Since at least 2013, Defendant has maintained the following five deceptive or
unfair practices to induce consumers to subscribe to Match.com and to keep them subscribed.
First, until mid-2018, Defendant sent consumers misleading advertisements that tout
communications from persons Defendant identified as potentially fraudulent users of Match.com
and led consumers to believe that the communications are from persons interested in establishing
a dating relationship with them.
Second, until mid-2018, Defendant exposed consumers to the
risk of fraud by providing recent subscribers access to communications that Defendant knew
were likely to have been sent by persons engaging in fraud.
Third, until mid-2019, Defendant
guaranteed certain consumers a free six-month subscription renewal if they fail to “meet
someone special” but failed to disclose the requirements of its “guarantee” adequately.
Defendant has misled consumers with a confusing and cumbersome cancellation process that
causes consumers to believe they have canceled their subscriptions when they have not.
until mid-2019, when consumers disputed charges relating to any of these practices and lose the
dispute, Defendant denied consumers access to paid-for services. 
"Please be assured, Match.com does not send members misleading notifications, e-mails or winks professing romantic interest. We have too much respect for our members to ever compromise their trust. If you have received communications from members with profiles that are not immediately available, the member may have temporarily hidden their profile."
That is impressively scummy.
This aligns our financial incentives with our user's incentives to have amazing experiences with someone they like. We also have a product for couples, so we won't lose 100% of our users.
More info if you're interested:
It's also indistinguishable from every other company doing business.
reminded about that Ashley Madison actual ratio in their database of something like 3 real girls to ten of millions of men, with the employees&bots producing all those "communications"
First and foremost: No matter how hard they try to hide it, the male/female balance on all straight dating sites is completely off. I'd say it's about 80% male. So most of them fill with fake accounts to get the balance backs.
The matching algorithms don't really exist, they are extremely primitive and usually optimised for engagement. All services show you a whole load of super attractive people on the first use (either fake or just popular profiles), only at the second day of use you get to the real profiles.
Due to the imbalance and fake accounts, as a male you rarely get response on messages. Most men just give up after a while and start to spam generic pickup lines to just about every profile. Woman get loads of messages per day and stop responding. It's vicious circle. As a male, it becomes very difficult to stand out if you are actually interested in someone.
The marketing is optimised badly towards your emotions (loneliness or sexual drive), I regularly got email messages where they "urgently need men to sign up for the next dating event, because only woman have applied so far". One of the services send me a total of 8 (!) reminder emails after I cancelled my subscription, that suddenly all these photo models were trying to send me a match request but couldn't because my account was closed.
I like meeting new people but online dating just raises my anxiety and frustration. I don't think this can be 'disrupted' either, it's just a terrible business to be in since the incentives are completely misaligned.
But dating sites that create fake profiles and use all these dark patterns to try to con you into joining should simply be avoided like the plague. Nothing good can come out of those, and there's no point in rewarding bad actors with your money.
Articles exposing these bad dating sites serve a very important purpose here.
This doesn't solve the gender inbalance though. This problem is much more difficult to solve, and requires further homogenization (?) of the male and female gender role.
This should be one of the more important challenges of our time. Lonelyness and sexual frustration have only negative impacts and are two accelerators for radicalization - which is a pressing concern in developed countries.
The reason why women tolerate the current system is that it is less work. You just apply a filter to the incoming requests.
It's much easier than having to produce requests.
That's why women's profiles say "don't just say 'hey'" and they get to respond with...
Yeah, I got a few "hey"s, which just put the ball back in my court, and I'd decide whether I wanted to put for the effort of opening the conversation. It's actually a really good skill for showing that you're interested in her, by picking up on some detail of her profile. It shows that you're perceptive and have some common interest. And conversely, if she can't do better than "hey", that tells me something about her.
I like it better than the assumption that I was required to do it, as on most other dating sites/apps. That assumption is sexist, though less annoying than being bombarded with dick pics and "DTF?" openers as so many women are. Dating sites are hard for them, too.
I met my wife on a dating site 13 years ago (a small, cheap one focused specifically on Christians), and although I probably had a profile with a whole supposedly-witty story about myself, the thing I remember is the photo; I used a photo from a recent vacation to Africa, with me selfie-style in front of the gate of Timbuctoo. Her first message to me included some reference to Ouagadougou, and that got the ball rolling. (Her photo was her on a sailing boat; also effective.)
Don't use a photo where you look average, use a photo where you do something interesting. That says more about you than a chiseled jaw line.
Women aren't as looks-focused as a lot of frustrated men present them. Average is just fine, as long as your picture suggests somebody that they can engage with. "Below average" can also go a long way if you've chosen a picture that makes you look like what she wants, which might be "fun" or "family" or "kind". The men who think it's all about their looks are most likely the ones who only judge women by theirs. And while some women do that, the vast majority don't.
That assumption might be correct for some men, but certainly not for all, and I would expect not even for most.
In any case, requiring men to swipe right first doesn't hurt the process in any way. And requiring both sides to agree to contact makes a lot of sense.
