12 ms·

As a man, online dating is already a miserable experience. But I've been told Hinge is one of the better apps out there. One of the first things I've noticed ab

As a man, online dating is already a miserable experience. But I've been told Hinge is one of the better apps out there. One of the first things I've noticed about using it is how exploitative and money grubbing the company is. The premium version doesn't seem to appreciably change anything about how often your profile shows up. No, to do that they want you to pay for a "Boost" which lasts for a mere hour, and costs $11.99. You can buy 5 and get a measly discount where they only cost $9.99 apiece. If you are already someone who does not get frequent matches, this is a terrible deal and the duration is insultingly low. Never mind the practice of "Roses" in which the only way to message some women is to buy a like that costs $3.33 each. Again, in bulk you can get that down to $1.49 apiece. But what is so scummy about it is that they seem to have an algorithm that detects the most beautiful of women and locks messaging them behind the need to send roses. Not to go on too much of a rant, but I really loathe how this company approaches it's customer base. This article showed me that they aren't just horrible to men.

extasia 4y ago
Been there and it kills your confidence. Online dating is truly fucked for men. Checkout Gerbert Johnson on YT, he has a channel with some funny content on it that isn't absurd redpill nonsense.
- durnygbur 4y ago
  Can confirm. Source: had shaky confidence which now is killed.
- abhaynayar 4y ago
  Thanks for the channel, just binged it a bit -- really cool!
SQueeeeeL 4y ago
Modern dating apps are pretty much all terrible, they basically completely commodify the experience of love and turn relationships into a purely aesthetics based thing. It's pretty terrible because I think most people don't actively have any way to meet single people their age, so people pretend apps are somehow a band aid for a deeply atomized society. Unless you're in a foreign country or a tourist, the advice I've heard repeated over and over is trying to meet others through organic social connections (ultimate frisbee, D&D, work, class) so that there exist some social fabric to base a relationship upon. (Pretty good, slightly cringey, video on how apps use the language of capitalism https://youtube.com/watch?v=-bcKRd_lfAg https://youtube.com/watch?v=-bcKRd_lfAg )
- the_only_law 4y ago
  > It's pretty terrible because I think most people don't actively have any way to meet single people their age This is probably my biggest problem. I can go out, and women will even approach me and flirt, at least until they realize they have some years on me…
  - disgruntledphd2 4y ago
    This is a self-resolving problem, as long as you don't age badly.
- RichardCNormos 4y ago
  > most people don't actively have any way to meet single people their age This is absolutely true. The best we've got right now is bars & clubs, and in those environments, there's no preselection for the type of person you'd want a meaningful relationship with. Case in point: I met my wife at church. Going in the door, it was predetermined that we would share a common set of values.
- throwaway515 4y ago
  > I think most people don't actively have any way to meet single people their age, so people pretend apps are somehow a band aid for a deeply atomized society Looking back, I wasted my most dateable years doing exactly this. I thought if I just stayed on the apps a little longer, put up with the dopamine-drip machine bullshit just a little more, I'd meet someone. I wasn't even relying entirely on them – I attended a church, volunteered at a soup kitchen, and other things where you're supposed to be able to meet people, but I wonder if maybe I would have emphasized them more (seeking out more volunteer opportunities, etc) without the gambler's promise of the dating apps panning out "any day now."
- dkarl 4y ago
  > they basically completely commodify the experience of love and turn relationships into a purely aesthetics based thing I think this is the right thing to do. Apps work great for a quick check of "does this person look cute and interesting." They suck for everything else. I think it's great that apps like Tinder have given up on the pretense of helping people present their true deep selves, find compatible people, and figure out if there's a connection before they even meet. I know it seems more enlightened to deemphasize looks and concentrate on inner qualities, your personality and values and dreams, but over decades of painful experience we've learned that that stuff just doesn't convey accurately online. People invest huge amounts of energy creating profiles, answering quizzes, and trying to understand other people through their profiles and through online conversations, and the result are always disappointing. By now I think we understand that failure well enough that when a company promises to do it well, we should call it a scam. It might work for a few people, but they're very rare and very lucky. Apps should be honest and stick to what they're really good at, which is helping people who mutually pass the superficial visual check find each other, on a scale they could never accomplish IRL, and facilitating them getting face to face so they can find out if they actually like each other. Tinder does a perfect job of this. Just a few pics and a tiny profile. Put vital info in the profile (kids? open to what kind of relationship?) and some polarizing context in the pics (signals of political and cultural preferences, whatever feels important to you.) If someone wants to chat for more than a week without meeting you in person, unmatch them, because they're probably a bot or somebody just doing it to kill time. (Unless they say hey, let's put this on ice for a bit, I just met someone and if it doesn't work out I'd like to meet you next. That's valid.) Paying to increase the attention you get is a scam, too, of course, and I won't defend any app doing it. It basically turns the app into a strip club where the women work for free and it's even easier for the men to delude themselves into thinking they'll get something out of it. Really if you aren't getting hits then all you can do is work on your profile or cast or wider net, or take a break for a month while you wait for new people to become active.
pcbro141 4y ago
Same thing with Tinder and their multiple tiers, multiple types of boosts, multiple types of Super Likes. All these dating apps exploit desperate men. The truth is if you're not already getting a decent amount of likes on the standard tier, there's no point paying for 10 boosts like that will change your attractiveness.
- electrondood 4y ago
  Tinder gives me the exact same dirty feeling as visiting the strip in Las Vegas. It's like sex gambling, but for body CVs.
slimginz 4y ago
Hinge is owned by Match Group. Along with also owning Match.com they also own Tinder, OkCupid, PlentyOfFish, Black People Meet, Our Time, and about 20 more services. AFAIK the only "big" dating app that they don't own is Bumble. It's honestly insane how much of a monopoly Match Group has on the modern dating scene.
- durnygbur 4y ago
  > Hinge is owned by Match Group [...] AFAIK the only "big" dating app that they don't own is Bumble. Bumble/Badoo have some Russian connotations... so the choice is between cancer or syphilis. Within the last 10 years we voluntarily have delegated our mating preselection to them... and "in real world" is even worse...
  - AlexandrB 4y ago
