Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Greensboro Man Creates Dating App Where He's the Only Guy Allowed

wfmynews2.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 416 posts

Re: Greensboro Man Creates Dating App Where He's the Only Guy Allowed

#151

Post by freehunter »

akersten wrote: post #117
freehunter wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not about the number of brands but the percentage owned of the market. Hilton has a dozen brands but they're just one of several brands competing in the space. If Hilton bought up Marriott and IHG and Accor and Choice and Wyndham and Starwood, THEN you'd have a point. If Match owns all of the dating sites/apps and intentionally makes terrible matches to keep people engaged and buys out any competitor that challe…

If you are an innovator in a space - first to market - by definition you'll have the majority percentage of the market. Online dating is a very young industry compared to hotels. Why not give other firms the chance to compete organically with Match, instead of itching for regulation so eagerly before we've really seen the industry play out? My point is that competing hotel brands did not need the government's help to…

OkCupid was launched in 2004. They were bought by Match in 2011.

Plenty Of Fish was launched in 2003. They were bought by Match in 2015.

Hinge was launched in 2012. They were bought by Match in 2018.

Meetic was launched in 2001. They were bought by Match in 2009.

I agree, why don't we give other firms the chance to compete organically with Match? And maybe the right way to do that is to block Match from buying them.

Re: Greensboro Man Creates Dating App Where He's the Only Guy Allowed

#152

Post by john-radio »

jressey wrote: post #70
erikpukinskis wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you say more about what’s not working? I’ve been with my girlfriend three years, just bought a car together. It’s going well! We met on OKcupid. I’m a happy customer, though I don’t think I’ve ever paid them anything.

Survivorship Bias: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias I met my wife online after a year of fruitless first dates. Maybe I'm just unappealing or something but it was truly a miserable part of my life. Edit: I'm gonna add in here that most people don't have the stick-to-itiveness that most readers of this site do.

> I met my wife online after a year of fruitless first dates.

If you found them all to be so fruitless, never enjoying yourself at all, then yes that does sound kind of unappealing. Sorry to come in here and bust your chops while knowing nothing about you :) But shouldn't dating be enjoyable?

Re: Greensboro Man Creates Dating App Where He's the Only Guy Allowed

#153

Post by pmart123 »

derialstrazus wrote: post #50
vbtemp wrote: post #34

I had an idea for a dating app a while back, in which the basic idea is that you pay the service to message someone (above a free weekly limit of say 1 msg). The pricing would be reactive - as popular attractive people get more messages, the more it would cost to message them, growing exponentially in order to limit incoming messages to approx a few a day. Unpopular people who got few messages would have a price that…

I can see where you're coming from, but I think in practice this is not a great idea. Even if it's not intentional, it's not going to be great publicity when you have an app that shows different women with different price tags. I imagine it's not great either if, on current dating apps, the number of messages women receive becomes public information. The problem here is less that different women cost different prices…

Those would be issues as well as enabling the higher bidder versus the best prospect (in her mind). I suppose it could be weighted based on both levels of desirability. I think a similar system without the social and implementation complexity would be to sell tiers of “super likes.” Like daily super likes, weekly (get only one per week, monthly, yearly. Essentially, you only get one yearly like a year, so using it conveys extraordinary interest on paper versus a daily like.

Re: Greensboro Man Creates Dating App Where He's the Only Guy Allowed

#154

Post by fortran77 »

vbtemp wrote: post #34

I had an idea for a dating app a while back, in which the basic idea is that you pay the service to message someone (above a free weekly limit of say 1 msg). The pricing would be reactive - as popular attractive people get more messages, the more it would cost to message them, growing exponentially in order to limit incoming messages to approx a few a day. Unpopular people who got few messages would have a price that…

You can't control people's affectional preference. People have a right to be attracted to the person of their choice. In a dating app, any consenting other who wants to be messaged should be able to receive it. Nobody's going to 'settle' for someone they're not attracted to just because it's a bargain.

Re: Greensboro Man Creates Dating App Where He's the Only Guy Allowed

#155

Post by Someone1234 »

swimfar wrote: post #80
Someone1234 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One idea I've had is to disallow conversation in the app, and instead focus on making date plans if there's a match. You should likely run this idea past a few women. The typical reason they want to converse before meeting is security: Meeting strangers is dangerous and they want to "sniff test" to see if it is safe enough to even go that far. Your app idea largely seems to exist to solve issues men have with datin…

Is meeting a stranger in a public place actually dangerous, or do people just feel that it's dangerous? What is the worst that is likely to happen if two people meet up in a cafe or city park?

