Not currently married · age 25–34
Pool matches—
Your pool across all cities
Each row uses ACS 2024 metro demographics. Income above $100k is a metro-specific lognormal tail estimate fitted to that metro and sex’s observed $50k/$75k/$100k shares. Politics uses sourced 2024 metro two-party vote shares for eight metros and a national fallback elsewhere; religion uses clearly labeled PRRI 2016 state anchors where available. Radius counts remain a city-core/metro-fringe approximation.
Share your dating-pool estimate
Your profile
Target pool
Profile response adjustment×1.00
—
possible first dates
Assumes you also like them. Treat this as a range, not a forecast.
Adjust model assumptions
Seeded from SSRS January 2024: 41% serious-only + 39% open to serious or casual among online daters.
No reliable city-level active-user dataset exists; keep this as your scenario.
Reach depends heavily on activity, app ranking and city. The cautious 2.5% default is an editable scenario—not a measured platform rate.
Editable because no credible current U.S. long-term swipe-right average is published.
100% applies the full conservative metro-percentile curve; 0% turns income off. The published direction is stronger for men and mostly flat for women.
Weak evidence only; a small 2019 student sample measured one meeting per 57 matches.
Income responds to the cityYour income band is converted to an approximate metro earnings percentile. Above $100k, the calculator fits a lognormal tail to each metro and sex’s observed ACS $50k/$75k/$100k shares; it is an extrapolation, not a published bracket. A conservative 0.7×–1.65× response curve is then applied for men; women’s curve stays nearly flat. Hitsch, Hortaçsu & Ariely
Swipe-right survey, not observed behaviorIn Tyson et al.’s 2016 Tinder survey in London, 59% of women said they liked 10% or fewer profiles, versus 9% of men. The sample was small and Tinder skewed casual, so it is only an illustrative bound for long-term dating. Tyson et al. paper
Match rate ≠ swipe-right rateThe same 2016 London Tinder study’s own male profiles matched with 0.6% of people they liked; its female profiles matched with 10.5%. Those are profile-specific match rates, not rates to apply to you. Study details
No reliable match → date rateA small 2019 survey of Norwegian students found about one in-person meeting per 57 Tinder matches. It measured any meeting—not dates or long-term intent—so the slider above stays your assumption. Study summary
How personalization works: the compatible pool now carries the same measured overlap correction used on the Pool size tab before the profile-response scenario begins. The page then applies transparent scenario adjustments for age-range proximity, metro-relative income rank, height, self-rated photo and prompt quality, and compatible lifestyle or family preferences. BMI category, relationship status, children, family goals and alcohol use small labeled scenario weights; politics and religion add small local-context adjustments only where grounded. None are causal estimates. Race and ethnicity remain neutral by design. Income, app reach and response evidence are not a validated current-city prediction; use the editable weights and displayed range—not the midpoint alone.
Where your profile has the widest reach
Directional ranking, not a prediction. Each city uses its ACS 2024 demographic base, recalculates your approximate earnings percentile, and applies available local politics and religion context. Long-term intent, app use, 90-day exposure, baseline response and match-to-date rates remain the same editable assumptions in every row.
Share your profile-odds estimate
How this works · data & honesty notes
of single adults said they weren’t looking.
Pew’s February 2022 survey found 42% of single U.S. adults were looking for a relationship or casual dates; 57% were not. This remains context—not a multiplier—because dating intent isn’t measured for each local, filtered group. Read the study.
Read the number correctly
The radius estimate uses principal-city density inside the city’s equivalent-area core, then the remaining metro’s density outside it, capped at the MSA population. Six consolidated city-counties use MSA-average density because their boundaries include substantial suburban or rural land. Per-metro ACS 2024 1-year shares are used for age × sex, race/ethnicity (total population as an adult proxy), bachelor’s+ by sex, and observed earnings thresholds at $50k, $75k and $100k. The $150k/$200k/$250k shares are metro-and-sex-specific lognormal tail estimates fitted to those three observed thresholds; they are modeled extrapolations, not published ACS brackets. Politics uses sourced 2024 two-party metro vote shares as a compatibility proxy for eight metros and sex-specific national affiliation shares elsewhere. Religion uses PRRI 2016 state anchors for supported metros and national 2023–24 shares elsewhere. Alcohol, smoking, marijuana, drug use, kids, marital status, height, body size, and the dating-app/selectivity scenario remain national. The model now replaces the alcohol marginal with Pew’s observed religion-specific drinking rate when a supported religion and alcohol are selected together; wants-children is explicitly conditional on being childless, and nested marijuana/illicit-drug filters cannot be double-counted. Unmeasured relationships—including income × education and most three-way combinations—still assume independence, so heavily filtered results remain directional.
estimated people inside radius × metro adult/sex share × filter shares, with measured conditional overlap substituted where available
“Not currently married” combines never married, divorced and widowed Census categories. Pew found 42% of single adults were actively looking in 2022; selecting a dating-intent option automatically uses the not-currently-married pool. Kids estimates cover biological parenthood among ages 15–49, not children at home.
