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…
Greensboro Man Creates Dating App Where He's the Only Guy Allowed
271–280 of 416 posts
Re: Greensboro Man Creates Dating App Where He's the Only Guy Allowed
#272Earlier 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.
You definitely can. Creeps have a hard time hiding the fact that they're creeps. If I'm talking to a guy on a dating app and he immediately tries to steer the conversation towards sex, my body, how horrible women are, and shows zero interest in actually getting to know me then I know he's someone to avoid.
Even taking a shower, putting on decent clothes, and showing up in person to a bar is a massive filter that dating app conversation doesn't have. This is one of the fundamental trade-offs of meeting people online vs in person.
Re: Greensboro Man Creates Dating App Where He's the Only Guy Allowed
#273Dating 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…
If there were a drastically better solution, then it would take over the market. The last major innovation was when Tinder invented swiping and went mobile-first, a genius move which drastically cut down the spam women deal with and made it actually feel like a fun game instead of a chore.
The fact is, despite all the work of psychologists and technologists, nobody's come up with a better, more efficient way of matching people. Personality profiles and questionnaires are a poor predictor of chemistry -- they can help with filtering compatibility in basic ways, but they're not going to find you your soul mate.
Photos reveal potential likely chemistry more than anything else. Swiping works. Messaging works. The apps can't perform magic, though. If you're looking to find more success on them than you would with the same group of people at a bar or meetup or wherever, that's not gonna happen. They're not changing whether people are attracted to each other or not.
What they do do is give you a pool of users far larger than you'd ever encounter in a single night out, and you know they're mostly all single, also different from when you go out. And they're honestly pretty good at that.
Re: Greensboro Man Creates Dating App Where He's the Only Guy Allowed
#274I'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…
Re: Greensboro Man Creates Dating App Where He's the Only Guy Allowed
#275I'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…
Try the Facebook dating app, they aren't trying to monetize anything. It basically is Tinder but with all the features you'd pay for included. And since this is built on top of Facebook the spam ratio is pretty low. Some of the features it has: You can always see who has "right-swiped" on you, even if you didn't match with the person. You can see everybody on the app in Facebook groups you share. If you accidentally…
They just make obvious what otherwise we don't like to admit, like how important attraction is in the deal even though we don't have much control over it.
Usually when I see criticism of dating apps (like in this comments section), I wonder if the critic realizes that what they are complaining about is how dating already works. You are always sizing people up around you based on how attractive you find them, for example.
Re: Greensboro Man Creates Dating App Where He's the Only Guy Allowed
#276Dating 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…
Sorry, but they're not extremely broken. I worked at OkCupid 8 years ago, saw the issues they faced then and have seen the evolution of the apps since then, and right now they really are as good as anyone's been able to come up with that attracts enough active users to generate promising dates. If there were a drastically better solution, then it would take over the market. The last major innovation was when Tinder i…
If the paradox of choice is actually true (as with anything in psychology, it needs further research to be sure), then this could be a major negative instead of a major positive.
Re: Greensboro Man Creates Dating App Where He's the Only Guy Allowed
#277I 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…
Re: Greensboro Man Creates Dating App Where He's the Only Guy Allowed
#278Dating 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…
Sorry, but they're not extremely broken. I worked at OkCupid 8 years ago, saw the issues they faced then and have seen the evolution of the apps since then, and right now they really are as good as anyone's been able to come up with that attracts enough active users to generate promising dates. If there were a drastically better solution, then it would take over the market. The last major innovation was when Tinder i…
Sure they are. Good photos, filters, Photoshop, sometimes even fake pictures, make a huge difference.
Re: Greensboro Man Creates Dating App Where He's the Only Guy Allowed
#279Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
as reported by Jessica Valenti (sorry I couldn't resist) I loved The Guardian but it became "world misery and outrage daily, and BTW all men are terrible" in the last year or two.
Re: Greensboro Man Creates Dating App Where He's the Only Guy Allowed
#280I 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 absolutely love this idea. Do it. Ignore the grumpies suggesting objectification or privilege. It's a market for attention. Nothing more, nothing less.