Live data from Hacker News

Towards Better Online Dating

blog.adamsmith.cc

61–70 of 88 posts

Re: Towards Better Online Dating

#61
post #53

Here is the Iron Helmet Games dating website. In development soon. (Angels needed!) An online dating site where you put your money where your mouth is. Guys and Girls review each others profiles and rather than making contact and trading a few messages, suitors buy "First Date Packages" and offer them to the people they are interested in (the target of their affections). Dinner and a movie? Paddle boating on the lake…

So how do the couple collect their monies from you?

No, we collect the moneys from them, then pass the money on to a third party company that would be hosting them in their activities. Dinner at a restaurant, a picnic hamper ready and waiting, the yacht charter.

Re: Towards Better Online Dating

#62
Seems like there really are plenty of wonderful creative ideas to improve these sites, but the problems alluded too seem to have simple solutions.

People who have not paid can't respond? Make it free to respond. Pay to initiate.

People spam with low quality requests. Make it so you only get a small number of non-responded requests.

People ignore requests and are not paying attention? Show number of responded/non responded requests in the last month.

Re: Towards Better Online Dating

#63
I'm building a dating site. Contact me if you want in on the beta. NY for now, expanding later.

The first thing to understand is the dating world is fraught with mishaps and frustration. This is often misinterpreted as specific shortcomings to various approaches, "bars suck!" and whatnot. The real conclusion is that there is a lack of transparency in dating: signals must be interpreted; brutal honesty is simply not socially acceptable. Because there is so much confusion, everyone has an opinion.

Lots of people want to go beyond their social networks to meet people. There is no doubt about that. Subscription models are also proven successful at critical mass.

The challenges are building to critical mass, removing the stigma, encouraging best behavior, removing spam, keeping the most desirable members, among many others I'm forgetting.

Dating won't go away, the web isn't going away, and we have fun new social tools to play with. Lots of opportunity here to go beyond what the traditional dating sites have done.

Re: Towards Better Online Dating

#64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Dinner and a movie? Paddle boating on the lake? Perhaps a picnic in > the park? Why not even go totally crazy and go skydiving! Those are all terrible first-meet, first-date ideas. From experience, I can say that you want something extremely public, from which you can extricate yourself quickly with minimal embarrassment. "Want to get a cup of coffee?" has been a standard for a long time for good reason.

No, thats exactly the point. Coffee is the boring lame idea that everybody else does. Take the emphasis off the other person, put in on the fun activities you will be enjoying! Start things of by _actually doing something_ with your Saturday afternoon!

Coffee is effectively a metaphor for a highly public, time-limited meeting that either party can escape at any moment. It can be conveniently extended ("I'm could really go for a burger, you?") or aborted ("I'm sorry, I agreed to meet my friend in ten minutes, it was nice meeting you"). It's low cost, with no obligation to stick around to get your money's worth. It's not literal.

Paddling on a lake is not a safe, easily aborted situation.

Group events are where it's at. This is socially similar to meeting by networking through friends, even if you have few close friends, or boring ones.

Re: Towards Better Online Dating

#65
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

below is some of what i wrote on adam's blog post. btw - @potatolicious, with Luv@FirstTweet we're targeting this niche to help you "get regular dates with people I'd enjoy spending time with" as you say.

I co-founded and just launched Luv@FirstTweet a few weeks ago.

I've thought about many of the issues which Adam describes, although I've never written them as eloquently and clearly as he has. I'm going to address some of the issues described in the blog post (note the "you" i reference is adam obv)...

1. spamming, hypergamy, and false advertising is a huge problem as you mention, and a big time sink. People want to use online dating because it is a huge pool of potential people and because it’s an efficient use of time. However when you have to waste time it detracts from the value (more on this below).

2. spamming - On Luv@FirstTweet you just respond to our Tweets which build your profile, so you’re not browsing profiles or messaging random people. The only time you do message someone is after you’ve been matched with them, and at that point we show several things in common as well as their photo, so hopefully when you email them it can initiate a real dialogue about things you care about, not just “nice pic ur h0t” haha.

3. hypergamy is covered pretty much in my comment above due to the nature of how you interact with the site.

4. In terms of false advertising, I guess it could be done if you lie in responses to all of our questions, but this isn’t a traditional dating site where people are browsing profiles and a deviant dude hopes his lies will ensnare an unsuspecting profile viewer…we’re building a profile about you and then matching, so it wouldn’t have the same impact and thus I doubt people would feel the urge to do it as much.

5. network effects are the biggest challenge I see us facing, and it’s something we’re got to deal with and adapt to. The big players are pouring tons of money into advertising their self-destructive business models as you explain, so this makes things tricky.

6. if there was a “like” button next to Zao Yang’s quote I’d click it – nicely put

7. “And to redefine the problem a little bit, I suspect there’s more value and fun in helping people meet new friends generically, and only incidentally maybe a significant other.” the nature of our platform could go this way, but currently we’re sticking with matching for dating. Something cool to think about though.

