5 ms·

A dating site is #2 or #3 on my personal project backlog. I have significant successful (and unsuccessful) experience as a user, and I have identified some sig

A dating site is #2 or #3 on my personal project backlog. I have significant successful (and unsuccessful) experience as a user, and I have identified some significant improvements to be made (from the user perspective). There's really no point optimizing for profit only, as it almost certainly results in a bad experience for users. Sure, a company can make money (and likely eventually be bought by Match Group, so -cash out-)... but sometimes it's worth actually building something for the good of people. Yes, if two people match well, you may lose two customers... for a while. Most relationships don't last long term, and people who have had good experiences on a dating site will return when they are seeking companionship or love again. If they were happy with your site before, they will come back to you. The current dating site options are a wasteland. Not to beat a dead horse, but most are owned by Match Group. And from my experience with several of them, once they land in Match they are not good sites to use. OkCupid was one of the best at one time, and PlentyOfFish was pretty decent (if you can accept old/functional UI) long ago. But these days, they have pared down the features and upped the pricing to the point where it feels like they are just milking lonely people for all the cash they can get. At least they are possibly not stuffing fake female accounts like Adult Friend Finder and Ashley Madison did (and I suspect Bumble currently does). Of course, the whole premise of dating sites is wrong. The best way to make connections is in person, by going places regularly and seeing the same people frequently... building some non-romantic connections first which may grow into something more. Dating sites assume that if "I think I like you" and "you think you like me" then we are a match!. This sets up big expectations too soon...

