10 ms·

Cuffed – A dating app with only one match at a time

75 points by nsomani 5y ago

PaulHoule 5y ago
Potentially it is a really great idea. A big problem with dating apps (particularly for women) is that users see so many potential matches that they don’t take anything seriously, imagine they’ve got more choice than they really do, and that if they hold out long enough something better will come along. I’ve been thinking of how to engineer selection processes in ways that calibrate people better such as show people a block of ten items and let them pick the top three as opposed to rating things on a 1..10 scale or a swipe right/swipe left process.
- zachkatz 5y ago
  > A big problem with dating apps (particularly for women) is that users see so many potential matches that they don’t take anything seriously I said this in another comment, but IMO, the reason people don't take anything seriously isn't because of the number of matches/potential matches. Rather, I think it's the resolution of information that a profile shows. A few pictures and some text is wildly low-resolution compared to even just an audio recording or video. I think requiring people to include one of the two (ideally a video) would be solve this problem once and for all and make dating apps infinitely better.
  - nsomani 5y ago
    I think it's been tried too many times before. IMO too much friction to make a video when I already have tons of photos from the last year. It reduces to who can do the best videography which is a less level playing field than photos. I also swipe when I'm in public which isn't possible if there's an audio component
armchairhacker 5y ago
I'm pretty sure most people want to see some other dating app succeed (besides those owned by Match Co), both men and women. Unfortunately, 5+ years and it hasn't happened yet.
- epicureanideal 5y ago
  Right. There are numerous ways to improve dating apps, but of course the winners in the current dating app environment don’t have an incentive to embrace the new app, and they’re the core market that any new app needs to succeed. Otherwise the consumers would need to change their preferences, which usually takes a long time to happen.
fouc 5y ago
The reference to "West Elm Caleb" forced me to look up what the hell it was. Not a good idea on a landing page.
- emodendroket 5y ago
  Well, it depends on their target demographic, I imagine. If you want middle-aged people using the app, absolutely. If you want younger users the reference might go over well.
  - fouc 5y ago
    I think it's more about what parts of the internet people spend their time in.
    - emodendroket 5y ago
      Six of one, half-dozen of the other.
im3w1l 5y ago
I think this qualifies for "Show hn"
samfisher83 5y ago
Isn't that like coffee meets bagels?
- jkingsman 5y ago
  Sort of. Coffee Meets Bagel gives you a batch of three matches per day; you need a mutual like to match with each other. However you can still have multiple matches at a time.
- eloisius 5y ago
  Sounds like it. I’ve used dating apps a lot, and at this point I don’t believe that another dating app is the solution to dating apps. I’ve heard friends and acquaintances toss out their ideas for how to make a better app, but they all seem to ignore one crucial fact: everybody is on all the other apps too, and there isn’t a reserve of more desirable people on some other app. If this app lets me have just one match, that means I’ll just use it for a couple of minutes per day, and then use Tinder once I’ve exhausted its limited utility. CMB limits you to a few ‘swipes’ per day. To its credit, that keeps it from being an addictive app, but I’ve also had maybe 5 conversations and never a date from it. Tinder on the other hand has allowed me to have all kinds of regrettable experiences.
russellbeattie 5y ago
Here's my ideal dating app (from a 50yo single male divorcee in Silicon Valley): A simple app where each profile has basic info, and exactly one 5 second video, taken only with the app itself, where you introduce yourself. That's it. First, it clears out the thousands of fake profiles using random pics found online. Voice recognition can easily flag any profiles that don't fit the pattern of "Hi, my name is... ". Second, it fixes the problem of catfishing, where real people use fake photos, or usually the best photo of themselves ever taken when they were 21 years old, 20 years ago. Finally, it's not long enough to embarrass yourself. If you've ever seen the video dating recordings from the 80s, you'll know what I'm talking about. Five seconds or so is just enough time to say hello and give a sense of who you are without being cringe. The rest is just bog standard dating stuff. Ghosting is a real problem, but what are you going to do? I guess you could have some sort of point system...
- issa 5y ago
  In case any younger people are not familiar with 80s dating videos, this send up covers it well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhX5YcPoLhM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhX5YcPoLhM
  - drekipus 5y ago
    i was thinking this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bomkgXeDkE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bomkgXeDkE
    - russellbeattie 5y ago
      THAT'S the exact one I was thinking of. I mean, I can't watch it. I just can't.
  - argiope 5y ago
