Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The dating app paradox

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 570 posts

Re: The dating app paradox

#161

Post by ethanbond »

GMoromisato wrote: post #151
autoexec wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't looked but I suspect that people in happy loving relationships are less likely to be extremists/terrorists than unhappy people without close ties or people in their lives to check in on their mental well-being.

I haven't looked either, but I think the correlation runs the other way: people likely to be extremists/terrorists have trouble forming happy, loving relationships. I guess the fact that we disagree reaffirms the parent's point that we should look to studies/research instead of assuming.

Spoiler: it’s bidirectional. Looking for linear causality is a fool’s errand for most truly hard/persistent problems.

Re: The dating app paradox

#162

Post by almatabata »

ravenstine wrote: post #100
garciasn wrote: post #32

Originally responding to a flagged comment that stated you were weak for not talking to people in person: You’re not wrong, but the in-person dating pool is small and the stakes are high. I am very recently divorced, dating single for the first time in nearly 25 years after finding my wife stole $300K from the family and had been carrying on an affair for 18 months while I thought our finances and love were at an all…

You're not wrong, but I believe there are things people can do to find better "fishing holes" if they think outside the box. I grew up in Los Angeles and have never actually felt at home here. Should it be any surprise that my experience dating here has been poor? I'm certainly not a hottie, but I am pretty sure I'm not ugly, either. Given all the examples of male attractiveness I've seen, I think I'm a low 7 on the…

There was a book that talked about those dynamics: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/24693022-date-onomics

It is not from a researcher but a journalist. He does cite research and uses real life examples.

He gave examples where when the ratio was in the men's favor, they would not commit to marriage as easily. In contrast when the number was in the women's favor you would notice things like an increase in credit card debit I believe.

Re: The dating app paradox

#163

Post by hibikir »

thegrim33 wrote: post #155
not2b wrote: post #103

The fact that one company repeatedly bought out its competition and now owns, according the the article, 45 dating apps probably has a lot to do with why they suck. Instead of competing by trying to be better, just buy out the rivals, gut them, and make everything worse. As long as the dominant player has lots of capital to buy any upstarts and the regulatory environment lets them do it, it can be an easier way to ma…

In a free market, if such a company's products are crappy, as you propose, then that means there's an opportunity for anyone that wants to make profit to provide an app that isn't crappy; they'd get rewarded for it. The question shouldn't be "how do we stop this company", it should be, "why aren't people providing competing, non-crappy, apps?". Let's fix the root issue rather than proposing regulation to regulate a p…

There's been a lot of discussion about this. My favorite argument there is that there's a big difference between what makes a dating app profitable, and what makes it good at finding people long term relationships. Not unlike how Amazon is far better off showing you ads in a search than giving you the best matching item that you probably want.

The features that make an app crappier are what makes it sticky and lucrative. Making an app better at matching people is expensive, but doesn't give you revenue. The owners heading in that direction will get offers from the crappier, more profitable app maker that are hard to refuse.

Re: The dating app paradox

#164

Post by brendoelfrendo »

thegrim33 wrote: post #155
not2b wrote: post #103

The fact that one company repeatedly bought out its competition and now owns, according the the article, 45 dating apps probably has a lot to do with why they suck. Instead of competing by trying to be better, just buy out the rivals, gut them, and make everything worse. As long as the dominant player has lots of capital to buy any upstarts and the regulatory environment lets them do it, it can be an easier way to ma…

In a free market, if such a company's products are crappy, as you propose, then that means there's an opportunity for anyone that wants to make profit to provide an app that isn't crappy; they'd get rewarded for it. The question shouldn't be "how do we stop this company", it should be, "why aren't people providing competing, non-crappy, apps?". Let's fix the root issue rather than proposing regulation to regulate a p…

The people who make the non-crappy competing apps are the ones who get bought and consolidated into the crappy parent company.

Re: The dating app paradox

#165

Post by almatabata »

pgsandstrom wrote: post #2

I have a somewhat unrealistic dream that someday dating apps will be viewed the same way as roads: Essential infrastructure that needs to be handled by the public. A government developed dating app whose only goal is to help people find healthy relationships. All my american friends balk at this. But as a swede, I dont think it is completely impossible. The completely impossible dream would be that we as a society st…

Before we go this route I would like to see what real competition looks like. They should break up the Match group and force those dating apps to actually really compete for users. I would love to know if new apps would maintain these tactics if they remain outside the Match group.

