3 ms·
I agree that detailed initial messages are probably too time-expensive for the additional info communicated, especially given the high probability that the send
by jessriedel 9y ago
I agree that detailed initial messages are probably too time-expensive for the additional info communicated, especially given the high probability that the sender has some clear deal breakers from the recipient's point of view. But I'm not as pessimistic about detailed profiles as you are.
In my experience, the emphasis on detailed profiles has been at least partially effective for OkC. My first-date signal-to-noise ratio has been much better there than on Tinder, Bumble, etc., to the extent that I rarely bother with the latter.
Dating apps are simply not going to be able to change people's deep seated preferences and biases. Better and more realistic goals are just (1) to avoid wasting people's time when preferences make a match impossible and (2) allow people who would like to match based in part on non-superficial features (longer, more detailed profiles) to do so. I'm worried that we're moving toward an equilibrium where (2) is not available on any dating app.
- edraferi 9y agoI know several married couples that met on eHarmony. Folks tell me they like it because the fee is a barrier to entry that keeps out non-serious folks, and the detailed profiles help you cut down the crowd to something manageable. Seems to work.
- jessriedel 9y agoYep, filters can be effective. There are other sites (The League and the now-defunct Sparkology) that filter based on things like college pedigree.