4 ms·
It might make sense behind the scenes, but was it a mistake for them to actually tell their users about it? They must have known the uglies would find out about
by hugh3 16y ago
It might make sense behind the scenes, but was it a mistake for them to actually tell their users about it? They must have known the uglies would find out about it, so you've gotta balance out the fact that you've just flattered some of your users with the fact that you've insulted the rest.
Besides, ugly users are probably a lot more profitable than good-looking ones.
- patio11 16y agoAs you might have noticed from OKCupid's copious release of cross-racial dating data, and similar "Skipping through a minefield" marketing activities, I think they've decided "You know, dating is crowded. Better to be loved by many and hated passionately by a few than to be unknown by all and crushed by Match.com's nine figure AdWords spend."
- karzeem 16y agoCutting the userbase sharply in half, with ugly on one side and attractive on the other, is probably a bad way for them to explain it to people. They'd be better off saying something like "we show you other users based on how much you have in common, including age, interests, attractiveness, personality, etc."
- jrockway 16y agoWho cares? I didn't get any mail saying I'm beautiful. But I still see plenty of pretty girls that are a good match. So whatever.
- SapphireSun 16y agoTrue, but they already say that. I don't think that they stop showing you 'ugly' people, they just shift the distribution. In any case, the bottom 50% of users are probably cluttered with abandoned profiles, joke profiles, people with serious personality defects that can't get a date, et cetera. If you're an active serious user, you probably only have to be in the to 70-90% of active serious users to meet the criteria. We know they run statistics all the time from their blog, so they probably saw something like 90% of active users are in the top 50% and saw it as a way to flatter them and keep them engaged with the site.