
Ask HN: What's wrong with all those dating sites? - t0pj
What's your biggest peeve about the state of dating services on the web today and how could they become better?<p>Is there certain functionality that you think all dating sites must offer?  i.e. location down to postal code or even year/month/day of birth.<p>Do you think the techniques sites use to reduce/remove the number of spam/predators/trolls go to far and actually detract from the user  experience?  i.e. captchas, super-long/detailed registration forms and surveys/compatibility tests, back-end automation to remove accounts according to preset criteria, etc.<p><i>There's gotta be a better way to build this mousetrap.</i>
======
aston
I used to work at OkCupid. I could talk to you at length about the ups and
downs and ins and outs of online dating, but the moral of the story I gleaned
from my time there can be summed up pretty easily:

People just want a _ton_ of attractive/dateable people within a keyboard's
reach, and if your site does any filtering on their behalf, people need to
trust that it actually works.

Most of the variations in online dating sites focus on optimizing pieces of
that. The big guys (Match.com, eHarmony) make sure they get huge user numbers
by campaigning on national TV, and they apply some simple internal filters
that are 'approved by a doctor.' Smaller sites can't compete with that, so
concentrate more on making sure you only run into people you'd actually be
attracted to (see JDate). OkCupid's on the smaller side, and focuses on
community building (for numbers) and uses mathematically semi-sound
calculation coupled with quiz questions to create a user-driven but rigorous-
feeling people filter. Basically everyone that's successful fits somewhere in
that model.

If I were you, I would focus less on specific features or trying to build a
better datetrap. Instead, figure out what it'll take for you to get fifty
thousand people signed up, approximately all at the same time, and then how
you'll keep the site growing over time. If you get big numbers, the dating
stuff will follow (MySpace...).

------
neilk
There's nothing wrong with the dating services. The people are broken.

People lie. Solve that one and you may have something. (True.com tried to do
this.)

Also, most dating sites act as a sort of amplification for the user's dating
filters and skill at attracting interest. However, I believe that most people
are lonely because their dating filters are broken, and because they have
trouble attracting interest. Dating sites only help these people fail faster
and at greater scale.

(Exception: tall women. They are not necessarily damaged, they really do have
a sort of search problem that is more solveable at scale.)

I have started to think that a really successful dating site would start from
the premise that the user is broken and cannot be relied on to find or choose
a partner. Maybe use social networks so that their friends help them find
someone? Or even anonymous strangers, for karma points? Straight women do this
sort of thing anyway (straight guys tend to use these sites alone) and if a
woman gets all her female friends to come on board, that helps solve the
female-male ratio.

------
dusklight
The biggest problem is that the incentive of the dating site is to make money,
not to help people get together. If your service is really good at getting
people together, boom! There goes your userbase as they all hook up and log
off.

Financially speaking it is better to give users the ILLUSION of someone out
there being for you, while stringing them along and milking them for as much
cash as possible.

~~~
aston
Yah, this is too true. The worst thing you can do for your bottom line on a
dating site is make a real, long-term match. There go two really happy users,
and whatever ad revenue or monthly subscription fee they were making you.

But if you don't care about your site making money, this is a non-issue. And
if you're growing faster than you're connecting people, it's a moot point
anyhow.

~~~
sanj
This seems to be a failure of imagination.

It seems to me that a successful long term match should be your best
advertising. But I haven't seen any web sites capture that or use it at all
effectively. Or feed it back into their site/algorithm design.

I'm not saying this lightly: I got married about 6 weeks ago to an amazing
woman that I met (thanks Aston!) on OKCupid!

I'd be more than happy to do testimonials and such, but no one's ever
contacted me.

~~~
aston
Congrats, man.

OkCupid loves testimonials and was for a period of time collecting and
categorizing them for some vague future use as publicity. You should send
something their way just in case.

As far as using that stuff for algorithmic purposes goes, I think they mostly
are interpreted as proof that what exists is actually working (and thus
doesn't need tweaking?). Also, depending on your demographic, certain types of
testimonials are less appealing. Not sure if OkCupid is still courting the
youngsters, but if they are marriage stories (as awesome as they are) may
serve to scare away a profitable demographic, advertising-wise.

------
drewcrawford
I think the fundamental problem is that the reason people are on most of these
dating sites is because they can't find a date elsewhere. Building a good
dating site means solving that problem: making dating online more intuitive
than flirting in real life. This is hard, because you've got however many
billion/million years of evolution working against you.

On the other hand, there are some groups for whom physical flirting is already
cumbersome. Busy professionals/entrepreneurs (arguably above-average dating
material) don't necessarily have time to chat up people at coffee shops.
People of a particular faith or with a particular medical condition may be
genuinely afraid of simply meeting random people. There has been some success
with this sort of 'longtail/niche' dating site.

~~~
pchristensen
Spolsky mentioned jdate on his podcast - dating for Jews as a successful
online-only product.

------
vaksel
how about the simple fact that it doesn't work?

