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

261–270 of 416 posts

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

#261

Post by asdfman123 »

beachy wrote: post #256
asdfman123 wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Pandering to guys who would "freak out and get very upset" and "make the experience more hostile to women" sounds crazy. 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.

Women tiptoe around male anger about being rejected 24/7, especially on online dating. Lots of "evolved" males still become scary when turned down and don't handle rejection well. There is no way to filter them out because they all walk among us, they're our friends and brothers, and sometimes us.

Every woman who's gone on online dating can give you a list of stories of creepy, scary and/or off-putting experiences.

My point here isn't to start an online debate about gender equality, but to say: one of the main things that would help bring users to an online dating app is making it safer for women. If the women come, the men will follow.

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

#262

Post by LorenPechtel »

Pxtl wrote: post #190
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…

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…

I like the idea (not that I'm in the dating market) but I think any purchase option is going to end up matching wealthy men with attractive women.

Instead, how about a different approach: You get say 10 stamps/day. There is no way to purchase them. Any message you receive can be replied to once with no cost. Also, the cost to send to someone is adjusted by the cost to send to you. (Another poster suggested ELO ratings, which makes sense.)

You have a choice between occasionally contacting the hot ones or fairly routinely contacting those at your level or below. It will make people much more realistic in who they choose to contact, taking long shots means not having any shot at the ones you might actually get.

The app should be tied to your identity (although I wouldn't require real name use in the prospect-facing side) so you can't just create a bunch of accounts to get extra stamps.

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

#263

Post by [deleted] »

xwdv wrote: post #118
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…

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.

[deleted]

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

#264

Post by umvi »

ballenf wrote: post #243
umvi wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not survivorship bias if you failed 100 times before your 1 success. It's only survivorship bias if they hit the jackpot and the very first date worked out perfectly and they lived happily ever after. I was grinding away on tinder/going on dates for months before I found success. But that's not the dating app's fault - I was seeing the same thing using non-app strategies.

Survivorship bias is anyone who has had success at a task, regardless of how long it took. The lottery winner who played every week for 40 years will tell you buying a ticket every week is the secret to success at winning, irrespective of the millions of people who do that and never win. So the grandparent comment did use the term correctly. Unless they were responding to someone who never “won” at the dating game. T…

> Survivorship bias is anyone who has had success at a task, regardless of how long it took.

I don't believe that. It depends on the task and how much of it is chance vs. skill. Winning the lotto is literally 100% chance, 0% skill. Odds are worse than 1 in a million, so yes, I agree with your assertion that a lotto winner who played for 40 years and finally won is exhibiting survivorship bias if they claim the key to winning is playing every week.

However, if I have a goal to run a 6 minute mile, and I fail 100 times before I finally succeed. Does that mean I have survivorship bias if I say that I found running a little faster every day and not giving up to be the key to success?

Dating does have an element of chance, yes, but it also has an element of skill - you get better social skills the more you use them. It's a bit disingenuous to compare "the dating game" (which billions of people "win" every year) to lotto (which probably If I had to start the dating game all over knowing what I know now, I'm confident I could find a wife much faster than my first time around - especially with the help of online dating apps. I'm older and wiser and I understand females now way better than I did when I started out.

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

#265

Post by mywittyname »

hrktb wrote: post #127
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…

On the other side it must be weird to think that the people reaching to you have gone through an auctioning system and were the ones willing to pay the most. It would be all the weirder for first contact messages for instance.

Also, the entitlement from men would be off the charts. Can you imagine how pissed someone would be if they paid $100 to have their message ignored?

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

#266

Post by kl4m »

greggman2 wrote: post #137
astrojams wrote: post #91

I have a friend who used to work for one of the bigger dating app services. He is an AI expert and wrote the matching algorithm for the service. He is very good at his job and his algorithm was so good that people matched, got married and stopped using the dating service. The higher ups in the company noticed the loss of revenue and asked him to make his algorithm worse so that people would match, date, but then brea…

Charge $100-$4000 a person. Make money while taking customers from all other dating sites once word gets out your site works and theirs don't

How to approach the lack of network effect at the beginning while paying upfront? Many sites/apps are free for "basic" features, presumably for this reason.

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

#267

Post by hnuser77 »

dghughes wrote: post #205

I tried many dating site over the years and the one thing that stood out is if you're under 6 feet tall don't even bother creating an account.

If it makes you feel any better, I'm over 6'1" and I still shouldn't have bothered creating an account.

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

#268

Post by LorenPechtel »

wccrawford wrote: post #142
zozbot234 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is silly, you can't expect to screen out bad actors in a brief online conversation, least of all via text. You should arrange to meet at a safe, neutral place that provides its own (formal or informal) physical security.

I think you haven't seen some of the creepy or horrible stuff that some men say on dating apps. Some of the women I dated would tell me about them. While you can't guarantee a good date, you can at least eliminate the worst and unsafe-est dates by a little messaging. I dated for a while on various services before choosing OKCupid and sticking with it. I talked to and dated several women before I met the woman who is…

No, you can only eliminate the ones that are bad at hiding that they are creeps.

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

#269

Post by hombre_fatal »

dvtrn wrote: post #191
saagarjha wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can avoid people you don’t like at bars. You really can’t do that if you’ve scheduled a date with someone.

Sure you can. It’s called “ghosting”.

In this thread we're talking about the point at which you've already showed up to the date.

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

#270

Post by hombre_fatal »

zozbot234 wrote: post #87
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…

This is silly, you can't expect to screen out bad actors in a brief online conversation, least of all via text. You should arrange to meet at a safe, neutral place that provides its own (formal or informal) physical security.

> This is silly, you can't expect to screen out bad actors in a brief online conversation, least of all via text.

https://old.reddit.com/r/creepyPMs/

Post reply on HN