Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The dating app paradox

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 570 posts

Re: The dating app paradox

#311

Post by throwaway2037 »

phlipski wrote: post #179
ben7799 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You want to look for some kind of social hobby that naturally attracts a wide range of people, both men and women, is in person, and makes you happy regardless of whether you're actually meeting people. Certain sports qualify. Volunteer groups can qualify. Some hobbies work. For sports today the rock climbing community is very inclusive and the sport naturally causes people to get to know each other since you can't c…

Married with 3 kids here. If was single today I'd be at the local rock gyms 24/7. I took my kids climbing a few weeks ago and I couldn't believe how many women were in that place. Roughly a 50/50 male/female ratio, and everyone is super fit. Yoga pants - chefs kiss . Easy to strike up conversations too when looking for help with a problem...

Why is this downvoted? It looks legit to me.

Re: The dating app paradox

#312

Post by ed_balls »

sweetro17 wrote: post #248

Former dating app founder here - lots of thoughts on the space - feel free to AMA High level though, there's a lot of human behavior which makes dating frustrating with or without apps. At it's core, even in the best case, dating has A LOT of rejection. Dating apps introduce more opportunity for incremental validation (you got liked!) but also incremental rejection (you got ghosted!) and the sheer number of interacti…

Is there a good analysis on what are the strongest predictors a good long term relationship?

I've broke up with my ex a few months ago. She was an MD. Now a lot of my matches on Tinder are medical workers (over 30%) and I'm baffled why.

tin_foil_hat_mode: He spoke with X last, recommend similar matches, he will come back, we will have recurring revenue.

Re: The dating app paradox

#313

Post by qazxcvbnmlp »

Sohcahtoa82 wrote: post #261
Rebelgecko wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I had a dollar for every "green bubble" comment I got when I started texting someone from a dating app, I'd almost be able to to buy an iPhone

On the plus side, someone seriously thinking having an Android is a red flag is a red flag on its own. If I started talking to someone and they said "Ew, you're on an Android?", I'd be like "Oh, you're like that. Nevermind then. Good bye!"

Its more of a test than a judgement.

How does this person own one of their choices vs automatic red flag.

“Ew you’re on an android” “Yeah, I like it” “Well how am I supposed to text you” “Idk guess we’ll have to spend time together in person”

Re: The dating app paradox

#314

Post by throwaway2037 »

solatic wrote: post #47

It's only a paradox until you realize that dating apps would shoot themselves in the foot with such a user-hostile model, trashing their brand. Hanlon's Razor directs us to the simpler explanation, which is that 90% of people on dating markets stay on dating markets; for which there are many, many highly personalized reasons. No dating app can fix its users' mindsets. There are three rules on dating apps, and they ha…

> inject humor

Is that advice for men? I hope so. In my experience, women don't need to be funny to be successful on dating apps.

Re: The dating app paradox

#315

Post by sweetro17 »

jimkleiber wrote: post #302
sweetro17 wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great qs - As for why apps don't show profiles more randomly - I think because the space is so competitive, perceived quality is so important and frankly its "easy" for apps to leverage who they show to who and when in order to make users most likely to keep swiping and/or upgrade. I do think apps generally want you to find a partner, but are generally okay with making the experience valuable to them (even if that me…

I'm curious to your thoughts: what do you think about a nonprofit dating app? Do you think they may shift the balance of your quote from above? > I do think apps generally want you to find a partner, but are generally okay with making the experience valuable to them (even if that means gamifying and playing with who gets to see who and when) along the way.

I could see it for sure - it'd at least be worth experimenting with. Beyond the functionality itself, I'd be most curious about how the idea that its a non-profit influences perception of the app and the people using the app. Profit or non-profit, it'd be nice to see apps talk more openly about how they approach matching - I think Coffee Meets Bagel did this a while back.

