I understand your reasoning for this method. But here's some feedback to consider.
1. How long do you wait to classify her as a non-responder? There are many reasons why a POT may not respond quickly. POT's, especially new POT's get flooded with messages every day. I have an "alt" profile as a 24-year-old blond hottie. It's been there for 5 years, and I only log on about once every 6 weeks to do some research. But even now, within 24 hours of logging on, "she" gets 30-40 views and a dozen messages. It's possible that your non-responder is unable to get to you quicky or she has too many POT's to manage one more, so she never saw your message before you blocked her (do you check the "message read" status?). When/if those POT's in front of you don't pan out, she may come looking for you. But if she is blocked, you just self-unselected. It's also possible she just doesn't like you, or as you point out, she's a scammer and will "relocate" her profile to new markets every few days.
2. Do you send a follow up message before you block? I have found that a follow up message within 2-10 days can spark a reply. The hit rate is low, maybe 15%, but that's still more than the zero you get from blocking.
3. Totally agree that profiles that relocate are rarely viable POT's. The exceptions are those POT's who add a 2nd location to their profile and explain it as either work (i.e.: Airline staff) or school (i.e.: live with family in Phoenix, school at USC).
4. Why block? What do you accomplish? Ok she will drop out of your feed, but so what? For me, after using Seeking over 10 years without any Admin interaction (and never being banned) I want to stay UTR from Admin as much as possible. I just don't want any staff at Seeking to see my account in their "unusual activity" lists (yes, they have staff assigned to review accounts that behave outside normal patterns). If the reason is only to "drive" new profiles into your feed, I'd like to see some data on this: how many, how often, how do you know they wouldn't show up anyway?
Final thought: I always advocate the concept of "never burn bridges." Scammers need to be punted off the site with "great prejudice" (as RM Nixon would say). But any other profile may become viable in the future for any number of reasons. So for me, unless she is clearly a bad actor, rather than just a disorganized, financially irresponsible 20-something, I want to leave a path for her to find me again.
Looking forward to seeing your results.
Life is good
The Cat
That provokes a response from the long idle conversations from some, some others don’t care. At that point I don’t block them, I just hide them so I don’t waste anymore time on them, and also to remember that for these ladies I wasn’t their first choice
In my 4y experience so far (lot less than ppl like herb here) — I have found the best relationships were with those who messaged me right after they viewed my profile
For those that viewed me but ignored and then reached out after say weeks or months, it was always sort of difficult communicating even offline and then dates tended to not go as well
I totally agree with Herb. I don't block if they don't reply. Yes, they pop up again and again in searches because I don't hide them, but that's okay. I like to see if they've logged on since I last messaged them. I make it a point to follow up with each one, and sometimes I even follow up 2-3 times over several months, just in case she's been busy, taken a break from the site or whatever. "Don't burn bridges and don't draw attention to yourself by blocking" is for me the smartest policy. Don't deviate from Herb's formula and if you do, you do so at your own risk... lol!
