
Small Data: Tinder-like apps are the way of the future - morisy
https://medium.com/appszoom-insights/small-data-why-tinder-like-apps-are-the-way-of-the-future-1a4d5703b4b
======
caylus
I've seen a few "Tinder for <X>" apps out there that try to emulate the swipe
model for things like hiring, events, business connections, etc. I haven't
found any of them useful; I think they overgeneralize the Tinder model.

Tinder works because the criteria the user is selecting for, physical
attractiveness, really can be evaluated in a split second from a single photo.

On the other hand, the question of "do I want to hire this person" requires
carefully evaluating their skills, credentials, education, location,
availability. "Do I want to go to this event" depends on the kind of event,
location, time, and other plans I might have that day. In both cases the photo
is irrelevant. Once you have to look through each item for 10-20 seconds bare
minimum, the Tinder model doesn't make sense anymore.

Another key UI consideration is filtering. In the hiring and events examples,
you can easily filter algorithmically by skills, years of experience, event
type, or location. But physical attractiveness can't be algorithmically
filtered on. So Tinder occupies a unique niche where the selection criteria is
1) impossible to automate because it's vague and subjective but 2) easy for
each individual user to evaluate in a split second.

------
downandout
The secret to Tinder's success isn't that they use a swipe-based interface.
It's that they solved one of the biggest pain points in dating: users never
have to talk to anyone that hasn't already expressed mutual interest in them.
Since the app discloses romantic interest only after both parties have
reciprocated, Tinder offers a fundamentally better way of meeting new people
than has existed previously. That was a game-changer for the entire dating
scene, and that is why they are successful.

~~~
Tomte
AFAIK dating websites had such a feature years before Tinder. Mutual selection
as "favorite" or something like that leading to revelation of that selection
to both isn't new at all.

~~~
draker
It isn't the mutual selection alone, but that feature in combination with
swiping (basically a first impression) and inability to go back make it
substantially different than dating sites.

To my knowledge dating sites usually have pages of profiles you search though.
If you see someone you select, but say you go through 5 pages and no one
catches your eye but you're out of matches. You may be willing to go back
through and lower your standards to make some matches.

This is also aided by Tinder being a more dynamic app. The number of people
that are active(discoverable) changes day to day, whereas a dating site is
essentially static; with only new users adding more potential matches.

------
philippoi
There are so many holes in this piece it's amazing. It's especially apparent
when it's boiled down by the author:

"There are many reasons why this makes for a better user experience:

1.Cognitively, you can only evaluate one option at a time. Seeing all the
options laid out in front of you at once is just noisy and distracting, since
you’ll have to consider each one in turn anyway. 2.Making swipe-happy snap
judgements allows you to make better choices, faster. See Malcolm Gladwell’s
Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking for much more on the adaptive
unconscious. 3.You can do it one handed."

There's no reference to cognitive theories dealing with various interface
types. I'm doing an independent project this semester with user eye-tracking
through a Netflix-like interface. Iris Vessey's theory of Cognitive Fit shows
that there are some tasks where the-part-in-relation-to-the-whole is the main
consideration. In those cases, a matrix interface is a better fit, leading to
better (faster, more accurate) task performance. 2\. Malcolm Gladwell as main
reference? ...no wonder no cognitive theory was explored. 3\. Why stop there,
you could also do that with blinks or eye gestures, further isolated into a
bubble of laziness.

------
dreamdu5t
One big false generalization.

I mean Netflix's interface sucks for discovery, and the suggested improvement
in the article is to force me to look at one suggested movie at a time?
Seriously!?

~~~
duncanawoods
Any claims for discovery efficiency is a lie. Shitty UX's "convert better" due
in part to the way that they hurt their users.

Netflix cannot let you discover there is nothing you want to watch in their
entire catalogue because you will unsubscribe. They have to make you believe
there is more that you have not found.

Similar to Amazon, they cannot make search so efficient that you have the time
and energy to search other sites or price compare. The strategy is to make
sure they are the first place you visit and then exhaust you to the point you
settle with what they have to offer.

~~~
computator
> _Netflix cannot let you discover... They have to make you believe there is
> more that you have not found._

That's an insightful observation and explains perfectly why Netflix does not
provide a simple straight list of all titles that you can scroll through. I'll
bet that the Netflix engineers have wanted to add such an obvious feature, but
someone in marketing yelled, "Don't!"

If you ask the average non-techie user how many titles their Neflix
subscription has, they'll be astonished to hear that it's only ~7750 in the US
and even less in other countries (eg., ~4478 in Canada)[1]. Even though this
information is easy to discover, it seems that most people don't bother to
know.

