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

161–170 of 495 posts

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#161

Post by badwolf »

teeray wrote: post #9

You, as a user of a dating app, are forever in a Nash Equilibrium with the dating app. When you find the love of your life, you delete the app forever. Therefore, everything the app does to help you find that person works directly against their own goals (user growth, “engagement”. subscriptions).

This is why I had high expectations and hopes for Facebook Dating. They "have all the data" - and benefit from you being on the site, whether you get married and stop using dating, or not.

Unfortunately, they made a pretty shitty 'dating' system and left it to rot.

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#162

Post by auveair »

houstonn wrote: post #28
jefftk wrote: post #12

OkCupid was bought by Match Group (who run almost all online dating sites, including Match, eHarmony, and Tinder) in 2011 and took down this post not long after. EDIT: the purchase was Feb 2011 [1] and the post was removed sometime between Jan 2011 [2] and Mar 2011 [3]. The rest of the blog was still up at the time [4]. [1] https://www.npr.org/2011/02/03/133456140/The-Last-Word-In-Bu... [2] https://web.archive.org/we…

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…

The bisexual thing was pretty stupid and pretty revealing how much this blog post was bullshit, there was a bunch of reason why you would pick one gender as a bisexual, especially if online dating was just to meet more of the gender you wanted.

But a bi dude, in 2010 you simply wouldn't get match with women if you write bi and plenty of gay dude would turn you down as well, so you just wouldn't bother and write gay or straight eventually.

Edit: removed today

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#163

Post by sangnoir »

houstonn wrote: post #28
jefftk wrote: post #12

OkCupid was bought by Match Group (who run almost all online dating sites, including Match, eHarmony, and Tinder) in 2011 and took down this post not long after. EDIT: the purchase was Feb 2011 [1] and the post was removed sometime between Jan 2011 [2] and Mar 2011 [3]. The rest of the blog was still up at the time [4]. [1] https://www.npr.org/2011/02/03/133456140/The-Last-Word-In-Bu... [2] https://web.archive.org/we…

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…

> “I’m bisexual.” REALITY: 80% of self-identified bisexuals are only interested in one gender

This isn't the slam dunk it appears to be. A dietary equivalent would be "X% of self-professed omnivores avoid vegetarian dishes". They are open to the idea, but still have preferences. Just because one is open to the superset, doesn't mean they assign each subset equal weight.

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#164

Post by busterarm »

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…

"incel" and "black pill" terminology didn't even exist in 2010.

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#165

Post by afavour »

WalterSear wrote: post #95
afavour wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They've memory-holed (i.e. deleted) their entire old blog, no? It's disappointing but I think it's a stretch to describe that as Orwellian (as the OP did). At some point they just discarded all their old content, it's not that much of a conspiracy.

Old content - that it still being discussed and would still be generating pageviews.

Entirely possible they don't care for the page views. Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending it, I think it's a shame that interesting content like that gets pulled down but it's usually for boring corporate reasons (don't want to maintain the blog any more, they don't benefit from the pageviews) than conspiratorial Orwellian reasons.

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#167

Post by [deleted] »

RajT88 wrote: post #107
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…

I don't see how the bisexual statistic is politically incorrect. It makes sense, considering the self-professed "bisexuals" I've known, which are well known as well in liberal-leaning circles: 1. Young women who pretend to be Bi to get more attention from Men 2. People who pretend to be Bi to avoid having to completely come out of the closet There's actually a saying in the gay community for the latter, "Bi now, gay…

[deleted]

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#168

Post by Arkhaine_kupo »

kikokikokiko wrote: post #153
Arkhaine_kupo wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Far from your Burger King straw men, there's even a very famous study, out of the UK if I'm not mistaken, that confirmed the thesis of black women being the least attractive group across the whole spectrum of major ethnic groups. I mean, there must be one group, out of all, that would score lower than the others ain't there? Reality doesn't have to be politically correct at the end of the day.

Source or it wont be discussed.

But aside from that, and the inherent assumption that beauty standards are universal and biological which is a pretty big assumption.

A slight societal preference does not lead to the conclusions people drew from the article.

To give an example, taller men have a higher chance of being promoted. Fortune 500 CEOs are disproportionately tall compared to the general population. As a society we still promote meritocracy, and working hard. Not telling people who are 5'4 to just give up and be unemployed cause they will never be the CEO of Ford Motor company.

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#169

Post by inglor_cz »

nemo1618 wrote: post #140
barbariangrunge wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can’t wait to see all our old private messages get leaked by some hack of the parent organization now too. Or for it all to just get sold to advertisers

I wish! After I met my (now-)wife on OkCupid, we deactivated our accounts so that we'd stop getting notifications. A few months later we wanted to revisit our first messages to each other -- only to find that OkC had already deleted them. I was pretty shocked at how eager they were to discard a few KB of potentially priceless ASCII. :(

On the other hand, deleting potentially compromising stuff once it is no longer needed is really good for former clients' privacy. In case of a hack, no one will be able to dig in decades of old erotic penmanship and blackmail people.

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#170

Post by codethief »

chatterhead wrote: post #145

OkCupid was awesome. Can someone please make another one? We need a site dedicated to Test Taking! OkCupid wasn't just about dating; it was about the tests you could create and take. It was awesome. The dating was also based on tests and archetypes OkCupid created and they were pretty good. We need something pure like that from the early 2000s.

Could you elaborate on what OkCupid was like in the early 2000s? I've only known it for a few years.
Post reply on HN