1) In the real world, you compete for the woman's attention only with people
she sees throughout her day. Out of which maybe 5 will initiate a
conversation.

On the net, same woman, you are competing with every single guy within 50
miles. Out of which almost every single one will initiate a conversation.

2) In the real world, you see the woman as she is.

On the web, you see myspace angles, copy pastes of likes/dislikes. And lets
not forget all those bots and guys pretending to be a girl .

3) You gotta remember that if a woman is good looking, there is ABSOLUTELY no
reason for her to go on a crappy dating site. Its not like she doesn't get
offered dates everywhere she goes.

Same goes for the guys really, you'll have much higher chances if you start
asking women in the real world.

~~~
pfedor
My observation is that online dating not only works but has by now become
totally mainstream. I keep hearing about couples which met on the Internet, in
fact I would say that this is true about 100% of the weddings I'm attending
this year. It's no longer something that warrants even a lifted brow. My
perception may be biased by living in the Bay Area, but even if so, then it's
just a matter of time.

This does not mean that the dating sites are particularly good right now, just
that the demand is so great that people are willing to suffer the poorest UIs
to get to the good stuff.

~~~
eyudkowsky
I met my mate on the Internet, but not on a dating site. There's a large
difference!

------
mdakin
Semirecently got out of a long relationship. So long that I was basically a
kid when it started and if there was such a thing as a dating site on the
Internet at the time I knew nothing about it.

I've not tried any dating sites. Why?

1\. The factors that attract me to a girl are difficult to quantify and encode
digitally. But relatively easy to sense in a face-to-face interaction.

2\. I trust my own senses and instincts more than second or third parties when
it comes to gleaning truthful information about someone. I am confident in my
ability to read people in face-to-face situations. Why put a computer in the
middle given that it essentially hobbles that critical ability?

3\. I believe seconds/minutes/hours spent messing around with dating websites
would be better spent out in the wild meeting, hanging out with and getting to
know girls in person.

4\. I suspect "permanently single" people are disproportionately attracted to
these various tools and I'm better off fishing from a random sample to find
who I'm looking for rather than a negatively biased sample. Or, ideally, I'm
better fishing from a better-than-random sample biased, for example, by people
I know and trust in the real world and THEIR extended circles of friends.

5\. I strongly suspect that the hypothetical girl I like is basically feeling
the same way and taking the same approach that I am.

Perhaps I'm off-base. And perhaps I will modify my views with time but this is
what keeps me away from such sites currently.

------
Anon84
As my data structures professor would say: "Bipartite matching is a hard
problem, specially when it involves women!"

Seriously, though...

IMHO the most successful dating site would probably start off as a Linked In
like social network, where you could have matches based on the people you
know. Matching algorithms of any sort (like Match.com Chemistry.com
eHarmony.com, etc use) could be used to improve the matches, but I think that
having a "recommendation" from people you already trust would be a very big
plus. This is probably why pre-existing social newtworks like Facebook,
MySpace, Hi5, et al usually end up being used for such purposes.

------
jamongkad
Hmmm to be honest nothing screams "Plan B" more than a dating site. Honestly I
have never used the service because most of the women I date are from
referrals from friends and family. So there's that element of trust right
there. Made me feel safer! Maybe if you could build dating site that applies
that element of trust. Maybe you could have the said "dater" try to earn some
sort of "trust" points. Make it so that the more trust points they have. The
better partner they are. This is just off the top of my head though and it
worth experimenting.

------
pavelludiq
Here are my thoughts on the topic.First in the real world people don't go
around with profile info printed on their shirts, and mathematically filtering
people based on that information. People in the real world interact and
exchange information differently from what most dating sites do. I have a few
online female friends(no girlfriends yet though) and I've met6 them all in
different online communities. Mostly music sites like last.fm or different
internet forums specialized in my favorite music genres. Basically if you want
to make a dating site, don't, instead make an online community where people
can interact and communicate about a specific topic of interest. Sites that
just offer communication(myspace) might have a lot of users, but the users
have to search for people with the same interests and stuff. In a specialized
community, that problem is solved, and people can just discus stuff they like.
In Bulgaria most dating sites are filled with 14-15 year whores who just want
some attention, i wouldn't date girls like that, even if they were my age,
they are just to boring(boring girl:I like music, and parties, and chatting
with friends; interesting girl:dating sites are boring.)

------
froo
Channeling PG for a moment: Make something people want.

I think that on the whole, most dating sites are more concerned with figuring
out how to make a buck off someone than what their users want.

If you use Wordtrackers keyword tool which people normally use for SEO
purposes and type in "dating"... 4 out of the top 10 keyword are related to
free dating sites, but how many dating sites can you name that are free?

I can only think of one off the top of my head (penty of fish) - and Markus is
making a killing with his site. [edit: if you take the social networks like
facebook and myspace into account, you have a couple more - but the traffic to
those sites is less qualified, IE not people specifically looking for dates]

I think that if you can build a decent site (it really doesn't have to be that
fancy) that you can run free - I think you would have a better chance at
success than simply trying to build more complex functionality and charge
people for it.

