

The Algorithms of Love - fleaflicker
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/29/science/29tier.htm

======
fleaflicker
My favorite programming assignment in school was a Scheme implementation of
the "stable marriage algorithm".

"Let's assume, for the sake of an argument, that you are a village matchmaker
given the task of marrying 100 men and 100 women. Each of the men has ranked
the women from 1 to 100 in the order of his preference; each woman, not to be
outdone, has similarly ranked the 100 men...Rather than insist that everyone
get their first choice, you are instead charged with creating 100 stable
marriages. A set of marriages is said to be stable if there exists no man m
and woman w such that m likes w better than his wife, and w likes m better
than her husband. The notion is called "stability" as m's and w's marriages
are unstable, since (albeit sordid and tawdry) m and w could optimize their
sorry lot in life by leaving their mates and running off together."

Non-PDF link:
[http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:abZ7sCKHUmYJ:www.cs.bra...](http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:abZ7sCKHUmYJ:www.cs.brandeis.edu/~mairson/Courses/cs21b/marry.pdf&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us)

Not the same as algorithms discussed in the article but fun and interesting.

~~~
kirubakaran
M1 likes W1 who likes M2 who likes W2 who likes M1. Can the four of them elope
as a group?

(btw, it is a dull society without WSW)

~~~
mixmax
interesting point...

------
Goladus
eHarmony isn't successful because of the matching algorithm. eHarmony is
successful because of the steep barriers to entry, perception of safety and
privacy, its ability to attract women to the site, the rate at which they
regulate match delivery, and the guided communication process.

The result is that you don't waste much time browsing profiles. You don't
waste time trying to filter out spammers. You don't waste time coming up with
clever pick-up lines. You don't get pestered by matches you close.

The matching algorithm definitely matters, but it's mostly a red herring. If I
were eHarmony, I'd be far more worried about my terrible user interface than
the matching algorithm.

~~~
huherto
Good analysis.

I perceive that the biggest barrier to entry is the amount of money that you
have to spend in marketing. We have been able to match most of their
functionality but we don't have nor want to spent that much money in
marketing. We haven't been able to come up with alternative approaches.

~~~
Goladus
I just want to make sure its clear that in my previous post, "barrier to join"
is probably more accurate than "barrier to entry." I was talking about the
amount of time, effort, and money it takes to actually sign up and create a
profile. It's a relatively enjoyable process, but it weeds out people who
don't have patience.

------
mhb
How long until one of these companies makes its database available anonymously
and offers a Netflix-style prize for a better matching algorithm?

~~~
imsteve
The netflix contest was a spectacular failure. I can beat it easily just by
using better metrics for the input data.

Really, the contest should have been about finding the data that is most
representative of the expected results. But no, they want to throw resources
at problems that are unsolvable with the provided data.

------
huherto
e-harmony is very similar to my start up. We operate in Mexico
somoscompatibles.com (we are compatible). Our approach is to find
personalities and rate how similar they are. I tried eharmony for several
months and I don't think they really have a great algorithm, they just make it
easier for you to know some people that are somewhat similar to you.

------
kirubakaran
Boy meets Girl.

Boy tells Girl "My love for you defies all algorithms".

Boy and Girl live happily ever after.

------
paulhart
By having an exclusionary policy, eHarmony appears to be attempting to improve
their results by keeping people out that are less likely to fit their
algorithm.

I'm impressed that they've hired so many PhDs, but on the other hand, I don't
believe that having the computer match you is going to be very successful
overall.

------
jgrahamc
Last year I did a lot of work under contract to build a machine learning based
data web site where users would vote on people and the ML part would build up
a model of what they were looking for. Unfortunatly, the site has not yet
released because of trouble finding a good Javascript person to work on bits
of the UI.

------
tokipin
does eHarmony still refuse to match a huge chunk of people? i've heard about
20% or so are unmatched or something like that. which interestingly almost
coincides with the commonness of a certain range of personality types in the
Jungian theories

speaking of which, i'm surprised Jungian theories aren't more popular. there
are specific type pairings which go very well together -- like the people you
meet that you just "click" with. well, that clicking can be seen clearly in
the theories by the way the types are described

~~~
huherto
It seems that the more accepted personality classification is the big five. We
have thought about denying access to those that score high on neurotisism.
Maybe cut off the top ten percent thus protecting our members.

------
wallflower
eHarmony's ability to market itself/word-of-mouth is impressive. My
relatives/parents are like broken record players 'You know, Roy met his wife
through eHarmony...' My friend Mike met his wife through eH as well - I
remember him complaining about how long it took to answer the questionnaire
set.