    > Within the last 10 years we voluntarily have delegated our mating preselection to them. I think this might be true for a subset of people, but I've personally had zero luck with online dating and have met all my partners IRL. It is interesting to consider if the FTC will ever take action on Match Group's near monopoly here.
  - swagasaurus-rex 4y ago
    In the real world is scarier. I seriously doubt it's worse, unless you live in a small town with no choices. Dating apps lower the barrier to entry. This is actually a bad thing for men, because it floods the dating market with competition from men who would otherwise be too offputting or antisocial or meek. There is currently no way for women to filter out these men via software (they would if they could). Just like in business, it's easier to stay in business if there is a barrier to entry.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- Tangurena2 4y ago
  To make things worse, Match.com translates profiles from one "platform" to another. So that interesting person you see on, say, PlentyOfFish never posted their profile to POF - they originally only wrote an OKCupid profile. If you bother to read the "terms of use" then you'll find they can do this. Many times when it looks like someone else is interested in you, the appearance is made that they can only be reached by subscribing for money, it turns out that the person is not there, never was there and had abandoned the other platform due to lack of interest. And paying for the service never makes it easier to get dates either.
fuzzy2 4y ago
Match Group is one of the worst internet companies I know. I was quite surprised when I found out they own basically every online dating thing. I’m not sure whether… innovation in the online dating space would do us any good, but I’m positive that Match Group is hard at work to prevent it from happening.
- bombcar 4y ago
  If we take dating to have an end-game of a long-time relationship, then it's a market segment that is always limited, if you're successful your customers leave. Much, much more profitable to simply drag your customers along forever and use every whale-milking technique ever designed.
  - hgs3 4y ago
    > Much, much more profitable to simply drag your customers along forever and use every whale-milking technique ever designed. That's true of many industries. If a light bulb manufacturer invented a light bulb that lasted 100 years they'd go out of business. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence
    - 29083011397778 4y ago
      Respectfully, I think you have the wrong wikipedia link for your lightbulb example [0]. Certainly for describing lightbulbs dying earlier than necessary to fuel replacement purchases. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel
    - bombcar 4y ago
      What's interesting about that is at some point the device lasts longer than it is in service for. According to the internet, the "average kitchen" is remodeled every 10-15 years, so once your LED lights last longer than that, they're likely to get thrown away still working.
      - 4y ago
wollsmoth 4y ago
I'm out of the game now that I'm seeing someone. I did meet her online but I'm now convinced that you're much better off just going out in the world. I think most people still don't meet or look online.
- llaolleh 4y ago
  After the pandemic it has shifted. I read that 40% of couples meet through dating apps. Wild. I believe it as that's how most of my friends met their partners.
  - xenospn 4y ago
    I believe it’s more like 90%.
    - wollsmoth 4y ago
      90% meeting online? I think I read that like half of people have even tried online dating. I've definitely met adults in their 30s who just have never bothered. They live their lives and meet people through friends or happenstance.
IgorPartola 4y ago
See I think fees for stuff like this aren’t a bad thing because it makes it harder for spam and BS to get through. The problem is that the company has to be really truly good about their matching algorithm to make it work. Here is the issue: Say the company charged $1 per first contact you make with a person. They can then show you people most likely to respond to help you get your conversation going ASAP and give you the highest value for your money. Or they could instead keep giving you poor matches so that you keep paying over and over. As far as they are concerned, the minute you fully engage with someone, assuming you are monogamous, you will not be a client for them for 6-18 months or whatever the length of an average relationship is in your demographic. But as long as your matches are mediocre (enough engagement to keep you going but not enough for you to get off the app), they can keep making money. This is where hookup apps could do a lot better than lifetime partner apps: a hookup app will have repeat business with this pricing model and will actually do better in terms of expectations but a LTR app will lose you soon as you find a suitable candidate. The alternative is 100% free apps which mean that bots have a zero cost to be bots and so you can run as many of them as you want. It is a problem of the commons in a way: soon as a certain percentage of bots spoils your interactions with the app you have no reason to come back. Small rant: Bumble IIRC shows you most popular people in your area if you are on the free tier. These are almost guaranteed to not match with you and might not even be online having been overwhelmed by the attention. But if you pay, they’ll first show you people who have actually liked you, you know the ones recently online and ones you can swipe right on to start talking. This is the wrong incentive though makes them money in the short term.
quest88 4y ago
I'm going to refute that it's a miserable experience because you're a man. As a decent looking man in a stable career I had a great time on hinge. I had many simultaneous conversations, and many dates that I had to cancel after finding someone I wanted to be exclusive with. We've now been together almost a year and I was in the app for less than a month. This experience was highly location subjective though. I had many great matches in the bay area. YMMV
- BlargMcLarg 4y ago
  Your solo anecdote does not weight up against the hordes of counterexamples. Additionally, age plays a huge factor. None of the comments have mentioned age so far.
  - standardUser 4y ago
    The continued popularity and financial success of dating apps implies it is working to some degree for some amount of users. I'm not sure what the age issue is regarding men. As a man in my early 40s I still get occasional matches with women in their 20's. Age is a far bigger issue for women.
    - CodeSgt 4y ago
      They mean that age is an issue in that many women actually prefer older men. So all else being equal you still may have an advantage compared to a man in his early 20's
    - BlargMcLarg 4y ago
      That's the point. Age flips the script given the guy gave half a hoot about his body and career. >implies it is working to some degree for some amount of users And gambling works for some amount of users, but we both understand casinos would die out if users were making a net profit on average. Meaning there's more to this. For anyone feeling inclined to say "but winning isn't the only thing about a casino!", yes, exactly.
kodah 4y ago
