13 ms·

When I was single I absolutely hated the mandatory 1-3 days chatting that was necessary until it became acceptable to ask someone on a date. One day I encounter

• sk0g 4y ago
  From the company's POV, aren't they likely to benefit from setting you up on dates that either go mildly unfortunately, or leading to a short-term relationship at best? The customers are paying for dates after all, not long term relationships. Certainly one way to deal with ghosting though - I can understand the reason behind it, but it's incredibly inconsiderate and harmful behaviour. On the other hand I've taken to double checking plans with people 24 and ~2 hours before they were scheduled, which sometimes helps people not forget about plans they agreed to a while back.
  • emptyparadise 4y ago
    There is something funny about the financial incentives of a dating app pushing the app to make sure its users don't date.
    • sk0g 4y ago
      I mean they're dating apps, not relationship apps! Tinder was built to facilitate quick hookups, not being selective about your next long-term relationship. Of course, Tinder is synonymous to dating for some, which is the weird part.
      • ianai 4y ago
        Notably, I don’t think an app helping manage a relationship would gain traction. Which would seem to be the extension of your pointing out they’re dating apps.
  • capableweb 4y ago
    > From the company's POV, aren't they likely to benefit from setting you up on dates that either go mildly unfortunately, or leading to a short-term relationship at best? The customers are paying for dates after all, not long term relationships. Short-term, probably yeah. But long-term, if they want to get a reputation like what parent describes ("I met my wife on platform X") then they better optimize for good dates rather than "unfortunate" ones.
    • oxfordmale 4y ago
      Most businesses only look at growth, and for this they only require short to medium term satisfaction of their users. Long term satisfaction, such as marriage, is mostly irrelevant.
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  • Pepe1vo 4y ago
    >From the company's POV, aren't they likely to benefit from setting you up on dates that either go mildly unfortunately, or leading to a short-term relationship at best? The customers are paying for dates after all, not long term relationships. I can't imagine there's a data scientist alive who could devise an algorithm that accurately, reliably predicts "kind of a good match but not really", given only some limited inputs (basic info + photos). I reckon from the company's perspective that positive word of mouth from people who like the app is a much better focus point.
    • sk0g 4y ago
      I was more thinking based on input data about things like what you are looking for in a partner, whether you are after a long-term relationship or not, etc. Then you throw in all that data to the ML deities and hope the output is something roughly related to what you're after. Fair enough about word of mouth though, relationship durations are probably linearly correlated to the number of endorsements given by each customer - at some point in a relationship you end up with a rehearsed "so how did you two meet?"!
    • AnIdiotOnTheNet 4y ago
      Actually I think this would be relatively easy, you're just looking for a bit of alignment in worldview and significant desperation.
    • solardev 4y ago
      The old ok cupid had a bunch of quiz questions that it'd match you for, both similarity and dissimilarity weighted by self reported importance. Then Match Group bought them out and mostly gutted that system and turned it into another swiper :/ There's still eharmony, but I think that's just for white Christian boomers mainly.
    • hoseja 4y ago
      The "limited" inputs include: All your conduct on the app, your "advertising" dossier. Seems doable, frankly.
    • kadoban 4y ago
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• carabiner 4y ago
  I would love for this app to come to the US.
  • nine_k 4y ago
    The company I currently work for, Coffee Meets Bagel, does aim to help form serious relationships specifically, and does operate in the US. The anti-Tinder, till-death-do-us-part market exists, and is likely somehow under-served. It's just a bit harder to market for, and the matching is much harder to implement than Tinder's.
    • carabiner 4y ago
      I tried CMB a few years ago and it showed me non-stop Asian women. Nothing against them but it's not like they are the only type I want to date. Has this been addressed?
      • nine_k 4y ago
        A huge lot of things has changed since a few years ago, at least on the technical side where I am. The matching engine is now quite different. Consider trying again.
        • enraged_camel 4y ago
          I was using CMB until recently, and can confirm carabiner's comment. Asian women seem to dominate it to such an extent that I have friends who use the app specifically because they prefer Asian women!
    • archagon 4y ago
      I’m friends with two married couples who met on CMB. So keep up the good work, I guess!
• stavros 4y ago
  Isn't that a bit harsh? If something comes up and you can't make it, or your date didn't like you and says you didn't come, you can no longer date?