    It reminded me of the "Lowered Expectations" skits of MADTv with awkward VHS dating recordings. Pretty funny. I usually think of the intro melody when my expectations have been lowered for any reason
- 5y ago
cassonmars 5y ago
This seems advantageous for straight male users, but how would you draw straight female users who benefit from having multiple options on other apps? Asking as a female user of other dating apps.
- issa 5y ago
  This is an interesting point because I think the idea behind this particular app is the opposite of what you are seeing as an advantage. With the disclosure that I was out of the dating game before apps existed, and the accompanying lack of first-hand understanding, is it really a benefit to have more options than you can shake a stick at?
- nsomani 5y ago
  Would be interested to hear more of your thoughts, IMO going on dates with multiple people is great for casual dating but not as great for anything more serious. Also benefits in knowing the person you're going on dates with is also pseudo-exclusive
- bradlys 5y ago
  Guessing this would draw on the audience of women who feel overwhelmed. I’m sure that’s a small minority who could just start being more selective in who they match with but - idk. Honestly - it has no future unless you make this one way. (Only men can match with one woman at a time - maybe limit it to 5 for women or something)
dlevine 5y ago
Coffee Meets Bagel did something similar to this when they first launched. You got one potential match a day, and you either liked or passed. I thought it worked well, but there were eventually some problems. For example, it assumes that you have an even balance of participants in your marketplace. If you have more men than women, you either need to give some men no matches on some days (which decreases engagement), or you need to give women multiple potential matches on some days. There are other ways you can handle this, but they have problems too. Another potentially bigger issue is monetization. It is hard to monetize one match a day. But you can give people the option to have multiple matches a day if they pay for them, which is what CMB does. But then you should probably give people who were liked by a paid member at least one more match a day, which causes your original premise to break down. Hinge severely limits the number of people you can like in a given day (unless you pay), and I think this works pretty well.
- Wiseacre 5y ago
  Well no the issue is not monetization. Dating apps should not be profitable. It is an extreme conflict of interest against successfully matching users and getting them off the app. You cannot possibly expect to do this faithfully if you are making money off your users.
  - ovao 5y ago
    You’re not wrong, but how does an app cover operating costs?
    - Wiseacre 5y ago
      How do other useful not-for-profit services cover operating costs? I bet we don't need to reinvent the Wikimedia Foundation for this.
  - david-gpu 5y ago
    > It is an extreme conflict of interest against successfully matching users and getting them off the app. That depends on the payment model, doesn't it? If it is set up in such a way that the app makes more money the longer people use it, that introduces a perverse incentive. But what if, for example, people paid upfront for unlimited access to the service? Then the incentives of the app would be better aligned to the users: find them a good match quickly so that they won't come back in a long time, if ever. That said, I am deeply grateful that I got married well before dating apps became popular. It would have been such a terrible experience for a nerd like me.
Par_Avion 5y ago
Well, this gave me a chuckle. But I feel like it might foster a "waiting for prince(ss) charming" effect, where you swipe away anyone who you're not absolutely enamored with. There might be an argument that being able to swipe right on anyone (and maintaining multiple conversations with them) leads to "giving more people a chance." An app like this might have the opposite effect and make the entire experience more superficial altogether.
datingthrowway 5y ago
How about a dating app that explicitly uses Optimal Stopping, the solution to the Marriage Problem/Secretary Problem: > the best way to proceed is to interview (or date) the first 36.8 percent of the candidates. Don't hire (or marry) any of them, but as soon as you meet a candidate who's better than the best of that first group — that's the one you choose! https://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2014/05/15/312537965/how-to-marry-the-right-girl-a-mathematical-solution https://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2014/05/15/312537965/h... The question becomes how many more dates or relationships will you have in your life? 36.8% of what? More importantly, will my soulmate also be on that app? Better chance to find them on Tinder.
- Sebb767 5y ago
  > More importantly, will my soulmate also be on that app? Better chance to find them on Tinder. You could actually employ that strategy on Tinder, no need for a separate app. Allthough looking for a soulmate using optimal stopping does not seem like a good match, anyways.
- nsomani 5y ago
  Hmm yeah two points on that What exactly qualifies as a rejection (is it a swipe left or a match + date + unmatch)? Thinking match + date + unmatch is the more reasonable application but difficult to enforce Second I just don't agree that it's the right optimization function, IMO you should max E[quality of partner] rather than max Pr[ending up with best quality partner]