Most online dating apps are owned by the same company, Match Group. There's also Bumble but Bumble put predation on steroids, imo, and gave it a very homely facade. I would get few matches on any stock experience, which on each service encourages you to pay. Paying has no guarantee of success, or a refund when faced with absolute failure, so if you spend money on superlikes (or whatever feature) if it doesn't work or some person is having a wine night and uses that opportunity to make fun of you there's no getting that money back. Once you follow the incentivized spending plan the app is somewhat useful but more gimmicky than anything. The problem is that men have been griping in public and private about this for years but they're continually shrugged off or made fun of for doing so. Some gripes are obviously unhinged, but I don't think there's even a shred of empathy for this problem even without those unhinged folks. This business model is absolutely normalized.
electrondood 4y ago
A rose is the same as buying a drink. All it communicates is "I don't think I have anything else going for me, so I spent money to get you to notice me."
bruceb 4y ago
Online dating also enables men to say hi to women you may never have been able to if you just waited on organic situations. Some men are just not great at initiating conversation. In some areas it is going to be more difficult and those areas probably are over represented on HN. SF/Bay Area, Seattle, Bangalore etc. The dating apps can't change the male to female ratio.
- durnygbur 4y ago
  Not really, a man is brutally paywalled to interact or even to bubble up. The asynchronicity can be noted when some women's bios write "just write to me", as women simply swipe right and after almost guaranteed match can send a message...
  - dkarl 4y ago
    > a man is brutally paywalled to interact Does paying actually get you anywhere? Do you meet people you wouldn't have met without paying? I know they make it seem like it's going to help, but I have my doubts about whether it does. I think if you ignore the misleading marketing and go by results, paying for a basic subscription gives you the full benefit of the app.
    - muttled 4y ago
      I've done a couple of the premium subscriptions just to see if they're worth it. My experience was that you got to see people who had liked you but that the app just hadn't shown you yet, but other than that it didn't lead to any increase in dates. It doesn't show you any more often to people so although it allows you to swipe an unlimited amount of times, you might as well be screaming into a void. Just building up a larger list of people you've said "yes" to who will never see your profile. The "boost" functionality might get you an extra match or two, but with most conversations going nowhere the ROI is terrible.
  - jrnichols 4y ago
    and Tinder used to charge men a LOT more money to get past that paywall too. https://www.vice.com/en/article/akzang/straight-middle-aged-men-are-being-charged-more-to-use-tinder-plus https://www.vice.com/en/article/akzang/straight-middle-aged-...
pphysch 4y ago
The ugly truth is that this is how the core dating game works. Men desire a beautiful woman. Women desire a wealthy man. Women are able to signal their appearance by uploading pictures. Men are able to (more credibly) signal their wealth through otherwise pointless IAPs. I'm not saying Hinge's system is perfect or good or even worth anyone's time, but it is a more honest portrayal of "the game" than putting both sexes on equal footing.
- maerF0x0 4y ago
  Women desire _more_ than a wealthy man. They also preferentially select for "masculinity"[1]. So while a rose / perks signal wealth, At least anecdotally women also seem to have a bit of a resentment/disdain for using apps at all. They want a man with the "balls" (so to speak) to approach her, talk to her, not be afraid of rejection, have options but choose her[2]. So long as you can express enough of these signals, wealth beyond her income level won't be a deal breaker. [1]: please just forgive this term as a stand in for the personality traits that express in people with sufficient testosterone and success as defined by the society. [2]: this point is just common sense across all genders... having options but choosing one is a form of backing for a compliment. Choosing her out of a pool of no one else is not flattery, it's desperation.
  - pphysch 4y ago
    And men also desire more than just a beautiful woman. But these are the single best indicators, evolutionarily speaking. Wealth historically indicates hard work or power, which in turn indicate masculine traits. Beauty historically indicates good health (childbearing) and self-care, which in turn indicate feminine traits. These indicators can definitely be gamed, but they define the game for a reason.
  - standardUser 4y ago
    That's a lot of words and odd formatting just to say that "women dig confidence". But it is of course very true!
    - 4y ago
maerF0x0 4y ago
> Never mind the practice of "Roses" in which the only way to message some women is to buy a like that costs $3.33 each. Again, in bulk you can get that down to $1.49 apiece. But what is so scummy about it is that they seem to have an algorithm that detects the most beautiful of women and locks messaging them behind the need to send roses. Actually this is even far more anti-pattern than that. The fact the recipient knows you sent a rose signals a few things to (presumably) her: 1. You had to pay to get access to her, your ELO/Algorithm score is low enough that they app thinks your beneath her 2. You're not getting enough dates / matches that you're desperate enough that you're now paying money for what others get for free
- pavlov 4y ago
  Sounds like sending this kind of rose to a woman who already gets lots of attention is futile for the reasons you list. But it might actually be an effective gesture towards a woman who’s not in the top 50% of the site because it signals that you’re not a player who’s simply messaging all the below-average women, and that your score is probably aligned with hers.
  - maerF0x0 4y ago
    > not in the top 50% of the site You will get presented this match for free and message her without a rose. I suppose you could send a rose voluntarily to someone who you presume does not get roses in an attempt to exploit the fact they dont get roses... which is slightly condescending xD .
    - pavlov 4y ago
      Sending gifts to not-very-attractive women is a time-tested mating strategy for the slightly lazy male contingent.
      - bel_marinaio 4y ago
        "gifting" women you barely know is a terrible strategy. This is the best way to land yourself a gold digger or some other undesirable. It signals to her that you are beneath her and are trying to buy her affection. On one first date a woman I had been talking to for a week texted me late at night. I told her to show up at my house and for her to bring a bottle of red wine. The next morning she is telling me a recent dating story. A guy took her out for a fancy meal. He spent $120 on her and then he got pissed after the meal when she wouldn't kiss him. I have some success and plenty of failure too when it comes to dating. There is so much bad dating advice out there for men. I feel bad for the men that are in the dark and being taken advantage of.
teaearlgraycold 4y ago
Even in the Bay Area, a place with notably more men than women and thus a much harder dating experience, I’ve had a good experience with Hinge. I’m sure it helps to be employed in tech (although that should apply to most people on this site). I’ve never given them a cent. I did put a lot of work into my profile - going on dozens of dates, learning from the bad matches how I could signal incompatibility earlier, and generally just going head first into the trial-by-fire of online dating for the first time. Things are progressing slowly for me but to be honest my caution is the limiting factor. More importantly there has been progression.