Overlap-aware where measured: when religion and alcohol are both selected, the model uses Pew’s religion-specific drinking rate instead of multiplying two unrelated averages. Wants-children is conditional on having no children, and marijuana/illicit-drug double-counting is blocked. Other overlaps still assume independence and are labeled as such in the sources below.
Your-odds tab: directional, not predictive. ACS 2024 sizes the local pool; your profile shifts the estimate through published behavioral signals where available and clearly labeled heuristics elsewhere.
Directional estimate · not a census of daters
Data notes & sources
- Census ACS 2024 1-year table-based summary files — B01001 age × sex, B03002 race/ethnicity, B15002 education by sex, and B20005 earnings by sex for all 75 metros.
- Census 2024 metro estimates, principal-city estimates, and place land area. Radius is a two-zone city-core/metro-fringe approximation, not a block-level count.
- CDC/NCHS 2021–2023 anthropometric reference — measured height percentiles, adults 20+.
- CDC/NCHS 2017–2018 BMI data — age-adjusted adults 20+; BMI <25 is remainder-derived.
- Census ACS 2024 S2001 example for San Francisco metro — published sex-specific earnings brackets stop at $100k+. The calculator’s $150k/$200k/$250k shares are metro-tail estimates fitted to each metro and sex’s observed ACS $50k/$75k/$100k survival shares.
- Census 2024 educational attainment — bachelor’s+ among adults 25+.
- Census CPS ASEC 2024 Table MS-1 — marital status by sex among people 15+; “married” includes spouse present, spouse absent and separated.
- CDC NSFG 2017–19 — ever had a biological child by sex among ages 15–49; this is not children currently at home.
- Pew 2023 survey of adults without children — 47% of childless adults 18–49 said they were unlikely ever to have children; no significant sex difference. “Likely” uses the 53% remainder, which includes nonresponse.
- PRRI 2023 Census of American Religion — the preferred county-based source. A complete county-to-metro extract was unavailable, so supported metros use explicitly labeled PRRI 2016 state anchors; others retain the Pew 2023–24 national profile.
- MIT Election Data + Science Lab and verified metro aggregation — 2024 Democratic/Republican two-party presidential vote shares used as a geography-aware political-compatibility proxy in eight metros. It is not a survey of party affiliation. Missing metros use Pew 2026 NPORS national affiliation.
- Gallup 2025 Consumption Habits survey — drinking by sex.
- Pew Research Center religion and alcohol analysis — in its 2015 survey, 51% of Protestants and 60% of Catholics reported drinking in the past 30 days. Those observed conditional rates replace the generic alcohol share when either supported religion is selected; unsupported faiths keep the labeled national fallback.
- NEJM Evidence analysis of 2024 NHIS — current cigarette smoking by sex; not a CDC-published table.
- SAMHSA 2024 NSDUH — past-year marijuana and any-illicit-drug use for adults 18+, both sexes.
- Race/ethnicity uses ACS 2024 MSA total-population shares as an adult approximation. ACS metro earnings use earnings in the past 12 months as a share of adults 18+; 16–17-year-old earners in the numerator create a negligible universe mismatch. Above $100k, a least-squares lognormal tail is fitted separately for every metro and sex; for men at $250k+ this yields about 13.5% in San Francisco, 1.9% in Cleveland and 1.9% in Memphis. Body-size labels map to CDC BMI bands in the methodology: below average = BMI <25, average = 25–29.9, above average = 30+. Religion, marijuana and drug figures are not sex-specific. The model does not estimate sexuality, app activity, mutual preferences or compatibility.
- Tyson et al., 2016 — Tinder study in London: the 0.6% male-profile and 10.5% female-profile figures are match rates among likes sent, not swipe-right rates; the survey portion supplies the self-reported like-rate context.
- Hinge company-data interview, around 2017 — like distribution was more concentrated for men; it does not provide a swipe-right rate.
- Bruch & Newman, 2018 — 2014 messaging data from four U.S. cities; attention-based desirability, not looks or swipe probability.
- Grøntvedt et al., 2019 — small self-reported Norwegian student sample; meetings, not dates, and not a general conversion rate.
- Hitsch, Hortaçsu & Ariely, 2006 working paper — observed first-contact outcomes among roughly 22,000 users in two U.S. cities. Men above $50k received 34%–151% more contacts as income rose; women’s outcomes were mostly flat. Used only as a clearly labeled sensitivity, not a current-city prediction.
- SSRS, January 2024 (topline PDF) — among 772 people who had used online dating, 41% sought only a serious relationship and 39% sought both serious and casual relationships.
Build 2026.09.17 · 12:45 EDT · viral-trim: hero-first, collapsible panels