6 ms·

hey, i'm all for selling out but im not into rewriting history. either leave the post or write a new one saying why it was wrong or what has changed. dont go re

hey, i'm all for selling out but im not into rewriting history. either leave the post or write a new one saying why it was wrong or what has changed. dont go rewriting history by trying to delete it.

lwhi 16y ago
I signed up for OkCupid years ago, probably around 2005/6 .. I liked the site a lot. The site always had a lot of emphasis on tests and quizes - and had a main OkCupid test, which was used to introduce the site and categorise each new member into different persona-types. I remember, in the test, there was the line "if you have any STDs please go .. " with a link to match.com. I expect that's been 'cleansed' from the site too :)
pavel_lishin 16y ago
> write a new one saying why it was wrong or what has changed The problem is that it wasn't wrong, and nothing has changed.
- apgwoz 16y ago
  > The problem is that it wasn't wrong, and nothing has changed. It's certainly not wrong, but something has changed. OkCupid now reports to match.com, which is among the largest paid dating sites in the world. edit I don't know the specifics, but IAC owns Match.com, and also OkCupid, but does that mean that Match.com oversees OkCupid? My statement above might be wrong on that alone.
  - pavel_lishin 16y ago
    Oh, I meant nothing changed in their original analysis of match.com.
    - jlees 16y ago
      Well, presumably now they have access to the real, not benefit-of-the-doubt, numbers. Which only makes Match.com look worse...
  - mvalle 16y ago
    It appears that Match.com does control OkCupid. "IAC's Match.com Acquires OkCupid" http://iac.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1882 http://iac.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1882
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
- mhartl 16y ago
  Approximately 50 million things have changed.
  - sudonim 16y ago
    It may have been part of the terms of the sale. Would you turn them down?
    - pavel_lishin 16y ago
      It depends. Is that $50,000,000 actually going into my bank account? How much do I personally stand to gain from it? How badly does my business need the $50M? But in the end, I probably would take the article down, too.
      - lwhi 16y ago
        At the beginning of any kind relationship, it's generally best not to point out the other person's flaws - that kind of behaviour is traditionally saved for the breakup :) I guess the same is true for okcupid and match.com.
        pavel_lishin 16y ago
        Sure, but if I write an article about how much the Church of Scientology sucks, and then start dating someone who's a member, I'm not gonna go back and erase it.
        aditya 16y ago
        Is that why you're still single? ;-)
        alttab 16y ago
        Is that why you have a short past? ;-)
        16y ago
- rgarcia 16y ago
  according to OKCupid's response (http://www.observer.com/2011/tech/okcupid-we-didnt-censor-our-matchcom-bashing-blog-post http://www.observer.com/2011/tech/okcupid-we-didnt-censor-ou...) something has changed: OKCupid's CEO "got to know" match.com a little better (through access to more accurate statistics, etc.) and has backed off his previously "exaggerated" stance against paid models the timing definitely leaves this difficult to believe
- rmc 16y ago
  We have always been at war with Eastasia
MichaelApproved 16y ago
There's a difference between rewriting history and scrubbing it. I think rewriting is far worse offence. Regardless, I still disagree with the removal of the article.
- jarek 16y ago
  What is the difference between rewriting history and changing history by removing things?
  - reinhardt 16y ago
    Similar to the difference between actively lying and telling part of the whole truth.
nandemo 16y ago
Rewriting history? Come on, the post was a marketing piece. It was written for business purposes and was later removed due to business purposes. It's similar to Coke buying Pepsi and then Pepsi removing ads that make fun of Nike. Sure, the post was a bit more factual than the average ad but it's not like it was a scientific paper either.

hey, i'm all for selling out but im not into rewriting history. either leave the post or write a new one saying why it was wrong or what has changed. dont go rewriting history by trying to delete it.

lwhi 16y ago

I signed up for OkCupid years ago, probably around 2005/6 .. I liked the site a lot. The site always had a lot of emphasis on tests and quizes - and had a main OkCupid test, which was used to introduce the site and categorise each new member into different persona-types. I remember, in the test, there was the line "if you have any STDs please go .. " with a link to match.com. I expect that's been 'cleansed' from the site too :)

pavel_lishin 16y ago

> write a new one saying why it was wrong or what has changed The problem is that it wasn't wrong, and nothing has changed.

apgwoz 16y ago
> The problem is that it wasn't wrong, and nothing has changed. It's certainly not wrong, but something has changed. OkCupid now reports to match.com, which is among the largest paid dating sites in the world. edit I don't know the specifics, but IAC owns Match.com, and also OkCupid, but does that mean that Match.com oversees OkCupid? My statement above might be wrong on that alone.
- pavel_lishin 16y ago
  Oh, I meant nothing changed in their original analysis of match.com.
  - jlees 16y ago
    Well, presumably now they have access to the real, not benefit-of-the-doubt, numbers. Which only makes Match.com look worse...
- mvalle 16y ago
  It appears that Match.com does control OkCupid. "IAC's Match.com Acquires OkCupid" http://iac.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1882 http://iac.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1882
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
mhartl 16y ago
Approximately 50 million things have changed.
- sudonim 16y ago
  It may have been part of the terms of the sale. Would you turn them down?
  - pavel_lishin 16y ago
    It depends. Is that $50,000,000 actually going into my bank account? How much do I personally stand to gain from it? How badly does my business need the $50M? But in the end, I probably would take the article down, too.
    - lwhi 16y ago
      At the beginning of any kind relationship, it's generally best not to point out the other person's flaws - that kind of behaviour is traditionally saved for the breakup :) I guess the same is true for okcupid and match.com.
      - pavel_lishin 16y ago
        Sure, but if I write an article about how much the Church of Scientology sucks, and then start dating someone who's a member, I'm not gonna go back and erase it.
        aditya 16y ago
        Is that why you're still single? ;-)
        alttab 16y ago
        Is that why you have a short past? ;-)
        16y ago
rgarcia 16y ago
according to OKCupid's response (http://www.observer.com/2011/tech/okcupid-we-didnt-censor-our-matchcom-bashing-blog-post http://www.observer.com/2011/tech/okcupid-we-didnt-censor-ou...) something has changed: OKCupid's CEO "got to know" match.com a little better (through access to more accurate statistics, etc.) and has backed off his previously "exaggerated" stance against paid models the timing definitely leaves this difficult to believe
rmc 16y ago
We have always been at war with Eastasia

MichaelApproved 16y ago

There's a difference between rewriting history and scrubbing it. I think rewriting is far worse offence. Regardless, I still disagree with the removal of the article.

jarek 16y ago
What is the difference between rewriting history and changing history by removing things?
- reinhardt 16y ago
  Similar to the difference between actively lying and telling part of the whole truth.

nandemo 16y ago

Rewriting history? Come on, the post was a marketing piece. It was written for business purposes and was later removed due to business purposes. It's similar to Coke buying Pepsi and then Pepsi removing ads that make fun of Nike. Sure, the post was a bit more factual than the average ad but it's not like it was a scientific paper either.