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

181–190 of 570 posts

Re: The dating app paradox

#181

Post by bluGill »

sss111 wrote: post #120
ben7799 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This kind of thing has actually existed for a long time. They predated dating sites and had even worked off paper as far as I understand. The problem is they cost a lot more, and still had basically zero guarantee of any success. IIRC they were so expensive most single people would have trouble affording them. I met my wife on eHarmony back when it was relatively new. I had tried one of the non-computerized matching…

do you have any advice for someone who's just finished college and moved to a new place, its really hard to find people to hang out as friends.

Any activity that is small enough that they need more people, but still large enough.

Be careful, males and females are in general attracted to different activities. (I don't know why). If you are a guy trying to meet girls (or vice versa) your first choice is probably bad. If you don't see someone who could be a match right away you are in the wrong activity. (this is before you meet them to learn if they are married or have have compatible personality)

Re: The dating app paradox

#182

Post by fourseventy »

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.

You want to put the government in control of who we date? No thanks.

Re: The dating app paradox

#183

Post by sctb »

unsignedint wrote: post #166
glimshe wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ultim…

I'm sorry to hear that; of course it would've been be disheartening! If you're interested in sharing, I'm curious if you speculated at the time why that might have been the case (e.g. where you live, unique interests, etc.), and how you went about things after that experience.

Re: The dating app paradox

#184

Post by carabiner »

phlipski wrote: post #175
carabiner wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh man my comment on how Match group is a gambling app company is up there. I've been online dating for 20 years with pretty decent experiences as a short, ugly man, but now indeed the app/online dating situation is the worst ever. Some of this is probably due to me being older though.

With all due respect here - "20 years of successful online dating" sounds like an oxymoron! Unless you're choosing to date and to not enter into a long term relationship?

Yes? You can be successful (or a failure) at being single, dating, or married. There's not one universally valid approach to relationships.

Re: The dating app paradox

#185

Post by skrbjc »

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.

I've thought for a while now that it is a matter of national interest that your population couples up and has children. It's immensely important for the success of a nation and it's odd that the majority of how people meet now is through data apps and that there is no oversight over these at all. They have every incentive to match you with someone you are more likely to have a short term relationship than match you with someone that will result in a successful long term relationship. This has terrible long-term outcomes for a population at a large enough scale. With all of the talk of how algorithms can affect our society through news and social media, I've been somewhat surprised that dating app algorithms have not had much attention.

Re: The dating app paradox

#186

Post by nvarsj »

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.

It's already starting to happen (see Japan). As population growth plummets, governments will have to get involved.

Re: The dating app paradox

#187

Post by fluidcruft »

phlipski wrote: post #175
carabiner wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh man my comment on how Match group is a gambling app company is up there. I've been online dating for 20 years with pretty decent experiences as a short, ugly man, but now indeed the app/online dating situation is the worst ever. Some of this is probably due to me being older though.

With all due respect here - "20 years of successful online dating" sounds like an oxymoron! Unless you're choosing to date and to not enter into a long term relationship?

With all due respect, this seems like a Rorschach test? He didn't say "20 years continuously dating online"? People can date online a bit, get into a relationship for a quite a while, relationship ends, go back to online dating, etc.

Re: The dating app paradox

#188

Post by nonrandomstring »

skrbjc wrote: post #185
Exoristos wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I've thought for a while now that it is a matter of national interest that your population couples up and has children. It's immensely important for the success of a nation and it's odd that the majority of how people meet now is through data apps and that there is no oversight over these at all. They have every incentive to match you with someone you are more likely to have a short term relationship than match you w…

It is socially corrosive. However, "family values" have traditionally been framed as a conservative value in the USA/UK/AUS at least.

So, how do we move "love and human relationships" back into a progressive position in a time when entrenched power profits from lonliness and division?

Re: The dating app paradox

#189

Post by GMoromisato »

ethanbond wrote: post #161
GMoromisato wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, I can't disagree with that. But we're all fools at one time or another, aren't we?

Re: The dating app paradox

#190

Post by nvarsj »

trashface wrote: post #56

A couple years ago, post pandemic, I tried these apps for the first time in my life (mid forties), and I had the what is apparently the typical hetero male experience of no matches. It wasn't bad dates or ghosting or catfishing all that stuff you read about. Just no dates, no chats even. Gave up after a few months and deleted them, I doubt I'll ever go back on there. Its perhaps controversial, but I definitely didn't…

The way these apps work, you pretty much have to pay as a guy. It's like a club where women get in free. The algorithms will derank you very fast unless you're a 10/10 male, and you will basically get no matches from then on. Most guys who are successful on dating apps are paying for it.
Post reply on HN