(But, to be clear, this assumption isn’t that men are okay with dating any woman interested in them; allowing-to-message doesn’t imply interest. The real assumption here is that, while the average woman sees a spammed message of interest as an annoying bit of desperation, the average man will see that same message as an esteem-boost (“hey, someone actually contacted me on this website!”) even if they are just as unlikely to engage with it. In other words, the assumption is that men are more okay with receiving spam from women, than women are okay with receiving spam from men; and so that a site that favours men receiving spam from women will have less churn than a website that favours women receiving spam.)
> requiring men to swipe right first doesn’t hurt the process in any way
I see you’ve never actually tried to enact a “swipe right 100% of the time” policy: it’s tiring, and also, apps have daily limits on how many likes you can give, precisely because this forces this rote “engagement” with the app to turn into a daily return to the app to continue swiping.
There are actually other apps, built to directly submit batched “like” API calls to these app’s backends, in order to avoid doing what is basically “work” every day (just in order to allow people who have already expressed interest in you to send an initial message to you!) And these services do everything they can to kill these auto-like apps, because they want to make men go through this pointless work, because it “fosters engagement” (i.e. makes their DAUs look better, and increases the chances someone will get fed up with running out of likes—because it turned out nobody in this batch had already seen+swiped right on them—and so pay for Gold to be able to continue swiping right.)
I guess, if you’re speaking in a game-theoretic sense, then yes, the same equilibrium state is achieved either way, because men are willing to go through a lot of pointless “work” to meet women. (You could probably build a Tinder-like app where men have to solve a CAPTCHA every time they swipe right, and use this to power a botnet.) But in an economic sense, you’re introducing a lot of inefficiency; these men could be doing other stuff with their time. (And women would prefer they do; what’s less interesting than a guy who spends all his time trying to hook up?)
> Requiring both sides to agree to contact makes a lot of sense.
No, allowing either side a choice to first have to verify the other side before they can make contact, makes a lot of sense. Requiring it is just a dark pattern. Even Facebook has the option to allow others to “reach out to you” with a message when you haven’t added them yet. It’s an option; you can disable it; but it’s on by default, and not that many people disable it.
Isn’t it weird that the current popular model for online dating is more paternalistic (“you can’t have a default-allow policy even if you want it”) than our current model for regular social networking?
That may be a good thing. Different people prefer different ways of dating, so expecting one way to suit everybody may be unreasonable.
> "The real assumption here is that, while the average woman sees a spammed message of interest as an annoying bit of desperation, the average man will see that same message as an esteem-boost (“hey, someone actually contacted me on this website!”) even if they are just as unlikely to engage with it. In other words, the assumption is that men are more okay with receiving spam from women, than women are okay with receiving spam from men; and so that a site that favours men receiving spam from women will have less churn than a website that favours women receiving spam."
I would expect that's strongly influenced by how new that spam is to you. For plenty of women, the first time a man expresses interest may also be a self-esteem boost. It's just that after 50 times, it gets a bit tired. A system that turns this around so men get all the spam may be interesting and new to men, but I would expect that when they get that kind of spam as much as women do on other systems, many men may also get tired of it eventually.
> "No, allowing either side a choice to first have to verify the other side before they can make contact, makes a lot of sense."
I agree that making this configurable probably makes more sense than enforcing one specific type of behaviour. It's certainly something I'd generally prefer.
On the other hand, men who just want to contact everybody who expresses an interest in them and only start considering whether they are actually interested in the other party after that contact has been established, may still end up wasting a lot of people's time. So in that sense I can still understand if a site doesn't allow it. Which dating site you choose to use will always be a user option.
Gender-equality has been coming into religion (i.e. women bishops in the Church of England) and dating (i.e. splitting checks). Given the way things are trending, it feels like this will continue to the point that it will impact things such as ballroom dancing and weddings.
But... Women collectively stopped short of picking up an equal responsibility for initiating romantic or casual interest. As a guy, you are absolutely expected to make the first moves. That doesn't sound very fair to me.
(Don't say it's because women aren't as interested as men. We're all pretty horny on average, and we all want to make connections. Equality, remember?)
However...imagine an app where only men could contact women. I feel like certain groups would be outraged....what do you think?
So it doesn't confirm the sexism, it addresses and counters it.
If at some point in the future, it becomes expected that men take a passive role while women always take initiative, then your imagined app would be better because it would subvert that sexist expectation. It's all about context.
Ideally of course we should end up somewhere in the middle, where men and women are equal partners in the dating arena.
Though I would say, since a lot of the reason women don’t seem to hit on men comes down to inculcated social anxiety from being raised to view strangers as unpredictable scary people who can only mean harm (a view which sticks around even in adulthood, long after it’s “helpful”; a view that boys seem to get along just fine never being burdened with), maybe the real responsibility here is on parents to... not do that. If that’s the case, I don’t know what to suggest for the generations of women that exist right now and have already been screwed up by being raised this way. (What do you do for the adults who were victims of foot-binding as children? Their feet just are that way now. And these women’s brains just are this way now, too.)
>Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them.
Remind yourself the demographics who overwhelmingly commit violent crimes, especially domestic abuse, when considering relationship dynamics. Eliminating violent domestic abuse by men would help bring equity this situation.
If fear of romantic socializing were something correctly calibrated by knowledge of violent tendencies of your potential partners, then gay men would be just as afraid of asking other men out as women are—because, of course, there's the same probability of a male stranger to turn out to be a homicidal maniac, whether you're a man or a woman asking out that male stranger.
But gay men are not afraid of approaching other men—in fact, they approach one-another quite successfully, usually very quickly after first deciding they're attracted to someone. And gay men aren't all suddenly dying in ditches from all the homicidal maniacs they run into.
Meanwhile, lesbian women are just as socially-anxious about approaching other women, as straight women are about approaching men. One of the "universal experiences" of lesbian culture is feeling mutual attraction with someone, but neither of you working up the nerve to ask the other out, sometimes for years.
Seems less like this is any rational reaction to any properties of the romantic target, and more just a property of the subject.
Edit: essentially I don't understand how men are getting hurt by Bumble, I know a lot of people that prefer it to something like Tinder so maybe that skews my perspective.
However when observing the real world, it is clear that people are not treated equally based on gender (i.e. Bumble, restrooms, changing rooms, dating). And I am fine with that to a certain extent which is another rabbit hole/discussion. What I find interesting, is that the generation using Bumble tend to be more progressive and aligned with the "all people are equal regardless of gender" ideology yet this is not consistent with how the Bumble app works. This is where I find inconsistency in terms of thinking but I recognize that I'm making wide generalizations which is not ideal.
Edit: you are talking about a whole generation but the people who are vocal about things like Bumble are a very very small minority and not really indicative of the movement at large in my experience.
I find it an interesting thought exercise to understand why society apply rules differently in certain situations. Context certainly plays an important role here and I feel like you made a good point around harm.
EDIT I feel like sometimes this is a sensitive topic to discuss broadly within Western society. From my end, I want to break things down to first principals and have a frank discussion. However I feel like certain elements within society would shoot down these kind of discussions since it threatens their ideology which is akin to a religion which cannot be questioned. I feel like I am going to get downvoted for saying this and I'm already negative on my karma for my other comments today...
The fact that you thought that I said Bumble was harming men and the way you identified my thoughts as a 'philosophy' as opposed to an observation to me speaks directly to point I was making in my previous post albeit you come across as someone who listens and is reasonable.
Society is fully willing to dispose of the scripts if you dispose of the gender identity. Just call yourself nonbinary and cultivate an androgynous appearance, and most of (the more cosmopolitan parts of) Western society—including the dating parts!—will literally stop caring about your gender.
(Come to think, I’ve never seen a 100% enby dating app. You could make one where—like France with religion—having a legible gender-presentation would be against the rules!)
Why is disposing of said "scripts" a good thing, especially to the extent that they are at least in part shaped by biological pre-dispositions?
> cultivate an androgynous appearance, and most of... Wester society... will literally stop caring about your gender
First, why would I need or want to "cultivate" an androgynous appearance? I'm not necessarily that handsome, but I am very distinguishably masculine. Why would I need or want to obscure natural characteristics? You are also greatly over-estimating the number of people, even in "cosmopolitan" parts of society, which would ignore gender. The population of transsexuals, homosexuals, etc. is still very small in relation to the broader population, and most people have definite ideas of who they are romantically interested in. They will not simply "stop caring".
> like france with religion
France does not allow religion on dating apps? That seems like a very silly rule, as it is an excellent predictor of shared values.
I was talking about this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_law_on_secularity_and_c... (though I didn't realize until looking it up just now that it was only "in schools"; I was under the impression that it was in all public spaces.)
> So where are you from?
> Austin, Texa^H^H^H^H^H^H^H
> Uh... the capital of Texarcana
I like the idea.
A site where women message first means their first message is a limp cold “Hey”, after which you are expected to craft some sort of interesting and thoughtful message for them to grace you with their response, otherwise they’ll just move on to one of the other hundred men available.
Online dating cannot work without the asymmetry in the dating game being resolved.
EDIT: couldn't find original blog post but this article seems to have some of the same math/details in less entertaining form
When match.com bought them a number of posts about the inner workings, along with any posts that were critical of paid dating sites, were quickly taken down, and they took some effort to chase down exact copies hosted elsewhere and demand they be taken down too.
OKC used to actually be a nice place to meet people (I'm still in contact with a number of friends I met on there) but it's turned into a cesspit. Off topic, but if anyone can suggest a non-awful replacement I'd be all ears. Ideally one where I can talk to people rather than having to make a yes/no decision based entirely on 3 photos.
Tinder disrupted the online dating scene by introducing the feature that you can only write someone after you've liked their profile, AND they've liked yours.
That makes a huge difference, and solves the spam problem.
