
Are dating websites past their prime? - mattrjacobs
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/26/AR2010062600189.html
======
pdx
I married my ex-wife from eharmony. (thanks for the compatibility match guys!)
I married my current wife, and the mother of my two children, using yahoo
personals. I also dated using match.com

In my opinion, dating sites are still extremely efficient ways of meeting
people. I exclude eharmony, both from personal bias, and from the fact that
they don't allow you to really search the database.

After you leave college, real life meetings become much more complicated. The
bar scene is a lottery. How likely is it that you'll actually coincide in time
and space with somebody who you would be happy with, and then how likely is it
that you'll even get to talk to them if they are there when you're there?
Grocery stores and other non-traditional meeting places, I personally avoided
bothering women in, assuming there should be some neutral ground where a woman
might wish to be left alone.

For me, I wanted college educated women who had opinions about politics and
whose opinions I shared. I wanted women with no children, who lived within 50
miles of me and didn't smoke or do drugs, but who did drink socially, wanted
children, had traveled the world some, and were not strongly religious. I
wanted women who enjoyed outdoor sports such as scuba, skydiving, and rock
climbing. I wanted women who didn't own small yap dogs.

Can you imagine bumping into women like this randomly? But with a dating site,
it became so much easier.

I still went out on a lot of dates that were bad matches, but I definitely
skewed my chances of finding somebody I could respect and have fun with by
taking the random chance aspect out of the equation.

EDIT: The article doesn't actually disagree with this. It's saying that paid
dating sites will lose out to unpaid. I was responding to the HN title which
derides all dating sites.

~~~
lionhearted
> Grocery stores and other non-traditional meeting places, I personally
> avoided bothering women in, assuming there should be some neutral ground
> where a woman might wish to be left alone.

So many of the single women in my social circle complain they can never meet
decent guys and would kill to be talked to be a decent, intelligent guy at the
grocery store.

Worst-case scenario is a 15 second disturbance of minor flattery following by
each of you carrying on with your day. Really, that's the worst case scenario.
Really.

~~~
Tichy
I am guessing you haven't approached women much? Your "worst case scenario"
only applies if they actually think you are a decent guy up to their
standards. Otherwise they might be offended that you even dare to talk to them
(best case scenario: they just pretend they didn't see or hear you).

Not that I advise against approaching women, just saying.

~~~
ErrantX
> I am guessing you haven't approached women much?

That's not really called for! The GP is right though; you're unlikely to be,
say, given a slap or yelled at! This assumes, of course, your not being leery
or crude and not asking them on a date straight off. etc. (where you will
likely get a slap).

But there is _nothing_ wrong with saying hi and having casual conversation
with someone in the grocery store. 99 times out of 100 it will just fizzle out
after a couple of seconds - one time in a hundred you might hit on a common
interest and the rest, as they say, is history. I've met a number of great
girlfriends in this way.

It's also a great way to get over shyness.

Also; you _should_ talk to random people anyway. It brightens up their day and
yours in a perfectly harmless way.

There is this social convention that we all must be silent and look dead ahead
when queuing, for example. Everyone I know thinks it is silly but they don't
want to be the first to broach the convention - just in case....

~~~
Tichy
"That's not really called for"

Didn't mean it in a nasty way. And yes, actual physical attacks are unlikely
as a response. Unfriendliness is rather likely, though. But if you have a
hardened "shell", no problem. Or if you have become very adept at chatting.

Also, if those single girls at grocery stores are so desperate, why don't they
make a move themselves?

~~~
ErrantX
> Unfriendliness is rather likely, though.

I'd say that is highly unlikely also. At worst you'll just get ignored :) but
generally anyone will talk to you if you look and speak normal/friendly.

> Also, if those single girls at grocery stores are so desperate, why don't
> they make a move themselves?

Social convention. Also; this is the beginnings of a strawman because it's not
like that at all :) the GP is just suggesting we talk to people more - which
is always a good thing!

~~~
Tichy
He said he knows scores of single women who are dying to be talked to.

~~~
ErrantX
Yep; which is why your point is something of a straw man - because it is the
extreme interpretation of his point that doesn't stand up.

------
ca98am79
I strongly recommend okcupid.com. In my opinion it is the best dating site,
especially for hackers - they even let you A/B test your photos. I'm a
complete introvert/nerd and I've used their site with a lot of success. It is
by far the best overall user experience out of all of the various dating sites
- and it's free. Their blog is great, too: <http://blog.okcupid.com>