endisneigh 5y ago
I think an interesting dating app would be the exact same thing as the tinder variants with one key difference: When you make a profile you get two accounts. One that shows only pictures, and another that only shows interest/text. There should be no way to infer one from the other without a “true match” as described below. You match with peoples picture version and text versions separately and only when both dual matches complete mutually are you truly matched. This in effect forces people to make themselves interesting enough without the crux that is photography but also presentable enough so that the natural superficial curiosities can be satisfied. Assuming no one makes it I’ll probably make it at some point. The way monetization would work is by allowing you to rank people across attributes for both the picture profile and text profile. Paying users can be given information on this. In addition paying users can be given a “second chance” where if your text profile receives a match but your picture profile doesn’t, you can ping the person anonymously in the future with a new set of pictures and speak with them again, but only after some cooldown period, say a week. Obviously I’m biased but I think what I described is the solution to the problem that is modern online dating.
- StefanKarpinski 5y ago
  Good idea! One problem is that some people will swipe right on everything in one or both categories. Limiting the number/fraction of right swipes might help.
  - endisneigh 5y ago
    Oh yeah, the devil is definitely in the details. Ideally the matches given should be proportional to the “chances” you give. If the purpose is to create relationships then I believe people shouldn’t be able to match too many times without giving “chances”. The app could facilitate this through ice breakers or perhaps embedded small games or showing a TikTok or other short video to facilitate conversation. The problem is that modern apps make people do all the work, which is fine, but there are some who require a little push or something explicitly to discuss to get started.
- efrank2 5y ago
  This is really smart
andrew_ 5y ago
Coffee Meets Bagel was similar back in the day. You got one match a week.
lornhelm 5y ago
[dead]
- nerdponx 5y ago
  What privacy laws?
- Empact 5y ago
  There’s a far cry between commenting on public information relative to a governmental official, and misusing information as a private company.
  - sofixa 5y ago
    But if commenting on public information outs you as a kink shaming not at all nice person, why should anyone trust you with sensitive, including potentially kinky, information? What if a cuffed user shares their kinks on the platform, and then goes and runs for office somewhere?
- 07d046 5y ago
  Ironically, if I had to guess based on the name of this app, I'd have guessed it was a kink-themed dating app.
  - mst 5y ago
    That was very definitely my thought as well. 2022 is wild.
  - monopoledance 5y ago
    Unsatisfied niche btw.. There is effectively no dating app for kinksters, but a lot of people are into kink.
- caconym_ 5y ago
  Yikes. Also sort of ironic given their app's name.
- Barrin92 5y ago
yosito 5y ago
I don't think "forcing" is a great word to use to promote a dating app.
motohagiography 5y ago
Is there a dating app where I can defeat inferior suitors in single combat of some kind? I was seriously considering a dance-off app for that, where you have a profile and can issue challenges to groups of other users, who are informed of who they think your competitors are, and then pick winners. It wasn't really fair though because it was a game I would always win. But something like it would be cool.
- kwertyoowiyop 5y ago
  Maybe one where you can leave snarky comments on the bios of your competitors, telling potential dates why they must be jerks and should date you instead!
  - pawelmurias 5y ago
    This is kind of how things work on some Facebook dating groups. You make a post with your dating ad and other users are free to trash you in comments.
  - motohagiography 5y ago
    If what you are saying is there should be a rap battle option, I would agree, if only because it would level the playing field.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
tintor 5y ago
There is no app here. It is just an Airtable form. Hacker News title is misleading.
- kwertyoowiyop 5y ago
  Maybe their dating app is just a big spreadsheet. Works for me.
- nsomani 5y ago
  Sorry, yeah we've only made the waitlist public right now. I didn't think the title was misleading given it's the description of the app
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
gonehome 5y ago
