Never pay for online dating (2010) • Hacker News Board

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#191

Post by throwaway289943 » Tue, Oct 11, 2022, 4:12 PM UTC

louissan wrote: post #180

welshwelsh wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, I am ok with this system. Paying a couple dollars for a matchmaking service isn't a big deal. If you go to bars instead you will pay way more. An introduction to a potential partner is worth at least $50 in my opinion, if anything Tinder is too cheap. There are too many guys on tinder and most of them are not serious, mindlessly swiping as a way of wasting time. If you filter out the free users and only mat…

Well I'd rather go to a bar/pub anyway. Social, human beings, brawling to order a beer at the zinc, contact and all that? Not to mention you at least get the tipsiness/(more: drunk) if/when all else fails... 8>

Same here, I can look at, meet, and chat with 5-10 girls in one evening in a bar, and get a pretty good impression of them. Takes months to do the same on a dating app, with heaps of added toxic behaviour/people that you don't get in a bar. Gave it up a long time ago..

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#192

Post by ratww » Tue, Oct 11, 2022, 4:12 PM UTC

brightball wrote: post #88

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'…

Why would this need to be government run?

Businesses want to make money, and dating apps can make heaps of money by retaining users and making it pricier for them to find a relationships.

Users that want relationships want to find someone ASAP and delete the app.

Those two goals are completely incompatible.

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#193

Post by crazygringo » Tue, Oct 11, 2022, 4:12 PM UTC

londons_explore wrote: post #53

idealmedtech wrote: post #15

The problem really happens when you do algorithmic price setting, which incentivizes you as the developer to get people addicted to the experience of swiping, regardless of whether or not the swiping has the desired outcome for the end user. A user base with just the right levels of dopamine from interactions and loneliness will probably end up buying one of the weekly promotional deals. That's why when you first sta…

The problem is worse than that... The app/site developers interests are directly opposing the users interests. The user (perhaps) wants to find a lifelong partner, and never use dating apps again. The site developer wants users to never find a lifelong partner, and to spend months/years returning to the app to find new candidates. In my experience, the developer usually wins - some users on dating sites have been the…

This isn't really the case though.

If an app isn't getting you decent dates every so often, you'll move to an app that does. And it's pretty clear within a couple of months if an app is working for you or not.

And then once you're in a relationship, the app has zero control over whether it succeeds or not!

So no, dating apps aren't working against your romantic interests, simply because a) there's too much competition and b) they're not even smart enough to identify your true love and then hide him/her from you.

They are trying to make a buck off of you though. Which they should, since they're a business.

But so no, the developer doesn't "usually" win. I have lots of friends who got married from an online date. The people you know who are still on the apps after a decade -- well it's not like they've settled down with anyone they met in real life either. It's probably not the apps' fault.

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#194

Post by noasaservice » Tue, Oct 11, 2022, 4:13 PM UTC

busterarm wrote: post #164

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…

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

It wasn't by those names, sure.

But the "Forever alone" meme definitely was. https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/forever-alone

And the citation date: 2010.

Or better yet, https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/cultures/involuntary-celibacy... cites that:

"On August 12th, 2005, the American television network G4TV released a satirical commercial for the online role-playing game World of Warcraft in which a woman introduces the game to her boyfriend in order to prevent him from pressuring her to have sex."

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#195

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Oct 11, 2022, 4:13 PM UTC

4gotunameagain wrote: post #84

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'…

Have you seen the state of governments ? They are so incompetent that famine/frost/nuclear apocalypse are serious possibilities..

[deleted]

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#196

Post by blfr » Tue, Oct 11, 2022, 4:13 PM UTC

Cloudef wrote: post #142

mikepurvis wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 abso…

Dating apps do not work because you are not actually present. You have the attention of hundreds of people at the same time, so unless you decide to meet up right away, the other party immediately loses interest. Most of the people are just looking for sex or something less serious, and the apps heavily paywall males. They are cancer. Meeting through friends is probably the safest, as that at least gives you some saf…

> unless you decide to meet up right away, the other party immediately loses interest

Well, yeah. You should meet up right away. What else you gonna do? Flirt over text for weeks?

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#197

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Oct 11, 2022, 4:13 PM UTC

bradlys wrote: post #108

sbf501 wrote: post #34

This may have been true 12 years ago, but years later OkCupid added "last active", which was a search criteria to weed out old profiles. At least, was there in 2015 when I met my current partner. The gist of the article seems to be combining two different things: why you should pay for online dating, and false advertising. I don't think the OP joins those arguments very well. Plus, again, this was 12 years ago. I thi…

OKC was bought by Match - they were no longer the same company after being acquired as they were before. All these articles were written before they were acquired.

[deleted]

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#198

Post by houstonn » Tue, Oct 11, 2022, 4:13 PM UTC

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…

Hypergamy is nonsense? I think you're confusing an opinion or desired reality with data and observed reality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypergamy

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#199

Post by _6hmp » Tue, Oct 11, 2022, 4:13 PM UTC

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…

OK this just feels like this topic is an excuse for you to trot out tired tropes about bi people while scare-quoting the word to delegitimize the orientation.

What you're doing is called bi erasure. It happens from straight and gay people. Bi doesn't necessarily mean attraction or experience is exactly equally split. For some people it is, for some people it isn't. Some people may change how they self describe. None of that means people aren't legitimately bi.

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#200

Post by nerdponx » Tue, Oct 11, 2022, 4:14 PM UTC

mikepurvis wrote: post #115

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…

Agreed. It also seems extremely gross that you're initially pushed to buy Tinder Gold, but then only afterward realise there are still features locked behind Tinder Platinum, and even after that you'll probably spend still more buying packs of boosts and super-likes. I know they're far from the only game in town, but this really feels like the behaviour of a monopoly entity that knows it can do basically whatever.

If I were an unethical data scientist working at Tinder, I would actually reserve the best matches until later in the period, after the initial flurry of "visibility" subsides a bit. That way you are less likely to immediately find a good date or two in the first few matches, helping to ensure that you will not just unsubscribe next month, while providing you with enough tantalizing options that you think it makes sense to keep going. "Great matches started coming up, I had better renew so I don't lose out!"

It's like a slot machine that actively adjusts the odds as you play, in order to keep you hooked as long as possible.

I'm pretty solidly mediocre when it comes to "algorithm design" tasks like this one, so I thought of it you can bet for sure that someone at Tinder did too.