Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Why don't we bring back old school OkCupid?

news.ycombinator.com

51–60 of 78 posts

Re: Ask HN: Why don't we bring back old school OkCupid?

#51
There's an article somewhere (read it many years ago) with the story about the first days of Tinder. The way they got their first users was to send (IIRC) the marketing strategist (a woman) to talk to attractive young women in bars and parties, show them how easy it was to use, and convince them to install the app themselves.

I would say that this points to the real issues: that OkCupid was something one did on their desktop at home while Tinder sold itself as something one does for fun at the bar, and that most people are laser-focused on looks in detriment of everything else. Last time I used Bumble (which was supposed to be "deeper" than Tinder) I'd yell in frustration, scrolling profile after profile without even the tiniest bit of information, eventually reaching the conclusion that people just don't want to read or write profiles.

A new OkCupid would have to position itself as the "eat your vegetables" alternative in a world full of candy. There is a market for that, sure, but it will remain a niche at best.

Re: Ask HN: Why don't we bring back old school OkCupid?

#52
post #43
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Dating apps/sites are a rich-get-richer market. Most people go where everyone else goes, because everyone else is there. I get that this is true for social networks in general, like messaging platforms, there's a first mover and network effect. However for dating apps specifically, there is not truly a network effect, all you need to find is one person, and for monogamous relationships (which incidentally are more…

There exist hundreds of fly by night matchmaking apps, but most people can only name about half a dozen off hand.

There's a hack: if the platform appeals to some of the most sought-after women, it can win, since the most sought-after men will follow, and the marjority women/men will follow chasing the first two groups. (same dynamic is used to fill empty nightclubs).

Bumble did this to Tinder. Coffee Meets Bagel is currently trying to do it to Bumble.

Re: Ask HN: Why don't we bring back old school OkCupid?

#53
post #50

An interesting challenge with dating sites is that the “bell curves” of attractiveness versus desired attractiveness between men and women aren’t symmetric. This leads to difficulties running a dating site because women will only say yes to 9/10 or better men, but men will message anyone with a pulse which in turn inflates female expectations. Many women only ever join dating sites as an ego boost, with no intention…

> women will only say yes to 9/10 or better men, but men will message anyone with a pulse which in turn inflates female expectations Is this a SF thing? I'm maybe a 7/10 and I've never had trouble getting dates in any city I've lived in or traveled through. I just put some effort into sound interesting, make sure my pics are the best I can find and it's fine. But I've never tried dating in SF and I've heard the gende…

Women get an absolute deluge of interest - when I was dating it wasn't uncommon for me to see women with inboxes with 10k plus messages/likes. There's definitely an aspect of "just pick the hottest 2 or 3 people you're shown and close the app" because you're overwhelmed and over half of the profiles are poorly filled out/sending low effort or vulgar messages. I think most men do poorly because they don't understand the female gaze and they don't take the time to create a profile with half decent photos that communicates who would want to date them and why.

Re: Ask HN: Why don't we bring back old school OkCupid?

#54

An interesting challenge with dating sites is that the “bell curves” of attractiveness versus desired attractiveness between men and women aren’t symmetric. This leads to difficulties running a dating site because women will only say yes to 9/10 or better men, but men will message anyone with a pulse which in turn inflates female expectations. Many women only ever join dating sites as an ego boost, with no intention…

Btw Tinder did seem to have a hotness score, at least when I was single in college. Higher score meant being shown higher up on others' stacks. You hurt your score by swiping right on people who don't swipe right back.

It was possible to game because it didn't matter as much how many people swiped right on you total. There were ways to tell who liked you ahead of time, even before that became a paid feature. I got myself to the top. All the other guys in those slots were 6'4" gigachad athletes/lumberjacks.

Re: Ask HN: Why don't we bring back old school OkCupid?

#55
post #9
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Because people were less cynical in the 2010s and there's no way to bring that back. We were only one year out of the Bush administration. I got a lot of lectures on third way neoliberalism from women who in the same age bracket who today are all stone cold socialists.

Could it be argued that people were cynical about different things? I think a lot of culture is just people uncritically repeating ideas theyve heard.

I agree... it's very easy to have strong opinions about things you are sheltered from the consequences of. And strong feelings about issues do not emerge from deep understanding.

Re: Ask HN: Why don't we bring back old school OkCupid?

#56
post #35
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Dating apps/sites are a rich-get-richer market. Most people go where everyone else goes, because everyone else is there. I get that this is true for social networks in general, like messaging platforms, there's a first mover and network effect. However for dating apps specifically, there is not truly a network effect, all you need to find is one person, and for monogamous relationships (which incidentally are more…

> for monogamous relationships (which incidentally are more common among heterosexual couples, whereas Tinder and its descendants, coming from grindr heritage, tend against) Describing everyone who isn't straight as "tending against monogamy" is bigotry. I'm aware that there's a 0.1% PP difference or whatever -- still absurd.

Not sure if it helps, but I mean male homosexuals. Lesbians are more monogamous, so it's not a matter of being homosexual that makes one less monogamous, it's more that men are more hypergamous.

This is true in almost all species, as there is an evolutionary benefit for males to mate in excess of one partner, as each subsequent mate increases the chance and amount of offspring. Whereas females have little benefit to mating in excess of 1 partner, as she cannot have more than 1 child in that period.