Re: The dating app paradox

#316

Post by throwaway2037 »

015a wrote: post #131
solatic wrote: post #47

It's only a paradox until you realize that dating apps would shoot themselves in the foot with such a user-hostile model, trashing their brand. Hanlon's Razor directs us to the simpler explanation, which is that 90% of people on dating markets stay on dating markets; for which there are many, many highly personalized reasons. No dating app can fix its users' mindsets. There are three rules on dating apps, and they ha…

I really like this take, and I think it becomes extremely self-evident once you think about it for a bit, and talk with people who use dating apps IRL. "Dating apps are incentivized to keep people going on mediocre first dates" is such a tired take that would require such incredible sophistication and secrecy to pull off, "we can't make the matches too shitty, but we also can't make them too good, damn it Jim that ma…

The people using dating apps are blind to the effects of "paradox of choice" on themselves.

Re: The dating app paradox

#317

Post by throwaway2037 »

blendo wrote: post #62

For a straight male, you’ll see a surprisingly large number of fake profiles. Anecdotally, women seem to report this too. (Reddit has MANY such posts!) So identity verification is a real problem. As an iPhone user, I’d seriously consider using a dating app that ONLY allowed you to “Sign in with Apple”, in the belief that it’s the “best” way to ensure a real human is behind the sign-in, more-so than email/pwd, or even…

Where I live, for at least one dating app, you need to take a photograph next while holding your passport. I'm sure that a human verifies it.

Re: The dating app paradox

#318

Post by carabiner »

sweetro17 wrote: post #282
carabiner wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about throwing out the whole swipe-app paradigm with the matches and algo-stack and going back to okcupid style profiles that you can browse? Anyone can message anyone. It was the best dating site by far.

OkCupid actually wrote an article about this that's pretty interesting - https://theblog.okcupid.com/why-okcupid-is-changing-how-you-... tl;dr tons of spam / offensive messages. I actually think that with advances in NLP and content moderation since then, you could re-introduce a paradigm like this with potentially less spam.

Ok, that explains requiring a match before messaging. But the swiping and algo-determined stack? That seems purely intended to make it more like a gambling app.

Re: The dating app paradox

#319

Post by graeme »

ed_balls wrote: post #312
sweetro17 wrote: post #248

Former dating app founder here - lots of thoughts on the space - feel free to AMA High level though, there's a lot of human behavior which makes dating frustrating with or without apps. At it's core, even in the best case, dating has A LOT of rejection. Dating apps introduce more opportunity for incremental validation (you got liked!) but also incremental rejection (you got ghosted!) and the sheer number of interacti…

Is there a good analysis on what are the strongest predictors a good long term relationship? I've broke up with my ex a few months ago. She was an MD. Now a lot of my matches on Tinder are medical workers (over 30%) and I'm baffled why. tin_foil_hat_mode: He spoke with X last, recommend similar matches, he will come back, we will have recurring revenue.

The likeliest explanation is something on your profile makes MDs interested. For example a professional photo or something in your bio.

Dating profiles have a limited set of info. Tiny tweaks can generate massive filter effects.

Re: The dating app paradox

#320

Post by ajsnigrutin »

Exoristos wrote: post #115
not2b wrote: post #103

The fact that one company repeatedly bought out its competition and now owns, according the the article, 45 dating apps probably has a lot to do with why they suck. Instead of competing by trying to be better, just buy out the rivals, gut them, and make everything worse. As long as the dominant player has lots of capital to buy any upstarts and the regulatory environment lets them do it, it can be an easier way to ma…

As well as regulating them, Western governments might want to actually fund high-quality, not-for-profit dating systems of some kind. Improved health for citizens, lessened extremism, not to mention possibly boosted population growth could result.

> possibly boosted population growth

Without a financial stability and solved housing, this will be a hard one... hard to have a kid, if you have 4 roommates in your 30s. Let's not forget all the devaluing of trades and other non-college professions (where you start work at ~18, and start having kids at 20) in favour of colleges (in case of USA, with loans), slow rising careers and even if you manage to get a big enough house/apartment to put a kid in, you're 30+ by then, and having multiple kids is a lot harder.

Post reply on HN