I got back on Tinder about 6 months ago and bought a premium account after they kept waving the number of potential matches I had, only to discover that the vast majority of them (roughly 18 in 20) were 2,000+ miles away from me and looked like spam.
Photos with spammy gmail addresses and URLs written in them has been on the rise recently too.
Ban anyone who swipes right on it.
Or limit the amount of right swipes allowed per day.
However, of course I can't be sure about that.
It's been a while since I've used Tinder, but they were rate-limiting swipes - unless you paid up for premium features.
"Hey, we know you're both single, or at least looking for other partners. You're literally the only two people on earth that share this fascination, everyone else thinks it's weird and creepy. You should chat. Based on the personality profiles we've created for you both based on your search history, we think you'd make an amazing couple."
That could totally disrupt dating, it would be organic in a way that could actually work for relationship longevity and it would be based on things people are actually interested in rather than what they think they should present as being interested in to signal mates. It has the potential to be far more real than dating sites.
This is why I think this clustering based on interests was always bullshit on dating sites. And this is why people use Tinder now.
- Women and men join.
- Women are immediately dogpiled by creeps, catfished, dick-picked, called names and given death threats for saying no.
- Women turn right the fuck around and leave.
- 80% ratio if you're lucky (and 100% plus bots, employees, and ghost accounts if you aren't).
Most dating apps want you to be addicted (single and swiping) to their screens so that they can keep earning billions of dollars from subscriptions, power-ups, and ads. Even if you aren't paying, they want you addicted to their platform for their paying members. There is a serious conflict of interest.
We are different. We understand users want to find someone, so they get on with their lives-- to have amazing life experiences with someone they like. We give our users exactly that and our main revenue stream is tied to that. Just like Uber and Lyft sell rides because customers want rides-- we sell adventure dates because our users want breathtaking dating experiences.
We also hate screen addiction. We want to be in the background, so people can focus on living in the moment. And every day, we'll sprinkle their lives with like-minded, kind people and travel opportunities.
Would love your feedback on it. Here's more info I wrote about our business model:
Also I am happy to share my user data with the community too.
Make a profile with a really hot guy pic and see what happens. You'll find there are way more women on those sites than you thought. Or better yet, don't do that, but look into the people who have. They tend to be crazy people (who invented 'chadfishing'), but their results are fascinating.
That may have an effect, but it is also that women tend to go for the "top" guys while men in general have an more even spread on what they like. This is a more likely scenario.
If you are male and not an alpha male that is very good looking and / or successful, it is unlikely that you will have a good experience on dating apps.
This has been found again and again:
OkCupid (which later deleted the post because the truth is controversial, and they are progressive):
Tinder Study: https://i.redd.it/huqtbknjvoc31.png
(There are many more, just search for it)
Bumble is also (or was) loaded with fake profiles too. I had a friend see my own profile on there, with a city that I wasn't in (but had been) and there's no indication that I wasn't an active user - I had deleted the Bumble app 6 months before. I did finally go and delete the whole account after their anti-gun stance.
All the problems we discuss are pretty much related to this point: They probably have good matching algorithms, but they only showed you actual good matches you'd be gone from the site (taking the other person with you). So they have an incentive to show you 99% noise and 1% signal, and some go to the length of more or less explicitly paywalling the good 1%.
When I hear of real people paying money on a dating site and finding what they want, that's a powerful motivator.
So we can only hypothesize whether a few desperate users do cough out more cash than a larger number of one-time subscribers would, but the later strategy is certainly more sustainable over the long term.
It's also a very personal decision, perhaps more like picking movies or music you'd like. I don't generally trust any of my friends' movie or music recommendations.
That's why, for example, Photoshop used to cost $1000 (outrageous!) and now costs $20/month (outrageous!), and users hate it both ways. Or why electronics are less repairable than ever, and companies are optimizing for cheapness, and you can just buy a new one when it breaks. When you open the hood on your car you just see another hood, and you couldn't really work on your engine (it's a big noisy proprietary computer now) if you even could get to it, anyway.
This is simply how the economy works today. People complained yesterday about software patents being legal roadblocks to make easy things hard. Then they go back to writing proprietary APIs for closed-source web services, which are mostly just technical roadblocks to make easy things hard. Most of the work we do now is to serve the preservation of the capitalist system, not because it's actually useful work.
I know one French dating website, AdopteUnMec, where it's free for women and paying for men, the owner are claiming the user split is 50-50 between men and women. But I've never used it, so I don't know how well it works.
At my small office of 10 people, where's 2 people that found matches on e-harmony, resulting in marriage.
It's more like most women will go for 20% of the men. If you're part of the 80% you'll feel alone. As an experiment just make a fake profile with some model's picture to discover how many women are around.
One hypothesis is that it depends on the service you use. E.g., Tinder vs Okupid, where Tinder reinforces decision based on looks while Okupid encourages much more detailed profiles.
The reverse then meant that the bottom 78% of men had to compete for the attention of the bottom 22% of women. They retracted that study after a while, but other dating sites roughly get the same percentages eventually.
