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

421–430 of 495 posts

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#421

Post by briga »

nerdponx wrote: post #204
throwaway289943 wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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..

Maybe I'm just socially inept, but I have never once managed to meet someone at a bar that wasn't already part of some bigger group that I was with. Edit: that's actually untrue, there are exactly 2 instances where it happened in my life. They were in the kinds of bars that I would usually avoid (too many drunk people shouting over loud music), in areas far from where I lived, that had pretty strong "going out" cultu…

Have you tried to meet someone at a bar that wasn’t a part of your group?

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#422

Post by ravenstine »

carabiner wrote: post #209
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…

Match has turned all of its apps into tinder. That is, gambling-like "one more swipe" photo centric dating apps, where the artificial restriction of choice keeps every person starved. Tinder is casual hookups, okcupid is leftist tinder for relationships, Hinge is politically moderate tinder for traditionalists, and so on. Each is a different marketing segment, but the same basic idea that gets men to pay to meet wome…

> okcupid is leftist tinder for relationships

LOL

Some people are going to take this the wrong way, but I've never read a more true statement.

I'm a pretty liberal person (folks think I'm conservative because I think communism stinks), but my experience with OkCupid many years ago was that most of its users were self-proclaimed cultural Marxists or feminists with a bone to pick. My digital head was decapitated several times by women there just for introducing myself to them. I'd even been lectured a handful of times about how I was "misogynist" for the age range I specified on my profile included women 5 years younger than I was, which wasn't even low enough to include women of college age.

The day I saw an advertisement for OkCupid that actually used the initialism "DTF" was when I knew for sure I would never be returning to them ever again. It would surprise me if they still had any meaningful userbase since it was pretty much dead in the LA area the last time I used it.

> but the same basic idea that gets men to pay to meet women.

In which case men should just go to Seeking Arrangement.

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#423

Post by mecha_ghidorah »

kikokikokiko wrote: post #231
Arkhaine_kupo wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> the conclusion that "taller women, on average, are less attractive to the average male than short women" is invalid

I'd say it's premature given that a lot of women don't want to date men shorter than them, so I can see men messaging them less just because they'd assume they were wasting their time.

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#424

Post by phpthrowaway99 »

danjoredd wrote: post #327
phpthrowaway99 wrote: post #178

I once googled the screen name of a Plenty of Fish date I had setup. Exact match comes up on a 'weird' forum, with city and state matching in the info under the username. One fake account later (required to view attachments), I saw pictures of her dog doing her in... Uh... various ways. I stopped online dating for like 5 years after that.

That's a nightmare. She should be sent to prison for that, tbh. Not nearly as extreme, but last time I tried Online dating I messaged someone and found out she was only looking for someone to get her pregnant and be a father. Straight up, first thing, not interested in a first date unless I was interested in getting her pregnant. I'm Christian so sex outside of marriage is a huge no-no for me anyway, so unmatching wa…

Be VERY glad she was upfront about it. That is a decently common tactic for women over 25.

My last relationship was practically begging to get her pregnant from the first 6 months. Eventually it didn't work out after 2 years.

Next guy met her, and got her pregnant within 2-3 months. Married 3 months later. He's set to inherit an 800 acre ranch on the coast of California very soon. He has no idea who he just married. The girl was a nightmare. I'm 38 and have serially dated for 20+ years, and I've never met a girl so mean and cold and unpleasant. I'm not sure if he's seen that side yet, and he's about to be a dad next month.

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#425

Post by maerF0x0 »

My fair warning / PSA is[1] never pay for "roses" (super likes, other premium ways of indicating you like them "more"). They don't work. And the worst of it as an antipattern they essentially work against you (because the app lets the recipient know they received a rose).

Here's why -- On average, matches are essentially trying to maximize the ELO score they match with, someone with a maximized score across many variables like social aptitude, wealth, future prospects, looks, (and many other attributes). Now, obviously people have their own weighing function for each aspect but some of them are simply universally valued -- for example healthy is near-universally preferred to someone who is critically ill. So What do you indicate to a match that you most likely _needed_ to use a rose to attempt to match with them ? You reveal that the app generated Elo score is actually too low to be presented them in normal swipes. (Especially in hinge which has a weekly rotation of people you cannot swipe/match with except if you rose, perhaps in other apps but I'm less well versed in their mechanics).

[1]: at least as a man, idk if a woman would ever send a rose to a man, and if they'd work even if they did. Women will get a match >50% of the time w/o a rose, so why pay?

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#426

Post by jrnichols »

ChickeNES wrote: post #380
auveair wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bisexual thing was pretty stupid and pretty revealing how much this blog post was bullshit, there was a bunch of reason why you would pick one gender as a bisexual, especially if online dating was just to meet more of the gender you wanted. But a bi dude, in 2010 you simply wouldn't get match with women if you write bi and plenty of gay dude would turn you down as well, so you just wouldn't bother and write gay o…

I clearly remember seeing women's profiles on both okc and Tinder that outright stated that they were not interested in bi men, but it's become rarer and rarer as time passes

Depends on where you are. I'm still finding a lot of blatant hatred and bigotry from women against bisexual guys.

the gay guys have been fine. but over the years, the most hateful, vile comments have come from women.

I dont't think that it's becoming more rare, but the hateful ones are quieter about it. as son as you bring it up in a private conversation, they unleash on you and block you.

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#427

Post by sneak »

skyyler wrote: post #311
auveair wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Most (75%+) men on most dating sites only complete the first two items on your “simple” list.

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#428

Post by maerF0x0 »

VBprogrammer wrote: post #234
PoignardAzur wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Tuesda…

> You still need to keep people on the dating treadmill to make money,

If that's truly the attitude of apps (albeit a disgusting one), they could simply take the view that there's always a "new crop" of money being born each day and will be ready for their churn in 18 or so yrs.

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#429

Post by sneak »

barbariangrunge wrote: post #76
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…

Can’t wait to see all our old private messages get leaked by some hack of the parent organization now too. Or for it all to just get sold to advertisers

Match lets third parties access the extremely personal/private matching question answers from OKCupid.

Presumably this means advertisers.

I used OKC for years until the founders sold it (and my private data) to this shady company, then I was forced to delete.

Acquisitions are worse than breaches for end user privacy. GitHub sold your whole travel history (via client IP geolocation) to Microsoft.

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#430

Post by jrnichols »

welshwelsh wrote: post #131
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…

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…

unfortunately Tinder has become a lot less useful, and a rising number of OnlyFans creators are using it as a vehicle for advertising. They'll match with a guy, chat like normal, and then start dropping hints about their "spicy site."

it's really kind of depressing, honestly. Guys on dating sites are viewed as transactions. Tinder isn't alone with this - they're on multiple sites doing the same thing.

Post reply on HN