  • Pepe1vo 4y ago
    Definitely. That's why 24h before your date a support phone number would come online where you could call about this kind of stuff. Explaining to another human on the phone why you can't make it is IMO exactly the right amount of friction for cancelling a date!
    • stavros 4y ago
      Oh that's pretty cool!
• jokoon 4y ago
  Yeah it would put a lot more pressure on women, though.
  • Silverback_VII 4y ago
    Well obviously a lot of guys in such an app(Tinder as well) will press match every time, hoping than some woman will press it as well. Online dating is problematic in many ways and very hard for men especially. I think women see men who use those apps as of lesser value anyway. Therefore I think the best advice for men is to understand how women signal interest in real life. Some people pick it up intuitively but many people today have to learn it. Undercover Sex Signals by Leil Lowndes is a good book to start. Don't use online dating!
    • 7vaS7SXdKF 4y ago
      I purchased the aformentioned book after reading this comment out of interest (happily married so I don't care about dating anymore). After about 70 pages I have to say that I am not impresed at all. A bullet point list with these "undercover sex signals" would have done. In my view nothing more than badly written psychobabble which probably does more harm than good.
    • Tozen 4y ago
      An unexpected book that I read years ago, was "Dating Japanese Women Secrets". It had some eye opening concepts and advice in general, not just for Japan. Along those lines is a book titled "Fundamentals of Female Dynamics", and it also goes against the grain and conventional thinking. I believe both are still on Kobo or Amazon. Overall, a lot of guys don't take a moment to look more deeply into the overall picture of what is going on, but instead think everything is innate and/or are instead getting sucked into a game where they will constantly lose. Life is way too short for that. The argument more guys need to be making, is about what's truly helping their situation. Is the usage and way of using a dating app/site really doing that?
• bobcostas55 4y ago
  >mandatory 1-3 days chatting This is not a real thing. In fact once you go above 2-3 back and forth messages your chances of actually going on a date start to go down.
  • nine_k 4y ago
    Isn't that the point? If you are not interested enough to chat with that other person for mere three days, chances that you'll be interested in each other in the long term are slim. It's just a very efficient, very selective filter. And it should filter out the majority of potential matches :(
    • deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    • nicoburns 4y ago
      Chatting with someone you don’t know over text is hard. You somehow have to capture their interest while having no idea what they’re interested in. In person, it’s much easier to get over this initial hump as you can try a bunch of topics quickly until you find one that’s interests both of you, and get much better feedback on the form of body language.
      • nine_k 4y ago
        Yes, a text chat misses a ton of non-verbal cues. A video chat could work better.
• paganel 4y ago
  From the point of view of a woman those 1-3 days of chatting make perfect sense, that way she can try to write off the creeps and the potential dangers. Not sure how it all goes on apps like Grindr, to be honest.
  • Tozen 4y ago
    • alphabettsy 4y ago
      This whole things reads like slightly deranged red-pill nonsense, but this part > One of the major flaws in this common female thinking, is that by initially frustrating the guy, it will make them "prove" themselves to her. Some women even take it to extremes, to weeks and months. However, this abusive behavior towards guys can become a filter, which leads to her encountering guys that simply want to "climb the mountain" for revenge. After getting sex or the relationship, its all the more sweet for them to break that woman's heart (who they may have designated a game player) by suddenly going ghost on her or treating her badly after they have "accomplished the mission". Is just gross.
      • Tozen 4y ago
        • alphabettsy 4y ago
          • deleted 4y ago
            [deleted]
          • Tozen 4y ago
• savef 4y ago
  >I absolutely hated the mandatory 1-3 days chatting That's fascinating, as somebody who loves this period and thinks of it as a requirement to find out my compatibility with somebody before we go on an actual date. If you're not up to scratch on the initial few days of chatting then I have no interest in taking it further. And I appreciate that many people aren't interested in this, but then it just means the two of us aren't compatible, and that's fine.
  • alophawen 4y ago
    • watwut 4y ago
      Before internet, it was super normal to know someone in real life fairly long before asking that person out. By knowing I mean you would know a lot about their personality, reactions, interests or opinions.
      • bratbag 4y ago
        That is the exact opposite of my pre-internet experience. Pre-first-date would normally be a short bit of time in a club or pub when I first met them, before organising a more personal follow-up. There was no 'just a friend' period.
