251–260 of 416 posts
Here is my "crowd-based" dating app idea: let others do the matching -- i.e. decide which couples fit together....
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One idea I had was to basically open up analytics to the end-user. Let a user see their ELO rating + stats for different sub-groups and run A/B tests with different photos, messages, and profile text. Basically just product analytics software, except the product you're trying to sell is yourself. I'm not on the apps these days so maybe this exists already. Swipe apps more-or-less turned dating into a game—you could p…
While you're at it, you could provide power inbox tools to help recipients weed out potentially spammers/ dangerous/ flaky/ fake/ disturbed users using auto-reply chains(randomly staggered in time of course) that they could come back to later and see if the person replied sensibly to their messages. The more popular the person, the more messages they would be encouraged to create.
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?
Meeting strangers may not be a high risk for you but it is for other people.
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…
Yep. I can already imagine The Guardian titles: - Disgusting new dating app literally puts a price on woman. When will woman objectification stop? - In this racist dating app it costs more to message white woman than black woman. It will be a disaster, and the author will lose his job.
I loved The Guardian but it became "world misery and outrage daily, and BTW all men are terrible" in the last year or two.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find it's best to take part in some local activity in your city. Just meet as many people as possible, and they might have a friend who fancies you. I was on online dating for years and it was a huge waste of time, but met my fiancée through the local improv community.
I don't think this is the kind of thing you can generalize. I have a very small social life, and I like it that way. I met my wife online (OkCupid, 8 years ago) and I don't think I would ever have met anyone without it. In my opinion, do what works for you and stop doing what you aren't enjoying.
If something works for you by all means do it, but if nothing seems to be working it's definitely a worthwhile step.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are probably ways you could make it manageable and less morally repugnant. 1) Let people set their own price. Then it's not the platform valuing you, it's how much you value your own time. 2) Provide "auto-pricing" as an optional feature. Use an imaginary unit - call it "stamps" and provide ways to earn "stamps" on the platform besides just buying them. "How many stamps should it cost for somebody to send you a…
And also lots of guys would freak out and get very upset if they perceived someone's price is "too high," which would make the experience more hostile to women. I've got a better idea. Have a swiping system, but also have a simple indicator to see how often people respond to messages after first swipe. There could also be an indicator for how long those conversations typically last. Or you could just make it extremel…
Better I would have thought to kick such guys off the platform, raising the level for women, which would in turn make it more appealing for more evolved males.
I've thought about making a new dating app. The existing apps suck for 2 reasons: in most markets men are at a significant disadvantage because of how men and women differ in the way they approach dating (and there's also a significantly unfair male:female ratio in many markets). Additionally, none of them are really designed to get people off the app, but rather they're built to increase engagement and keep people o…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Ironic that people don't want to meet someone off an app without "sniff test" conversation first, yet are happy to meet strangers at a bar with no prior knowledge of them whatsoever. Consider the "social contract" of both situations. With the bar situation you can literally leave immediately with no social expectation that you should have to interact with that person again. With the "date" typically they're alone (…
> With the bar situation you can literally leave immediately with no social expectation that you should have to interact with that person again. There are plenty of first date options that make this easy. I was fond of minigolf because it goes relatively quick and you can either opt to play more rounds or hit the eject button with a half decent excuse.
Meanwhile, a date you eject from still consumes most of your evening. ...And it's extremely uncomfortable and emotionally taxing to be in that position for both people.
That said, I think almost everyone would be better served if they shot out a "wanna grab drinks at X at 8:00?" much earlier into the conversation. The sort of "Tinder convo" I see on r/tinder is almost exclusively men sabotaging themselves instead of making a move.
I mean, once you've established you're not one of those "send pic of vagene sex sex sex pls" people, I'm not convinced there's all that much more rapport you can build over text.
Then again, I imagine men who are able to talk themselves into a hole over Tinder chat are sending useful signals to women.
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…
As an investor in Match Group, and a witness to some of the behind the scenes data on dating apps, I can confidently say most reports of “broken dating apps” can simply be attributed to user error.
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.
Things get a bit kookey when you realize their business model depends on people not finding partners. The longer you're single, the longer you're on their platform, so the more money you make them. There's no incentive for them to actually match you with anyone apart from trust. I suspect a lot of people would be far more interested in a "pay us $X, money back guarantee if you don't get a date" kind of service. At le…
In fact, if a dating app worked very well, non-monogamous and short term relationships would probably be more satisfying.