Re: The dating app paradox

#166

Post by unsignedint »

glimshe wrote: post #80
janalsncm wrote: post #77

An actually good date is worth potentially hundreds of dollars. I’m surprised there isn’t an app which meets this need. Yes there is “The League” but even that is just a more exclusive Tinder. No, make a matchmaker app for high paying customers that uses human curation. $500 for 3 dates.

eHarmony, where I met my spouse, used to be like this in the 2000s. $249 for 3 months of access, they chose the dates for you (after filling out an extensive, 1-hour questionnaire) and you could NOT search. It was a digital version of a very old school, professional matchmaker. I remember getting an average of 1 match per week (no date guaranteed from a match, it just afforded you the possibility of communication, bo…

After dedicating an hour to completing eHarmony's extensive questionnaire, I was unexpectedly informed that there were no matches available for me, resulting in my inability to join their service. While initially disheartening, I appreciate eHarmony's honesty and their decision not to charge me the $249 membership fee given the lack of potential matches. This transparency is commendable, although the experience ultimately led me to discontinue my pursuit of online dating altogether.

Re: The dating app paradox

#167

Post by margalabargala »

hibikir wrote: post #163
thegrim33 wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a free market, if such a company's products are crappy, as you propose, then that means there's an opportunity for anyone that wants to make profit to provide an app that isn't crappy; they'd get rewarded for it. The question shouldn't be "how do we stop this company", it should be, "why aren't people providing competing, non-crappy, apps?". Let's fix the root issue rather than proposing regulation to regulate a p…

There's been a lot of discussion about this. My favorite argument there is that there's a big difference between what makes a dating app profitable, and what makes it good at finding people long term relationships. Not unlike how Amazon is far better off showing you ads in a search than giving you the best matching item that you probably want. The features that make an app crappier are what makes it sticky and lucrat…

This actually opens up a lot of opportunities.

With the existing hegemony of Match, a new company doesn't actually need to worry about becoming profitable; if they can be good enough at matchmaking that they start to catch on, then they can rely on a buyout from Match. Much like how a decade ago, "getting bought by Google" was the business plan of a lot of companies, many of which did get acquired by google.

Re: The dating app paradox

#168

Post by nonrandomstring »

Exoristos wrote: post #115
not2b wrote: post #103

The fact that one company repeatedly bought out its competition and now owns, according the the article, 45 dating apps probably has a lot to do with why they suck. Instead of competing by trying to be better, just buy out the rivals, gut them, and make everything worse. As long as the dominant player has lots of capital to buy any upstarts and the regulatory environment lets them do it, it can be an easier way to ma…

As well as regulating them, Western governments might want to actually fund high-quality, not-for-profit dating systems of some kind. Improved health for citizens, lessened extremism, not to mention possibly boosted population growth could result.

> Western governments might want to actually fund [s] high-quality, not-for-profit dating systems of some kind. Improved health for citizens, lessened extremism, not to mention possibly boosted population growth could result.

That's too sane! Human relationships are anathema to the profit, so what you suggest would be a disaster for capitalism and the meat grinder. Consumerism is driven by isolation, FOMO and insecurity. And without a supply of disocontented single young men, how will we feed the war machine?

Slightly less cynically, one of the big factors we've found in recent research for episode 2 of "Love Isn't" [0] relates to the lack of public spaces. In the UK we've decimated parks to build shopping centres and more housing, and most of the pubs have closed. We spoke to several wealthy and intelligent UK citizens in their 30s or 40s who say they are very frustrated because dating apps are rubbish, but where do you meet people IRL now?

[0] https://cybershow.uk/episodes.php?id=20

Re: The dating app paradox

#169

Post by kelseyfrog »

BadHumans wrote: post #141
mensetmanusman wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans are the universe, everything humans do is natural.

Very self centered way of looking at the world.

I personally think that reifying social norms is self-centered, but good luck ever trying to convince someone they're doing that.

Re: The dating app paradox

#170

Post by [deleted] »

michaelt wrote: post #34

If you're interested in this sort of thing, I can recommend creating an account on your dating app of choice with the opposite gender. The experiences are as different as night and day - and the different user groups have completely different requirements of the product. The article is interesting, but IMHO they've really missed the key asymmetries that make good dating apps so hard to build.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN