3 ms·

It's not the backend. Better matching isn't going to work when you're matching snowflakes. People turn to online dating because they want more options. Put the

by jtm 16y ago

It's not the backend. Better matching isn't going to work when you're matching snowflakes. People turn to online dating because they want more options. Put them through your fantastic matching algorithm and out of the 1 million members you supposedly have they are only going to see half a dozen. So you loosen the matching to return more results. Now they see 15. Why not just skip to the chase and filter based on age, height and proximity? That will get you 90% of the way there. And people like looking at pictures of potential dates/partners. Let them do the filtering themselves. That leaves spam and scams, and they can both be reduced with a free-to-flirt, pay-to-contact model. If someone is not willing to spend $5 - $10 to contact you, then they can't be too interested in you. And vice versa. (I've used online dating sites and I work in marketing for an online dating site)

seiji 16y ago
Idea: what if you revshare the monthly fee with the contactees? (Obviously after some sort of validation/time-on-site/social proof to weed out scammers.)
eftpotrm 16y ago
This works only if you're close to the centre of gravity of the site's population. I'm a Christian and politically centre-left - not actually very unusual over here, as it happens, I'm just in a small church so that option doesn't really work. Even OKC, with its much vaunted matching system, is pretty bad at finding people who don't cross a red line for me one way or the other. Even with a tuned profile I tend to find: * People who match with me on general life outlook are relatively often nowhere near me on religion. I'm not trying to exist in a Christian ghetto but a regular churchgoer and a Darwin fish aren't good matches. I also tend to match quite strongly with Muslim women, which I can't see either side appreciating. * People who match with me on religion are often politically enough to the right of me that experience says there'd be arguments. OKC has major advantages over many rivals because it's enormously easier to find red lines up front and save both parties a lot of time, but even then there are edge cases where matching can fail. The further away from the population centre you get the harder matching becomes (just as in the real world, frankly) and a crude 'local, age, height' filter will slow those people down considerably.

by jtm 16y ago

seiji 16y ago

Idea: what if you revshare the monthly fee with the contactees? (Obviously after some sort of validation/time-on-site/social proof to weed out scammers.)

eftpotrm 16y ago

This works only if you're close to the centre of gravity of the site's population. I'm a Christian and politically centre-left - not actually very unusual over here, as it happens, I'm just in a small church so that option doesn't really work. Even OKC, with its much vaunted matching system, is pretty bad at finding people who don't cross a red line for me one way or the other. Even with a tuned profile I tend to find: * People who match with me on general life outlook are relatively often nowhere near me on religion. I'm not trying to exist in a Christian ghetto but a regular churchgoer and a Darwin fish aren't good matches. I also tend to match quite strongly with Muslim women, which I can't see either side appreciating. * People who match with me on religion are often politically enough to the right of me that experience says there'd be arguments. OKC has major advantages over many rivals because it's enormously easier to find red lines up front and save both parties a lot of time, but even then there are edge cases where matching can fail. The further away from the population centre you get the harder matching becomes (just as in the real world, frankly) and a crude 'local, age, height' filter will slow those people down considerably.