him anyway.This is damning enough as it is, but I've got an even better actual smoking gun to present afterwards, so read on for that.
So, about 70% of the first 23 letters I opened either by a charitable interpretation blatantly or implicitly lied, and/or, by a more likely interpretation, attempted to scam "Michael" by flattering him and pretending interest only so that he would spend money (between $4 and $8 a pop) to read and reply to future letters.