- pdntspa 4y ago
  Dang, I remember when SF was reputed to be a cis man's dating paradise. With all the gay dudes I had heard rumors that the ratio was something like 3 women to 1 man.
- electrondood 4y ago
  By Bay Area, do you mean SF? Because outside of that, you're going to exhaust your swipe supply pretty quick.
  - teaearlgraycold 4y ago
    No, peninsula. I don’t swipe much. I feel more confident when I’m not doing all of the selling at the start. So I just sort through the likes. I’m not an unattractive guy, but I’m also no movie star.
- dkarl 4y ago
  I found Hinge to be heavily skewed towards well-off professional women looking for well-off professional men. (Can't speak about the men since I only looked at women.) Other than that the mechanics seemed pretty typical. There were fewer bots, sex workers, and badly done profiles than on Tinder, which was nice.
- Melatonic 4y ago
  This is the real answer. Every guy I know who REALLY has a huge axe to grind with online dating will show me their profile and they will have low quality photos with little effort put in to their profile itself. If someone can't tell what the hell you actually look like or get a good feel for your real personality then why are they going to be interested? If anything money should be spent on improving the profile itself (you could hire a professional photographer to take some "candid" looking nice photos of yourself + go to a higher end hair cutter, get your clothes tailored, etc etc). All of these things would probably also help you in real life. Worst case you have some great LinkedIn photos or something to send your family and some great fitting clothes to wear to dinner with friends.
thomastjeffery 4y ago
You missed the most important anti-pattern that exists in all of Match's dating apps: limited swipes. The entire foundational purpose of dating apps is to make the numbers game tractable. By limiting the amount of swipes you can do, you limit the amount of people you can contact. By paywalling swipes, you limit the amount of people who can contact you. Somehow the only popular dating apps are the ones literally designed to fail.
- LorenPechtel 4y ago
  I think limiting them is a good idea--you have to be selective about who you approach rather than using a shotgun. However, I think there should be a left/right/maybe system. (Perhaps there is--I've been off the market since before apps were a thing.)
  - thomastjeffery 4y ago
    Why? You only get to talk to matches anyway. Most users are not getting very many matches.
    - LorenPechtel 4y ago
      So you can go through and select the best of the offerings to swipe right on.
      - thomastjeffery 4y ago
        That puts the onus on Tinder/Hinge/etc. to find the best "offerings" to present me. In my, and most others', experience, that doesn't work out well. Give me all the options I have time for. If you really are good at deciding what matches will work best for me, then present them first. There is no good reason to hide the options you think won't work out for me: the failure case is not matching, and that is painless.
bel_marinaio 4y ago
Hinge is a steaming pile of horse shit. If any match complains about you they will ban you for life (Guilty without any investigation) and refuse to tell you the reason. Good luck with your appeal. Before any SJW replies that I must be some troll here is the proof "Revenge reporting" is real. Revenge reporting happens to men too. https://www.stylist.co.uk/relationships/dating-love/dating-app-ban/481309 https://www.stylist.co.uk/relationships/dating-love/dating-a...
Melatonic 4y ago
They have algo that rate everything behind the scenes. OKCupid has lots of good articles on it. What it really comes down to though is how much effort you put into your profile. I do not do online dating really but all my female friends complain about the low quality photos of 90% of men and the lack of effort in their profile. They show me what they are dealing with and it is honestly kind of laughable. And the guys they do end up going for often are not even the most attractive. It also helps a lot if you put the effort in immediately after making your profile. Once the algo starts rating you low then it can be harder to come back from.
- xenospn 4y ago
  As a man who self-admittedly gets quite a few matches every day, I can confidently say that the less effort you put in, the better the results are. Just have good photos, everything else is secondary.
microtherion 4y ago
Apparently it gets better for men if you manage to live to an advanced age: A college buddy recently told us that his widowed father is absolutely inundated with Tinder matches, because in his age range (70s-80s), the gender ratio is increasingly skewed female. Not that this helps you much right now, I suppose…
gs17 4y ago
IIRC I sent one of my free roses to my current girlfriend. She wasn't one of my standouts but I wanted to get her attention and it worked. With how many normal likes she showed me she had in her inbox, there's no way we would have even chatted if I hadn't jumped the queue. The "Standouts" feature still felt like a total scam to me though. "Here's a bunch of women we think are out of your league, pay us and we'll let them know you exist".
hizxy 4y ago
Well you certainly know a lot about their business practices…
AussieWog93 4y ago
>As a man, online dating is already a miserable experience. Based on what I've heard from women, it's bad for them too. Easy to find a root, but hard to find someone to introduce to mum and dad. IRL dating is worse. Apparently in the post-#metoo era men just stopped talking to women in general.
- midoridensha 4y ago
  Online dating is much safer than meeting women IRL. If you try to ask out women IRL, the chance for rejection is extremely high (they probably aren't looking for a date at all, after all), and if it's at work, that opens another big can of worms. If you meet someone on a dating site, then you know they're interested in dating. And if you mutually match them (as most apps work now), you know they're at least a little bit interested in you.
  - AussieWog93 4y ago
    100%. But this is not a positive thing for men or women.
    - midoridensha 4y ago
      How is this not positive? It keeps people from wasting their time and effort on people who aren't interested, and helps keep people (mainly women) from being harassed by men they aren't interested in, in inappropriate venues (like work), by giving those seeking dates an appropriate venue for their search. If only the dating app companies were treating their job with respect and as a duty to society instead of perverting it for profit incentive, it would work much better for its intended function than it does now.
      - AussieWog93 4y ago
        >How is this not positive? Just repeating what I've been told, mainly by "older" women (30+), many people like that sort of attention, and miss it when they no longer receive it (more of a thing for 50+ people). It's often not perceived as harassment or inappropriate, but of course it varies from person to person and also depends on how it's phrased ("would you like to get a coffee?" vs. "I want to cum on your face").
itsthejb 4y ago
I’ve used Hinge somewhat. Regarding the roses, and the “premium profiles” (I can’t remember the feature name), I considered this a boon - if you’re a normal guy, those are the women you should _avoid_. Conversely, if you’re a woman who really does want a relationship, then you don’t want to be one of those profiles!