dboreham 4y ago
A dating site is like trying to solve an NP problem. It's provable that there's no correlation between information generated by users and outcome. For example the known factors that affect couple compatibility are things like attachment style. People are generally unaware of their attachment style.
- derefr 4y ago
  So why wouldn't a dating site just put its users through trusted high-power psychological screening instruments, to determine that sort of stuff? They're just questionnaires, mostly; they can be done entirely through a web/mobile UI, and scored without any humans in the loop. Do the developers of dating sites think that people will consider it too much of a bother to fill out such things, or consider such questions too invasive? I don't know why; people love personality quizzes. (IMHO you could make the whole site just a BuzzFeed "what kind of person are you? take this quiz to find out!" site at its core, except through all the quizzes you're doing, it's building up a very thorough psychological profile of you; and when it's got enough, it opens up the ability for you to date through it.)
luckylion 4y ago
I wonder how far you'd get with running on donations. If you're successful in connecting people who fall in love and all that, they're probably thankful and might donate. It'd also kind of be "pay for the result, not for the try". Would you pay $50 to get with the love of your life? I would. Would you pay $50 so you can message people on a site where you don't know if anything will come of it? Meh, depends on how desperate I am, I guess. Good luck, hitting critical mass is probably even harder than in other areas. You can grow a community or meme site with a few users who are really active, but that doesn't really work for dating.
- TimPC 4y ago
  I think the problem is based on hit rate the number is a lot higher than $50. If you're charging $10/month the average user lasts 12 months and the number of users who marry is 10% then you're charging $1200 for a successful match to get equivalent revenue, not $50.
  - luckylion 4y ago
    That's true, but are you getting the same amount of users when you're charging them $10/month for messaging? I'd assume that payment adds a hurdle that's somewhat welcome to keep out problematic users, just like rent does. Pay 30% more than the market and you'll only have neighbors who can afford that as well, which are much less likely to be unemployed alcoholics with behavioral issues.
- jcims 4y ago
  The problem is that the guys that send dick pics to complete strangers and women that are just surfing for free meals are still out there. They pollute the entire experience by having a large number of low-effort interactions, and in the donation model they are just going to be a net sink of resources and good will. I don't think online dating gets any better until someone devises a means to bias against people that aren't acting in good faith. Of course the challenge here is that you're going to be hard pressed to find a strong consensus on what actions do or do not constitute good faith in a dating app.
CuriouslyC 4y ago
The whole concept of dating "websites" is bunk. We need a social video chat app where you can publicly ask questions or make statements, and people can make video replies which can be swiped through in a tiktok style, which also has geo-awareness and some basic personality profile information. By being video only and gating it securely through the app you'd eliminate catfishing and a lot of the hard misrepresentation you see on dating sites. Having conversations be public by default and needing permission to DM would also help limit bad male behavior.
- tester457 4y ago
  This idea is crazy genius. I imagine that shy people will not try it though...
- Logans_Run 4y ago
  What you are describing sounds remarkably similar to the dating videos concept from the 1980's. I guess all that is old becomes new again! (Did a quick search that turned up two low quality links to illustrate what I mean) https://www.thrillist.com/sex-dating/nation/lessons-learned-from-the-vhs-dating-video https://www.thrillist.com/sex-dating/nation/lessons-learned-... https://www.businessinsider.com/found-footage-awkward-80s-video-dating-2015-12?op=1&r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/found-footage-awkward-80s-vi...
  - CuriouslyC 4y ago
    The similarities are only superficial though. That is like a bunch of video job interviews, what I'm describing is more like a virtual pub where you can preferentially join conversations with other singles who share similar interests.
    - GloriousKoji 4y ago
      Sounds like a video chat version of clubhouse. On paper it looked great but devolved into people mostly trying to build/sell/promote their brand which resulted in most conversations turning into something like low quality crowd sourced podcasting.
cableshaft 4y ago
While I agree that in person should definitely be a part of it, as a bit of anecdata I made a huge meetup push for two years (I went to meetups 2-3x a week, every week) in order to meet new people and date, and did get a few dates out of it, but mostly just new friends (that being said, I do know a few people in those same groups that ended up as long-term couples through it, and one of those couples got married eventually). Meanwhile every relationship I had at that time came from OKCupid, including my wife. I wouldn't be surprised if all the dating sites are now garbage thanks to them all being owned by Match Group, but at least back then they weren't terrible and I had good luck with it as an average-looking nerdy guy, much more than in-person. I do credit going to meetups regularly with me becoming a bit more well-rounded and sociable of a person and more dateable as a result, though. Good luck on your dating app personal project. I worked on one professionally for about six months a long time ago, and it was an interesting and fun project, for the most part (that never went anywhere, we treated it seriously but the client was a narcissist that got lucky in real estate that assumed he'd get 10 million users in a few weeks of release with no marketing, he eventually killed the project when he realized that wasn't going to be the case). I've had ideas for different takes on dating/social apps since that time, and almost considered pursuing it, but it seemed to be too dominated by Match Group, especially post-Tinder, and I care more about games than apps anyway.
- lelanthran 4y ago
  > as a bit of anecdata I made a huge meetup push for two years (I went to meetups 2-3x a week, every week) in order to meet new people and date Meetups work really well if you're going into one that has a a good ratio of the sex you are interested in. If you're a single guy, going to Meetups with a Maker theme, or a Star Wars theme, is not going to improve your odds of finding someone - for each girl there, there's 5 guys interested in her. A good Meetup for single guys to go to is one that is almost completely populated by women (cooking classes used to have a very high ratio of women to men). Even if these women are attached, they have friends, and IME, attached women are always ready to set up their single friends.
  - cableshaft 4y ago
Beltalowda 4y ago
If someone gave me a big bag of money then working on a better dating site would probably be what I'd do with it. I think it's very hard pull off as a "personal project" though, because a dating site needs people to be useful and attracting people is neither free nor easy. And you also need some form of "content control" to weed out the dickpics and other assorted assholery, which is also neither free nor easy. > Of course, the whole premise of dating sites is wrong. The best way to make connections is in person, by going places regularly and seeing the same people frequently... building some non-romantic connections first which may grow into something more. Dating sites assume that if "I think I like you" and "you think you like me" then we are a match!. This sets up big expectations too soon... In principle, I guess, but my experience is that many social spaces of all types are overwhelmingly male. There are probably some commentaries to be made about that, but I'm not sure what. And while it can set up certain expectations, I don't think that needs to be a bad thing, necessarily.
astrange 4y ago
If you want a "good dating site", it doesn't really seem like it's possible. But the job to be done of a dating site is to either get you more or better dates. I therefore suggest making a site that's just a page of text telling you to move somewhere with more opportunity, get outdoor social hobbies, and become a millionaire.
heleninboodler 4y ago
I've always wanted dating sites to add features that had more behavioral annotations about users. I'd like to not get a high match score with people who don't even bother to read their messages, for example. Or who read their messages but don't bother to click on the person's profile. Or who do both and never respond. I'd like it to ask why you unmatched with someone and have options like "couldn't hold a conversation" or "too flirty too fast" or "wtf dick pics" and then use that data to boost people who aren't the examples of what everyone complains about on dating sites. In other words, I'd like to have some data-driven reputational info about people used in the matching. And yeah, I agree with your final sentiment as well: dating sites should be more like people-meeting sites, but with a romantic focus. Aim for casual meetups that aren't dates but might lead to dates. Maybe collect small groups of people that might be compatible and send them out for drinks and then have them do some basic surveys about the people they met for future filtering purposes (again with the reputational concept).

