2 ms·

1) Ok, so let's say, you get ratio the number of men to no more than 20% of the women (overall/in certain geographic areas), and remove inactive profiles from s

1) Ok, so let's say, you get ratio the number of men to no more than 20% of the women (overall/in certain geographic areas), and remove inactive profiles from search 2) That's fine - let's go for the low cost end. A fee that's half to 1/3 of the major sites, but for a whole year. No hassle of remembering to stop the billing, or checking your bills. Yes, this will mean after a year, you're likely to loose a high % due to not rebilling...but hey maybe this is a great product? 3) Fuzzy matching? i.e. I would like to meet someone <around> my height, or meet someone <slightly shorter> than my height. Perhaps we could have a feedback mechanism for those that actually meet. Perhaps we could just remove those people that never meet up with anyone? (Shocking approach I know - but the quality of the user experience would drastically improve!!) 4) Build it and they will come. (errm word play. bad) But no seriously, whilst it's a competitive market, if you match up someone, and don't rip them off in the mean time, why on earth wouldn't they tell their single mates about the site? It's all about good user experience, which is sadly lacking in the majorly exploitative dating site game.

Joakal 15y ago
1) Men are very aggressive, I would assume it needs to be something like 1:1.5 men:women ratio. But I do not have statistics. 2) Try it out with some market research! 3) Any sort of matching is going to fail if the data is not reliable. If I truthfully put 1.8m. Someone puts 1.9m when they're 1.7m. How do you determine that my input is true? Especially that since due to OkCupid, everyone is now automatically assuming the person is actually ~0.2m shorter. So if you put me and the other person together. The 1.9m person wins? 4) I can't tell if you have a plan for this. But a website that depends on a feedback loop seriously needs to overcome it somehow. Even PlentyOfFish for all the errors when I registered, I still tried to use it.
- oceanician 15y ago
  4) Start in a small geographical area. A city. On the basis that most people are looking for a date close to them. Saw within 20 miles? Get it right there, then move to the next few closest cities. Use geographically targetted advertising for this - facebook perhaps, for online. Local papers could work for offline....or even maybe LoveFilm subscription drop-in-fliers?

Joakal 15y ago

1) Men are very aggressive, I would assume it needs to be something like 1:1.5 men:women ratio. But I do not have statistics. 2) Try it out with some market research! 3) Any sort of matching is going to fail if the data is not reliable. If I truthfully put 1.8m. Someone puts 1.9m when they're 1.7m. How do you determine that my input is true? Especially that since due to OkCupid, everyone is now automatically assuming the person is actually ~0.2m shorter. So if you put me and the other person together. The 1.9m person wins? 4) I can't tell if you have a plan for this. But a website that depends on a feedback loop seriously needs to overcome it somehow. Even PlentyOfFish for all the errors when I registered, I still tried to use it.

oceanician 15y ago
4) Start in a small geographical area. A city. On the basis that most people are looking for a date close to them. Saw within 20 miles? Get it right there, then move to the next few closest cities. Use geographically targetted advertising for this - facebook perhaps, for online. Local papers could work for offline....or even maybe LoveFilm subscription drop-in-fliers?