There is no way to achieve monogamous one-to-one pairing for everyone in place that is 80% male. Of course only minority of men succeeds. And while here it is not exactly 1-to-1, it is not actually all that much far off.
edit: here it is https://web.archive.org/web/20170330131859/https://theblog.o...
In any case, any site where the profile focuses primarily on your photo is probably going to see this going both ways: men going for the hottest women and women going for the hottest men.
If you focus more on people's interests, I'd expect you're going to see a very different pattern.
Well that's the wrong approach right there. I'm glad to serve the needs of the other person, but I'll not approach someone with this mindset at the beginning (like sales people have to do).
My approach at the beginning is that of exploration, and careless fun. I certainly don't want to start a relationship in a subservient role.
Anyway, how's tinder any better?
d) You walk up to someone, start opening your mouth for a word, and they swipe you aside, ignoring you.
This weird liking of online interactions to real life ones doesn't really work. People act differently online, just a fact of life. Someone saying "Hi, how're you?" online may just end up being quite fine in real life. Not sure about the dickpic people though. LOL
And how is it working for you? Because this seems to be the approach advocated and practiced by the "nice guys" who complain that they can't get a date.
> You walk up to someone, start opening your mouth for a word, and they swipe you aside, ignoring you.
It is great! It is called "No product market fit!"
> It is great! It is called "No product market fit!"
But that's not really differentiating it from the other a,b,c options you provided.
There are definitely fewer people than e.g. Tinder, but they tend to be a lot more real vs spammers / scammers / engineered profiles designed to keep you in.
Most Tinder matches were bots, most OkC matches were actual people. Of course this is with a sample size of 1, in Germany. Your mileage may vary.
Is that grammatically correct? It appears to be, but wow does it ring strangely in my ear.
Maybe it is a bit ambiguous, although from the context it should be reasonably clear that I was with my (now-ex) girlfriend for that period of time, and not with OkC itself :)
I don't think what you said is technically correct. "With whom I was" calls for something (a verb or phrase) to be tacked onto the end, but it would still be awkward. For example, "with whom I was dating for three years."
Actually, I'm pretty certain you're supposed to use "whom" there, not "who".
But dating sites are there for those who are generally bad at that. The requirement of marketing 101 to be successful on a dating site kind of defeats the purpose.
Let's see if we can apply this to filling a job. You need to do marketing.
Let's see if we can apply this to selling a watches in a store? You need to do marketing.
Let's see if we can apply this to selling your specific CBD online? You need to do marketing.
Why would you think that dating would be different?
Dating sites are the top of the funnel. You still need to close the "sale". To do that one has one of the two options: time to experiment and develop sales tactics or have the needed resources. I do not know what Evan's "style" was if any but him being a billionaire definitely helped to close the deal with Miranda.
The experience of women on dating sites is this: lots of messages from men that basically say (often exactly this): "Wanna fuck?" Like, that's the whole message. Except there's almost always multiple misspellings, no matter how short the message is. So it's more like "U wanna fuk?". And then those men go on their local message boards and complain that no one is responding to that pithy, well-crafted message and they can't find a spouse to settle down with and raise a family.
Put some effort into it. Wear a collared shirt. Brush your hair. Take a shower. Spellcheck. Find your smartest friend to help you make your profile. Don't pick things off your feet and eat them. Try to be funny.
It's really not that hard. Lots of humans have successfully mated with other humans. You can too!
The overwhelming majority did so without the use of online dating. I think that speaks more to the quality of online dating than anything else.
Your response is quite illustrative of reactions men have to observations on this topic the women make -- they do not like it. They especially do not like the implication: in this specific situation men just don't bring enough to the table to make them interesting enough for a woman to engage with.
Just look at @TinderNightmares. That is men's competition. That's what men are failing at exceeding. Let that sink in.
The images and the bio on a tinder profile has to so bad that women quite literally pick people whom women pretty much know will interact that way because even that is better than the alternatives.
You are on HN. There are hundreds of posts about negotiations and evaluation of available options. BATNA is thrown around in every one of them. I am baffled that people continue to pretend that it just does not magically apply to dating.
Your profile is your pitch deck. If no one wants to fund you, you should ask yourself if you need to change your pitch deck if you are convinced that your idea has a merit. Or maybe you can follow the HN startup advice and pivot to something else.
If doing the same thing over and over again does not achieve the desired result, one is ought to adjust approach.
My new hypothesis is that Match acquired OKC just to get Rudder to STFU.
One trick I think that was missed though? :
> eHarmony seems to do quite a bit better than Match, claiming in their ads to marry off 236 people a day
That doesn't mean those people marry people they meet through eHarmony, nor that they people used eHarmony at the time they found their maate etc?
Seems like a good potential revenue source, although it might require a little bit too much honesty for their taste.
I am happily married now (met my wife through a mutual friend, the old fashioned way) so my experience of online dating may be obsolete but women on dating sites tend to be very specific about their partner’s height. And income, and what car he drives and a big shopping list of mainly physical and materialistic traits. If you could verify all of that you might be onto a viable business.
