111–120 of 258 posts
Funny story, though: everyone above the fold (eight women) is someone I've either dated or wanted to. The first one? My best friend.
I am lucky my screen isn't any bigger though, because the next person on the list is my sister.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Women will still be over messaged and men are still under messaged. People still ignore profiles in favor of photos - what does this change? Aren't you more interested in reading what somebody's friend has to say about them rather than what they're saying about themselves? Also, we have Facebook accounts (100+ friends required to join) which are not easy to replicate and we can rate limit. On OkCupid, the worst that…
The facebook reputation barrier is a good idea - should set a bar for the low end of quality. I see your point about the reciprocity, makes sense and I wouldn't worry about the stigma - if your site catches on the stigma will just die faster. I'm not sure I'd be more receptive to what a friend has to say about someone, but that's generally because what anyone says doesn't matter when the sent/received message ratio i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So...90% of people, give or take, are straight. Online dating is a clusterfuck of failure for straight people (ask anyone who's tried it, or the OP.) Online dating mostly works for gays and lesbians (you say so, I've seen the same from others.) And this guy is an idiot for trying to cater to the straight dating market? Precisely why?
> So...90% of people, give or take, are straight. And a lot of those straight people may one day get involved with, have been involved with or may find themselves interested in someone who isn't straight. Many of whom are bi (or queer or whatever label) and most of whom do very very much care about being on a site that doesn't just serve straight people since they're open to dating both straight and non-straight folk…
Of course it isn't perfect for all of them, but it's a much less dysfunctional market than the straight one. Which means there's less of a business model in catering to gays and lesbians there (doubly true given that they're rare.)
And yes, in theory, straight people can date bi people, but again, by not perfectly serving that bi market you cut off a tiny fraction of your clientele. Screw up the straight market and your site is doomed. Which should he focus on?
> What I did say was that the way the site felt it felt like it was designed with a pretty narrow frame of how dating worked
Yes, that's called "targeting a particular market."
It was creepy the moment it wanted to authorize so much information from Facebook. Got creepier the moment the site asked me to start involving my friends without me knowing whether or not they wanted to be involved. Got super frustrating that my ability to even see how this site worked required me to drag my friends into this mess without their consent. And from what I can see, there's no way for me to specify which…
One thing I notice on Eharmony's website is that they have a different Eharmony site for blacks, asians, latinos, homosexuals, seniors, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems like a good possible solution for some people and it has a natural virility to it that shouldn't be underestimated. (Once your friends do it for you, they tell their other friends they did it for you and it should grow). I get that you are not straight and feel like services should always consider you, but less than 20%, (and by most estimates 10%) of the population is not straight. Spending 90% of your time…
I'm pretty sure if you don't think the word creepy has meaning attached to it and don't understand how it's applied, you're very unlikely to be able to build or design a dating site that people (particularly women) are going to find comfortable and will want to use, straight or otherwise.
Now, I understand it causes you fear or unease, probably more unease than fear, but just because it causes you those feelings does not mean it causes others to have those feelings.
If this guy has success getting 7,000 people using the site, and only 1,000 of them are actually using it, he is doing a lot right.
If the site had a stellar brand and it was really clear what it was doing, your creep factor would probably lower significantly.
IMO, he should ignore your opinion and keep building. It looks like he is on to something to me.
Maybe it's my social circle (busy pushing-30 professionals) but I think there is almost zero stigma among my friends over online dating. In fact, less so among women than among men. Men for some reason feel they have to play the bar scene even if they don't like it or aren't good at it, but women feel no such need. Indeed, for a lot of my women friends, online dating offers the very real advantage that it's socially…
From your past posts it looks like you're NYC-based. NYC is by far (IMO) the best place to set up an online dating shop, since this city is by a very long shot the most accepting of online dating in the US.
Disclaimer: I work for a NYC-area online dating shop.
In many other cities, and in many subcultures and scenes, online dating is still very much stigmatized. I can't help but think that author would've gotten a very different perspective if he didn't choose to interview people at a bar in the SF Marina of all places (read: notorious area for meathead jocks and their female counterparts).
I think you're right about a lot of the problems with dating websites - I wrote about this recently too here ( http://www.zacharyalberico.net/blog/dating-websites/ ). I remember checking your site out when you posted it and it's nice to see someone trying something actually new, but I feel like this concept doesn't solve the common problems and adds some new ones. Women will still be over messaged and men are still u…
Why? Because the Greeks have it perfectly. They're basically paying fees for students to put together their social life for them. So actually, I just caught myself here: college students might be a good starting point, but Greeks are the absolute worst starting point. They don't need what we're building. And most college students I think would be reluctant to sign up anyway, they have their classes and student clubs they can join. They have a lot of opportunities.
But the problem becomes very apparent as soon as you move and graduate. You don't know anyone. You can't date people from work because that's shitting where you eat. You avoid talking to girls at the gym for the same reason. You're left with the bar scene, which isn't too bad. It still feels a lot more natural for me to meet someone in a bar than online, even though I've met several girls from OkCupid.
Your point about mutual interest addresses the pain of rejection, and agree with you on that. Let's Date is a great mobile app that addresses this perfectly. I guess Tinder is in the same boat, but neither of those actually worked for me. How many people did you meet from using it? I only met one girl from Let's Date, the rest I assume are fake or ended up deleting the app shortly after downloading it.
How was the checkin experiment you ran?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The facebook reputation barrier is a good idea - should set a bar for the low end of quality. I see your point about the reciprocity, makes sense and I wouldn't worry about the stigma - if your site catches on the stigma will just die faster. I'm not sure I'd be more receptive to what a friend has to say about someone, but that's generally because what anyone says doesn't matter when the sent/received message ratio i…
Is there a way I can e-mail you? Don't see your contact info on your blog or HN profile.
Wait, what? My friends might be setting up a profile for me without even knowing it? I sure hope that's qualified by "if I'm signed up", because otherwise I might need to engage in some rage.