Are you suggesting they should advertise a dating app to women by telling women that their concerns over personal safety are misguided?

Frankly I don't think gatekeeping a person's comfort level when meeting a stranger is very constructive. In fact I think it would invoke quite a negative reaction (justifiably).

Re: Greensboro Man Creates Dating App Where He's the Only Guy Allowed

#156

Post by malux85 »

AgloeDreams wrote: post #68
vbtemp wrote: post #34

I had an idea for a dating app a while back, in which the basic idea is that you pay the service to message someone (above a free weekly limit of say 1 msg). The pricing would be reactive - as popular attractive people get more messages, the more it would cost to message them, growing exponentially in order to limit incoming messages to approx a few a day. Unpopular people who got few messages would have a price that…

"My idea of a dating app: Literally enforces class based social ranking " It really doesn't take much to realize that this pricing scheme would exclusively benefit the rich and white, right? Like for a successful, white, male, software engineer like myself I could afford to reach out to whomever I would like anytime I want, this would be heaven! But for someone in a worse social position they would be basically block…

Where did “white” come into it? I can see how such a system would benefit the rich, but would it benefit a rich white more than a rich black? No. Why are you bringing race into it?

Re: Greensboro Man Creates Dating App Where He's the Only Guy Allowed

#157

Post by Tiktaalik »

dukoid wrote: post #67

Here is my "crowd-based" dating app idea: let others do the matching -- i.e. decide which couples fit together....

I had this idea though my variant was that all the info goes to like knitting circles of nice old grandmas and they do the matching.

Re: Greensboro Man Creates Dating App Where He's the Only Guy Allowed

#158

Post by manifestsilence »

saynay wrote: post #85
derialstrazus wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can see where you're coming from, but I think in practice this is not a great idea. Even if it's not intentional, it's not going to be great publicity when you have an app that shows different women with different price tags. I imagine it's not great either if, on current dating apps, the number of messages women receive becomes public information. The problem here is less that different women cost different prices…

You could probably also scale the price based on other variables as well. Like scaling on the sending side as well as the receiving side, or based on the likelihood the other side responds or something. I would assume the main idea is to put pressure to limit low-effort, low-likelihood messaging from both sides, more than putting a pricetag on a person.

Yeah, this could help a lot. Scaling based on the past response rate of the sender and how many messages the sender has sent recently would make the pricing more relative, and thus prevent a basic enumeration of "prices of people".

It would also go a long way to not have these prices be listed on a catalog page, but only when clicked into an individual person, so it's less of a feeling of comparison shopping.

The psychology of these UI design things matters a lot.

Re: Greensboro Man Creates Dating App Where He's the Only Guy Allowed

#159

Post by [deleted] »

babaeth wrote: post #48
chroem- wrote: post #36

Dating apps are extremely broken, and yet they're almost all owned by a single company: Match Group. I have a suspicion that these apps are left intentionally broken to keep users fruitlessly searching and boost engagement metrics. I can't find a complete list of the companies they've acquired, but last time I checked, Match owns over 20 different apps and dating sites, including Tinder, OkCupid, and Hinge. We really…

Do you have any suggestions to improve dating apps?

[deleted]

Re: Greensboro Man Creates Dating App Where He's the Only Guy Allowed

#160

Post by aty268 »

jedberg wrote: post #72
vbtemp wrote: post #34

I had an idea for a dating app a while back, in which the basic idea is that you pay the service to message someone (above a free weekly limit of say 1 msg). The pricing would be reactive - as popular attractive people get more messages, the more it would cost to message them, growing exponentially in order to limit incoming messages to approx a few a day. Unpopular people who got few messages would have a price that…

There is a reason movies don't price based on popularity. Because it sends a subtle (and not so subtle) signal of popularity. People would rather do without than do something unpopular. The people with the low prices would still not get messages, because who wants to message someone so unpopular that you're the only one interested in them?

I've always wondered about why popularity based pricing doesn't exist in everyday life. This explanation makes sense. Thank you.
Post reply on HN