[1]
[http://netflixcanadavsusa.blogspot.ca/](http://netflixcanadavsusa.blogspot.ca/)

~~~
prawn
The other thing I've noticed having recently trialled Netflix in Australia is
that they seem to push TV series harder than movies. I guess if you watch a
movie, you're done in a couple of hours. If you get hooked on a TV series, you
might be watching episode after episode for a number of seasons.

------
8bithero
Following this "small data" concept I was also working on an app that works
with a kind of "binary communication". You guys (and girls) seem quite
critical, so I'd be really curious to hear what you guys think of this concept
(sorry if this is considered self promotion, it just seemed appropriate to
mention it here.) The idea is a messaging app where recipients can only reply
Yes or No, and is intended for quick questions when you don't need an excuse
(i.e. "Have you sent the file yet?"), the idea is to gear for wearables and
provide a swappable tinder like interface for quick questions.
[http://www.getmoshimoshi.com](http://www.getmoshimoshi.com)

~~~
prawn
Nice site and nice app design. I think the app has some merit but your
challenge will be finding fun/obvious use-cases that are strong enough to get
entire groups of people downloading it. Planning a night out seems to be one
challenge no app has adequately solved so I'd steer clear, but the angle of
convincing groups of people to join for outfit reviews is stronger. I could
see girls using it in change rooms before buying clothes, or getting ready to
go to a party or whatever.

~~~
8bithero
Hi, Thank you! Yeah the idea is for every day quick questions like outfit
reviews etc. Things that you just need an immediate "yes or no" answer to. The
concept is to keep conversation short, sweet and to the point. It's mainly
targeted at millennials. I know it's a bit buggy but it you got some time, I'd
really appreciate it if you could play around with the app and possibly give
it a review! Thanks again! :)

------
noblethrasher
Alan Kay once said something to the effect of: the best UIs are the ones that
make the process of rejection as fast as possible.

So, “yes”, Tinder-like apps are the way of the future, but we could have been
living in the future a long time ago if people had been paying more attention
to the lessons of the past.

------
drugsAreBad0001
I really hope not. For anyone not above average looking, Tinder, et al, are a
bunch of apps that basically show you everyone in your area that would never
talk to you. I'm fairly positive that at least in my area, anyone who even
matches with me is a robot.

~~~
tedks
Are you able to date successfully as an unattractive person without Tinder?

Maybe in the future Tinder should segment its users better so that attractive
people are presented to other attractive people, and the plebs stay in their
own pool, but it seems more appropriate to just abandon anyone without the
resources to make themselves attractive to solitude.

After all, there soon won't be enough jobs for everyone anyway; the growing
acceptance of polyamory combined with the divorce (pun not intended) of
marriage from its religious basis means we can expect polygamy and polyandry
to be legal within our lifetime; as more and more of the world becomes hyper-
unequal, why do we expect dating to be any different?

Of course, this is a totally unrelated tangent to the article, which was about
the card swiping interface and the advantages therein, but let's not expect an
unequal world to be equal in some respects.

~~~
xiaoma
An unattractive photo does not always mean an unattractive person.

~~~
eru
And vice versa.

~~~
bru_
I hope to join you guys in your fantasy world one day

~~~
eru
Never heard of MySpace angles?

You seem bitter. So here's some drive-by unwanted advice. I assume you are
male:

\- Hit the gym, lift weights. Eat enough to be non-scrawny. (Or lose weight,
if you are currently fat.)

\- Acquire currency---as a HN lurker you should at least be able to talk your
way into a tech job.

\- Get someone knowledgeable to help with your outfit.

\- Get some nice pictures of yourself. Either practice the art of the selfie
until you are good, ask a knowledgeable friend, or pay someone.

~~~
bru_
Haha thanks buddy. I interpreted what they were saying as "looks don't
matter", which is obviously false

~~~
eru
Oh, OK. Looks do matter, but looks are not set in stone.

(And since they are not, you don't need to feel too bad about judging somebody
by something they have at least some influence over.)

------
bru_
This is so dumb... One paragraph they're introducing the concept of "small
data", the next paragraph they're talking about how getting the swipe
information for huge numbers of users helps them train their collaborative
filtering algorithm...

Ultimately it's a big data hype article... GASP we can infer your preferences
from your behavior... Written by someone with a Medium tagline of "Sassy
futurism. Tech and words."

~~~
glutamate
That is not at all dumb. Doing the preference learning for a huge number of
users lets you set up a prior over the preferences that includes correlations
between different attributes. Then you use the population prior together with
the data for the individual to get the posterior for their personal
preferences, which will then take into account the correlations revealed in
the population data. This is what we do with
[http://findmelike.com](http://findmelike.com) where we perform the Bayesian
update over the user's preferences after every user interaction.

~~~
bru_
Ha ha... I'm not against learning preferences at all... I think you
misunderstood my comment

------
coldcode
Gag I hope not. Otherwise we risk our future reduced to Idiocracy.