        • watwut 4y ago
          It might depend on who you socialize with. But among my peers, the dating after one meetup in club or pub was super rare. Like, I know one guy who dated like that and none of those relationships worked out. I had exactly one relationship that started with only few days on knowing each other, but those days were pretty intense (first relationships ever and short one). Pretty much everyone else including me dated people we knew before at least as acquittances. And those relationships are the ones that ended up being long term and with kids.
• Waterluvian 4y ago
  What’s the goal of a date if you can’t stomach chatting for a few days? Is this a hookup thing?
  • foepys 4y ago
    Some people cannot write well and rather chat in person.
  • halfdan 4y ago
    Not to sound snarky, but what’s the point of chatting if you could hang out face to face and have the same conversation in a ten minute timeframe while seeing their reactions?
    • devoutsalsa 4y ago
      And why waste time chatting online? The first person to land a successful in person session is winning, generally speaking.
    • bunabhucan 4y ago
      Safety. Establishing that the other person is safe to meet.
    • SyzygistSix 4y ago
      Figuring out if they are boring or not.
    • pmoriarty 4y ago
      Depending on your circumstances, meeting in person can take significant time, effort, and possibly money. Chatting is quick, convenient, low risk, and low-effort. I personally prefer to talk on the phone to chatting over text, because it's much faster and you can tell all sorts of things about a person by the way they talk that you can't over mere text.
    • Waterluvian 4y ago
      I think from my perspective, this entire line of reasoning betrays a lack of empathy. It’s deeply important to many people, especially for safety. If you unilaterally decide it’s an unworthy stage of the process, that’s likely to be very self limiting and signals quite a bit about this person’s ability to “eat their vegetables of life.” Another perspective: would you interview someone who just sends, “I don’t do well with résumés or phone screenings. Let’s jump to the interview.” ? Edit: to more directly answer your question, if both parties prefer that then by all means! But that’s not exactly what this thread is about.
• pmoriarty 4y ago
  Another option is speed dating. You meet dozens of people in person right away. After a couple of minutes of chatting with each, you tell the organizers who you're interested in, and if both of you want they'll give each of you the other's contact info. I'm not sure if such events still exist in this pandemic era, though, when people are afraid to meet face to face.
  • sokoloff 4y ago
    Are most people afraid to meet face to face still? I guess there’s an obvious selection bias in the people I’m actually meeting, but that general fear seems to have dramatically dropped off by spring 2022 or so.
• tsimionescu 4y ago
  > When I was single I absolutely hated the mandatory 1-3 days chatting that was necessary until it became acceptable to ask someone on a date. That's very strange to me - a date takes up so much time that I always want to go on a date only after I have some reason to think I'll like the guy I'm talking to. Why would I get dressed, find a nice place, get there, and risk enduring a boring time with a stranger who I may have absolutely nothing in common with?
  • nicoburns 4y ago
    My experience is that getting along while chatting on an app has had zero correlation with how well I get on with someone on an actual date. Also, for me, working out what to say on a dating app to someone I don’t know is a lot of effort. It might easily take me an hour to think of an appropriate reply. A date is actually less time wasted than 2-3 days of texting for me.
    • kkielhofner 4y ago
      The problem with chatting with a stranger in app is being asynchronous, with varying response times, is that people can be completely different vs in person (hence your first point). I like to say that anyone can be funny/clever/considerate/thoughtful/etc when you have 30 seconds or longer to come up with a reply. In messaging that’s normal but that kind of latency just doesn’t happen in conversation. Real time conversation in dating and meeting someone is much, much closer to the “real” person than texting via an app. Chatting in app is often closer to their social media persona (if that applies) or some other affectation. Just showing up to a 30 min date (even if it takes a couple of hours all in) actually saves a lot of time and effort. I can’t imagine texting/chatting with someone for days at a time only to meet up with them and realize they’re vastly different.
      • tsimionescu 4y ago
        I get that, but for me, if I don't know anything about someone besides a picture or two, I have no desire to block off an hour or two to get to meet them. Chatting instead, that I can always fit into my regular activities, exactly because it is asynchronous. And a lot of the time, even a little bit of chatting will make it clear I don't want to meet up (and/or they don't want to meet up with me!). Don't get me wrong, I do think in-person conversation is much much better than chatting. If I happen to meet someone that I like while I'm already outside, I'd much rather talk then exchange numbers and chat, of course. But going on blind dates is really not doing it for me. Do note that I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong, not at all! I'm just exploring this significant difference in outlook, it's interesting to me how differently people can feel about a subject. It also gives me some insight into other's behavior on dating apps that before I'd just seen as sort of rude or rushed, so I think this is an actually useful conversation.