8. business models – looking into the future, there are many different avenues to monetize which aren’t ad based, but thanks to some good advice from @schildkrout from HowAboutWe we’re keeping the site free. We want to grow this bad boy after all and when looking at pt #5 above, can’t add any friction to the model to prevent user growth

9. the business model issue you bring up is one of the main reasons I had the idea for Luv@FirstTweet: “I sign up on the site, and buy a subscription. I find six or seven girls I like, and send them highly personalized messages. About 15% of people on Match are premium members, and therefore only one of those girls can even reply to my message. I get one reply, at most” – that right there is super super annoying. It is a huge time sink and a waste of money.

10. I’m definitely going to read that OkCupid post, it looks terrific.

11. backend – while we’re not running computer vision algorithms to analyze smiles, skin showing, etc (which is interesting, but just very different than how we approached things), we are going to continually tweak our matching algorithm based on the responses we get and seeing “what kind of matches work and which don’t” as you mention.

12. frontend – this is where we hope to be simple and fun. You say a few points which I totally agree with: “Everyone knows that dating profiles suck to create and suck to consume (YES) Not only do they lack real signal, they also make for a horrible onboarding experience. (YES) You want me to fill eight huge text areas with witty banter, and check or uncheck 250 radio buttons? (YES…HAHA) Overall I’m not bullish on the trinity of people profiles, messaging, and people searches. I know that’s how all sites are built today, but if I were in this space I’d keep an open mind on redefining the primitives.”

This is the key here to Luv@FirstTweet....

We take a fresh approach and say, hey you’re busy. We respect your lives. Go to work then go have fun with your friends. Oh and when you have 1 spare second when you’re grabbing lunch, or walking down the street, or waiting on a friend…tweet a response to @luvatfirsttweet’s latest question and we’ll store it and build your profile. We have a web interface of course if you’d like to edit your questions and answer some previously asked questions, but the core nature of the site enables effortless and fun profile building.

I'd love to know anyone's thoughts on this. Thanks.

Jon Lehr co-founder, Luv@FirstTweet

Re: Towards Better Online Dating

#66
post #8

It would be interesting to see an online dating site which treated users like mailing service providers do: "We really want you to succeed with this, but our priorities are to the ecosystem first and you a very distant second. You're guilty until proven innocent, we're going to invest a lot of effort into educating you in how to suck less, and if we catch a whiff of you being a nuisance you are banned for life." (It…

There is just the problem that you spend a lot of time educating the people who are then kicked off the platform. It's not as if they disappear, they go to your competitors and improve their ecosystems, plus you are going to inspire some serious hate which will limit those who sign up to over confident assholes (who can't imagine that they would ever be kicked out) and people who need all the help they can get.

So you aren't really going to have a great ecosystem.

Re: Towards Better Online Dating

#67

Here is the Iron Helmet Games dating website. In development soon. (Angels needed!) An online dating site where you put your money where your mouth is. Guys and Girls review each others profiles and rather than making contact and trading a few messages, suitors buy "First Date Packages" and offer them to the people they are interested in (the target of their affections). Dinner and a movie? Paddle boating on the lake…

>> Go get em people will like it because both parties are jumping with both feet and instead of trading countless emails only to discover the other party is just not that interested.

How on earth does this system help you determine whether the pair is interested in each other? It is only having one party bid on the other's proposed activity, which may or may not have anything to do with their actual personality.

There's also something a little slimy about having people 'bid' to win my attention. Income (and willingness to spend it impressing strangers) is not my primary criterion. It's not even in the top ten.

Re: Towards Better Online Dating

#69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Dinner and a movie? Paddle boating on the lake? Perhaps a picnic in > the park? Why not even go totally crazy and go skydiving! Those are all terrible first-meet, first-date ideas. From experience, I can say that you want something extremely public, from which you can extricate yourself quickly with minimal embarrassment. "Want to get a cup of coffee?" has been a standard for a long time for good reason.

No, thats exactly the point. Coffee is the boring lame idea that everybody else does. Take the emphasis off the other person, put in on the fun activities you will be enjoying! Start things of by _actually doing something_ with your Saturday afternoon!

If you need to do something else when you're meeting someone, that person can't be that important.

Having coffee is boring. The person across from you will make up for that if they are the one you are seeking. And if they're not, go sky dive - alone!

Re: Towards Better Online Dating

#70
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if you want to build a successful long-term dating site you HAVE to cater 90% towards the women Of course. Seems like one obvious way would be to limit the number of emails that men can send per day/week/whatever, so women don't get spammed quite so badly.

An obvious workaround: Multiple accounts can be created. It's that easy. Otherwise if you add hurdles, single account people would be put off from signing up.

Not necessarily - match it up against a facebook account. If the account doesn't have a lot of activity or is very new you get to send fewer messages.
Post reply on HN