Never pay for online dating (2010) • Hacker News Board

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#481

Post by pseudalopex » Wed, Oct 12, 2022, 2:33 PM UTC

lelanthran wrote: post #417

matsemann wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if you're bi, but for a long term partner through match.com you're mostly interested in the opposite sex, vs your behavior other places for more casual hookups? What if you're bi, but not that open about it so you mostly take the chance on the opposite sex on a public dating platform? There must be so many other factors like these that at least should invalidate any broad claim by a company only seeing a small p…

> What if you're bi, but for a long term partner through match.com you're mostly interested in the opposite sex, vs your behavior other places for more casual hookups? Then why on earth would you put down "bi" in the profile?

Why would you not?

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#482

Post by jesterson » Wed, Oct 12, 2022, 2:52 PM UTC

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…

> It feels like the app's algorithms are rigged to gradually push you towards paid subscription options

I'd be extremely surprised if it happened to be otherwise.

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#483

Post by compiler-guy » Wed, Oct 12, 2022, 5:46 PM UTC

imtringued wrote: post #472

compiler-guy wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Strangely, There doesn't have to be just one with a lower score than the others. One of the weirdest things about being human is that our preferences are neither rational nor consistent. The classic example in behavioural economics is with ice-cream flavors. If I prefer chocolate to strawberry and strawberry to vanilla, it doesn't follow that I prefer chocolate to vanilla. The preferences aren't transitive, and there…

But economists assume that preferences have a total order otherwise there wouldn't be a utility curve.

Economists assume a utility curve in the same way that physicists assume spherical cows. They are a useful abstraction which help explain many things, but don't reflect reality completely.

https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/BehavioralEconomics.html

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#484

Post by thomastjeffery » Wed, Oct 12, 2022, 6:25 PM UTC

The biggest problem with current dating apps is that they limit swipes behind a paywall.

Sure, you can pay to get the opportunity to swipe on more profiles, but you can't pay to give everyone else the opportunity to swipe on yours. That means paying for more swipes doesn't really get you more matches.

Dating is a numbers game, and Tinder/etc. are rigged not to play.

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#485

Post by lelanthran » Wed, Oct 12, 2022, 10:01 PM UTC

pseudalopex wrote: post #481

lelanthran wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What if you're bi, but for a long term partner through match.com you're mostly interested in the opposite sex, vs your behavior other places for more casual hookups? Then why on earth would you put down "bi" in the profile?

Why would you not?

> Why would you not?

What kind of a stupid question is this?

If you only want interest from a particular gender, why advertise that you want interest from all genders?

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#486

Post by mock-possum » Thu, Oct 13, 2022, 12:22 AM UTC

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…

I've only ever used ok cupid back in the day, not tinder, but - why do likes matter? Can't you still use the search function to find people you're interested, and begin interacting my messaging them?

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#487

Post by jesterson » Thu, Oct 13, 2022, 4:41 AM UTC

danielvf wrote: post #119

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'…

The government of Singapore has been active in this area since the 80's. Not only having run a dating site, but also subsidizing singles cruises, hosting mixer events, and grants to college programs to get people together. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Development_Network

I am living in Singapore and never heard of anything like that. Would you mind giving some links besides another (purely declarative) initiative of ministry of youth?

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#488

Post by fennecfoxy » Thu, Oct 13, 2022, 10:11 AM UTC

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…

Yeah, I'm gay & bi guys in the gay community complain that they're not as accepted, which to some degree is definitely true. But the number of "bi" guys who want to bang guys on the side while looking for a "real" relationship with a woman is staggering. I try to avoid them at all costs; I'm not a fleshlight/something to discard.

I feel like the gay community needs to treat bi guys better but at the same time bi guys need to take a look at themselves and consider if they're romantically bi, or just sexually bi because they just want to fulfil their sexual needs (which is much easier with guys obviously).

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#489

Post by fennecfoxy » Thu, Oct 13, 2022, 10:20 AM UTC

hezralig wrote: post #282

sangnoir wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “I’m bisexual.” REALITY: 80% of self-identified bisexuals are only interested in one gender This isn't the slam dunk it appears to be. A dietary equivalent would be "X% of self-professed omnivores avoid vegetarian dishes". They are open to the idea, but still have preferences. Just because one is open to the superset, doesn't mean they assign each subset equal weight.

Or, I eat $x at home, I am looking for $y on this service. There are plenty of bisexual people I know that have open arrangements who are in relationships with a partner of one sex and are only permitted by that partner to date people of another sex by that partner (because fear of competition/jealousy reasons). Some people only want romantic relationships with a partner of one sex while hookups with another. Some pe…

Many people, including myself, don't find the whole "cycles"/percentage thing attractive, though. Especially for a longer term relationship, why would you want to date someone who loved you for who you were only part of the time? Especially seeing as its something you can't change about yourself.

In reality I've generally found that many "bi" guys are just waiting for a "real" relationship with a chick, while doing guys on the side. Hell, even outside of relationships, most bi guys I've met would pick a chick over a guy 9 times out of 10. Some of that is due to the fact it's a lot rarer/harder for them to hook up with a chick vs a dude (latter being more open and free with sex).

If someone is bi, has a romantic/sexual preference for both and experiences periods where they really do prefer one or the other then a traditional relationship is probably not going to work best for them; something poly or very open seems like the batter option, where their partner is aware and agrees to it.

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#490

Post by danielvf » Thu, Oct 13, 2022, 1:01 PM UTC

jesterson wrote: post #487

danielvf wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government of Singapore has been active in this area since the 80's. Not only having run a dating site, but also subsidizing singles cruises, hosting mixer events, and grants to college programs to get people together. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Development_Network

I am living in Singapore and never heard of anything like that. Would you mind giving some links besides another (purely declarative) initiative of ministry of youth?

One link is here (thanks to a poster downthread):

https://www.msf.gov.sg/policies/Marriages/Pages/Finding-a-Pa...