How you attract the men to your platform is up to you...
Women. Period. If you have women, then men will come. And they'll jump through absolutely every hoop and hurdle to do so.
but its so bad now because women are competing for the top 5% of men who are like models and everyone else gets no response
My understanding is that women are more picky than men about who they find attractive, but less picky about who they will message and respond to.
I have seen that @medium link before; this is an informal survey done by a single person so there’s probably a lot of methodological issues with the survey. The third link is just a screenshot from that same article, so it is just as dubious.
The second link is quoting the actual article out of context.
Here is the entire article: https://archive.is/yse2
To wit: “Site-wide, two-thirds of male messages go to the best-looking third of women [...] women rate an incredible 80% of guys as worse-looking than medium. Very harsh. On the other hand, when it comes to actual messaging, women shift their expectations only just slightly ahead of the curve, which is a healthier pattern than guys’ pursuing the all-but-unattainable.”
Point being, it’s men who only want the most attractive girls, and it’s women who are more willing to give a homely guy a chance.
okcupid was from 2009, its way different now after ten years. women control the scene and they only go for the top. thats what the tweets i linked from 2019 show
As far as I know, vetting potential mates’ physical characteristics has happened for thousands of years, whenever families/friends/coworkers propose a match.
I might even think this is a superior system as people are bad at perceiving their own price in the mating market, and an outside appraisal is frequently more accurate.
You see profiles with only pictures that clearly were taken 5-10 years ago, or only picture of the face with a filter so heavy they are barely recognizable. It is certainly short sighted because you can only hide behind a carefully curated profile for so long. If I was looking for a dating service I would certainly pay for one with just verified, unedited photos. At some point this could get creepy but other stats like height, age, and weight could be optionally verifiable and public.
If this could save me from even one awkward date a year with someone I don't find even remotely physically compatible it would easily be worth it.
Again my experience is long ago but I would occasionally be matched with someone I knew IRL and women shaving 5-10 years (e.g. moving into a lower age bracket) was very common.
What's funny is I didn't make any value judgements when I proposed a verified physical characteristics site. I never said that it's better to like fat or thin, or tall or short, or blonde or redhead, or bald or hairy, black or white. There's someone for everyone and that's great!
But it's not OK to lie about it, and hope the other person will overlook the fact that you are a liar or that you'll change your mind "once you get to know him/her"
If someone asked me if I want to date an overweight woman. I'd say no. But if I met a great person, and she happened to be overweight, it wouldn't really matter to me that much. So, within limits, I could accept being 'lied to' on a dating website.
Robbery? People just want to enrich themselves. Rape? People just want to pleasure themselves. The nerve of society to criminalize these behaviors, we should all get the fuck off our collective high horses.
I think it is just one exhibit of the fatal flaw of the idea that shareholder value maximization is the correct objective of a corporation. The very original raison d'etre of limited libility was to enhance wellbeing of public, not shareholders. And for some reason that has been forgotten.
(No, I have no good solutions for proper corporate governance, but I still think acknowledging we have a problem is the first step.)
Also there's a difference between specialist consultancies and contract labour hire. I'd say most government contractors fall into the latter camp.
Only if people never recommend driving instructors to friends and family. If they do, a driving instructor who consistently has people passing their test quickly is much more likely to make more money long term
Now, I'm not sure if these are of any worth (I never got anything useful out of LinkedIn... either people trying to sell me something, or colleagues I know already).
I've heard of people (of gold digger kind) using LinkedIn as a dating site.
While spam prevention is technically not a "solved" problem, simple and clever techniques in addition to shadow-banning go a long way. Once an account has sufficient activity, which for spammers takes anywhere from 30s - 4hr, even modest systems can confidently identify the vast majority.
A company like Match that has conglomerated other upstarts in the space surely has spammer identification systems far in excess of smaller apps. Yet somehow those competing apps often cite account authenticity as an advantage over Match. The Ashley Madison scandal exposed this business tactic. Match clearly followed suit and has been just-subtle-enough to evade legal action until now.
But come on, if you are a large business then you should know what is going on in your company.
Also they had a lot of people on payroll to pretend they're available girls on the website, in order to increase engagement and lure subscribers. One of them was a huge biker dude and it was hilarious. The truth is that on all these dating website, as someone else pointed out, the ratio is about 30 guys to 1 gal so building a dating platform is hard.
First, they do shady things with your data. Since I made a Tinder account I been getting constant ads for random dating sites. This have been going on for months. God knows how many companies now have my data.
Second, they employ dark patterns:
1) Easy account deletion. Why does that matter?
Because they own nearly all dating sites. Including:
"BlackPeopleMeet.com, Chemistry.com, Delightful, FriendScout24, HowAboutWe, Match.com, Meetic Group, OkCupid, OurTime, People Media, PlentyOfFish, Tinder, Twoo, Hinge" So, they don't care if they lose a user as long as they can shuffle them around.
