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

311–320 of 495 posts

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#311

Post by skyyler »

auveair wrote: post #286
skyyler wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My lived experience just completely disagrees with what you are saying. Perhaps it's an age difference thing. The gay men have had more of a problem with me than the straight ladies. I gravitate towards bi/pan people anyways due to my androgynous features.

I don't know how old you are, but anyway it seems you are starting with a pretty good crowd, if you're not ugly, androgynous (sought after) and dating in an understanding pool, which is your own orientation. I see where you are coming from but it doesn't seem like it warranted the blanket dismissal you started with. For what it's worth I found a blog post referring to that phenomenon from a few years ago which talks…

I guess I didn't realize how good I have it. Discussions about dating sites have always been confusing to me.

It's simple, you make a profile, talk to people, people talk to you... Why is that so hard?

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#312

Post by skyyler »

Cloudef wrote: post #101
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…

Quoted post unavailable.

I kind of agree with you, but expand "real life" to include "group chats local to your geographic location and/or hobby and/or interests"

Furries have been doing it like this for years and it works very well. I met my wife in a chatroom dedicated to making fun of people that misinterpret Hegel.

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#313

Post by ghusto »

Yoofie wrote: post #97
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 does no government anywhere run a non-profit dating site from tax-payer money Because its outside the scope & role of the government? > I really don't understand how this stuff is still not regulated anywhere This is a common theme I see in alot of discussions about everything. Do not confuse regulation with enforcement. Any regulation that is not enforced is useless, or it is used selectively (a.k.a "corruptio…

> Because its outside the scope & role of the government?

That doesn't align with the fact that there are government funded programmes for things like mental well being, sexual health and education, and even music appreciation.

The government is concerned with whatever the heck we say it is. It's _our_ government.

P.S. No, I don't live in America ;)

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#315

Post by actionablefiber »

lake_vincent wrote: post #303
actionablefiber wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Their motto is that their app is "meant to be deleted." I have seen this on NYC subway adverts, but is there anything substantially different about their app or business model that backs up their motto?

I mean, in a way yes. For example, super easy to delete your account. No dark patterns or hoops to jump through. Also, the profiles themselves are pretty minimal - they are like ads, and are practically disposable as such. Once I got what I came for, I just threw it out.

> Also, the profiles themselves are pretty minimal - they are like ads, and are practically disposable as such.

That sounds pretty counterproductive to me? I feel like many people on Tinder already volunteer way too little information about themselves in their bios. I guess maybe that's OK if you're just swiping based on the person's pics but that seems like a bad strat for finding a partner.

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#316

Post by actionablefiber »

wolpoli wrote: post #314
actionablefiber wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At that point why not just sell lifetime memberships by default?

But then that's not a stable SaaS business.

There's a pretty reliable flow of new people aging into the dating world or entering it for the first time.

In any event, "pay a regular subscription for X years and free thereafter" is just a lifetime subscription paid in installments, not a fundamentally different business model.

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#317

Post by bundze »

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…

There are multiple reasons why someone would prefer to date only one gender while actually bisexual. I know a person who is bisexual and only dates the opposite gender because they don't want to deal with backlash from their conservative family and because they prefer to start a traditional family one day. I do feel like that may be a popular issue so I wouldn't expect that a bisexual person would message both genders equally, like this article absurdly claims.

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#318

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

notch656a wrote: post #247
kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only if you've hit the genetic jackpot.

I've always wondered if online dating selects HARD (relatively to in-person invites) for looks. I don't look very pretty but when I was on the (IRL) dating scene I could get probably half the women I talked to out on a date if I really tried. Being fairly ugly I tried tender and OkCupid for a year or two and was lucky to have someone accept once every few months and I had a 100% no-show rate where the counterparty ba…

For men it selects hard for height. Looks are secondary if you pass the magic threshold.

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#319

Post by edude03 »

mattmaroon wrote: post #308
ketzo wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean -- I've had multiple medium-to-long term, fulfilling relationships that started on dating apps. They do work sometimes. Yeah, it's a shitty environment, and it's very much a numbers game (especially for hetero guys), but again -- you're coming from an extremely judgmental place.

The number of men with the attitude that the problem couldn’t possibly be the way they use the apps is astounding. A female friend of mine took some very expensive online dating class run by a former data scientist from one of these apps and she started her own side business fixing mens profiles. I was very skeptical at first but I have several friends who’ve used her. Each of them went from basically no success at a…

Was it Logan Ury? If so I think that’s part of a much more complicated and nuanced discussion on self worth, self reflection, knowing what you want etc more than anything specific to “apps”

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#320

Post by codethief »

chatterhead wrote: post #215
codethief wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You started off by taking these matching profile tests that grouped you into an archetype based on your responses. The archetype test was also optional it wasn't required to use the site. (Not sure if it was based on orientation but it was certainly gender based.) There were a series of archetypes that were your ideal matches and you could search by peoples archetypes if they shared it. (I believe you could keep it p…

Thanks for the insights!
Post reply on HN