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

231–240 of 495 posts

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#231

Post by kikokikokiko »

Arkhaine_kupo wrote: post #183
kikokikokiko wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"presenting some silly fun data analysis as "science"" Their silly data analysis had a sample that was probably orders of magnitude larger than any cohort an university paper could dream of getting their hands on, but yeah, it was just a silly fun data analysis.

> Their silly data analysis had a sample that was probably orders of magnitude larger than any cohort an university paper could dream of getting their hands on and yet their sample was incredibly biased despite it being large. A big set of data still churns out bad results. Most of their blog posts did not show the data, how they normalised it, percentage of each group. They just run regression on it and anything wit…

So, after sampling the interactions of 1.51 million people, and analysing the amount of messages an average tall woman receives compared to an average short woman, the conclusion that "taller women, on average, are less attractive to the average male than short women" is invalid?

Please, tell me how this is absurd, when it's basically what you see in real life. Or that men that make more money are more attractive to women, on average? This delusion of denying facts when it does not conform to your own sense of what is "fair" is just childish.

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#232

Post by jjulius »

>As a founder of OkCupid I'm of course motivated to point out our competitors' flaws. So take what I have to say today with a grain of salt.

I really appreciate this kind of self-awareness, and find it incredibly lacking from a lot of things that founders, CEOs, et. al. post, whether it's on a blog, an HN comment or on Twitter.

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#233

Post by sam0x17 »

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…

> People who describe themselves as bisexual overwhelmingly message either one sex or the other, not both as you might expect.

I don't think you can draw the conclusions from this people seem to be. Think about it. If you are genuinely attracted to both genders, then you can choose. If you're pursuing a goal (like a relationship) you're going to have some ideal you're going after, so you're probably going to pick a gender to look for for any particular period of time. I think it would be actually very uncommon to actively seek both at the same time, especially since there are cultural/societal considerations tied up with this. If you genuinely like both deciding to pursue a particular gender doesn't invalidate the fact that you could just as genuinely pursue the other. Society dictates that pursing one or the other are of varying difficulty, but this has nothing to do with the legitimacy of how you feel about the other. Bi-sexual people I've known follow this pattern -- they'll pursue one gender for 6 months to the year, and then re-bound with the other, then maybe stick with that one for a while, rinse and repeat. Since most people only use dating services for a short while, this would probably look as described above in aggregate.

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#234

Post by VBprogrammer »

PoignardAzur wrote: post #109
VBprogrammer wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if there is an alternative business model which would put users and the business on the same side. Could you put a lien against someone's marriage, such that in order to marry someone you meet on HappyDating.com you had to pay the outstanding debt? Anything less extreme?

For short-term incentives, you could have some kind of scheme where you monetize dates. Eg when you match someone the app proposes you a list of partner bars, restaurants, parks, etc. In theory, this could create a perverse incentive for the app to set you up for matches that last just long enough for a few dates, but not long enough that you get off the app. In practice, I don't think matching algorithms are precise…

Good idea! I'm not entirely sure it helps though. You still need to keep people on the dating treadmill to make money, not get them off and onto the remainder of their shared life experience as quickly as possible.

Unless you interject before people get a chance to talk to each other. You might even be able to spin this as a safety feature, you matched with this person - Click here to join our dating even next Tuesday that they are going to...

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#235

Post by jules »

Arkhaine_kupo wrote: post #183
kikokikokiko wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"presenting some silly fun data analysis as "science"" Their silly data analysis had a sample that was probably orders of magnitude larger than any cohort an university paper could dream of getting their hands on, but yeah, it was just a silly fun data analysis.

> Their silly data analysis had a sample that was probably orders of magnitude larger than any cohort an university paper could dream of getting their hands on and yet their sample was incredibly biased despite it being large. A big set of data still churns out bad results. Most of their blog posts did not show the data, how they normalised it, percentage of each group. They just run regression on it and anything wit…

> They just run regression on it and anything with pHow do you think science operates in actual practice? OkCupid at least has a sample large enough that you can commit all sorts of statistical sins and still produce halfway decent conclusions, unlike your run-off-the-mill n=10 study.

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#236

Post by silverwasthere »

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 use straight dominated apps for straight dating and gay dominated apps for gay dating so my usage would basically agree with their majority statistic.

It's how I use the tools not who I am, though.

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#237

Post by throwaway289943 »

Arkhaine_kupo wrote: post #227
houstonn wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hypergamy is nonsense? I think you're confusing an opinion or desired reality with data and observed reality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypergamy

Why link a page and not read it? In the "Mating preferences" blurb they discuss hypergamy as being reduced as gender equality reduces and even worse links to a study called "The end of hypergamy" where they discuss men stop dating down once women achieve educational parity. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5421994/ So yeah, if you come from a poor, unequal country women wanna marry and old rich university…

No post body was provided.

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#238

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

blfr wrote: post #189
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…

I've made a similar comment before[1] but this is exactly right. The price-to-benefit ratio for Tinder is incredible. You can literally fill your calendar with dates for months on a budget that would last a couple of decent drinks. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30485955

Only if you've hit the genetic jackpot.

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#239

Post by LambdaComplex »

antiterra wrote: post #111
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'm all for a lot of state-sponsored things, but a government run dating site sounds like one of the most dystopian ideas I can imagine. Blaming online dating sites for mental health problems and mass shooting is a new one. I don't discount the feeling of despair that can occur on dating sites for men. However, the experience of a being woman on a dating app is absolutely harrowing, even if you have incredibly low st…

Current dating apps are designed to make money for their creators. A dating app made by the government could be made with completely different incentives in mind.

To put it differently, I'm reading your argument as equivalent to saying that the existence of the USPS (which will deliver to remote rural areas, despite the fact that doing so isn't profitable) is more dystopian than the existence of UPS and FedEx (which will not).

Post reply on HN