So if anything I would be sexist against males (of any species)? Or sexist against women? It depends on whether you consider monogamy virtuous or not. Or maybe pointing out any difference, even if morally neutral, between two group of people is enough to be a bigot, in which case I would avoid speaking about protected classes of people, which doesn't sound great.

I don't know what the rules for bigotry are, (but I know it when I see it). But I'd dare say that even pointing out negatives of a protected class can be fine. If we are talking about basketball and I point out that the Japanese team is too short, that's not bigotry. That a comment is tangential instead of central to an argument is probably also relevant.

As for the accuracy of the claim, I won't cite a study, some truths are accessible by simpler, perhaps more social means. If you know gay people, talk to them, ask them directly if they feel comfortable and you care about it. Also take a look into the history of dating apps, is it a coincidence that Grindr was originally gay only? Is there an equivalent Lesbian hookup app?

Also, I'm sorry if you are gay and found this offensive, I just assumed you were straight and were just being offended in the name of someone else. I don't think many gay people would question that men are less monogamous, but I may be wrong..

Re: Ask HN: Why don't we bring back old school OkCupid?

#57
post #50

An interesting challenge with dating sites is that the “bell curves” of attractiveness versus desired attractiveness between men and women aren’t symmetric. This leads to difficulties running a dating site because women will only say yes to 9/10 or better men, but men will message anyone with a pulse which in turn inflates female expectations. Many women only ever join dating sites as an ego boost, with no intention…

> women will only say yes to 9/10 or better men, but men will message anyone with a pulse which in turn inflates female expectations Is this a SF thing? I'm maybe a 7/10 and I've never had trouble getting dates in any city I've lived in or traveled through. I just put some effort into sound interesting, make sure my pics are the best I can find and it's fine. But I've never tried dating in SF and I've heard the gende…

It's SF and also age. I've been on both ends. But even when men have the advantage in serious dating, women on hookup apps get more attention because those aren't 1-1 pairings, if you know what I'm saying.

On Tinder and some other sites, it's unclear whether it's for hookups or dating. This led to some awkward dates for me back when I was single.

Re: Ask HN: Why don't we bring back old school OkCupid?

#58
post #35
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Dating apps/sites are a rich-get-richer market. Most people go where everyone else goes, because everyone else is there. I get that this is true for social networks in general, like messaging platforms, there's a first mover and network effect. However for dating apps specifically, there is not truly a network effect, all you need to find is one person, and for monogamous relationships (which incidentally are more…

> for monogamous relationships (which incidentally are more common among heterosexual couples, whereas Tinder and its descendants, coming from grindr heritage, tend against) Describing everyone who isn't straight as "tending against monogamy" is bigotry. I'm aware that there's a 0.1% PP difference or whatever -- still absurd.

There's no suggestion of that in the quotation. The author is suggesting that Tinder was designed as a straight hookup app inspired by grindr, the gay hookup app. This is not really true in the specific but certainly isn't implying non-straights are "tending against monogamy".

There isn't an offensive imputation contained in being called non-monogamous anyway, unless you in turn have a prejudice against polyamory etc.

Re: Ask HN: Why don't we bring back old school OkCupid?

#59
post #22

Nothing, just The Match Group buying everything as soon as it becomes popular and incentivizing keeping people using the apps over successful long-term matches.

That's begging the question! If The Match Group is a steady supplier of startup exits in this space, that should incentivise more people to start. So we should see more people trying to resurrect old school OKCupid, not fewer. Though I suspect the answer isn't that people aren't trying, but that these trials don't succeed enough for OP to notice.

Every site requires enough people using it to make it worthwhile. This is especially hard outside of major cities. The more apps there are, the smaller the pool in each one. This is a problem for having too many app, and also a problem for the early days with any new app.

For users, these apps exiting by selling to Match is a bad thing. I’d want an app with a very stubborn founder who hates The Match Group and wants to take them down by making a better product. Anyone starting with an exit in mind has already failed in my book.

Re: Ask HN: Why don't we bring back old school OkCupid?

#60
The people who can innovate in this space either don't have the mental and/or capital bandwidth to do so, or don't want to deal with the absolutely massive amount of moderation that it would require.

I met my wife on OkC in 2006, years before the Match acquisition. I have long been furious about what Match did to the site after they bought it in 2011, and have long fantasized about creating something that could return to what it offered. Problem is, I don't think you could do it.

OkCupid in its heyday was a product of the golden age of the web, when social networking was new. It thrived because it predated doom scrolling, so taking quizzes and answering surveys was still a fun way to use the web. Now we're in a post-twitter landscape, where dopamine comes from a flick of a finger.

OkC's forums were one of the first mainstream online spaces for conversations about sexuality and non-monogamy. That role has now been subsumed by subreddits and facebook groups.

When OkC was independent, the majority of moderation involved keeping things pg-13 and enforcing the terms of use. You could crowd-source it all right within the site itself. Today you have AI agent swarms bombarding any site with a userbase, just hoping to get eyeballs. You have age verification laws, payment gateways that will stop processing if they get even a whiff that sex workers might be using your site to advertise, and bigots who will DDOS you if you dare to cater to the needs of minorities.

And all that to wade into a battle with a billion dollar juggernaut.

Post reply on HN