5 ms·

While I completely agree with their comments about these sites having a vested interest in showing you non-paying users, I have an issue with his conclusion. >

While I completely agree with their comments about these sites having a vested interest in showing you non-paying users, I have an issue with his conclusion. > From the ad, we can see that just 86,140 of those subscribers get married, a mere 6.2% of the people who paid the company to find them a mate. I know a lot of people who would easily drop $120 for a 6.2% chance of finding a partner in a year. These odds are not horrible.

kube-system 6y ago
> I know a lot of people who would easily drop $120 for a 6.2% chance of finding a partner in a year. But are the people who would drop $120 to find a partner the same people who belong to that 6.2%?
hawkoy 6y ago
Why not hire a salesman to do the online dating for you until they have managed to get a date offline? I think most people absolutely suck at being original or appealing in texting. Going through tinder or any dating app makes you see the worst of humanity. Scams, lot of them. Catfishers. Kids pulling prank and laughing at desperate middle-aged men. Exaggerations, too high expectations. It makes you compare with others. It makes you desperate. Just avoid it.
- solveit 6y ago
  You would have to tell your date that the person they were speaking to online was not you. And I don't think that would go over well.
  - Cthulhu_ 6y ago
    Better to be honest about having a representative / mediator than catfishing or pretending to be someone you're not to try and "win" the game, especially if you suck at it. I mean, people don't really know themselves or what they look for, generally speaking. Anyway, matchmakers are not a new concept.
  - laurent92 6y ago
    Having a majordome to manage your phone and online presence is quite fancy, I’d date, assuming of course the pictures and information given are genuine.
- ogre_codes 6y ago
  > Why not hire a salesman to do the online dating for you until they have managed to get a date offline? My wife would get upset if I did that. > I think most people absolutely suck at being original in texting or appealing. Yup
thaumasiotes 6y ago
> I know a lot of people who would easily drop $120 for a 6.2% chance of finding a partner in a year. These odds are not horrible. Those are in fact horrible odds. I would prefer to pay $2,000 for a 100% chance. Or $20,000.
- ogre_codes 6y ago
  > Those are in fact horrible odds. I would prefer to pay $2,000 for a 100% chance. Or $20,000. The only way you can get 100% chance is if you go the route of a mail-order bride. Not sure if that's even legal anymore. For legitimate options that include only legal means with consenting adults... 6.2% is pretty good.
  - thaumasiotes 6y ago
    > For legitimate options that include only legal means with consenting adults... 6.2% is pretty good. No, it isn't. At those odds, your expected wait to marry is over 16 years, which defeats the purpose.
    - dane-pgp 6y ago
      If they start paying for the service at age 18, then most users would be married before they turn 35. That's comparable with, for example, the average age of first marriage for men in Denmark and Spain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_age_at_first_marriage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_age_at_fi...
    - ogre_codes 6y ago
      > No, it isn't. At those odds, your expected wait to marry is over 16 years, which defeats the purpose. Most people who are motivated to get married explore more than one option at the same time. So you do this plus some combination of other things likely to get you socializing with members of the other gender: start doing the weekly ski/ bike trips; going to pubs; going to yoga; join the square dancing club, etc etc. (Clearly my recent experience socializing with the opposite gender is pretty badly out of date). Again, nothing legal/ ethical and guaranteed so the only way to increase the odds is to increase your exposure to your audience. If your goal is marriage, $120 and 6% on eHarmony is price and time competitive. Though likely not as fun as going on weekly ski or bike trips.
jcelerier 6y ago
120$ is pretty cheap when the traditional alternative is to go to a bar - had friends doing that a couple times per week, 120$ is basically spent in a month or less
- ratww 6y ago
  The difference is that going to a bar can be quite nice by itself: you go with friends, drink, have fun. Using a dating app/website on the other hand...

kube-system 6y ago

> I know a lot of people who would easily drop $120 for a 6.2% chance of finding a partner in a year. But are the people who would drop $120 to find a partner the same people who belong to that 6.2%?

hawkoy 6y ago

Why not hire a salesman to do the online dating for you until they have managed to get a date offline? I think most people absolutely suck at being original or appealing in texting. Going through tinder or any dating app makes you see the worst of humanity. Scams, lot of them. Catfishers. Kids pulling prank and laughing at desperate middle-aged men. Exaggerations, too high expectations. It makes you compare with others. It makes you desperate. Just avoid it.

solveit 6y ago
You would have to tell your date that the person they were speaking to online was not you. And I don't think that would go over well.
- Cthulhu_ 6y ago
  Better to be honest about having a representative / mediator than catfishing or pretending to be someone you're not to try and "win" the game, especially if you suck at it. I mean, people don't really know themselves or what they look for, generally speaking. Anyway, matchmakers are not a new concept.
- laurent92 6y ago
  Having a majordome to manage your phone and online presence is quite fancy, I’d date, assuming of course the pictures and information given are genuine.
ogre_codes 6y ago
> Why not hire a salesman to do the online dating for you until they have managed to get a date offline? My wife would get upset if I did that. > I think most people absolutely suck at being original in texting or appealing. Yup

thaumasiotes 6y ago

> I know a lot of people who would easily drop $120 for a 6.2% chance of finding a partner in a year. These odds are not horrible. Those are in fact horrible odds. I would prefer to pay $2,000 for a 100% chance. Or $20,000.

ogre_codes 6y ago
> Those are in fact horrible odds. I would prefer to pay $2,000 for a 100% chance. Or $20,000. The only way you can get 100% chance is if you go the route of a mail-order bride. Not sure if that's even legal anymore. For legitimate options that include only legal means with consenting adults... 6.2% is pretty good.
- thaumasiotes 6y ago
  > For legitimate options that include only legal means with consenting adults... 6.2% is pretty good. No, it isn't. At those odds, your expected wait to marry is over 16 years, which defeats the purpose.
  - dane-pgp 6y ago
    If they start paying for the service at age 18, then most users would be married before they turn 35. That's comparable with, for example, the average age of first marriage for men in Denmark and Spain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_age_at_first_marriage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_age_at_fi...
  - ogre_codes 6y ago
    > No, it isn't. At those odds, your expected wait to marry is over 16 years, which defeats the purpose. Most people who are motivated to get married explore more than one option at the same time. So you do this plus some combination of other things likely to get you socializing with members of the other gender: start doing the weekly ski/ bike trips; going to pubs; going to yoga; join the square dancing club, etc etc. (Clearly my recent experience socializing with the opposite gender is pretty badly out of date). Again, nothing legal/ ethical and guaranteed so the only way to increase the odds is to increase your exposure to your audience. If your goal is marriage, $120 and 6% on eHarmony is price and time competitive. Though likely not as fun as going on weekly ski or bike trips.

jcelerier 6y ago

120$ is pretty cheap when the traditional alternative is to go to a bar - had friends doing that a couple times per week, 120$ is basically spent in a month or less

ratww 6y ago
The difference is that going to a bar can be quite nice by itself: you go with friends, drink, have fun. Using a dating app/website on the other hand...