5 ms·
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
by 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 agoThere is something funny about the financial incentives of a dating app pushing the app to make sure its users don't date.
- sk0g 4y agoI 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 agoNotably, 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 agoMost 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 agoI 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 agoActually I think this would be relatively easy, you're just looking for a bit of alignment in worldview and significant desperation.
- solardev 4y agoThe 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 agoThe "limited" inputs include: All your conduct on the app, your "advertising" dossier. Seems doable, frankly.
- kadoban 4y ago