extasia 4y ago

Been there and it kills your confidence. Online dating is truly fucked for men. Checkout Gerbert Johnson on YT, he has a channel with some funny content on it that isn't absurd redpill nonsense.

durnygbur 4y ago
Can confirm. Source: had shaky confidence which now is killed.
abhaynayar 4y ago
Thanks for the channel, just binged it a bit -- really cool!

SQueeeeeL 4y ago

Modern dating apps are pretty much all terrible, they basically completely commodify the experience of love and turn relationships into a purely aesthetics based thing. It's pretty terrible because I think most people don't actively have any way to meet single people their age, so people pretend apps are somehow a band aid for a deeply atomized society. Unless you're in a foreign country or a tourist, the advice I've heard repeated over and over is trying to meet others through organic social connections (ultimate frisbee, D&D, work, class) so that there exist some social fabric to base a relationship upon. (Pretty good, slightly cringey, video on how apps use the language of capitalism https://youtube.com/watch?v=-bcKRd_lfAg https://youtube.com/watch?v=-bcKRd_lfAg )

the_only_law 4y ago
> It's pretty terrible because I think most people don't actively have any way to meet single people their age This is probably my biggest problem. I can go out, and women will even approach me and flirt, at least until they realize they have some years on me…
- disgruntledphd2 4y ago
  This is a self-resolving problem, as long as you don't age badly.
RichardCNormos 4y ago
> most people don't actively have any way to meet single people their age This is absolutely true. The best we've got right now is bars & clubs, and in those environments, there's no preselection for the type of person you'd want a meaningful relationship with. Case in point: I met my wife at church. Going in the door, it was predetermined that we would share a common set of values.
throwaway515 4y ago
> I think most people don't actively have any way to meet single people their age, so people pretend apps are somehow a band aid for a deeply atomized society Looking back, I wasted my most dateable years doing exactly this. I thought if I just stayed on the apps a little longer, put up with the dopamine-drip machine bullshit just a little more, I'd meet someone. I wasn't even relying entirely on them – I attended a church, volunteered at a soup kitchen, and other things where you're supposed to be able to meet people, but I wonder if maybe I would have emphasized them more (seeking out more volunteer opportunities, etc) without the gambler's promise of the dating apps panning out "any day now."
dkarl 4y ago
> they basically completely commodify the experience of love and turn relationships into a purely aesthetics based thing I think this is the right thing to do. Apps work great for a quick check of "does this person look cute and interesting." They suck for everything else. I think it's great that apps like Tinder have given up on the pretense of helping people present their true deep selves, find compatible people, and figure out if there's a connection before they even meet. I know it seems more enlightened to deemphasize looks and concentrate on inner qualities, your personality and values and dreams, but over decades of painful experience we've learned that that stuff just doesn't convey accurately online. People invest huge amounts of energy creating profiles, answering quizzes, and trying to understand other people through their profiles and through online conversations, and the result are always disappointing. By now I think we understand that failure well enough that when a company promises to do it well, we should call it a scam. It might work for a few people, but they're very rare and very lucky. Apps should be honest and stick to what they're really good at, which is helping people who mutually pass the superficial visual check find each other, on a scale they could never accomplish IRL, and facilitating them getting face to face so they can find out if they actually like each other. Tinder does a perfect job of this. Just a few pics and a tiny profile. Put vital info in the profile (kids? open to what kind of relationship?) and some polarizing context in the pics (signals of political and cultural preferences, whatever feels important to you.) If someone wants to chat for more than a week without meeting you in person, unmatch them, because they're probably a bot or somebody just doing it to kill time. (Unless they say hey, let's put this on ice for a bit, I just met someone and if it doesn't work out I'd like to meet you next. That's valid.) Paying to increase the attention you get is a scam, too, of course, and I won't defend any app doing it. It basically turns the app into a strip club where the women work for free and it's even easier for the men to delude themselves into thinking they'll get something out of it. Really if you aren't getting hits then all you can do is work on your profile or cast or wider net, or take a break for a month while you wait for new people to become active.

pcbro141 4y ago

Same thing with Tinder and their multiple tiers, multiple types of boosts, multiple types of Super Likes. All these dating apps exploit desperate men. The truth is if you're not already getting a decent amount of likes on the standard tier, there's no point paying for 10 boosts like that will change your attractiveness.

electrondood 4y ago
Tinder gives me the exact same dirty feeling as visiting the strip in Las Vegas. It's like sex gambling, but for body CVs.

slimginz 4y ago

Hinge is owned by Match Group. Along with also owning Match.com they also own Tinder, OkCupid, PlentyOfFish, Black People Meet, Our Time, and about 20 more services. AFAIK the only "big" dating app that they don't own is Bumble. It's honestly insane how much of a monopoly Match Group has on the modern dating scene.