dboreham 4y ago

A dating site is like trying to solve an NP problem. It's provable that there's no correlation between information generated by users and outcome. For example the known factors that affect couple compatibility are things like attachment style. People are generally unaware of their attachment style.

derefr 4y ago
So why wouldn't a dating site just put its users through trusted high-power psychological screening instruments, to determine that sort of stuff? They're just questionnaires, mostly; they can be done entirely through a web/mobile UI, and scored without any humans in the loop. Do the developers of dating sites think that people will consider it too much of a bother to fill out such things, or consider such questions too invasive? I don't know why; people love personality quizzes. (IMHO you could make the whole site just a BuzzFeed "what kind of person are you? take this quiz to find out!" site at its core, except through all the quizzes you're doing, it's building up a very thorough psychological profile of you; and when it's got enough, it opens up the ability for you to date through it.)

luckylion 4y ago

I wonder how far you'd get with running on donations. If you're successful in connecting people who fall in love and all that, they're probably thankful and might donate. It'd also kind of be "pay for the result, not for the try". Would you pay $50 to get with the love of your life? I would. Would you pay $50 so you can message people on a site where you don't know if anything will come of it? Meh, depends on how desperate I am, I guess. Good luck, hitting critical mass is probably even harder than in other areas. You can grow a community or meme site with a few users who are really active, but that doesn't really work for dating.

TimPC 4y ago
I think the problem is based on hit rate the number is a lot higher than $50. If you're charging $10/month the average user lasts 12 months and the number of users who marry is 10% then you're charging $1200 for a successful match to get equivalent revenue, not $50.
- luckylion 4y ago
  That's true, but are you getting the same amount of users when you're charging them $10/month for messaging? I'd assume that payment adds a hurdle that's somewhat welcome to keep out problematic users, just like rent does. Pay 30% more than the market and you'll only have neighbors who can afford that as well, which are much less likely to be unemployed alcoholics with behavioral issues.
jcims 4y ago
The problem is that the guys that send dick pics to complete strangers and women that are just surfing for free meals are still out there. They pollute the entire experience by having a large number of low-effort interactions, and in the donation model they are just going to be a net sink of resources and good will. I don't think online dating gets any better until someone devises a means to bias against people that aren't acting in good faith. Of course the challenge here is that you're going to be hard pressed to find a strong consensus on what actions do or do not constitute good faith in a dating app.

CuriouslyC 4y ago

The whole concept of dating "websites" is bunk. We need a social video chat app where you can publicly ask questions or make statements, and people can make video replies which can be swiped through in a tiktok style, which also has geo-awareness and some basic personality profile information. By being video only and gating it securely through the app you'd eliminate catfishing and a lot of the hard misrepresentation you see on dating sites. Having conversations be public by default and needing permission to DM would also help limit bad male behavior.

tester457 4y ago
This idea is crazy genius. I imagine that shy people will not try it though...
Logans_Run 4y ago
What you are describing sounds remarkably similar to the dating videos concept from the 1980's. I guess all that is old becomes new again! (Did a quick search that turned up two low quality links to illustrate what I mean) https://www.thrillist.com/sex-dating/nation/lessons-learned-from-the-vhs-dating-video https://www.thrillist.com/sex-dating/nation/lessons-learned-... https://www.businessinsider.com/found-footage-awkward-80s-video-dating-2015-12?op=1&r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/found-footage-awkward-80s-vi...
- CuriouslyC 4y ago
  The similarities are only superficial though. That is like a bunch of video job interviews, what I'm describing is more like a virtual pub where you can preferentially join conversations with other singles who share similar interests.
  - GloriousKoji 4y ago
    Sounds like a video chat version of clubhouse. On paper it looked great but devolved into people mostly trying to build/sell/promote their brand which resulted in most conversations turning into something like low quality crowd sourced podcasting.

