The Complexity of Modeling Tinder Data: Sparse Timelines, Synthetic Zeros, and Statistical Truth

The Nature of Tinder's Data Export

When you request your data from Tinder, you don't get a continuous log of every day since you joined. You get something sparser: records only for days where something happened.

No swipes on Tuesday? Tuesday doesn't exist in your export.

Took a three-month break for a relationship? Those months are simply... absent.

This sparse representation is actually quite elegant from Tinder's perspective—why store zeros? But it creates interesting challenges when you're trying to visualize and analyze that data.

The Gap Problem

I was looking at my own SwipeStats profile recently—eight years of Tinder history from 2015 to 2023. The activity chart showed a continuous timeline of swipes, matches, and app opens.

But I knew that wasn't the whole story. I had a girlfriend for most of 2022. I wasn't swiping.

Yet the chart showed no gap. The line just connected December 2021 to January 2023 seamlessly, as if I'd been active the whole time.

This raised a fundamental question: How should we represent periods of inactivity?

Two Philosophies of Data Modeling

There are two reasonable approaches to handling sparse timeline data:

Approach 1: Expand and Fill

Store a record for every day between the user's first and last activity, filling gaps with zeros:

function expandTimeline(usage) {
  const expanded = {};
  let currentDate = firstDayOnApp;

  while (currentDate <= lastDayOnApp) {
    if (usage[currentDate]) {
      expanded[currentDate] = usage[currentDate];
    } else {
      expanded[currentDate] = {
        appOpens: 0,
        swipes: 0,
        matches: 0,
        isSynthetic: true,
      };
    }
    currentDate = nextDay(currentDate);
  }
  return expanded;
}

Pros:

• Continuous data is easier to query
• Aggregations (weekly, monthly) work without special handling
• Charts render without gaps by default

Cons:

• Storage overhead (potentially 2-3x more records)
• Every statistical calculation must filter out synthetic records
• Risk of accidentally including fake zeros in real statistics

Approach 2: Store Sparse, Render Complete

Store only what Tinder gives you. Fill gaps at visualization time:

// Storage: only real records
function storeUsage(tinderExport) {
  return Object.keys(tinderExport.Usage.app_opens)
    .map(date => createRecord(date, tinderExport));
}

// Visualization: fill gaps for display
function aggregateForChart(usage, granularity) {
  const grouped = groupByPeriod(usage, granularity);
  const allPeriods = generatePeriodRange(first, last);

  return allPeriods.map(period => {
    const data = grouped.get(period);
    return data ? aggregate(data) : emptyPeriod(period);
  });
}

Pros:

• Storage reflects reality exactly
• No risk of synthetic data contaminating statistics
• Clear separation between truth (storage) and presentation (visualization)

Cons:

• Aggregation logic is slightly more complex
• Must handle sparse data explicitly

Why We Moved to Approach 2

After running SwipeStats for several years with the expansion approach, we encountered subtle issues:

The Filter Everyone Forgets

With synthetic days in the database, every statistical query needed this filter:

const realDays = usage.filter(day => !day.isSynthetic);

Miss it once, and your statistics include thousands of zeros that never happened. The effect is subtle—averages shift slightly, percentiles skew toward zero—but it compounds across millions of calculations.

The Definition Problem

What does "swipes per day" mean?

• Total swipes ÷ calendar days? (Includes days you weren't on Tinder at all)
• Total swipes ÷ days with any activity? (Includes days you just opened the app)
• Total swipes ÷ days you actually swiped? (The most precise definition)

With synthetic days in the database, the first definition was easy to calculate but meaningless. The third definition was what users actually wanted but required careful filtering.

By storing only real data, the question becomes clearer. We now define it as:

const daysWithSwipes = usage.filter(d => d.swipeLikes > 0 || d.swipePasses > 0).length;
const swipesPerDay = totalSwipes / daysWithSwipes;

This answers: "When you swipe, how much do you swipe?" A meaningful metric.

The Visualization Truth

Here's the key insight: gaps in your data are meaningful.

If you took six months off Tinder because you were in a relationship, that's part of your dating story. The chart should show that gap—not paper over it with fake activity.

Now when you view your SwipeStats profile, inactive periods appear as flat lines at zero. That's not a bug; it's the truth.

Handling Edge Cases

Real-world data is messy. Tinder's export has quirks we had to handle:

Matches on Inactive Days

You can receive matches on days you didn't open the app—Tinder matches you in the background. So you might have:

• Day 1: 50 swipes, 5 matches
• Day 2: 0 app opens, 0 swipes, 3 matches (background)
• Day 3: 30 swipes, 2 matches

Those Day 2 matches are real. They count toward your totals. But Day 2 shouldn't count as a "swiping day" for your swipes-per-day calculation.

Inconsistent Activity Tracking

We found cases where Tinder recorded swipes on days with zero app opens. Data quality issue? Different tracking systems? We don't know.

The solution: define "active" based on actual activity, not metadata:

const isActiveDay = day.swipeLikes > 0 || day.swipePasses > 0;

This makes our calculations robust regardless of how Tinder's internal tracking works.

Aggregation Across Gaps

When you aggregate sparse data to weekly or monthly views, gaps naturally disappear into the grouping. A month with activity on days 1, 15, and 28 still produces a valid monthly total.

But for accurate timeline visualization, we generate all periods in the range and fill missing ones with zeros at render time:

function aggregateToMonthly(usage) {
  const grouped = groupByMonth(usage);
  const allMonths = generateMonthRange(firstMonth, lastMonth);

  return allMonths.map(month => {
    const days = grouped.get(month);
    if (days?.length > 0) {
      return { period: month, ...sum(days) };
    } else {
      return { period: month, ...zeros() }; // Visual only, not stored
    }
  });
}

The zeros exist only in the chart data structure, never in the database.

The Statistics That Matter

With clean data modeling, we can be precise about what each metric means:

Metric	Definition	What It Measures
Match Rate	matches ÷ right swipes	Your "hit rate" on likes
Like Rate	right swipes ÷ total swipes	Your selectiveness
Swipes Per Day	total swipes ÷ days with swipes	Your swiping intensity when active

All of these use sums of real data only. No synthetic zeros can contaminate them.

For cohort comparisons ("How do you compare to other men aged 25-34?"), we compute percentiles across all users with the same clean methodology. When we say you're in the 75th percentile for match rate, that's based on real activity from real users.

Lessons in Data Modeling

Building SwipeStats has taught us a few principles:

1. Store truth, compute presentation.

The database should reflect reality. Visualization is a separate concern that can transform that reality for human consumption.

2. Explicit is better than implicit.

If every query needs a filter, the schema is wrong. Design data so the default query gives the right answer.

3. Define your metrics precisely.

"Swipes per day" sounds obvious until you realize there are three reasonable definitions. Pick one, document it, and be consistent.

4. Gaps are data too.

A six-month gap in your Tinder usage tells a story. Don't hide it—display it.

5. Your own data is the best test.

I only noticed the gap problem because I knew my own dating history. Use real data from real users (including yourself) to validate your assumptions.

What This Means For Your Data

When you upload your Tinder data to SwipeStats, here's what happens:

1. We store exactly what Tinder gave us—no more, no less
2. Statistics are computed from real activity only
3. Charts show your complete timeline, with gaps visible as flat periods
4. Comparisons use the same methodology across all users

The numbers you see are the numbers that happened. If you took a break, you'll see it. If you had a busy month, you'll see that too.

That's the goal: accurate reflection of your actual dating app experience, not a smoothed-over approximation.

---

Curious about your own patterns? Upload your Tinder data and see your real statistics.