Coffee Meets Bagel originally tried this before they changed things. It's bad for men who already get ~0 matches unless you're in the top few % of men. It's bad for women who get a lot out of the massive selection options (why limit themselves to one? no benefit to them). The issue with dating sites is men are a commodity and women have too many options and that commoditization of men causes problems. Artificially limiting to one doesn't fix this though because the other apps still exist, you can't enforce a true limit when one doesn't exist (and can't exist given how mate selection works in people anyway, women will always be mostly choosing among many options and men have to pursue). It's a little better based on region, but if you're not in the top few % of men (particularly if you're in a skewed area like the bay area) dating websites are not in your best interest. We're more similar to gorillas than people think. I don't think this is an issue that can be solved via dating sites. Men will always have to adapt to meet their particular strengths in order to succeed and for that vast majority of us this means eschewing dating apps. Basically learning the human male variant of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rX40mBb8bkU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rX40mBb8bkU The naive appeal of dating apps for men is obvious, it's really hard to meet single women randomly and showing interest correctly is complicated. The barrier seems lower with apps (but mostly isn't), people deeply desire a mate, but I think the lower barrier of apps is mostly an illusion for the vast majority of men who will get very few matches, even then there's no real replacement for improving social skills through the difficulty of actual practice and attempts (which apps don't help much with given effort to match ratio, effort to actual date ratio is even worse). The actual effort required I'd argue is higher in the end and you end up feeling worse about yourself because your value among other dating site men really is close to zero (a commodity). I think for women the apps can be useful because you can set a date every week (or even more frequently) and there's a lot of benefit to this in practicing, getting a sense of what you like (or even just feeling good about yourself/desirable with hundreds of matches). Sure many dates are bad, but just getting this kind of at-bat practice is useful. This doesn't contradict the previous paragraph because most of these dates are with the same top few % of men that do well with apps. Obviously the above applies to heterosexual matching, other types are different. Personally I'm so glad to be out of the game. To other men still in it, I'd at least say it does get easier as you get older. If you're 22 and miserable, it'll be way easier at 27+ (I suspect largely because young men have low status, women tend not to want to date younger, etc.)
WesternWind 5y ago
"Dating apps throw way too many options at us. You're supposed to swipe on people, maintain dozens of conversations, continue going on dates until you're exclusive. The lack of commitment undermines true intimacy. Cuffed only lets you match with one person at a time - forcing you to think about whether this match is worth your time." This conflates exclusivity, commitment and intimacy in a way that doesn't reflect my romantic and dating life, or the lives of a number of my friends. I can only imagine what other assumptions it makes. It's okay that this isn't for me, there's honestly a lot of room for innovation in the dating app or socialization app space. I've yet to find an app I consider perfect, though there are definitely ones I'm using that are more niche, and better suited for me, than tinder/CMB/OkCupid.
- ocdtrekkie 5y ago
  It doesn't reflect yours but it might reflect others'. I personally couldn't carry on more than a single serious conversation with someone without a lot of heartache or frustration. So when I first started talking to the person who is now my wife, the next person who messaged me got a polite decline even though we were not boyfriend and girlfriend at the time.
  - WesternWind 5y ago
    Yes absolutely I'm sure ir does reflect other's experience, most likely the person or people behind it. That is why it's okay that it's not for me. Though now I'm trying to think of dating apps that just wouldn't work. Cuffed could totally be the name of a dating app for people on house arrest or out on bail.
  - drekipus 5y ago
    same here I met my wife on Bumble, it has a bit of a swipe mechanic, but realistically my (now) wife was the only one (out of all the apps) who actually captured my attention and had interesting conversations with. The conversation was interesting enough to draw me back from all the other conversations that were going nowhere. I think the point of this app is to try and slow people down and try to spend a bit of time talking with people to get to know them; you've got a whole day to ask about interests, news, adventures, plans, history, etc. rather than "your pickup line wasn't witty enough, next!" or "lets trade witty remarks to each other for the next week, have sex, and never see each other again" (although arguably you don't want to match with that sort of person. so maybe the real benefit is that they would be filtered out by this app?) sorta letting people know that they're more than just a profile picture?
drewcoo 5y ago
Where does this lead? What's next? Something with n number of blackmailable pieces you have on the person vs m they have against you (nvm>1 means stick; nvm<1 means go)? Showing how many people would be interested in each of you if you were actually on the market? This doesn't seem to help relationship-building (and strength training!), which seems to me to be the problem most of my friends (ok, and I) face.
freemint 5y ago
I find it a bit problematic that the form for registration is transexclusive (as in man/women) are the only option in a mandatory choice.
minroot 5y ago
What's the point of dating someone you don't know?

