Live data from Hacker News

Towards Better Online Dating

blog.adamsmith.cc

31–40 of 88 posts

Re: Towards Better Online Dating

#31
post #24

It's not the backend. Better matching isn't going to work when you're matching snowflakes. People turn to online dating because they want more options. Put them through your fantastic matching algorithm and out of the 1 million members you supposedly have they are only going to see half a dozen. So you loosen the matching to return more results. Now they see 15. Why not just skip to the chase and filter based on age,…

Idea: what if you revshare the monthly fee with the contactees? (Obviously after some sort of validation/time-on-site/social proof to weed out scammers.)

Re: Towards Better Online Dating

#33
I wrote about a grubwith.us-esque dating site in an Ask HN submission a little over a year ago.

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=878657

The challenge with this model is that extracting money from users requires repeated action on their part. That subscription money is so much easier. With an average account life of six months, match.com gets about $180 per paid user.

If you went with a Groupon-like model for a site that revolved around sending people on dates, and assuming you could make about $10 on $20ish dates, each user would have to get out there 18 times in order for you to beat the subscription model.

I still think there could be a big opportunity in a site like this, but it's not hard to see why the incumbents hang onto their subscription models for dear life.

Re: Towards Better Online Dating

#34

I agree with everything the author said save this: > "Then only allow people to access others they are likely to match against." This only works if you are 100% confident that your matching algorithm is infallible. The odds of this being the case is about 0%. I've thought about this problem some, and I think there are a few unacknowledged issues: - Who you will get along with, and are a good match for, is often diffe…

> IMHO it's a far better bet to predict whether or not two people can get through dinner without trying to kill each other... and just send them on a date.

That's the thing. It's true that a similar world view is important for a long term relationship, problem is that there's well known sociological phenomenon where by people will not answer honestly about their actual world view (choosing one they consider to be more socially acceptable).

The very problem of course stems from the term "online dating". As I stated in my comment, it should really be about "online discovery of people you can go on a date with". The algorithms should not be about matching, but about discovery of people where interest may be mutual.

Re: Towards Better Online Dating

#35
post #34

I agree with everything the author said save this: > "Then only allow people to access others they are likely to match against." This only works if you are 100% confident that your matching algorithm is infallible. The odds of this being the case is about 0%. I've thought about this problem some, and I think there are a few unacknowledged issues: - Who you will get along with, and are a good match for, is often diffe…

> IMHO it's a far better bet to predict whether or not two people can get through dinner without trying to kill each other... and just send them on a date. That's the thing. It's true that a similar world view is important for a long term relationship, problem is that there's well known sociological phenomenon where by people will not answer honestly about their actual world view (choosing one they consider to be mor…

> "it should really be about "online discovery of people you can go on a date with""

I agree completely. Right now our systems are (purportedly) remarkably good at finding good long term matches, but fail disastrously at getting you first dates. One thing comes before the other - and let's be honest, compatibility is something you can discover for yourself.

I'd much rather use a service that can get me regular dates with people I'd enjoy spending time with, but may not be a good long-term match, than a system that almost never gets me dates, but on the off chance it does she may be my soulmate.

Re: Towards Better Online Dating

#36
An example of meeting friends-of-friends is soshi.com. They recently launched at Stanford and leverage your facebook network to display eligible friends of friends, it two people express interest in one another, it matches you up.

Re: Towards Better Online Dating

#37
From the article:

Meeting friends-of-friends is the best way to find cool people, because liking is transitive AND because the low social distances force people to be on their best behavior.

If I were looking to date friends-of-friends in particular, I think I'd just use facebook directly. Though more often then not, I've already met such friends-of-friends via common events.

Re: Towards Better Online Dating

#38
post #21
post #7

The best data is just hard to collect online. Photos of person in their social group to deduce personality type would probably fail since there are so many variables. Lab scientists can measure biological or physical properties http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGfznq9OgdU&feature=playe... like sweat scent which reveals immune system compatibility. They're getting very good correlations for long term relationships from…

> The best data is just hard to collect online. Photos of person in their social group to deduce personality type would probably fail since there are so many variables. The fact that there's so many variables isn't the reason such an analysis would fail. The reason is that there's just not enough input to predict personality type with any statistical significance. There's just so much that could be measured, but whet…

>The fact that there's so many variables isn't the reason such an analysis would fail. The reason is that there's just not enough input to predict personality type with any statistical significance. Isn't this the whole idea of factor analysis/singular variable decomposition?

Re: Towards Better Online Dating

#39
post #19

There is a problem with attempts at making online dating work like "real world" dating. I'll state my reasons for this belief up front: I'm very happily in an almost two year relationship with somebody I've met online (OKCupid) whom I could have never met in person. Before, I've had a happy (even if not lasting) and amicably ending relationships with other women whom I could have never met in person. I'll use my anec…

Well said. And totally agree about the problems of the "hypergamy" world-view (which I've also seen called 'ladders of attraction'). Some the best and richest relationships are the ones where both people feel the other is "out of their league," so why assume from the beginning that it's impossible?

Re: Towards Better Online Dating

#40
How about: Instead of a static profile, a tumblog-style First Impression that contains a persons consumption habits (movies, music, tv, etc) as well as pictures, feelings and thoughts. They can update it incrementally to keep it fresh and relevant. You can follow another persons First Impression to get a passive view of them over time. Way better than canned answers to canned questions and filling out surveys.

The service automatically groups similar people (demographics, location) into groups of ~20. 10 guys, 10 girls. They are then led through a week-long online introduction process where each day they respond to a prompt about a different aspect of their life. By the end of the week, hopefully people have gotten a feel for one another and if they are interested, you help them plan further communication or a date.

You use the ratings gathered (+ other usage/interaction data) during the week to assemble the next groups based on similarity, etc.

Group setting = no spammers, no awkward immediate 1-on-1, incentive to behave, multiple partner options, attentive group-mates that arent off 'playing the field' w/ 100 other people.

Week long = interaction over time builds trust, more time to learn about other people, people like to be guided through awkward/ambiguous social situations.

Pay-per-play instead of monthly subscriptions ($10/week) so that a dater can come and go as they please. You know everyone in the group is currently active and is available for communication (vs. long dormant profiles, etc).

Etc, etc, etc.

I built this and launched it and it operated from 2007-2010. It was called FlowMingle.com and had ~25k members. But, I gave up and shut it down. Why? Because I got tired, didnt have any money, etc. I still think this is an amazing way to do online dating, and my users agreed. Our sign-up conversion rate was ~22% (!!), and this is with 0 marketing dollars ever spent.

But you know what I learned? Some people appreciate legitimate interactions and thoughtful conversation and fruitful behaviors, and some people just want to 'play the field' and take their chances at landing the big one. The online dating space is every bit as complicated as the online daters themselves.

I would be happy to share my experiences with anyone who is interested.

Post reply on HN