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

The dating app paradox

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 570 posts

Re: The dating app paradox

#131

Post by 015a »

solatic wrote: post #47

It's only a paradox until you realize that dating apps would shoot themselves in the foot with such a user-hostile model, trashing their brand. Hanlon's Razor directs us to the simpler explanation, which is that 90% of people on dating markets stay on dating markets; for which there are many, many highly personalized reasons. No dating app can fix its users' mindsets. There are three rules on dating apps, and they ha…

I really like this take, and I think it becomes extremely self-evident once you think about it for a bit, and talk with people who use dating apps IRL.

"Dating apps are incentivized to keep people going on mediocre first dates" is such a tired take that would require such incredible sophistication and secrecy to pull off, "we can't make the matches too shitty, but we also can't make them too good, damn it Jim that match was too high quality! now they'll stop paying!" its comic book villain stuff that cannot possibly explain why all of these apps suck.

"For which there are many highly personalized reasons" -> Look, yes people are responsible for their own mindsets. But in the words of a recent tweet (I wish I could cite but I can't find it) concerning learning comprehension tanking in K-12 students: Its Phones! Its just phones. Its obviously phones! You hear this crap like "well, its a highly complicated situation with many variables and possible explanations" Nope! Its literally just phones!

Dating is hard, weird, and scary. Its one of the most vulnerable things humans do. We're putting kids on a dopamine treadmill from childhood, and we're surprised that, at best, we've got cohorts of individuals growing up who love the matching but stop when it gets any more difficult than a swipe?

Re: The dating app paradox

#132

Post by jstarfish »

Exoristos wrote: post #115
not2b wrote: post #103

The fact that one company repeatedly bought out its competition and now owns, according the the article, 45 dating apps probably has a lot to do with why they suck. Instead of competing by trying to be better, just buy out the rivals, gut them, and make everything worse. As long as the dominant player has lots of capital to buy any upstarts and the regulatory environment lets them do it, it can be an easier way to ma…

As well as regulating them, Western governments might want to actually fund high-quality, not-for-profit dating systems of some kind. Improved health for citizens, lessened extremism, not to mention possibly boosted population growth could result.

"Hello Work, for Dating" would likely be a hit in more than just the west.

Recruiters are just matchmakers after all.

Re: The dating app paradox

#133

Post by presentation »

My theory of dating apps is that the hurdles in front of them will largely define your experience with them. For instance Tinder in China is behind the Great Firewall and requires you knowing it exists despite it not being marketed whatsoever there, both of which create a strong selective effect on who is on the app, making it a very different experience than Tinder elsewhere despite the app itself being the same (hint: I had a great experience with it, largely well-educated global-minded people with an anti-authoritarian bent and high motivation to take dates seriously, at least when I was using it many years ago).

In trying to make a dating app “easy” you create a new selective effect for who it will appeal to, which may be (but usually is not) positive.

Re: The dating app paradox

#135

Post by presentation »

janalsncm wrote: post #77

An actually good date is worth potentially hundreds of dollars. I’m surprised there isn’t an app which meets this need. Yes there is “The League” but even that is just a more exclusive Tinder. No, make a matchmaker app for high paying customers that uses human curation. $500 for 3 dates.

Don’t write off the power of making a more exclusive Tinder. I wrote about it in a separate comment [1] but the nature of a dating app will be strongly determined by the barriers to entry in front of it. Just turns out that the barrier to entry that The League introduces is not one that may select for the type of people you are interested in.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39363021

Re: The dating app paradox

#136

Post by bawolff »

It seems like the business model is misaligned.

I wonder if there could be some alternative model that aligns incentives. Maybe something like group-on where they give coupons on things to take your date to, then get kickbacks from that (more dates= more money for them)

Re: The dating app paradox

#137

Post by francisofascii »

Madmallard wrote: post #31

Dating apps for most people seem like a complete waste of time and actually detrimental to your life. There are exceptions, of course, like people much too busy. As a male, it seems guaranteed (probably due to supply vs demand disparity?) that you will only have matches that are significantly less attractive than you. I think most people will consider me average in looks. I don't think I've ever matched with a girl t…

Your points are all valid, but is it really a waste of time and detrimental? If your ultimate goal is to meet someone long term, what is a better use of your time? Even if your chances are slim, and several dates in a row fail, you just need one to succeed.

Re: The dating app paradox

#139

Post by autoexec »

beaeglebeached wrote: post #95
Night_Thastus wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Reproductive baseline value of females is obvious." This has some serious sexism/incel vibes. Visual appearance can be very deceptive. There are plenty of very 'conventionally' attractive people who have less obvious health disorders ranging from infertility to women with high likelyhood of death during birth to mental disorders that would cause problems for raising a child.

Reproduction is sexist. Women bear, and contribute, the lions share of the fetal cost. Not all healthy appearing prime age females can reproduce, obviously. Healthy, young adult, well nourished appearance is still a good indicator towards 9 months of reproductive value.

It's at best an indicator that the woman isn't about to die and could maybe push out a child. Nothing more. That's really not super helpful and I doubt that it's anything remotely close to what most people are thinking about when they swipe and try to get a date with somebody.

Re: The dating app paradox

#140

Post by Spastche »

breather wrote: post #76
Spastche wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OkCupid used to have a bunch of blog posts with numbers about how much a difference a good profile and good pictures make, but I think they took them down when Match bought them out. I haven't been on any dating sites in a few years but the amount of people with garbage profiles and bad pictures (lighting / posture being the biggest and easiest issues to fix) is crazy high.

OkCupid used to be the best because they actually tried to match you up on common interests and relevant dating questions. Last I heard that had been ripped out and it was just another tinder clone emphasizing photos and swiping. Should be a crime to ruin an app that useful.

last time I was on it, the questions had been de-emphasized and it seemed more like a tinder clone. hopefully a better version of it comes along someday, it's a valid idea (matches based on quizzes)
Post reply on HN