~~~
9oliYQjP
I have a date lined up from OKCupid. One word of caution, but this goes for
online dating in general. It's taken me 6 months to land a first date. In real
life (err I guess offline) it's easier for me to land a date than it is
online. So, I suggest using online dating to augment finding dates offline in
a more traditional sense. It is far easier for people to be picky online than
it is offline.

~~~
warpwoof
I'm not trying to be harsh, but you're doing it wrong.

I'm not particularly gifted in the looks department, but I can get about 1
date a week. How? Testing and speed. Here are a few tips..this advice isn't
really making any assumptions about you..it mostly is a result of mistakes
I've made and have seen other guys make.

Testing:

-Photos: ask friends to help pick the best ones, take some new ones, use OKCupid's photo-testing service, etc.

-Profile: I probably went through 5 complete rewrites, followed by a lot of constant tweaking. I think the biggest mistake most guys make is being way too serious in their profile. You've really got to keep it light and playful. Sure, be authentic and show who you are, but wait until after a few dates before getting all deep. Just have fun.

-Messages: Play around with the type of message you sent. Try some serious, try some playful, try some ridiculous/absurd. You'll see what tends to work more. I'm assuming you're doing more than just saying "hey what's up," that will just get you ignored.

Speed:

Don't write long messages implying you think you two are soulmates. The worst
thing you can do is get hung up on hoping this one person with a great profile
will reply. Getting into this kind of pattern will make you think way too hard
about what to write to them for your first message. Look for interesting
profiles, write a quick message, move on. You've got to get a good volume of
messages out there, don't spend too much time on a particular profile.

EDIT: Forgot to mention one more thing, take it offline as soon as possible.
Don't let the messages drag on..if someone replies to me I usually ask to meet
up for a drink in the 2nd message I send.

~~~
9oliYQjP
Or, I might just be incredibly picky. See my reply here
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1466098>. I guess that brings up another
point. Some people might not have found someone offline because they're just
picky. So don't presume that people "lower their standards" when they date
online.

I have 16 conversations dating back to May in my inbox. Let me know if that's
par for the course. The problem is, of these 16, 8 were girls that initiated
contact with me and that I didn't find very attractive. Of the remaining 8, I
had a date lined up with 1 that fell through, and a date currently lined up
with another.

EDIT: Another stat. I sent out 39 messages from May until now. Of the 39
messages, 8 got replies. So that's about 1 in 5.

~~~
jules
> The problem is, of these 16, 8 were girls that initiated contact with me and
> that I didn't find very attractive.

Do you mean that it's unattractive for a girl to initiate contact with you?

~~~
9oliYQjP
Not at all. The most annoying thing on OKCupid is seeing a repeat visitor that
will not strike up a conversation with me until I initiate it. I actually find
take-charge girls really attractive. What I meant is that I didn't find the
girls who initiated contact with me so far, to be attractive. A few had very
poor self esteem that I could tell just from the message they gave me. Many
would say they have mutual hobbies/interests but when I probed further I
realized they were lying and were the kinds of people that actually don't do
much, which is also a turn off. Somewhere along the line I learned to overcome
my introvert tendencies for periods of time. And I want to enjoy life with
somebody who has similar interests. I go to the gym, play sports, have an
active social life. I don't necessarily want somebody who is the same as me,
but I also don't want somebody who's going to loaf around on the couch at home
for an entire weekend. So far, girls like that seem to be initiating contact
:-/

------
Volscio
Speaking as someone who just recently started using match.com (after the end
of a string of long relationships), it seems to me that:

1) dating sites are the perfect example of the benefit of pseudonymity for
allowing people to choose how much to reveal about themselves while still
being attractive

2) dating sites rely on geographical favorability. I live in DC so as a single
guy it works EXTREMELY well. But I hear it's not as great for DC women. But DC
is known for having far more highly-educated single women than any other city.
But would a dating site work as well in smaller communities where people marry
out of high school and generally keep their social circle their whole lives?
Is NYC too much of a social cauldron for dating sites to work?

3) Facebook hook-ups seem to work mostly if you are being hooked up with a
friend of a friend, so the initial relationship is being built upon referral
instead of semi-blind dates.

~~~
smokinn
I would be very wary of spending money on paid dating sites. There are just
too many stories about fraud:
<http://forums.plentyoffish.com/datingPosts2493442.aspx> (Google will find you
many more)

okcupid and plentyoffish are much much better options.

And Yahoo Personals and Match.com definitely aren't the only ones. I've heard
of other paid dating sites doing the same. Of course these are only rumors
which is why it never gets very far in court but it's enough for me to never
want to spend my money on paid sites. The incentives to move into fraud in
paid dating are very very strong.

~~~
jquery
Methinks the free sites doth protest too much. I've used Plentyoffish,
Okcupid, and Match.com. Only Match.com was a fraud-free experience. Sure, a
paywall induces a motivation for 1st-party fraud, but it drastically reduces
the motivation for 3rd-party fraud. Someone who solves both will become a rich
individual.