75 points by nsomani 5y ago

Potentially it is a really great idea. A big problem with dating apps (particularly for women) is that users see so many potential matches that they don’t take anything seriously, imagine they’ve got more choice than they really do, and that if they hold out long enough something better will come along. I’ve been thinking of how to engineer selection processes in ways that calibrate people better such as show people a block of ten items and let them pick the top three as opposed to rating things on a 1..10 scale or a swipe right/swipe left process.

zachkatz 5y ago
> A big problem with dating apps (particularly for women) is that users see so many potential matches that they don’t take anything seriously I said this in another comment, but IMO, the reason people don't take anything seriously isn't because of the number of matches/potential matches. Rather, I think it's the resolution of information that a profile shows. A few pictures and some text is wildly low-resolution compared to even just an audio recording or video. I think requiring people to include one of the two (ideally a video) would be solve this problem once and for all and make dating apps infinitely better.
- nsomani 5y ago
  I think it's been tried too many times before. IMO too much friction to make a video when I already have tons of photos from the last year. It reduces to who can do the best videography which is a less level playing field than photos. I also swipe when I'm in public which isn't possible if there's an audio component

armchairhacker 5y ago

I'm pretty sure most people want to see some other dating app succeed (besides those owned by Match Co), both men and women. Unfortunately, 5+ years and it hasn't happened yet.

epicureanideal 5y ago
Right. There are numerous ways to improve dating apps, but of course the winners in the current dating app environment don’t have an incentive to embrace the new app, and they’re the core market that any new app needs to succeed. Otherwise the consumers would need to change their preferences, which usually takes a long time to happen.

fouc 5y ago

The reference to "West Elm Caleb" forced me to look up what the hell it was. Not a good idea on a landing page.

emodendroket 5y ago
Well, it depends on their target demographic, I imagine. If you want middle-aged people using the app, absolutely. If you want younger users the reference might go over well.
- fouc 5y ago
  I think it's more about what parts of the internet people spend their time in.
  - emodendroket 5y ago
    Six of one, half-dozen of the other.

im3w1l 5y ago

I think this qualifies for "Show hn"

samfisher83 5y ago

Isn't that like coffee meets bagels?

jkingsman 5y ago
Sort of. Coffee Meets Bagel gives you a batch of three matches per day; you need a mutual like to match with each other. However you can still have multiple matches at a time.
eloisius 5y ago
Sounds like it. I’ve used dating apps a lot, and at this point I don’t believe that another dating app is the solution to dating apps. I’ve heard friends and acquaintances toss out their ideas for how to make a better app, but they all seem to ignore one crucial fact: everybody is on all the other apps too, and there isn’t a reserve of more desirable people on some other app. If this app lets me have just one match, that means I’ll just use it for a couple of minutes per day, and then use Tinder once I’ve exhausted its limited utility. CMB limits you to a few ‘swipes’ per day. To its credit, that keeps it from being an addictive app, but I’ve also had maybe 5 conversations and never a date from it. Tinder on the other hand has allowed me to have all kinds of regrettable experiences.

russellbeattie 5y ago

Here's my ideal dating app (from a 50yo single male divorcee in Silicon Valley): A simple app where each profile has basic info, and exactly one 5 second video, taken only with the app itself, where you introduce yourself. That's it. First, it clears out the thousands of fake profiles using random pics found online. Voice recognition can easily flag any profiles that don't fit the pattern of "Hi, my name is... ". Second, it fixes the problem of catfishing, where real people use fake photos, or usually the best photo of themselves ever taken when they were 21 years old, 20 years ago. Finally, it's not long enough to embarrass yourself. If you've ever seen the video dating recordings from the 80s, you'll know what I'm talking about. Five seconds or so is just enough time to say hello and give a sense of who you are without being cringe. The rest is just bog standard dating stuff. Ghosting is a real problem, but what are you going to do? I guess you could have some sort of point system...

