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

461–470 of 495 posts

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#461

Post by idealmedtech »

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…

There's certainly no doubt in my mind that they save your "top" match, based on your swipe history and whether or not they've already matched you, to show up right after you use your last free swipe. Wait 12h and hope they show up again? Maybe, or maybe I'll spend the $2 to get that super like. Very scummy.

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#463

Post by Shugarl »

briga wrote: post #421
nerdponx wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I know that works to make friends, when you drunkenly, randomly start to talk to other people, or jump into conversations. But how does it work for meeting the opposite sex ? Being drunk for these kinds of things usually isn't good

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#464

Post by AtlasBarfed »

googlryas wrote: post #117
Yoofie wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 Is it? Governments care very much about what their demographics will be in the future. Governments get involved in trying to modify birth rate. Hooking people up seems like an interesting idea, especially if the government thinks they're going to deal with massively bad demographic shift in the midterm future.

Yeah, tell the government of Japan that they shouldn't have been worried about young people dating for the last three decades.

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#465

Post by parineum »

conductr wrote: post #365
btbuildem wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From an end-user perspective? Desperately so. I think the biggest obstacle to solving the Dating App problem is the onboarding.

I’ve been married since before Tinder so never used it. But I think the “Dating App problem” is something of a head scratcher. The reason the apps all have problems is because Dating is the problem. It’s hard. Always has been. Finding a lifelong partner, very hard. I might be wrong but these types of conversations about how bad the apps are make me think y’all are expecting some sort of technological easy button. It…

Honestly, the worst part about dating apps is that it's basically become the only way a lot of women want to meet men. And I'm not speaking from a disgruntled male perspective, I'm speaking from a friend of a lot of women who've essentially stated exactly that.

It's funny because most of my LTIR friends have met their significant others through more traditional means and the perpetually single are stuck on gamified apps.

The apps can definitely work so it's not all for naught but I think the privacy and low risk (emotionally) nature of them leads to an over reliance by a lot of people.

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#466

Post by slovette »

opportune wrote: post #309
carabiner wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I would not say Hinge artificially restricts choice. You are limited in how many “likes” you can send each day, but it’s a different model where each like is actually a notification/puts you in someone’s “inbox”, so letting everybody like too much would make it too spammy to work. That model is also quite good because you don’t need to pay for women to notice you. Those 10 people you like will notice you anyway, unli…

Match rates where true for me as well in comparison to other apps. However, what I found interesting is that I’d routinely run out of matches on my last month of being “premium”. As soon as the paid gig was up, all of a sudden, profiles of potential matches in my area that I had never seen prior are numerous. BUT.. to like or match, I have to resubscribe… hmm…

Another obvious manipulation by Hinge (and the other apps) is I’m almost 100% positive they artificially limit who they show you by stacking the deck with a bunch of profiles of women they know haven’t logged into the service in awhile. Basically priming the pump with “possibility” to keep you engaged; diluting the active profiles and spreading any likely match possibilities out over time.

It’s things like these two realizations that made me decide these apps are not in existence to help you find a match. They’re incentive is the same as Facebook, engagement. You matching means you no longer using the app and that’s bad for business.

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#467

Post by parineum »

feoren wrote: post #363
Yoofie wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Do not confuse regulation with enforcement. Any regulation that is not enforced is useless, or it is used selectively (a.k.a "corruption"). Adding more rules wont solve anything. This is such a weird take when you think about it. It's like saying "people can just run traffic lights; therefore, adding more traffic lights cannot prevent accidents." Okay, well, preventing people from running traffic lights is just a s…

It's like saying, "Some people keep running this traffic light but we don't have any traffic cops. What if we lowered the speed limit so they wouldn't be going so fast when they run it?"

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#468

Post by parineum »

LambdaComplex wrote: post #239
antiterra wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>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.

I once was a part of making a Facebook clone for the US military so service men and women wouldn't be on Facebook giving away secrets.

It was garbage and nobody used it but nobody cared because we weren't being paid to get people to use it.

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#469

Post by nicbou »

watwut wrote: post #373
houstonn wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That implication is not logical. It is unreasonable to expect bisexuals to seek 50/50 gender split. First, even if the actual attraction is same for both genders, it would be reasonable to expect bisexuals to seek opposite gender partners way more. Pretty much anyone who wants bio children need opposite sex partner. Pretty much anyone who don't want to deal with stigma around gayness too kuch will prefer opposite gen…

Besides, what did they actually look at? According to a friend, it's a lot easier to get a male date, even if you're more interested in women. How would that affect the 80% figure?

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#470

Post by imtringued »

conductr wrote: post #365
btbuildem wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From an end-user perspective? Desperately so. I think the biggest obstacle to solving the Dating App problem is the onboarding.

I’ve been married since before Tinder so never used it. But I think the “Dating App problem” is something of a head scratcher. The reason the apps all have problems is because Dating is the problem. It’s hard. Always has been. Finding a lifelong partner, very hard. I might be wrong but these types of conversations about how bad the apps are make me think y’all are expecting some sort of technological easy button. It…

Dating apps aren't about dates they are matchmaking apps.
Post reply on HN