• querez 4y ago
  > When I was single I absolutely hated the mandatory 1-3 days chatting that was necessary until it became acceptable to ask someone on a date. This was not my experience at all. 1-3 days of chatting would destroy any chance of ever meeting someone for me. Having a nice intro chat immediately followed up by a question to meet or exchange numbers within the first 10 messages worked significantly better than trying to have meaningful chats over tinder. I find that the first excitement of a match very quickly tapers of, so either you build on that initial momentum to transition into a date, or interest will fade quickly. Because let's face it, you'll both match other people in the mean time, and then those new matches become more exciting than coming up with new small-talk when the first few messages have become stale. Getting to know a person works better face to face, so I'd rather be quick to move to that stage, and be more selective about who I think I might want to spend a first-date hour with. (My go-to was to grab a beer at a bar and then see if there's enough interest to spend the rest of the evening together walking through the city).
  • HWR_14 4y ago
    > or exchange numbers Okay, finally a place I can ask this. I hope you and others can explain. Why would exchanging numbers (or Snap accounts, etc.) with someone be a goal? You already have a way to communicate! I understand moving to in-person dating, but not to another way to text. > I'd rather be quick to move to that stage, and be more selective about who I think I might want to spend a first-date hour with. I think either you mistyped the funnel or I misread it. You make it sound like a first-date hour (or so) is given freely and first-date evenings are rarer. Which sounds reasonable, but also seems contradicted by the part I quoted.
    • foepys 4y ago
      > Why would exchanging numbers […] with someone be a goal? Because it is the next step on the way to exclusivity. On the dating platform you are one of potentially hundreds (or thousands) of message chains and easily overlooked. In their phonebook you are most likely not.
      • deleted 4y ago
• rcarr 4y ago
  This reminds me of this quote: > Ironically, both genders are motivated by the same factor not wasting time but we do it in reverse. To overgeneralize, women think: Why waste my time meeting in person if I'm not into his personality? (Then Tinder-messaging is used to help screen for personality.) And men think: Why waste my time Tinder-messaging if I'm not going to meet her in person? Source: https://www.glamour.com/story/tinder-guys-dont-message https://www.glamour.com/story/tinder-guys-dont-message
• giantg2 4y ago
  "I imagine it has a much better higher success rate than Tinder" I imagine it would, since tinder is mostly used for hookups vs actual dating.
• Tozen 4y ago
  > which works with the same swiping gimmick... Thus the same inherent flaw of non-representative profiles and pictures, to give false impressions or present a false image that can be used to trick others. Things on peoples profile can not actually be confirmed, to include pictures and real life appearance not matching up. They can say they are a banker or a professional dancer, but are actually unemployed or have never done what they claim. So the beliefs people have, when going on the date, can still be based on deception. The persons engaging in deception, only has to maintain the facade for a while, to hook the other person into a relationship. Not saying that such can be eliminated, because that's life, but rather no app can ever be foolproof. People, for whatever their reasons, will find flaws in it. > ...but the the twist is that once you have a match you HAVE to go on a date. You have to enter your availability, pay 5 euro and if you don't show up on your date you get perma-banned for life. This is a significant advantage of the app and community, which is cutting down on pranksters and time wasters. Thus would of course lead to a much higher success rate to Tinder and similar apps. And about Tinder... Tinder of today, was much different than when it initially came out. Many people don't realize that Tinder back then was quite Grindr-like (who they were copying), but mainly heterosexual, and heavily meet or "sexual encounter based", whichever you prefer. The culture and thinking was different. People showed up, because it could be a stealthy way to go have fun. When Tinder tried to distance itself from the "meet up and encounters" perception and concerns, that opened the door to way more pranksters, attention seeking only, and time wasters. There was a shift in culture and who was using the app. The Tinder of today has arguably become less focused on people meeting, but instead making Tinder as much money as possible and riding out to the last on its old reputation (of being Grindr-like), and usually at the expense of guys. Swiping left or right, by itself, is almost like any downloaded game.
• masteruvpuppetz 4y ago
  I love chat. I don't like real meetings :S
• randyrand 4y ago
  That was never mandatory! 2 quick nice or funny replies and then ask someone out is ideal. Women don’t like wasting time chatting long either.
• edmundsauto 4y ago
  That 1-3d effort is a kind of "proof of work".