issa 5y ago
In case any younger people are not familiar with 80s dating videos, this send up covers it well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhX5YcPoLhM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhX5YcPoLhM
- drekipus 5y ago
  i was thinking this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bomkgXeDkE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bomkgXeDkE
  - russellbeattie 5y ago
    THAT'S the exact one I was thinking of. I mean, I can't watch it. I just can't.
- argiope 5y ago
  It reminded me of the "Lowered Expectations" skits of MADTv with awkward VHS dating recordings. Pretty funny. I usually think of the intro melody when my expectations have been lowered for any reason
5y ago

cassonmars 5y ago

This seems advantageous for straight male users, but how would you draw straight female users who benefit from having multiple options on other apps? Asking as a female user of other dating apps.

issa 5y ago
This is an interesting point because I think the idea behind this particular app is the opposite of what you are seeing as an advantage. With the disclosure that I was out of the dating game before apps existed, and the accompanying lack of first-hand understanding, is it really a benefit to have more options than you can shake a stick at?
nsomani 5y ago
Would be interested to hear more of your thoughts, IMO going on dates with multiple people is great for casual dating but not as great for anything more serious. Also benefits in knowing the person you're going on dates with is also pseudo-exclusive
bradlys 5y ago
Guessing this would draw on the audience of women who feel overwhelmed. I’m sure that’s a small minority who could just start being more selective in who they match with but - idk. Honestly - it has no future unless you make this one way. (Only men can match with one woman at a time - maybe limit it to 5 for women or something)

dlevine 5y ago

Coffee Meets Bagel did something similar to this when they first launched. You got one potential match a day, and you either liked or passed. I thought it worked well, but there were eventually some problems. For example, it assumes that you have an even balance of participants in your marketplace. If you have more men than women, you either need to give some men no matches on some days (which decreases engagement), or you need to give women multiple potential matches on some days. There are other ways you can handle this, but they have problems too. Another potentially bigger issue is monetization. It is hard to monetize one match a day. But you can give people the option to have multiple matches a day if they pay for them, which is what CMB does. But then you should probably give people who were liked by a paid member at least one more match a day, which causes your original premise to break down. Hinge severely limits the number of people you can like in a given day (unless you pay), and I think this works pretty well.

Wiseacre 5y ago
Well no the issue is not monetization. Dating apps should not be profitable. It is an extreme conflict of interest against successfully matching users and getting them off the app. You cannot possibly expect to do this faithfully if you are making money off your users.
- ovao 5y ago
  You’re not wrong, but how does an app cover operating costs?
  - Wiseacre 5y ago
    How do other useful not-for-profit services cover operating costs? I bet we don't need to reinvent the Wikimedia Foundation for this.
- david-gpu 5y ago
  > It is an extreme conflict of interest against successfully matching users and getting them off the app. That depends on the payment model, doesn't it? If it is set up in such a way that the app makes more money the longer people use it, that introduces a perverse incentive. But what if, for example, people paid upfront for unlimited access to the service? Then the incentives of the app would be better aligned to the users: find them a good match quickly so that they won't come back in a long time, if ever. That said, I am deeply grateful that I got married well before dating apps became popular. It would have been such a terrible experience for a nerd like me.

Par_Avion 5y ago

Well, this gave me a chuckle. But I feel like it might foster a "waiting for prince(ss) charming" effect, where you swipe away anyone who you're not absolutely enamored with. There might be an argument that being able to swipe right on anyone (and maintaining multiple conversations with them) leads to "giving more people a chance." An app like this might have the opposite effect and make the entire experience more superficial altogether.

datingthrowway 5y ago

How about a dating app that explicitly uses Optimal Stopping, the solution to the Marriage Problem/Secretary Problem: > the best way to proceed is to interview (or date) the first 36.8 percent of the candidates. Don't hire (or marry) any of them, but as soon as you meet a candidate who's better than the best of that first group — that's the one you choose! https://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2014/05/15/312537965/how-to-marry-the-right-girl-a-mathematical-solution https://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2014/05/15/312537965/h... The question becomes how many more dates or relationships will you have in your life? 36.8% of what? More importantly, will my soulmate also be on that app? Better chance to find them on Tinder.

