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

331–340 of 495 posts

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#331

Post by zasdffaa »

Justsignedup wrote: post #79
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…

Spoke to the OKC co-founder when he was working out of a co-working location making fun side project, he said that even they thought this was a bit too pretentious and very correlation vs causality issues.

I read that as "carnality issues".

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#332

Post by dheera »

IX-103 wrote: post #280
dheera wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, I wouldn't mind paying $10K for finding someone who actually becomes my life partner, let's say due upon 2 years of stable marriage. In such a system, user incentives would be fully aligned with the business. However -- this would be hard to enforce.

I was thinking the money could be held in escrow. You could only get your money back if you end up marrying someone you didn't meet on the service.

Not sure I like that idea. What if I never marry because I don't meet someone {compatible, available, interested}?

Maybe if I can delete my account from the platform at any time (even without marrying anyone) and get my money back I'd be OK with it. Ideally, the money in escrow should also earn interest or have the option to invest it in some generic index fund.

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#334

Post by londons_explore »

karpierz wrote: post #154
londons_explore wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 model ignores a key incentive: dating apps that don't successfully match won't be used. So at best, the developer is incentivized to have the user find someone to date in the short term and have the relationship fail in a manner that doesn't reflect poorly on the dating site. And it's not really feasible for the dating site distinguish between "will successfully date for a few months" and "will successfully date…

> it's not really feasible for the dating site distinguish between "will successfully date for a few months" and "will successfully date for a lifetime".

I think it is feasible for a dating site to figure that out, given enough data.

And I think the 'few months' figure is probably too high - they want to match people who will go on a few dates or a one night stand, then return to the app.

It's a pretty damn strong signal when a user matches with someone, exchanges phone numbers, then deactivates their account. The ML algorithms will be trained to do everything possible to avoid that outcome.

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#335

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

INTPenis wrote: post #114
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'…

Well how about we start a non-profit dating app? I was just wondering how much it could cost to run the backend with todays cloud services. With what Tinder is charging for boosts and subscriptions I feel like they're raking it in. But I've never developed and deployed a fully cloud based app, just used a bunch of their services off and on.

I've actually detailed an idea like this a year ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27474424

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#336

Post by [deleted] »

nerdponx wrote: post #200
mikepurvis wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 se…

[deleted]

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#337

Post by sbf501 »

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.

Ah, good point. Didn't know that. The second paragraph still holds tho: mixing two arguments.

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#338

Post by UI_at_80x24 »

To add my own personal experience (and to echo the headline),

I met my wife while using PlentyOfFish. We have been married for 12+ years. I would never pay for a dating app/site.

If you can't find somebody on the free sites, join a forum where you might find somebody with similar interests/hobbies/skills. Be a kind, polite person and once you have developed a friendship, then see if it can expand into more.

Most of these other apps are more geared to hook-ups, (hump-and-dump); and not towards long-term relationships anyway.

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#339

Post by tzs »

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 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?

California kind of accidentally did so a few years. They thought they were simply running a public sex offender registry, but it occurred to some sex offenders it was also a state run directory of people that would be less likely to be put off by their own record and might even have at least one important shared interest to bond over.

The state was not pleased with this.

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#340

Post by tkk23 »

karpierz wrote: post #154
londons_explore wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 model ignores a key incentive: dating apps that don't successfully match won't be used. So at best, the developer is incentivized to have the user find someone to date in the short term and have the relationship fail in a manner that doesn't reflect poorly on the dating site. And it's not really feasible for the dating site distinguish between "will successfully date for a few months" and "will successfully date…

Have you considered the network effect? Users can't switch if there is no competitor with possible matches.
Post reply on HN