Rewriting Three Real Dating Profiles
Advice in the abstract is easy to agree with and hard to apply. This is the same advice applied — three profiles, scored, rewritten, with reasoning at each step.
Details changed, structure kept.
Profile one: the CV
Photos: Suit at a wedding (group of six). Gym mirror. Ski holiday, goggles down. Bar, dim lighting.
Bio: 32, 6'1, finance. Gym, travel, food. Looking for someone genuine. Not here for games.
Score: 38/100
What's wrong:
The lead photo has six people in it, and he's in the middle distance in a suit that looks like everyone else's. Nobody knows which one he is, so nothing else gets read.
Photo two is a gym mirror — effortful. Photo three has goggles covering his face. Photo four is too dark. Across four photos, there is not one clear image of him.
The bio repeats two facts the app already displays, lists three categories rather than specifics, and ends on a defensive line.
Rewritten:
Photos: the ski photo, recropped with goggles up, moves to the front — it's the only one with a real expression. Add: a daylight face shot, and one at home cooking. Cut the gym mirror and the bar.
Bio:
Finance, which is less interesting than the ski photo suggests. I make one excellent curry and reheat it for three days. Best thing you've eaten this month?
Why: the job is named and immediately undercut. "Gym, travel, food" became one specific dish plus an honest, slightly grim habit. The defensive line is gone, replaced by a question anyone can answer in five words.
New score: 71/100. The remaining gap is photos — he needs two more.
Profile two: the ghost
Photos: Two. One selfie in a car. One at a distance on a beach.
Bio: empty.
Score: 22/100
What's wrong:
Two photos with an empty bio is the shape of a fake profile, and people have learned to skip it. Whatever he's actually like never gets considered.
The car selfie is arm's-length, which distorts. The beach photo is too far away to identify him.
Rewritten:
Not a writing problem — a supply problem. He needed an afternoon, a friend and a phone.
Photos: face in daylight; walking the dog; five-a-side with friends; full body outside a cafe.
Bio:
I play five-a-side badly on Thursdays and take it far too seriously. Also responsible for the dog in photo two, who is not impressed by any of this.
Why: two specifics, one self-deprecating, one warm — and the dog reference gives an obvious opener that points at a photo.
New score: 66/100, from 22, with no change to who he is.
Profile three: the essay
Photos: Six, all good. Clear face, hiking, friends, full body, one with a guitar.
Bio:
I'm a big believer that life is about the little moments. I love deep conversations, spontaneous adventures, and finding beauty in the everyday. I'm looking for a genuine connection with someone who values honesty, communication and growth. If that sounds like you, let's see where this goes.
Score: 54/100
What's wrong:
The photos are the best of the three. The bio is undoing them.
It's 60 words that could belong to anyone. Every sentence is a claim about values, none is evidence. "Deep conversations" and "spontaneous adventures" are the two most common phrases in dating bios. And there is nothing whatsoever to reply to.
The guitar is the most interesting thing in the profile and the bio doesn't mention it.
Rewritten:
I've been learning the same three songs on that guitar for two years. My neighbours have been extremely gracious about it. Tell me something you're bad at and refuse to stop doing.
Why: it uses a detail the photos already established, admits something small, and ends with a question that's easy to answer and slightly interesting.
Sixty words became thirty-eight and said far more.
New score: 79/100 — the highest of the three, because the photos were always fine.
What the three have in common
All three had the same core problem: nothing to reply to. Different symptoms — a CV, a blank, an essay — one cause.
Two of three had a photo problem worth more than the bio problem. The essay profile scored highest after a rewrite precisely because its photos were already right.
None of them needed to become more interesting. The guitar, the curry, the five-a-side were all there already. They just weren't in the profile.
That's usually the case. The material exists; it's the selection that's wrong.
Want yours done properly? ProfileBoost scores your profile out of 100, ranks every photo with reasons, and rewrites your bio. The score is free.