Make the site simple, make it user friendly.

------
notdarkyet
I think the key to a successful dating site is both privacy and safety. Women
want to know that they are not going to get raped or be caught off guard with
someone who has obviously lied about themselves. If you could establish a
method that would allow people to feel secure with the site, it could go
miles.

The other issue is privacy. By joining these sites, you are opening yourself
up to not only your personality and private information but revealing your
real identity online. If people could trust that the information about
themselves or the interactions they have with other members would never be
made public, I think you would see a surge in rates.

~~~
jamongkad
Honestly I don't why someone would downmod your comment. I think it plays well
with the "Trust" points idea I've pitched a few comments up.

~~~
notdarkyet
Yeah, thanks, I agree with what you mentioned as well. From my experience,
people tend to date within their social circles because of those very reasons.

------
smalter
simple: girl to guy ratio

~~~
fallentimes
The real question is - how do you entice more girls to sign up? Girls not only
attract guys in to joining (obviously) but more girls as well.

~~~
froo
I saw an interesting solution to this by the brits a couple years ago.. I
think the site was "datemymate" or something to that effect.

Essentially the idea was that the friends of someone would sign up, and then
start writing their friends profile - the idea I think was to mimic how women
find their friends dates in the real world.

From what I understand, their female/male ratio was very good to the point
where at times the females outnumbered the men - whereas on other dating sites
this is just not the case.

~~~
vaksel
doesn't look like it worked out, stats aren't that good: Started: December,
2005 Total Male Members: 338 Total Female Members: 417

~~~
Malcx
I think he probably meant: <http://www.mysinglefriend.com/>

~~~
gaius
MSF's _actual_ advantage is that it's fronted by Sarah Beeny (Americans: she
is probably as well-known in England as Martha Stewart is in the US), a
national TV personality - even if it were "conventional" it would still have
achieved critical mass.

------
bprater
A new niche play might be to figure out how to adapt the dating genre to the
iPhone. Maybe a GPS-based play.

But I think the key continues to be -- find a good niche. But not so nichey
that only 8 people are interested.

~~~
altano
A _niche play_? Really? You might want to take a break from those bizdev2.0
blogs for a while...

------
MaysonL
Here's an interesting idea for a (niche) dating site:

One for people who spend more time reading books than watching tv or movies.

------
nycfam
dating sites are too complicating. Most of the dating sites which I have seen
lately make me sick to be honest. How can I find a match in the middle of a
smog? I want less complex and more fun. Illuminate the complexity and you'll
reach your goal.

------
kingkongrevenge
Dating sites are a stupid idea in the first place. Your system or algorithm
cannot ever hope to compete with 30 seconds of face to face interaction,
ideally with that first meeting occurring by way of mutual friends.

Sorry, but building a better dating web site is trying to drive a nail with a
screw driver. People who need help dating need a larger and more active social
circle. They don't need a dating website. Anyone trying to sell a dating site
will inevitably discover they're hawking snake oil and surrender to that
reality.

~~~
neilk
Actually, that's a pretty good idea. A site with _no_ fancy profiles, just
some really light filtering for age and location, and then a parade of people
you can video chat with for 30 seconds. As the 30 seconds winds down, both
partners have to press a big "greenlight" button to continue chatting.

This might be like skydiving for some people but I bet it would ultimately
make them more confident. And it could be sort of addicting -- if you hate
this guy/girl, just wait a few seconds.

~~~
vulpes
woome.com attempts to recreate that, in fact almost exactly like you are
describing...eerie.

------
time_management
These websites exist to solve people's problems in dating, and dating problems
are like depression in that there are so many causes that it's impossible to
find a single cure.

The bureaucratic categories that people have to box themselves into for many
of these websites are not very useful. For example, "Christian/Protestant" and
"Atheist/Agnostic/Other" are enormous categories. Instead of equality-matching
over these bureaucratic buckets, a better matching question might be something
like "Do you meditate?".

Dating ultimately comes down to interpersonal chemistry, which is very
subjective. By contrast, online dating often comes down to objective criteria
like race, age, and religious affiliation, which simply aren't usually
relevant in predicting whether a match is possible.

If I were to build a dating site, I would:

1\. Unapologetically make it a niche site for intellectuals, targeting people
from solid schools and graduate programs. This is a group of people who (1)
tend to prefer each other, and would pay a premium for an elite dating site,
and (2) tend to have difficulty in dating that is not due to personality
problems.

2\. Use Amazon book-recommendations style comparisons to define a metric for
"similar tastes" in books, movies, and hobbies, then match people based on
that. My site would be AI-driven, because while interpersonal chemistry is
really difficult to nail down, one can probably get closer by using similar
artistic inclinations than by assessing people according to bureaucratic
categories.

3\. Concentrate on building a real off-line community, with meetups and speed-
date events, which the dating site would supplement. This would implicitly
imply that the site would be focused on a few major cities, at least when it
started.

