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

Never pay for online dating (2010)

web.archive.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 495 posts

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#121

Post by tiborsaas »

EmilyHughes wrote: post #62

I don't get it. Why does no government anywhere run a non-profit dating site from tax-payer money when this is becoming the most popular way people are meeting? All the options people have are using toxic apps which entire business model is to undermine the self-esteem of young men and scamming them out of their money. And then people wonder where the mental health problems and mass shootings come from. I really don'…

Sharing your desires, sexual preference and all intimate conversions with the government doesn't seem like a good idea.

You could say they can tap into that currently, and that's probably true, but deliberately broadcasting it to them would probably be out of question for many people.

Also, consider what government run IT projects look like. Now mix that with a dating app, perfect recipe for a disaster.

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#122

Post by PoignardAzur »

EmilyHughes wrote: post #62

I don't get it. Why does no government anywhere run a non-profit dating site from tax-payer money when this is becoming the most popular way people are meeting? All the options people have are using toxic apps which entire business model is to undermine the self-esteem of young men and scamming them out of their money. And then people wonder where the mental health problems and mass shootings come from. I really don'…

The Singapore government does some matchmaking: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Development_Network

From what I heard it's mostly speed-dating stuff.

EDIT: Aand I got ninja'ed. Twice.

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#123

Post by somedude895 »

romankolpak wrote: post #82

Related personal anecdote: I am experimenting with Tinder subscription at the moment, and it feels incredibly exploitative. When you make a profile, matches are frequent and you can tell that you show up for people. However it gradually falls down with time, and the only predictable and obvious way to get back up is to pay for Boosts and/or Priority Likes. Right now my 6-month old profile gets ZERO likes outside of t…

Back when I was on Tinder I'd delete my profile and make a new one once every three months or so, seemed to do the trick.

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#124

Post by exhilaration »

EmilyHughes wrote: post #62

I don't get it. Why does no government anywhere run a non-profit dating site from tax-payer money when this is becoming the most popular way people are meeting? All the options people have are using toxic apps which entire business model is to undermine the self-esteem of young men and scamming them out of their money. And then people wonder where the mental health problems and mass shootings come from. I really don'…

I kind of love this idea, take the skills of 18F https://18f.gsa.gov/ and put them into making the ultimate dating site! An awesome application of data science. Let's take it further -- Government-funded matchmakers! They can hire all the Korean and Indian aunties that are already doing this for free.

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#126

Post by mikepurvis »

Cloudef wrote: post #101
romankolpak wrote: post #82

Related personal anecdote: I am experimenting with Tinder subscription at the moment, and it feels incredibly exploitative. When you make a profile, matches are frequent and you can tell that you show up for people. However it gradually falls down with time, and the only predictable and obvious way to get back up is to pay for Boosts and/or Priority Likes. Right now my 6-month old profile gets ZERO likes outside of t…

Quoted post unavailable.

If you've already graduated university, aren't part of a religious community, and don't want to do the bar/club scene, what does that leave? Friends of friends, or family introductions? Activity groups like sports/dance? Your workplace, or the gym? Neighbours?

Most of these are extremely hit and miss, and a lot of people have no interest in being hit on while trying to do their job or work out.

Dating sites/apps absolutely fill a need— you can argue that that need only exists because of systemic issues in how modern society works, but it's possible to tackle that in parallel to adopting a non-judgmental attitude toward those using the best tools available within the system we do currently have.

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#127

Post by newZWhoDis »

Arkhaine_kupo wrote: post #74
houstonn wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More Orwellian still, they edited articles that contained data inconvenient to the politically correct narrative and elite ideology. Edit: Here's an example. “I’m bisexual.” REALITY: 80% of self-identified bisexuals are only interested in one gender. People who describe themselves as bisexual overwhelmingly message either one sex or the other, not both as you might expect. https://web.archive.org/web/20170307114207/h…

Whats inconvinient to the pollitically correct narrative is people with 0 scientific literacy making bold claims about society based on surveys on extremely sampled social studies. Doing a study on how "dateable" black women are based on a specific dating app in 2010 is like making claims on everyones eating habits based on a survey on a Burger king drive through. It will probably not be a very good survey. They also…

Why was OP flagged and mass reported?

You had a sensible reply but now most can’t even see the discussion. Dang really needs to get this place back on track

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#128

Post by ratww »

globular-toast wrote: post #99
Bakary wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AFAIK from past discussions on here, the Hinge model is to make it harder with people with a low Elo on the app, and to provide them with more fine-grained options to pay to boost their chances ("roses" etc.) If you have a higher than average Elo, it will seem like having a free lunch. But that's because it's fueled by someone else's desperation at being caught in low Elo feedback loop early. You then have high Elos…

How do they make it harder for people with low Elo? Surely it being harder for low Elos is the natural way of things? They are just cashing in on the fact that low Elos (which are disproportionately male, of course) will get desperate and more likely to try the "premium" options.

One of the main criticisms I see is that low-Elo people also get show mainly high-Elo people. So there's much less chance for two low-Elo people matching with each other, the algorithm works against it.

Since you have a limited number of "likes" per day, you have to actively "say no" to people that's attractive to you.

Post reply on HN