2) They will keep a tab of the number of users who have like you. Then eventually that user will shown to you and you will swipe left or right. In that case the tab count will decrease. This is a complete scam. They would withhold these users to push to a pay subscription. Example: https://i.redd.it/e13yeek795x21.jpg . Moreover, most of these likes a bots and fake profiles.
3) Fake notifications: https://i.redd.it/r0lheira9rh31.jpg
4) Shadows-bans: I saw that my profile was getting no matches. So I made a new profile, ban! a match within minutes. Essentially they shadow ban users as a form of Neg.
They changed it so swiping left on someone who liked you no longer decreases the like counter
Also before that if you were out traveling the likes you got while on the road will not show up in your stack when you leave the area where you got them
Also if you swipe left on someone and you’re in their stack and they swipe right on you, they’ll show up in the count
The rest is still super scummy, but the “rules” of the like counter are at least somewhat logical
Do you happen to know if that was a valid strategy, and if it still is?
I always wondered if it was/is actually possible to completely reset your data, considering they have pretty strong links to you like payment information.
I imagine you risk being shadowbanned if you do it too often, but it’s pretty natural to do it once every couple of months
Current time to shadowban seems to be around 3 months
Glad to see the FTC curbstomping it
Lots of people are told they have no problem with their profile and that they should just recreate their account to get around their shadow ban.
The house of cards that Tinder built is falling down
This is true even in hackernews I would assume, certainly it is any other place I've moderated before.
You routinely shadowban people you disagree with. Or post-limit them. You don't get to act innocent here when I guarantee you're just as guilty of these dark patterns as every other site.
We don't ban people we disagree with. If we did, hardly anyone would be left unbanned.
As for shadowbanning, the practice is as I described it: if the account is established, we tell people we're banning them and why (your account was an example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15615092). If an account is new, different rules apply: we (meaning some combo of software and moderators) have to make a guess about whether the account is legit or not. If the guess is that they're spamming or trolling, we shadowban the account. We guess wrong sometimes, but we do what we can to correct those cases. And we're always happy to unban anyone who gives us reason to believe that they'll follow the site guidelines in the future.
Rate limiting is a separate issue. If an account posts too many low-quality comments too quickly and/or gets involved in flamewars, we rate limit how much they can post in the future. It's annoying and crude, but it's one of the few software tools we have to prevent comment quality from degenerating too quickly. Again, people are welcome to email email@example.com and we take the rate limit off if they commit to not repeating that behavior. It's not hard to get an account unbanned or unpenalized if you really want to use HN as intended.
For the most part, I DO use HN as intended, IN SPITE of your shadowbanning. You just refuse to read my posting history to see that much.
This clearly shows I have more integrity than you, as you won't dare unhide any of my decent comments, instead preferring to make yourself look the victim by only unbanning my comments which you can unban to make me look bad. You're the real issue here, not me.
On a paid product, shadow bans seem like a pretty clear case of fraud.
This sounds like something the CCPA was trying to change.
On paper we had about 50 million users. The reality was that we were a porn site, and our business was entirely driven by porn site referrals. Our smarter referral partners would game the system to setup thousand of users to get extra bonuses, and we encouraged it, so that we could ethically claim that we didn't create the fake users.
These sorts of lies are pretty much status quo in the dating industry. Zoosk is far worse, I walked away from a contract there when I realized how much of a sleazeball their founder, Shayan Zadeh, really was/
eHarmony is the worst: they actually sold my email address to spammers. How do I know this? I have my own domain, and use a unique (hard to guess) email address for each site I have to give an email address to. So it was trivial to nail eHarmony as the culprit.
Someone has already linked to the OKCupid blog post which explained pretty well why you should not pay for a dating site. Then they were bought out by Match (how did the anti-trust people let Match accumulate so many sites?), and any principles they had went down the drain.
Basically, the market is ripe for a respectful dating site. But OKCupid started this way; and in the end they sold out. What makes you think you won't sell out when the money is right?
My wife and I had been separated for a while and in the divorce process. (We were and remain on friendly terms, but it was definitely over.) I thought I would check out some dating services, and eHarmony sounded like one that wasn't sleazy or weird.
So I filled out their lengthy multipage onboarding form, with all kinds of personal questions where they ask you to write heartfelt essays about various things.
At the beginning they asked my marital status and went on from there through the whole questionnaire. After I entered all of my information and wrote my personal essays, they got to the last page and said:
"Sorry! We don't serve your kind. You are separated! Come back when your divorce is final."
Those weren't the exact words, but that was the message.
Now if a dating site wants to serve only a certain market, and if they don't want to serve people who are separated but not yet fully divorced, I totally respect that! But they need to say it up front after asking your marital status.
Instead, they led me through the entire questionnaire, asking all sorts of personal questions, without even a hint that the very first question about my marital status was going to disqualify me.
And then they offered no way for me to recover any of the information I had just entered into their site: all the essays, personal questions and answers, all gone.
No online service of any type, dating or whatever, should ever do this to anyone.
