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

Dating: A mysterious constellation of facts

dynomight.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 202 posts

Re: Dating: A mysterious constellation of facts

#21

Post by nradov »

zelphirkalt wrote: post #6
cbondurant wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly why I always make it a point to discourage my friends from using dating apps. A dating app that is effective at solving the problem it is ostensibly designed to solve will never make money as people will be matched quickly and will have no need to pay for the service. So clearly no profitable dating app is good at matching people. I'm of the opinion that using a tool that is constantly setting you up…

On the other hand, if it was so easy to find a match, then we wouldn't be trying to use dating apps. I think it is just generally hard to find a good match for many people these days.

The other side of that is that many people are simply terrible and really unsuitable for being in any sort of long term stable relationship. No dating app can solve that problem (unless maybe they incorporate mental health and life coaching services, which seems kind of sketchy as a combination). Whether the situation has gotten generally harder these days is impossible to say but I certainly don't envy those still in the dating pool.

Re: Dating: A mysterious constellation of facts

#22

Post by bovermyer »

Aaargh20318 wrote: post #7

From the article: > (…) pictures also give lots of information about important non-superficial things, like your personality, values, social class, and lifestyle. This is the one thing that puzzles me most about dating apps: where do all these pictures come from? People seem to have pictures of them doing all kinds of activities. When I’m out with friends doing whatever, no one is taking pictures. Even if they did, i…

You're not weird. I've wondered the same thing myself.

Re: Dating: A mysterious constellation of facts

#23

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

10000truths wrote: post #5
gassi wrote: post #2

I think the author missed an important factor: misaligned incentives. Dating apps make money when users spend time (and money) on the platform. Users who find a partner tend to leave the platform, so dating companies are incentivized to prevent that from happening. Those companies then have more opportunities to up-sell those users on premium features, which they're more likely to purchase due to repeated failure and…

This is often parroted, but the reasoning is flawed. The vast majority of the platform's growth will come from new users, who are entering the dating scene. If they fail to capture that audience (say, by having a reputation of not performing as advertised), then no amount of upsells or string-alongs of existing users will sustain them, as their user base will only ever decrease, and investors will see that and withdr…

Match's growth peaked a long time ago. The site is now trying to grow by "offering new products" and "cutting operational costs."

The relative newcomers - Bumble and Hinge - grew by trying to offer a better experience, especially for women, who are traditionally overwhelmed with unreciprocated interest on conventional apps. Both seem to have admitted defeat now and moved to the usual model.

In terms of revenue, the incentive to keep millions of users spending is far higher than the nominal gains from persuading friends of a successful couple to join up. Given that most users aren't successful, that network effect is tiny.

There's an opposing network effect of *keeping customers unmatched, because this provides gossip and entertainment among friends, which gives them a reason to continue using a service.

We know that string-alongs are a real thing on dating sites - especially, but not exclusively, for men.

There's also a small but not negligible subculture of (mostly) women who use dates for free meals and get a good return on their monthly subscription.

And a lot of sites - not just Tinder - overlap hook-up culture with people seeking marriage and kids. If anything the former is a more popular option now.

Re: Dating: A mysterious constellation of facts

#24

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

I'm just not sure there's a real phenomenon here. People's complaints about dating apps match up pretty precisely with common complaints about dating more generally. It's an inherently frustrating process!

I think it's pretty telling that the alternatives people talk about are always alternative strategies for how to meet lots of people. The most common pre-app experience, where you didn't meet lots of people and married a random person in your social circles rather than a best friend who gets you and shares your key interests, isn't something most people are interested in.

Re: Dating: A mysterious constellation of facts

#25

Post by TimTheTinker »

gassi wrote: post #2

I think the author missed an important factor: misaligned incentives. Dating apps make money when users spend time (and money) on the platform. Users who find a partner tend to leave the platform, so dating companies are incentivized to prevent that from happening. Those companies then have more opportunities to up-sell those users on premium features, which they're more likely to purchase due to repeated failure and…

Bingo. This is the effect that keeps (a) incumbent platforms in place, (b) users on those platforms, (c) and potentially new platforms from coming online and offering a "superior" experience.

Re: Dating: A mysterious constellation of facts

#26

Post by tern »

A major factor in my world: the coolest people don't use dating apps because they find the experience awful and they have no problem meeting people in real life

The spicier version: dating apps select for personality disorders, and as such, being on a dating app in the first place is a negative signal

For what it's worth, I think this has always been true of the web in general (forums, chat, social media, comments sections, etc.)

Re: Dating: A mysterious constellation of facts

#27

Post by lordnacho »

Everyone is playing the secretary problem. If you're popular, you have to turn down a lot of candidates before you try to find one that's in whatever you measure to be in your league (better than all the ones you saw previously, but I wonder how many people are really going with that). If you're on an app, that's a lot of people.

At the same time, there's a bunch of people who aren't so popular who are now done checking a short queue of candidates, and willing to go with whoever shows up next above their bar.

But those people are still busy rejecting everyone in a seemingly infinite line of suitors. So we have a problem getting people to match.

Add to this that the sexes are not distributed the same way. There's a few ultra hot guys who will never not have a date, and there's a more even number of hot women who the less hot guys are waiting on.

If you're speed dating or doing any other real-world dating, your queues are a lot shorter. You will feel like your idea of the market is set much sooner, and you can start picking out a candidate.

Re: Dating: A mysterious constellation of facts

#30

Post by tbossanova »

linguae wrote: post #18
feoren wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I’m sure there are many people who don’t want their dating lives influenced by whatever rulers are in charge of their governments. Democrats won’t like a MAGA dating service, and vice versa.

What about a nonprofit instead?
Post reply on HN