11–20 of 69 posts
Online dating is now the most common way for people to meet in the US and Australia and probably most developed countries :
https://news.stanford.edu/2019/08/21/online-dating-popular-w...
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-26/australia-talks-natio...
What's wrong with dating is that dating is hard for people.
Keep trying, go on lots of dates and find people you click with.
It’s a good question. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqldQzGV-lY One take is that online dating is going to be bad for most people (particularly men) because with a large number of matches going by people (particularly women) are going to make a rough cut on physical attractiveness. Almost all of the men participating in online dating are interested in hooking up or a longer term relationship but a lot of young wome…
You really think men are somehow victimized on online dating sites? you really think these women owe you a date?
2 of these happened before the internet I am sure. The avg HN guy (generally men post these) are also more likely to be in location where the gender ratio is skewed. Bay Area, Bangalore, etc. This might add to the frustration for some. Apps or no apps this would remain.
Very few people are going to find someone right away. This is a good thing, is a feature not a bug.
It’s a good question. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqldQzGV-lY One take is that online dating is going to be bad for most people (particularly men) because with a large number of matches going by people (particularly women) are going to make a rough cut on physical attractiveness. Almost all of the men participating in online dating are interested in hooking up or a longer term relationship but a lot of young wome…
You really think men are somehow victimized on online dating sites? you really think these women owe you a date?
Dating markets are a two-sided market (but in reality, they are sets of multiple intersecting two-sided markets as there's a wide diversity of preferences and identities related to gender, sexuality, race, political tribe etc), two-sided markets are hard to make work because if you want to improve the UX of one side of the market, it's often at the cost of the UX of the other side of the market. It's really hard to build features or improvements that improve the experience for everyone. EG: make height filter a free feature and you've improved the straight woman's experience but hurt men's experience. Increase a man's access to inbox of a higher tier attractiveness woman and you've improved his experience but you've hurt hers.
If you build a dating app that tries to enforce people making fewer matches but spending more time messaging or getting to know or going out on a date with them, even if your 'quality > quantity' model would lead to better social outcomes for society writ large, as long as there's an alternative dating app that lets someone sit there and swipe for 30 mins straight and chat with 5-10 new matches each time (or uses gamification and cheap tricks or re-enforces hookups/ghosting/etc), your artificial constraints or protections you put in place to try to de-commodify humans are just overwritten by your user opening up that competing dating app. Most dating app users use 2+ apps. It's not enough to build a good app, it has to fit into the broader context of the market of services.
Photos and text are not a good way to become attracted to someone. Real life is a better form of "rich media" than online and we are often attracted to a wider range of people in person than we'd be if we just saw a few photos of them in a profile, but it doesn't facilitate the efficiency of online, its more socially risky and embarrassing or requires more courage. Leading to people making tons of matches in online dating, but most or all of the conversations becoming stale or fizzling out, or first dates leading one or both people to discover they lack physical or romantic chemistry. The future of dating likely involves combining the best aspects of real life dating and online dating.
Monetization and engagement is often at odds with the success criteria of the user.
It's incredibly hard to start a new service or app because its value is correlated to the size of the network, meaning its not very useful in the beginning. So the hardest part is the start.
Interestingly, governments may eventually start to subsidize this industry as birth rates continue to plummit. Or to make their own nationalized attempts. It's a smart investment for them economically. Japan already is doing this.
https://futurism.com/the-byte/japan-ai-singles-dates
https://businessinsider.com/japanese-government-dating-servi...
Success for the user = not having to use the app anymore.
Success for the company = user retention.
I think everything follows from that. The things you mentioned could be solved, but there's really not a good incentive. That + a lack of real compitition to Match Group.
It’s a good question. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqldQzGV-lY One take is that online dating is going to be bad for most people (particularly men) because with a large number of matches going by people (particularly women) are going to make a rough cut on physical attractiveness. Almost all of the men participating in online dating are interested in hooking up or a longer term relationship but a lot of young wome…
You really think men are somehow victimized on online dating sites? you really think these women owe you a date?
So far as 'me' I can say in person there is a good chance I can give somebody I meet (e.g. regardless of sex, gender, sexual orientation, whether or not I am interested in them sexually...) a memorable experience. I can't do that through Tinder, not at all.