cableshaft 4y ago

While I agree that in person should definitely be a part of it, as a bit of anecdata I made a huge meetup push for two years (I went to meetups 2-3x a week, every week) in order to meet new people and date, and did get a few dates out of it, but mostly just new friends (that being said, I do know a few people in those same groups that ended up as long-term couples through it, and one of those couples got married eventually). Meanwhile every relationship I had at that time came from OKCupid, including my wife. I wouldn't be surprised if all the dating sites are now garbage thanks to them all being owned by Match Group, but at least back then they weren't terrible and I had good luck with it as an average-looking nerdy guy, much more than in-person. I do credit going to meetups regularly with me becoming a bit more well-rounded and sociable of a person and more dateable as a result, though. Good luck on your dating app personal project. I worked on one professionally for about six months a long time ago, and it was an interesting and fun project, for the most part (that never went anywhere, we treated it seriously but the client was a narcissist that got lucky in real estate that assumed he'd get 10 million users in a few weeks of release with no marketing, he eventually killed the project when he realized that wasn't going to be the case). I've had ideas for different takes on dating/social apps since that time, and almost considered pursuing it, but it seemed to be too dominated by Match Group, especially post-Tinder, and I care more about games than apps anyway.

lelanthran 4y ago
> as a bit of anecdata I made a huge meetup push for two years (I went to meetups 2-3x a week, every week) in order to meet new people and date Meetups work really well if you're going into one that has a a good ratio of the sex you are interested in. If you're a single guy, going to Meetups with a Maker theme, or a Star Wars theme, is not going to improve your odds of finding someone - for each girl there, there's 5 guys interested in her. A good Meetup for single guys to go to is one that is almost completely populated by women (cooking classes used to have a very high ratio of women to men). Even if these women are attached, they have friends, and IME, attached women are always ready to set up their single friends.
- cableshaft 4y ago

Beltalowda 4y ago

If someone gave me a big bag of money then working on a better dating site would probably be what I'd do with it. I think it's very hard pull off as a "personal project" though, because a dating site needs people to be useful and attracting people is neither free nor easy. And you also need some form of "content control" to weed out the dickpics and other assorted assholery, which is also neither free nor easy. > Of course, the whole premise of dating sites is wrong. The best way to make connections is in person, by going places regularly and seeing the same people frequently... building some non-romantic connections first which may grow into something more. Dating sites assume that if "I think I like you" and "you think you like me" then we are a match!. This sets up big expectations too soon... In principle, I guess, but my experience is that many social spaces of all types are overwhelmingly male. There are probably some commentaries to be made about that, but I'm not sure what. And while it can set up certain expectations, I don't think that needs to be a bad thing, necessarily.

astrange 4y ago

If you want a "good dating site", it doesn't really seem like it's possible. But the job to be done of a dating site is to either get you more or better dates. I therefore suggest making a site that's just a page of text telling you to move somewhere with more opportunity, get outdoor social hobbies, and become a millionaire.

heleninboodler 4y ago

I've always wanted dating sites to add features that had more behavioral annotations about users. I'd like to not get a high match score with people who don't even bother to read their messages, for example. Or who read their messages but don't bother to click on the person's profile. Or who do both and never respond. I'd like it to ask why you unmatched with someone and have options like "couldn't hold a conversation" or "too flirty too fast" or "wtf dick pics" and then use that data to boost people who aren't the examples of what everyone complains about on dating sites. In other words, I'd like to have some data-driven reputational info about people used in the matching. And yeah, I agree with your final sentiment as well: dating sites should be more like people-meeting sites, but with a romantic focus. Aim for casual meetups that aren't dates but might lead to dates. Maybe collect small groups of people that might be compatible and send them out for drinks and then have them do some basic surveys about the people they met for future filtering purposes (again with the reputational concept).