This is simple to come up with a couple tests for: switch a great profile picture for a bad one, switch a profile text you put effort into with an empty or horrific one, and switch thought out messages with really shitty copypasta.
I've done this, and the profile picture is what matters. Text matters a bit--empty hurt, but the half-assed one, if anything, outperformed the one with effort, though they were basically the same.
As computer types, we like to focus on the text, because the text is all and controllable. Good pictures are more difficult, because they take soft skills. Note that, contrary to expectations, it's probably easier to get great pictures of an average looking person than a great profile from an average writer: just using a well-constructed photograph taken with a decent camera as your main photo puts you ahead of most people, even those significantly more attractive than you.
Does photo quality really matter that much? I have never found that the quality of the photo makes a difference in how attractive I find the person. It can be a cheap cameraphone or a DSLR, but it makes no difference, at least to me.
If it does to other people, then I should put more effort into my photographs...
I've done this, and the profile picture is what matters. Text matters a bit--empty hurt, but the half-assed one, if anything, outperformed the one with effort, though they were basically the same.
As computer types, we like to focus on the text, because the text is all and controllable. Good pictures are more difficult, because they take soft skills. Note that, contrary to expectations, it's probably easier to get great pictures of an average looking person than a great profile from an average writer: just using a well-constructed photograph taken with a decent camera as your main photo puts you ahead of most people, even those significantly more attractive than you.