3 ms·

I really like this take, and I think it becomes extremely self-evident once you think about it for a bit, and talk with people who use dating apps IRL. "Dating

by 015a 3y ago

I really like this take, and I think it becomes extremely self-evident once you think about it for a bit, and talk with people who use dating apps IRL. "Dating apps are incentivized to keep people going on mediocre first dates" is such a tired take that would require such incredible sophistication and secrecy to pull off, "we can't make the matches too shitty, but we also can't make them too good, damn it Jim that match was too high quality! now they'll stop paying!" its comic book villain stuff that cannot possibly explain why all of these apps suck. "For which there are many highly personalized reasons" -> Look, yes people are responsible for their own mindsets. But in the words of a recent tweet (I wish I could cite but I can't find it) concerning learning comprehension tanking in K-12 students: Its Phones! Its just phones. Its obviously phones! You hear this crap like "well, its a highly complicated situation with many variables and possible explanations" Nope! Its literally just phones! Dating is hard, weird, and scary. Its one of the most vulnerable things humans do. We're putting kids on a dopamine treadmill from childhood, and we're surprised that, at best, we've got cohorts of individuals growing up who love the matching but stop when it gets any more difficult than a swipe?

Terr_ 3y ago
> that would require such incredible sophistication and secrecy to pull off No, there's no need for a strawman Snidely Whiplash, it can be done through regular management practices with plausible deniability. 1. Collect metrics around recurring revenue and "engagement". (With the software, not engagements between couples.) 2. Use those metrics to choose what changes in the software and who gets promoted. Low quality matches is the default state, they don't have to deliberately engineer it. They can just let it happen, or not care when it happens as the result of some other change.
throwaway2037 3y ago
The people using dating apps are blind to the effects of "paradox of choice" on themselves.
BeFlatXIII 3y ago
> "we can't make the matches too shitty, but we also can't make them too good, damn it Jim that match was too high quality! now they'll stop paying!" its comic book villain stuff that cannot possibly explain why all of these apps suck. No, they celebrate Jim—all the more if he is ordinary. It's like extreme couponing. The employees are genuinely cheering all the way to the bank when they see someone stack coupons to take home $20,000 of goods for only $300. Jim is the jackpot winner who invites all his unlucky friends.

by 015a 3y ago

Terr_ 3y ago

> that would require such incredible sophistication and secrecy to pull off No, there's no need for a strawman Snidely Whiplash, it can be done through regular management practices with plausible deniability. 1. Collect metrics around recurring revenue and "engagement". (With the software, not engagements between couples.) 2. Use those metrics to choose what changes in the software and who gets promoted. Low quality matches is the default state, they don't have to deliberately engineer it. They can just let it happen, or not care when it happens as the result of some other change.

throwaway2037 3y ago

The people using dating apps are blind to the effects of "paradox of choice" on themselves.

BeFlatXIII 3y ago

> "we can't make the matches too shitty, but we also can't make them too good, damn it Jim that match was too high quality! now they'll stop paying!" its comic book villain stuff that cannot possibly explain why all of these apps suck. No, they celebrate Jim—all the more if he is ordinary. It's like extreme couponing. The employees are genuinely cheering all the way to the bank when they see someone stack coupons to take home $20,000 of goods for only $300. Jim is the jackpot winner who invites all his unlucky friends.