Sebb767 5y ago
> More importantly, will my soulmate also be on that app? Better chance to find them on Tinder. You could actually employ that strategy on Tinder, no need for a separate app. Allthough looking for a soulmate using optimal stopping does not seem like a good match, anyways.
nsomani 5y ago
Hmm yeah two points on that What exactly qualifies as a rejection (is it a swipe left or a match + date + unmatch)? Thinking match + date + unmatch is the more reasonable application but difficult to enforce Second I just don't agree that it's the right optimization function, IMO you should max E[quality of partner] rather than max Pr[ending up with best quality partner]

endisneigh 5y ago

I think an interesting dating app would be the exact same thing as the tinder variants with one key difference: When you make a profile you get two accounts. One that shows only pictures, and another that only shows interest/text. There should be no way to infer one from the other without a “true match” as described below. You match with peoples picture version and text versions separately and only when both dual matches complete mutually are you truly matched. This in effect forces people to make themselves interesting enough without the crux that is photography but also presentable enough so that the natural superficial curiosities can be satisfied. Assuming no one makes it I’ll probably make it at some point. The way monetization would work is by allowing you to rank people across attributes for both the picture profile and text profile. Paying users can be given information on this. In addition paying users can be given a “second chance” where if your text profile receives a match but your picture profile doesn’t, you can ping the person anonymously in the future with a new set of pictures and speak with them again, but only after some cooldown period, say a week. Obviously I’m biased but I think what I described is the solution to the problem that is modern online dating.

StefanKarpinski 5y ago
Good idea! One problem is that some people will swipe right on everything in one or both categories. Limiting the number/fraction of right swipes might help.
- endisneigh 5y ago
  Oh yeah, the devil is definitely in the details. Ideally the matches given should be proportional to the “chances” you give. If the purpose is to create relationships then I believe people shouldn’t be able to match too many times without giving “chances”. The app could facilitate this through ice breakers or perhaps embedded small games or showing a TikTok or other short video to facilitate conversation. The problem is that modern apps make people do all the work, which is fine, but there are some who require a little push or something explicitly to discuss to get started.
efrank2 5y ago
This is really smart

andrew_ 5y ago

Coffee Meets Bagel was similar back in the day. You got one match a week.

lornhelm 5y ago

[dead]

nerdponx 5y ago
What privacy laws?
Empact 5y ago
There’s a far cry between commenting on public information relative to a governmental official, and misusing information as a private company.
- sofixa 5y ago
  But if commenting on public information outs you as a kink shaming not at all nice person, why should anyone trust you with sensitive, including potentially kinky, information? What if a cuffed user shares their kinks on the platform, and then goes and runs for office somewhere?
07d046 5y ago
Ironically, if I had to guess based on the name of this app, I'd have guessed it was a kink-themed dating app.
- mst 5y ago
  That was very definitely my thought as well. 2022 is wild.
- monopoledance 5y ago
  Unsatisfied niche btw.. There is effectively no dating app for kinksters, but a lot of people are into kink.
caconym_ 5y ago
Yikes. Also sort of ironic given their app's name.
Barrin92 5y ago

yosito 5y ago

I don't think "forcing" is a great word to use to promote a dating app.

motohagiography 5y ago

Is there a dating app where I can defeat inferior suitors in single combat of some kind? I was seriously considering a dance-off app for that, where you have a profile and can issue challenges to groups of other users, who are informed of who they think your competitors are, and then pick winners. It wasn't really fair though because it was a game I would always win. But something like it would be cool.

kwertyoowiyop 5y ago
Maybe one where you can leave snarky comments on the bios of your competitors, telling potential dates why they must be jerks and should date you instead!
- pawelmurias 5y ago
  This is kind of how things work on some Facebook dating groups. You make a post with your dating ad and other users are free to trash you in comments.
- motohagiography 5y ago
  If what you are saying is there should be a rap battle option, I would agree, if only because it would level the playing field.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

tintor 5y ago

There is no app here. It is just an Airtable form. Hacker News title is misleading.

kwertyoowiyop 5y ago
Maybe their dating app is just a big spreadsheet. Works for me.
nsomani 5y ago
Sorry, yeah we've only made the waitlist public right now. I didn't think the title was misleading given it's the description of the app