For the record, I met my beautiful girlfriend of two years on Match, so count
me as biased. :)

~~~
Goladus
I've used okcupid for maybe a year and a half, and have gotten maybe two or
three fraudulent messages,

~~~
jquery
I recieved a chat request from a women 30 minutes after I signed up, while I
was editing my profile. She looked like a model and her profile picture was
her in a bikini. It took her 5-10 minutes to respond to my IMs, which were
mostly me asking her if she was a legit and "her" saying "yes, I'm real." uh
huh.

~~~
Goladus
Like I said, I've seen a couple fakes. They've always been really easy to
spot, though, and disappear quickly.

I'm in the Boston/Cambridge/Brookline area, though. I imagine the real:fake
ratio gets worse as you get into more sparsely populated areas.

------
andrewvc
This article asks some interesting questions, but provides few numbers. The
big question isn't "are paid dating sites dying". I think the answer is
clearly yes, but quite slowly.

The real question is about free sites like okcupid.com and plentyoffish.com ,
sadly, they have no numbers about these sites.

------
uast23
It sounds contradictory, because I think dating sites are yet to reach their
prime, let alone having past it already.

~~~
dotcoma
are you talking about the current dating sites? really?

~~~
uast23
I mean anything.. current/old.. the sites which targetted "dating" in specific
were never able to succeed, unless the social networking came into picture.I
see "dating" and "social network" as 2 different things. How many people
actually log in onto a dating site with a hope that they will actually get a
genuine date!.I think the number is pretty less. Actually speaking "social
netorking" sites generate more traction in the dating world than the actual
"dating" sites.

~~~
sandipagr
"Actually speaking "social netorking" sites generate more traction in the
dating world"

I am not so sure about that. I don't really see people hooking up with friends
of friends

------
jey
tl;dr: The boring old corporate behemoths aren't growing anymore, therefore
online dating is dead.

They might as well have written an article about how TV is dead because nobody
buys tube TVs anymore.

Match.com is an awful, awful user experience. It's a wonder that they're still
able to fleece so much money out of people.

------
sandipagr
I really didn't know dating sites were this successful...hmm time to jump
in..off to make a profile :)

------
watt
The analogy with peak oil is somewhat incorrect, because new people are being
born (and enter dating scene subsequently) all the time. Dating sites will not
run out of people.

(As contrast, new oil is not being "made". Once it's all pumped dry, it's
over.)

------
georgieporgie
If you haven't read the OKCupid's blog post, "Why You Should Never Pay For
Online Dating," I _highly_ recommend doing so. If you're contemplating online
dating, that is.

[http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/2010/04/07/why-you-
should-...](http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/2010/04/07/why-you-should-never-
pay-for-online-dating/)

Interesting points: * "you are 12.4 times more likely to get married this year
if you don't subscribe to Match.com"

* the severe male/female imbalance ("sausage fest") leads to a "desperation feedback loop" where men spam more and more women, with fewer and fewer responses.

In my opinion, with the rise in social networking platforms, dating sites are
dead or dying - at least for 'mainstream' use. Even OKCupid, I think, will be
pointless as people learn to leverage Facebook for dating.

~~~
reader5000
Facebook is certainly useful in facilitating dating with people you have
already met irl, but I dont see it used for _generating_ dates with people you
have not already met.

Although I am curious if anybody has counter-experience on this :D

~~~
nostrademons
Yeah, the social mores on FaceBook seem to frown upon random contact with lots
of strangers. It's good for maintaining relationships, not so good for
starting them.

I've noticed a bunch of friends either getting married or beginning serious
LTRs after meeting online, though. They usually fall into two categories.

1\. A set of mutual friends of them say "Hey, you two would be perfect for
each other," introduce them, and then the relationship blooms through FaceBook
or old-fashioned e-mail.

2\. They're both participants at a "niche" online forum or social networking
site, and then end up meeting in person eventually and take it from there.

I think the latter situation is way, way underreported. We pay attention to
the big social sites like FaceBook and Twitter and the big dating sites like
eHarmony and Match, but there's an enormous long-tail of niche sites that toss
up a website and a forum and build a community. You can find a fansite for
virtually every celebrity, every TV show, every sport, many of the more
popular books, and even niche professional interests like startups and
programming language design. Many of these grow very close, tight-knit
communities, and when those communities are of mixed gender, it's very common
for some dating to occur.

Heck, if HN weren't overwhelming male, I bet we'd see some Hacker News
couples. There've already been a bunch of "Founder Dating" sites spun off from
it.

~~~
jules
How is the gender split on HN, roughly?

~~~
nostrademons
I have no idea, but judging from comments, it seems to be <10% female. That
might be an underestimate, though, since many women who post on predominantly
male forums often don't reveal their gender.

------
skbohra
wondering why would someone ever go to a dating website, seriously, can't
imagine that in my wildest dream. And do people pay for it? Seems it is a
thing for the past generation. We aren't convinced.

~~~
kelnos
Apparently your wildest dreams aren't very wild.