durnygbur 4y ago
> Hinge is owned by Match Group [...] AFAIK the only "big" dating app that they don't own is Bumble. Bumble/Badoo have some Russian connotations... so the choice is between cancer or syphilis. Within the last 10 years we voluntarily have delegated our mating preselection to them... and "in real world" is even worse...
- AlexandrB 4y ago
  > Within the last 10 years we voluntarily have delegated our mating preselection to them. I think this might be true for a subset of people, but I've personally had zero luck with online dating and have met all my partners IRL. It is interesting to consider if the FTC will ever take action on Match Group's near monopoly here.
- swagasaurus-rex 4y ago
  In the real world is scarier. I seriously doubt it's worse, unless you live in a small town with no choices. Dating apps lower the barrier to entry. This is actually a bad thing for men, because it floods the dating market with competition from men who would otherwise be too offputting or antisocial or meek. There is currently no way for women to filter out these men via software (they would if they could). Just like in business, it's easier to stay in business if there is a barrier to entry.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
Tangurena2 4y ago
To make things worse, Match.com translates profiles from one "platform" to another. So that interesting person you see on, say, PlentyOfFish never posted their profile to POF - they originally only wrote an OKCupid profile. If you bother to read the "terms of use" then you'll find they can do this. Many times when it looks like someone else is interested in you, the appearance is made that they can only be reached by subscribing for money, it turns out that the person is not there, never was there and had abandoned the other platform due to lack of interest. And paying for the service never makes it easier to get dates either.

fuzzy2 4y ago

Match Group is one of the worst internet companies I know. I was quite surprised when I found out they own basically every online dating thing. I’m not sure whether… innovation in the online dating space would do us any good, but I’m positive that Match Group is hard at work to prevent it from happening.

bombcar 4y ago
If we take dating to have an end-game of a long-time relationship, then it's a market segment that is always limited, if you're successful your customers leave. Much, much more profitable to simply drag your customers along forever and use every whale-milking technique ever designed.
- hgs3 4y ago
  > Much, much more profitable to simply drag your customers along forever and use every whale-milking technique ever designed. That's true of many industries. If a light bulb manufacturer invented a light bulb that lasted 100 years they'd go out of business. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence
  - 29083011397778 4y ago
    Respectfully, I think you have the wrong wikipedia link for your lightbulb example [0]. Certainly for describing lightbulbs dying earlier than necessary to fuel replacement purchases. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel
  - bombcar 4y ago
    What's interesting about that is at some point the device lasts longer than it is in service for. According to the internet, the "average kitchen" is remodeled every 10-15 years, so once your LED lights last longer than that, they're likely to get thrown away still working.
    - 4y ago

wollsmoth 4y ago

I'm out of the game now that I'm seeing someone. I did meet her online but I'm now convinced that you're much better off just going out in the world. I think most people still don't meet or look online.

llaolleh 4y ago
After the pandemic it has shifted. I read that 40% of couples meet through dating apps. Wild. I believe it as that's how most of my friends met their partners.
- xenospn 4y ago
  I believe it’s more like 90%.
  - wollsmoth 4y ago
    90% meeting online? I think I read that like half of people have even tried online dating. I've definitely met adults in their 30s who just have never bothered. They live their lives and meet people through friends or happenstance.

IgorPartola 4y ago

See I think fees for stuff like this aren’t a bad thing because it makes it harder for spam and BS to get through. The problem is that the company has to be really truly good about their matching algorithm to make it work. Here is the issue: Say the company charged $1 per first contact you make with a person. They can then show you people most likely to respond to help you get your conversation going ASAP and give you the highest value for your money. Or they could instead keep giving you poor matches so that you keep paying over and over. As far as they are concerned, the minute you fully engage with someone, assuming you are monogamous, you will not be a client for them for 6-18 months or whatever the length of an average relationship is in your demographic. But as long as your matches are mediocre (enough engagement to keep you going but not enough for you to get off the app), they can keep making money. This is where hookup apps could do a lot better than lifetime partner apps: a hookup app will have repeat business with this pricing model and will actually do better in terms of expectations but a LTR app will lose you soon as you find a suitable candidate. The alternative is 100% free apps which mean that bots have a zero cost to be bots and so you can run as many of them as you want. It is a problem of the commons in a way: soon as a certain percentage of bots spoils your interactions with the app you have no reason to come back. Small rant: Bumble IIRC shows you most popular people in your area if you are on the free tier. These are almost guaranteed to not match with you and might not even be online having been overwhelmed by the attention. But if you pay, they’ll first show you people who have actually liked you, you know the ones recently online and ones you can swipe right on to start talking. This is the wrong incentive though makes them money in the short term.

quest88 4y ago

I'm going to refute that it's a miserable experience because you're a man. As a decent looking man in a stable career I had a great time on hinge. I had many simultaneous conversations, and many dates that I had to cancel after finding someone I wanted to be exclusive with. We've now been together almost a year and I was in the app for less than a month. This experience was highly location subjective though. I had many great matches in the bay area. YMMV

BlargMcLarg 4y ago
Your solo anecdote does not weight up against the hordes of counterexamples. Additionally, age plays a huge factor. None of the comments have mentioned age so far.
- standardUser 4y ago
  The continued popularity and financial success of dating apps implies it is working to some degree for some amount of users. I'm not sure what the age issue is regarding men. As a man in my early 40s I still get occasional matches with women in their 20's. Age is a far bigger issue for women.
  - CodeSgt 4y ago
    They mean that age is an issue in that many women actually prefer older men. So all else being equal you still may have an advantage compared to a man in his early 20's
  - BlargMcLarg 4y ago
    That's the point. Age flips the script given the guy gave half a hoot about his body and career. >implies it is working to some degree for some amount of users And gambling works for some amount of users, but we both understand casinos would die out if users were making a net profit on average. Meaning there's more to this. For anyone feeling inclined to say "but winning isn't the only thing about a casino!", yes, exactly.

kodah 4y ago

Most online dating apps are owned by the same company, Match Group. There's also Bumble but Bumble put predation on steroids, imo, and gave it a very homely facade. I would get few matches on any stock experience, which on each service encourages you to pay. Paying has no guarantee of success, or a refund when faced with absolute failure, so if you spend money on superlikes (or whatever feature) if it doesn't work or some person is having a wine night and uses that opportunity to make fun of you there's no getting that money back. Once you follow the incentivized spending plan the app is somewhat useful but more gimmicky than anything. The problem is that men have been griping in public and private about this for years but they're continually shrugged off or made fun of for doing so. Some gripes are obviously unhinged, but I don't think there's even a shred of empathy for this problem even without those unhinged folks. This business model is absolutely normalized.