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

gonehome 5y ago

Coffee Meets Bagel originally tried this before they changed things. It's bad for men who already get ~0 matches unless you're in the top few % of men. It's bad for women who get a lot out of the massive selection options (why limit themselves to one? no benefit to them). The issue with dating sites is men are a commodity and women have too many options and that commoditization of men causes problems. Artificially limiting to one doesn't fix this though because the other apps still exist, you can't enforce a true limit when one doesn't exist (and can't exist given how mate selection works in people anyway, women will always be mostly choosing among many options and men have to pursue). It's a little better based on region, but if you're not in the top few % of men (particularly if you're in a skewed area like the bay area) dating websites are not in your best interest. We're more similar to gorillas than people think. I don't think this is an issue that can be solved via dating sites. Men will always have to adapt to meet their particular strengths in order to succeed and for that vast majority of us this means eschewing dating apps. Basically learning the human male variant of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rX40mBb8bkU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rX40mBb8bkU The naive appeal of dating apps for men is obvious, it's really hard to meet single women randomly and showing interest correctly is complicated. The barrier seems lower with apps (but mostly isn't), people deeply desire a mate, but I think the lower barrier of apps is mostly an illusion for the vast majority of men who will get very few matches, even then there's no real replacement for improving social skills through the difficulty of actual practice and attempts (which apps don't help much with given effort to match ratio, effort to actual date ratio is even worse). The actual effort required I'd argue is higher in the end and you end up feeling worse about yourself because your value among other dating site men really is close to zero (a commodity). I think for women the apps can be useful because you can set a date every week (or even more frequently) and there's a lot of benefit to this in practicing, getting a sense of what you like (or even just feeling good about yourself/desirable with hundreds of matches). Sure many dates are bad, but just getting this kind of at-bat practice is useful. This doesn't contradict the previous paragraph because most of these dates are with the same top few % of men that do well with apps. Obviously the above applies to heterosexual matching, other types are different. Personally I'm so glad to be out of the game. To other men still in it, I'd at least say it does get easier as you get older. If you're 22 and miserable, it'll be way easier at 27+ (I suspect largely because young men have low status, women tend not to want to date younger, etc.)

WesternWind 5y ago

"Dating apps throw way too many options at us. You're supposed to swipe on people, maintain dozens of conversations, continue going on dates until you're exclusive. The lack of commitment undermines true intimacy. Cuffed only lets you match with one person at a time - forcing you to think about whether this match is worth your time." This conflates exclusivity, commitment and intimacy in a way that doesn't reflect my romantic and dating life, or the lives of a number of my friends. I can only imagine what other assumptions it makes. It's okay that this isn't for me, there's honestly a lot of room for innovation in the dating app or socialization app space. I've yet to find an app I consider perfect, though there are definitely ones I'm using that are more niche, and better suited for me, than tinder/CMB/OkCupid.

ocdtrekkie 5y ago
It doesn't reflect yours but it might reflect others'. I personally couldn't carry on more than a single serious conversation with someone without a lot of heartache or frustration. So when I first started talking to the person who is now my wife, the next person who messaged me got a polite decline even though we were not boyfriend and girlfriend at the time.
- WesternWind 5y ago
  Yes absolutely I'm sure ir does reflect other's experience, most likely the person or people behind it. That is why it's okay that it's not for me. Though now I'm trying to think of dating apps that just wouldn't work. Cuffed could totally be the name of a dating app for people on house arrest or out on bail.
- drekipus 5y ago
  same here I met my wife on Bumble, it has a bit of a swipe mechanic, but realistically my (now) wife was the only one (out of all the apps) who actually captured my attention and had interesting conversations with. The conversation was interesting enough to draw me back from all the other conversations that were going nowhere. I think the point of this app is to try and slow people down and try to spend a bit of time talking with people to get to know them; you've got a whole day to ask about interests, news, adventures, plans, history, etc. rather than "your pickup line wasn't witty enough, next!" or "lets trade witty remarks to each other for the next week, have sex, and never see each other again" (although arguably you don't want to match with that sort of person. so maybe the real benefit is that they would be filtered out by this app?) sorta letting people know that they're more than just a profile picture?

drewcoo 5y ago

Where does this lead? What's next? Something with n number of blackmailable pieces you have on the person vs m they have against you (nvm>1 means stick; nvm<1 means go)? Showing how many people would be interested in each of you if you were actually on the market? This doesn't seem to help relationship-building (and strength training!), which seems to me to be the problem most of my friends (ok, and I) face.

freemint 5y ago

I find it a bit problematic that the form for registration is transexclusive (as in man/women) are the only option in a mandatory choice.

minroot 5y ago

What's the point of dating someone you don't know?