This is why empirical data is the least useful in objectively measuring a system or a process.
Without the objective data held by Seeking, we can only observe small slices of the system and try to infer the overall trends and other information.
A while back, maybe 4 years ago, I did a painstaking process to build a spreadsheet analyzing profiles in my local area. I did this by using filters to control for age range, distance, ethnicity, body type, "requested support level," and other factors. Then I would do a manual count of profiles in my search results that were active withing a certain time range.
This was a pain in the ass. And though it did give me some useful insights (which I shared here) it was never really useful for predicting how many viable POT's would be available to me or, more importantly, if they would likely be interested in me.
I refreshed the data a year later. That was also a pain in the ass. Today, this would be even more difficult to do, as some of the key filters needed are no longer available, and the search result page format has changed such that I would need to look at each profile (several thousand) to get the desired info (if it was available).
Why am I talking about all this? Because it's easy to, as the saying goes, "not see the forest for the trees." We may be looking only at the tress right in front of us and so never see the entire forest all around.
Are there fewer SB's? Are there fewer SD's? Only Bandon knows. But we do know that even if the forest is getting smaller, there are still trees right in front of us. Let's keep climbing!
Life is good
The Cat