electrondood 4y ago

A rose is the same as buying a drink. All it communicates is "I don't think I have anything else going for me, so I spent money to get you to notice me."

bruceb 4y ago

Online dating also enables men to say hi to women you may never have been able to if you just waited on organic situations. Some men are just not great at initiating conversation. In some areas it is going to be more difficult and those areas probably are over represented on HN. SF/Bay Area, Seattle, Bangalore etc. The dating apps can't change the male to female ratio.

durnygbur 4y ago
Not really, a man is brutally paywalled to interact or even to bubble up. The asynchronicity can be noted when some women's bios write "just write to me", as women simply swipe right and after almost guaranteed match can send a message...
- dkarl 4y ago
  > a man is brutally paywalled to interact Does paying actually get you anywhere? Do you meet people you wouldn't have met without paying? I know they make it seem like it's going to help, but I have my doubts about whether it does. I think if you ignore the misleading marketing and go by results, paying for a basic subscription gives you the full benefit of the app.
  - muttled 4y ago
    I've done a couple of the premium subscriptions just to see if they're worth it. My experience was that you got to see people who had liked you but that the app just hadn't shown you yet, but other than that it didn't lead to any increase in dates. It doesn't show you any more often to people so although it allows you to swipe an unlimited amount of times, you might as well be screaming into a void. Just building up a larger list of people you've said "yes" to who will never see your profile. The "boost" functionality might get you an extra match or two, but with most conversations going nowhere the ROI is terrible.
- jrnichols 4y ago
  and Tinder used to charge men a LOT more money to get past that paywall too. https://www.vice.com/en/article/akzang/straight-middle-aged-men-are-being-charged-more-to-use-tinder-plus https://www.vice.com/en/article/akzang/straight-middle-aged-...

pphysch 4y ago

The ugly truth is that this is how the core dating game works. Men desire a beautiful woman. Women desire a wealthy man. Women are able to signal their appearance by uploading pictures. Men are able to (more credibly) signal their wealth through otherwise pointless IAPs. I'm not saying Hinge's system is perfect or good or even worth anyone's time, but it is a more honest portrayal of "the game" than putting both sexes on equal footing.

maerF0x0 4y ago
Women desire _more_ than a wealthy man. They also preferentially select for "masculinity"[1]. So while a rose / perks signal wealth, At least anecdotally women also seem to have a bit of a resentment/disdain for using apps at all. They want a man with the "balls" (so to speak) to approach her, talk to her, not be afraid of rejection, have options but choose her[2]. So long as you can express enough of these signals, wealth beyond her income level won't be a deal breaker. [1]: please just forgive this term as a stand in for the personality traits that express in people with sufficient testosterone and success as defined by the society. [2]: this point is just common sense across all genders... having options but choosing one is a form of backing for a compliment. Choosing her out of a pool of no one else is not flattery, it's desperation.
- pphysch 4y ago
  And men also desire more than just a beautiful woman. But these are the single best indicators, evolutionarily speaking. Wealth historically indicates hard work or power, which in turn indicate masculine traits. Beauty historically indicates good health (childbearing) and self-care, which in turn indicate feminine traits. These indicators can definitely be gamed, but they define the game for a reason.
- standardUser 4y ago
  That's a lot of words and odd formatting just to say that "women dig confidence". But it is of course very true!
  - 4y ago

maerF0x0 4y ago

> Never mind the practice of "Roses" in which the only way to message some women is to buy a like that costs $3.33 each. Again, in bulk you can get that down to $1.49 apiece. But what is so scummy about it is that they seem to have an algorithm that detects the most beautiful of women and locks messaging them behind the need to send roses. Actually this is even far more anti-pattern than that. The fact the recipient knows you sent a rose signals a few things to (presumably) her: 1. You had to pay to get access to her, your ELO/Algorithm score is low enough that they app thinks your beneath her 2. You're not getting enough dates / matches that you're desperate enough that you're now paying money for what others get for free

pavlov 4y ago
Sounds like sending this kind of rose to a woman who already gets lots of attention is futile for the reasons you list. But it might actually be an effective gesture towards a woman who’s not in the top 50% of the site because it signals that you’re not a player who’s simply messaging all the below-average women, and that your score is probably aligned with hers.
- maerF0x0 4y ago
  > not in the top 50% of the site You will get presented this match for free and message her without a rose. I suppose you could send a rose voluntarily to someone who you presume does not get roses in an attempt to exploit the fact they dont get roses... which is slightly condescending xD .
  - pavlov 4y ago
    Sending gifts to not-very-attractive women is a time-tested mating strategy for the slightly lazy male contingent.
    - bel_marinaio 4y ago
      "gifting" women you barely know is a terrible strategy. This is the best way to land yourself a gold digger or some other undesirable. It signals to her that you are beneath her and are trying to buy her affection. On one first date a woman I had been talking to for a week texted me late at night. I told her to show up at my house and for her to bring a bottle of red wine. The next morning she is telling me a recent dating story. A guy took her out for a fancy meal. He spent $120 on her and then he got pissed after the meal when she wouldn't kiss him. I have some success and plenty of failure too when it comes to dating. There is so much bad dating advice out there for men. I feel bad for the men that are in the dark and being taken advantage of.

teaearlgraycold 4y ago

Even in the Bay Area, a place with notably more men than women and thus a much harder dating experience, I’ve had a good experience with Hinge. I’m sure it helps to be employed in tech (although that should apply to most people on this site). I’ve never given them a cent. I did put a lot of work into my profile - going on dozens of dates, learning from the bad matches how I could signal incompatibility earlier, and generally just going head first into the trial-by-fire of online dating for the first time. Things are progressing slowly for me but to be honest my caution is the limiting factor. More importantly there has been progression.

