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

181–190 of 202 posts

Re: Dating: A mysterious constellation of facts

#181

Post by ta12653421 »

svv wrote: post #167
ta12653421 wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By far absolutely _not_ true: - i have worked in the space for some years for two of the biggest platforms in my country - dating sites track a lot KPI and discuss them and test them thoroughly - the KPI "do-more-users-leave-our-platform-earlier-if-our-matching-algo-is-just-too-good" - I promise: In alle the years, this question WAS NEVER - NEVER!!!!!!! - raised, regardless wich Manager or which Exec. This metric isn…

> - the KPI "do-more-users-leave-our-platform-earlier-if-our-matching-algo-is-just-too-good" - I promise: In alle the years, this question WAS NEVER - NEVER!!!!!!! - raised, regardless wich Manager or which Exec. This metric isnt even debated. What labels do they use for training their algos though? What is their definition of a successful match, is it a date, a recurring date, or something closer to a long-term rela…

Wrong approach; at least until latest, NONE of the standard apps does apply any kind of "real AI" stuff, maybe this changed through the last 3 - 4 years.

All thi matching stuff like "match with X%" is just bullshit.

The only platform having a useful approach here was OKC years ago. (but even for their scoring you would not need any type of sophisticated tech)

Re: Dating: A mysterious constellation of facts

#183

Post by ta12653421 »

thomastjeffery wrote: post #160
ta12653421 wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By far absolutely _not_ true: - i have worked in the space for some years for two of the biggest platforms in my country - dating sites track a lot KPI and discuss them and test them thoroughly - the KPI "do-more-users-leave-our-platform-earlier-if-our-matching-algo-is-just-too-good" - I promise: In alle the years, this question WAS NEVER - NEVER!!!!!!! - raised, regardless wich Manager or which Exec. This metric isn…

And yet, the premium features are overtly aligned against user success! I believe you that these app devs think they are optimizing for user success, but that doesn't change the incentives that frame their work. The greatest utility of a dating app should be that it provides a higher number of opportunities. This feature is explicitly broken by the most popular dating apps. Often, it is put behind a paywall, which ha…

> higher number of opportunities. Limitting search/result is often used to tease users into the subscription. Eg. Tiner allows in free mode only a certain number of swipes. Is it this what you mean? This is usually depends on: Search + text for free but limited, or "pay for everything" I do not see why putting some features behind a paywall is "against users interest" and how this limits/increases his/her chances?

You are claiming that dating sites should be free - this doesnt work usually (POF as exception) - and making users pay for those does not increase his/her chances: EVERYTHING that happens before you met someone will be crashed usually in the very first second you met (and smell!) someone.

So if you have a chance with another person, is something that is completely(!) out of control of the website operator. EDIT: this is something website operators do know, they cant change it and this is something that they should put on their website - they are selling dreams and expectations, which wont become true in real.

Re: Dating: A mysterious constellation of facts

#184

Post by tomhow »

feoren wrote: post #10
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…

[flagged]

Please don't use HN for ideological battle like this. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Dating: A mysterious constellation of facts

#185

Post by vintermann »

kelnos wrote: post #171
foofoo12 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> one makes more money There's this joke about a man in his 40s. He goes to the gym and asks the instructor which machine he should use to look more attractive to young ladies. The instructor looks at him and says "you'd do well by using the ATM outside".

It's an entertaining joke, but I think most people wouldn't want a partner that mainly chose them because they have money. (Certainly there's a baseline: most people want a partner with at least the financial resources to take care of themselves.)

Of course they wouldn't, but compared to not having no partner at all?

How about a partner who chose you because you had money, but stayed because less superficial things?

It's maybe sad, but it's not so surprising.

Re: Dating: A mysterious constellation of facts

#186

Post by vintermann »

atoav wrote: post #114
foofoo12 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> one makes more money There's this joke about a man in his 40s. He goes to the gym and asks the instructor which machine he should use to look more attractive to young ladies. The instructor looks at him and says "you'd do well by using the ATM outside".

When I ask myself who in my friends circles has had the happiest, longest lasting relationships it almost never were the guys with the money. Don't get me wrong, that doesn't mean the inverse is true and you score big time if you are an ugly bum. It just means other qualities matter often more than men think. Being a kind guy, having humor, being emotionally reliable (meaning you're emotionally stable and not easily…

> When I ask myself who in my friends circles has had the happiest, longest lasting relationships it almost never were the guys with the money.

But that's also consistent with money being the ticket of entry, the thing you need to have to be considered as a partner in the first place (much of the time). Especially in the context of dating apps where there are so many to choose from, you might not even get the chance to show yourself as a kind, emotionally stable, fun guy to be around.

Re: Dating: A mysterious constellation of facts

#187

Post by vintermann »

m_fayer wrote: post #120
_factor wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I was a kid, I had one video game and played it all the way through. When the system was emulated and access to every single game ever created became available, I lost interest.

Part of my self-administered IT education in my early 20s was to feed my film nerdery through exquisite data hoarding. Automation, NASs, media servers, all of it. Curiously, I found that the better I got, the less movies I actually watched. It became more about collecting than engaging. I think this is a corollary to your point: vastly increasing access and reducing our objects of desire to a standardized neatly stor…

But maybe some prefer that? These rich guys who never seem to have long, fulfilling relationships, who's to say they seek long term relationships? (I wouldn't know, I'm not one of them!)

Ditto with the women who like them.

You can, after all, delete all the other games from your emulator, or your entire data hoard except one document etc. Somehow that doesn't seem appealing either, does it?

Ending a lot of sentences with a question here I know, but I honestly don't think I've got this figured out.

Re: Dating: A mysterious constellation of facts

#188

Post by vintermann »

knotimpressed wrote: post #48

Not related directly to the article, but I’m so glad there’s a “tell me mistakes I made to fix” box. I wish more sites, hell even news sites had that.

Well, it could be related to the article, but I don't know how successful a "tell me mistakes I made to fix" box would be on dating sites.

Re: Dating: A mysterious constellation of facts

#189

Post by xg15 »

ta12653421 wrote: post #146
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…

By far absolutely _not_ true: - i have worked in the space for some years for two of the biggest platforms in my country - dating sites track a lot KPI and discuss them and test them thoroughly - the KPI "do-more-users-leave-our-platform-earlier-if-our-matching-algo-is-just-too-good" - I promise: In alle the years, this question WAS NEVER - NEVER!!!!!!! - raised, regardless wich Manager or which Exec. This metric isn…

Well, what kind of KPI do you track then?

Re: Dating: A mysterious constellation of facts

#190

Post by strenholme »

As someone who is on the dating scene after my wife died of cancer some thoughts:

1) There are a lot more men on the dating apps than women.

2) Using just pictures to judge men doesn’t really work for women. See https://archive.ph/20251006053755/https://medium.com/the-kno... for discussion.

My personal experience, based on what I’m going through and what friends have to say:

3) 17 years ago, it was possible to meet and know really attractive women on the apps.

4) These days, the really attractive women no longer use apps.

5) The apps are optimized for engagement, not giving people successful romance.

Right now, the woman I’m currently dating is someone I met at church, not on the apps. The men I know who have success with women prefer the women they meet outside of the apps.

As a shy geek without too many social connections, the apps (websites, actually) were a very positive game changer 17 years ago. These days, they are more a liability than asset when it comes to dating.

Post reply on HN