You mean there aren't really hot girls in 94027 zip code looking for a date?!
Match.com Used Fake Ads to Swindle Users, F.T.C. Says
51–60 of 508 posts
Re: Match.com Used Fake Ads to Swindle Users, F.T.C. Says
#52The FTC needs to come down hard on this. Extremely hard. This isn't just a trick, it's outright fraud. They're playing with people's emotions and not just giving them nothing - they're abusing people's most basic need of feeling loved. Think about how vulnerable people become when they're searching for love. And then this corporate giant comes in with an army of psychologists, A/B tests, and analysts to figure out ho…
[deleted]
Re: Match.com Used Fake Ads to Swindle Users, F.T.C. Says
#53Rewriting one of my earlier comments: I have used Tinder (owned by Match) before and it was one of the must frustrating experiences ever. First, they do shady things with your data. Since I made a Tinder account I been getting constant ads for random dating sites. This have been going on for months. God knows how many companies now have my data. Second, they employ dark patterns: 1) Easy account deletion. Why does th…
To be fair on the last part, shadow ban can be an extremely efficient moderation tool, though for people caught up as false positive collateral damage it can really suck. This is true even in hackernews I would assume, certainly it is any other place I've moderated before.
On a free product, I have no problems with shadow bans.
On a paid product, shadow bans seem like a pretty clear case of fraud.
Re: Match.com Used Fake Ads to Swindle Users, F.T.C. Says
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
What would you change if you were to build a new dating app to disrupt the market?
I have a lot of thoughts on this, so excuse the long post (maybe I'll write a blog post on it at some point): First, there's a clear (and artificial) skewing of supply-demand curves. There are probably like 30 (active) guys for every 1 (active) girl on these apps (looking at you, Tinder). This creates an imbalance where women are incredibly selective while men end up being incredibly non-selective (e.g. swipe right o…
> First, there's a clear (and artificial) skewing of supply-demand curves.
What makes it artificial?
Also, there's strong evidence that roughly twice as many women have reproduced than men across human history [0], so if we're reducing it to a number game women have always had the ability to be more picky than guys.
What's different today is Tinder/OLD let's them access a much larger area, whereas in the past they would have to find a partner within their local community. Dating apps may look unfair on paper but they're just a more efficient dating market than in times past.
So to sum up my point, I'm struggling to see a solution here. Human nature can't be rewritten, no matter how hard we try.
[0] https://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/05/the-missing-...
Re: Match.com Used Fake Ads to Swindle Users, F.T.C. Says
#55I think it's a fatal flaw in the dating site business model, to be honest. Their incentive is for you to stay on the site for as long as possible. If you could find a relationship quickly and then they would leave the site quickly. This would reduce the amount of ad and subscription revenue, in addition to reducing the size of the pool of "potential matches", discouraging those who have more trouble finding someone.
It would be nice to have a dating site where potential matches were verified, including height, weight, and photo. Perhaps have them visit a kiosk in a participating business to get a photo taken from a standard angle (no "myspace" angles) along with a verified height and weight (stand on a scale!)
Re: Match.com Used Fake Ads to Swindle Users, F.T.C. Says
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be fair on the last part, shadow ban can be an extremely efficient moderation tool, though for people caught up as false positive collateral damage it can really suck. This is true even in hackernews I would assume, certainly it is any other place I've moderated before.
On a free product, I have no problems with shadow bans. On a paid product, shadow bans seem like a pretty clear case of fraud.
Yep, having used Tinder's paid boots and seeing no results. And then making a new profile with the same photos and bio! and getting results within minutes left me feeling rob and manipulated.
Re: Match.com Used Fake Ads to Swindle Users, F.T.C. Says
#57I think it's a fatal flaw in the dating site business model, to be honest. Their incentive is for you to stay on the site for as long as possible. If you could find a relationship quickly and then they would leave the site quickly. This would reduce the amount of ad and subscription revenue, in addition to reducing the size of the pool of "potential matches", discouraging those who have more trouble finding someone.
isn't this the job board model too? Indeed, ZipRecruiter, Linkedin?
Re: Match.com Used Fake Ads to Swindle Users, F.T.C. Says
#58Rewriting one of my earlier comments: I have used Tinder (owned by Match) before and it was one of the must frustrating experiences ever. First, they do shady things with your data. Since I made a Tinder account I been getting constant ads for random dating sites. This have been going on for months. God knows how many companies now have my data. Second, they employ dark patterns: 1) Easy account deletion. Why does th…
To be fair on the last part, shadow ban can be an extremely efficient moderation tool, though for people caught up as false positive collateral damage it can really suck. This is true even in hackernews I would assume, certainly it is any other place I've moderated before.
When an account is established, we usually tell people we're banning them and why. Shadowbanning on HN is mostly for new accounts that show signs of either spamming or trolling. You're right, though, that there are still false positives in such cases, and those suck.
Re: Match.com Used Fake Ads to Swindle Users, F.T.C. Says
#59Re: Match.com Used Fake Ads to Swindle Users, F.T.C. Says
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
What would you change if you were to build a new dating app to disrupt the market?
I have a lot of thoughts on this, so excuse the long post (maybe I'll write a blog post on it at some point): First, there's a clear (and artificial) skewing of supply-demand curves. There are probably like 30 (active) guys for every 1 (active) girl on these apps (looking at you, Tinder). This creates an imbalance where women are incredibly selective while men end up being incredibly non-selective (e.g. swipe right o…
I believe incentivizing meeting IRL is the lynch pin to disrupting the existing market.
My idea is that at some point after the initial match, both users put in $5. Doing so gets them a coupon/something worth $15 at an app-chosen local restaurant or bar. If one person does not show up, the other person gets $7.
(The important part is those prices relative to each other rather than those specific values.)
The way this would make money is to make deals with the local restaurant/bar so it doesn't cost the company running the app $15 to send the potential couple to a venue (restaurants might pay to have the customers).