pdntspa 4y ago
Dang, I remember when SF was reputed to be a cis man's dating paradise. With all the gay dudes I had heard rumors that the ratio was something like 3 women to 1 man.
electrondood 4y ago
By Bay Area, do you mean SF? Because outside of that, you're going to exhaust your swipe supply pretty quick.
- teaearlgraycold 4y ago
  No, peninsula. I don’t swipe much. I feel more confident when I’m not doing all of the selling at the start. So I just sort through the likes. I’m not an unattractive guy, but I’m also no movie star.
dkarl 4y ago
I found Hinge to be heavily skewed towards well-off professional women looking for well-off professional men. (Can't speak about the men since I only looked at women.) Other than that the mechanics seemed pretty typical. There were fewer bots, sex workers, and badly done profiles than on Tinder, which was nice.
Melatonic 4y ago
This is the real answer. Every guy I know who REALLY has a huge axe to grind with online dating will show me their profile and they will have low quality photos with little effort put in to their profile itself. If someone can't tell what the hell you actually look like or get a good feel for your real personality then why are they going to be interested? If anything money should be spent on improving the profile itself (you could hire a professional photographer to take some "candid" looking nice photos of yourself + go to a higher end hair cutter, get your clothes tailored, etc etc). All of these things would probably also help you in real life. Worst case you have some great LinkedIn photos or something to send your family and some great fitting clothes to wear to dinner with friends.

thomastjeffery 4y ago

You missed the most important anti-pattern that exists in all of Match's dating apps: limited swipes. The entire foundational purpose of dating apps is to make the numbers game tractable. By limiting the amount of swipes you can do, you limit the amount of people you can contact. By paywalling swipes, you limit the amount of people who can contact you. Somehow the only popular dating apps are the ones literally designed to fail.

LorenPechtel 4y ago
I think limiting them is a good idea--you have to be selective about who you approach rather than using a shotgun. However, I think there should be a left/right/maybe system. (Perhaps there is--I've been off the market since before apps were a thing.)
- thomastjeffery 4y ago
  Why? You only get to talk to matches anyway. Most users are not getting very many matches.
  - LorenPechtel 4y ago
    So you can go through and select the best of the offerings to swipe right on.
    - thomastjeffery 4y ago
      That puts the onus on Tinder/Hinge/etc. to find the best "offerings" to present me. In my, and most others', experience, that doesn't work out well. Give me all the options I have time for. If you really are good at deciding what matches will work best for me, then present them first. There is no good reason to hide the options you think won't work out for me: the failure case is not matching, and that is painless.

bel_marinaio 4y ago

Hinge is a steaming pile of horse shit. If any match complains about you they will ban you for life (Guilty without any investigation) and refuse to tell you the reason. Good luck with your appeal. Before any SJW replies that I must be some troll here is the proof "Revenge reporting" is real. Revenge reporting happens to men too. https://www.stylist.co.uk/relationships/dating-love/dating-app-ban/481309 https://www.stylist.co.uk/relationships/dating-love/dating-a...

Melatonic 4y ago

They have algo that rate everything behind the scenes. OKCupid has lots of good articles on it. What it really comes down to though is how much effort you put into your profile. I do not do online dating really but all my female friends complain about the low quality photos of 90% of men and the lack of effort in their profile. They show me what they are dealing with and it is honestly kind of laughable. And the guys they do end up going for often are not even the most attractive. It also helps a lot if you put the effort in immediately after making your profile. Once the algo starts rating you low then it can be harder to come back from.

xenospn 4y ago
As a man who self-admittedly gets quite a few matches every day, I can confidently say that the less effort you put in, the better the results are. Just have good photos, everything else is secondary.

microtherion 4y ago

Apparently it gets better for men if you manage to live to an advanced age: A college buddy recently told us that his widowed father is absolutely inundated with Tinder matches, because in his age range (70s-80s), the gender ratio is increasingly skewed female. Not that this helps you much right now, I suppose…

gs17 4y ago

IIRC I sent one of my free roses to my current girlfriend. She wasn't one of my standouts but I wanted to get her attention and it worked. With how many normal likes she showed me she had in her inbox, there's no way we would have even chatted if I hadn't jumped the queue. The "Standouts" feature still felt like a total scam to me though. "Here's a bunch of women we think are out of your league, pay us and we'll let them know you exist".

hizxy 4y ago

Well you certainly know a lot about their business practices…

AussieWog93 4y ago

>As a man, online dating is already a miserable experience. Based on what I've heard from women, it's bad for them too. Easy to find a root, but hard to find someone to introduce to mum and dad. IRL dating is worse. Apparently in the post-#metoo era men just stopped talking to women in general.

midoridensha 4y ago
Online dating is much safer than meeting women IRL. If you try to ask out women IRL, the chance for rejection is extremely high (they probably aren't looking for a date at all, after all), and if it's at work, that opens another big can of worms. If you meet someone on a dating site, then you know they're interested in dating. And if you mutually match them (as most apps work now), you know they're at least a little bit interested in you.
- AussieWog93 4y ago
  100%. But this is not a positive thing for men or women.
  - midoridensha 4y ago
    How is this not positive? It keeps people from wasting their time and effort on people who aren't interested, and helps keep people (mainly women) from being harassed by men they aren't interested in, in inappropriate venues (like work), by giving those seeking dates an appropriate venue for their search. If only the dating app companies were treating their job with respect and as a duty to society instead of perverting it for profit incentive, it would work much better for its intended function than it does now.
    - AussieWog93 4y ago
      >How is this not positive? Just repeating what I've been told, mainly by "older" women (30+), many people like that sort of attention, and miss it when they no longer receive it (more of a thing for 50+ people). It's often not perceived as harassment or inappropriate, but of course it varies from person to person and also depends on how it's phrased ("would you like to get a coffee?" vs. "I want to cum on your face").

itsthejb 4y ago

I’ve used Hinge somewhat. Regarding the roses, and the “premium profiles” (I can’t remember the feature name), I considered this a boon - if you’re a normal guy, those are the women you should _avoid_. Conversely, if you’re a woman who really does want a relationship, then you don’t want to be one of those profiles!