Luckily, I'd had the sense to copy and paste all my little essays into a text file and not trust them to give them back to me. That just seemed like common sense. But in the case of eHarmony, it was necessary!
What's worse is that they probably saved it and profited from that data.
We both quit EH. Many months later, I found them still using her (quite attractive) photo in their advertising.
If they had only been honest and up front about it, and as soon as I said I was "separated" they said "sorry, we're not the dating service for you", it would have been fine! I would have respected that and moved on.
But when they actively lied to me by leading me through the entire onboarding process - when they knew from the beginning that they would reject me - that was beyond the pale.
But I suspect incompetence rather than malice. They simply didn't care enough - or weren't self-aware enough - to do a basic sanity check on status before onboarding. Or perhaps decided to add the check later and didn't have the spare braincells required to rearrange the onboarding sequence.
And point well taken about suspecting incompetence rather than malice. Or not even incompetence. I can easily imagine some poor overworked web developer (maybe someone like me!) trying to meet their deadlines and business requirements and not even realizing that the "funnel" should have had a filter at the very top instead of waiting until the end to note the error.
This is why I try to put myself in the shoes of whoever is using my app and hopefully look at it from their perspective. I try not to just to ask myself if the interaction I'm building meets the technical requirements, but how will the person feel who is using my app?
It doesn't sound like an "active lie," but more like a badly designed on-boarding form (a.k.a. a potentially innocent mistake). They should have presented the dealbreaker questions first, but they didn't.
Most of the time this is not a problem because you can create the account again with the correct email, but I have lost a few good usernames in some popular websites because I pulled this trick on them, Gravatar is one of these websites and the simplest one to explain.
I wanted a specific username that was available; I signed up with an email that looks like firstname.lastname@example.org and the operation went through, then when I tried to log in, the website kept saying that the email was incorrect. I tried to reset the account using the username instead, which would force them to send a reset link to the email associated to this account, but the emails never arrive. I gave up that and other good usernames in many websites because of the inappropriate handling of email addresses by some popular web libraries.
Also, the same way you learnt this “trick” other programmers discovered it too and implemented a stripping algorithm to remove the unique ID during the registration process, so it is not very useful nowadays unless the website is very obscure and their developers either are rookies or do not have time to prevent this.
Reputable websites don't have an incentive to strip out the ID. It is only websites like "sold out" dating websites or otherwise nefarious websites that have that incentive in the first place. So, email@example.com is still useful for filtering and indexing, and in fact if a website does strip out the ID you should ask yourself why would they need to do that.
At first I believed it was some scam but it soon got clear that my account was accidentally siphoning mail from someone using this supposedly clever scheme...
So, instead of doing firstname.lastname@example.org, I can do email@example.com.
Fastmail has an interesting variation of this that supports multiple users on the same domain: firstname.lastname@example.org. My wife and I both use that feature heavily on our domain.
Unfortunately, there is a mathematical theorem (greater idiot theorem) that makes it technically impossible to generate a new random string that becomes an inbox that goes to your inbox.
How do I know that it's technically impossible?
Because otherwise Gmail would have done it already, since this takes 20 minutes and fixes a glaring security issue that gives spammers access to your email that you didn't grant.
I can't have an IQ 50 points higher than all Gmail engineers, so it must stand to reason that I'm the greater idiot. Hence there must be something preventing this obvious solution. QED.
so for sure it isn't possible for some reason, even if someone else is doing it.
what other explanation can there be? why would they just have a glaring security hole like that, allowing anyone you try to give a trackable email to with + to just remove it with a regex? It doesn't make sense. there must be some reason it can't work.
The + need not have been intended as a spam filter; I use it for bona fide filtering of separate clients’ projects.
It's more effective to have an entire domain at your disposal and just invent $email@example.com whenever an email address is needed. On the server end all you need is a catchall to handle it, and you can blackhole whatever addresses become spam magnets (while also knowing which vendor's responsible).
This rfc merely acknowledges that some systems do this. It doesn't say the must or even should.
I wrote about this here: https://idbloc.co/blog/background/2019/04/14/keep-your-addre... and it’s one of the main reasons https://idbloc.co exists
I used to use unique email address per site too, and at least one was clearly hacked rather than sold.
I contend that no such thing can possibly exist. The reality of online dating is that it is garbage, and generally the only way to sell people garbage is to lie to them and convince them it isn't garbage. Dating is a gigantic pain in the real world for a lot of reasons that just can't be fixed by a fucking website.
Seems like it's a problem that can't really be solved by a profit seeking company, and has to be left to a non-profit foundation or something like that.
Image hosting has a similar problem. Imgur used to be the "good" image hoster, but they have been slipping immensly. In the case of something like image hosting I could see publicly funded infrastructure solving the problem. Not sure how comfortable I'd be with this in the case of dating.
I remember when PoF was run out of some guy's basement. He was the only one (well, aside from a part-time systems support guy) running it, and he was banking $1M/month (he posted a photo of his check once) from ads.