171–180 of 508 posts
I think it's a fatal flaw in the dating site business model, to be honest. Their incentive is for you to stay on the site for as long as possible. If you could find a relationship quickly and then they would leave the site quickly. This would reduce the amount of ad and subscription revenue, in addition to reducing the size of the pool of "potential matches", discouraging those who have more trouble finding someone.
It would be nice to have a dating site where potential matches were verified, including height, weight, and photo. Perhaps have them visit a kiosk in a participating business to get a photo taken from a standard angle (no "myspace" angles) along with a verified height and weight (stand on a scale!)
I am happily married now (met my wife through a mutual friend, the old fashioned way) so my experience of online dating may be obsolete but women on dating sites tend to be very specific about their partner’s height. And income, and what car he drives and a big shopping list of mainly physical and materialistic traits. If you could verify all of that you might be onto a viable business.
How you attract the men to your platform is up to you...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is not part of any standard. + is a valid email address character and is not special in any way.
It's specified in RFC5233 [0], by "standard" I meant codified in RFC form, like everything else we treat as open internet "standards". [0] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5233
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would be nice to have a dating site where potential matches were verified, including height, weight, and photo. Perhaps have them visit a kiosk in a participating business to get a photo taken from a standard angle (no "myspace" angles) along with a verified height and weight (stand on a scale!)
Is people misrepresenting themselves something you encounter frequently? Seems like a short sighted move.
I think it's a fatal flaw in the dating site business model, to be honest. Their incentive is for you to stay on the site for as long as possible. If you could find a relationship quickly and then they would leave the site quickly. This would reduce the amount of ad and subscription revenue, in addition to reducing the size of the pool of "potential matches", discouraging those who have more trouble finding someone.
Okcuipd (and Sparknotes!) co-founder Christian Rudder wrote an article entitled "Why You Should Never Pay For Online Dating" saying exactly that. When Match Group acquired them, they took it down. I found a mirror, though. https://web.archive.org/web/20190429100515/https://static.iz...
One trick I think that was missed though? :
> eHarmony seems to do quite a bit better than Match, claiming in their ads to marry off 236 people a day
That doesn't mean those people marry people they meet through eHarmony, nor that they people used eHarmony at the time they found their maate etc?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A bit presumptuous to assume the OP is a gay male, no?
how does giving an anecdote about a dating app experience presume anything about the OP?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would be nice to have a dating site where potential matches were verified, including height, weight, and photo. Perhaps have them visit a kiosk in a participating business to get a photo taken from a standard angle (no "myspace" angles) along with a verified height and weight (stand on a scale!)
People wanting to flatter themselves? The nerve. Get off your high horse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is not part of any standard. + is a valid email address character and is not special in any way.
It's specified in RFC5233 [0], by "standard" I meant codified in RFC form, like everything else we treat as open internet "standards". [0] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5233
This rfc merely acknowledges that some systems do this. It doesn't say the must or even should.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see you're getting downvoted, which is funny because I've proposed the same idea on HN a few times and a lot of people thought it was a good idea. Maybe the weight thing isn't necessary with everything else in play, but otherwise I think this is something that should be tried. Yet nobody has bitten. Perhaps that means it's either not viable or of interest to investors.
Perhaps the concept of outsourcing the vetting of potential mates' physical characteristics strikes folks as disturbing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The goal of any consultancy should be to get your clients to the point where they no longer need you.
[Cough] Gov't consulting companies would like a word.
Also there's a difference between specialist consultancies and contract labour hire. I'd say most government contractors fall into the latter camp.