9 ms·

Former dating app founder here - lots of thoughts on the space - feel free to AMA High level though, there's a lot of human behavior which makes dating frustra

Former dating app founder here - lots of thoughts on the space - feel free to AMA High level though, there's a lot of human behavior which makes dating frustrating with or without apps. At it's core, even in the best case, dating has A LOT of rejection. Dating apps introduce more opportunity for incremental validation (you got liked!) but also incremental rejection (you got ghosted!) and the sheer number of interactions that lead to nothing is much higher and more quantifiable than IRL (you've all seen the r/tinder sankey diagrams) Two "solutions" I believe would generally benefit dating 1. Apps are more transparent and equitable with how they expose profiles to other users. Don't bias toward highly liked people to increase perceived "quality" and shadow-hide show profiles that aren't liked often (and then ask them to pay lol). Show people more randomly, to better represent the true cross section of people on the app. 2. Daters set some type of routine that works for them - say "I'll try to go on ~1 date per month". Being intentional about this helps minimize the feeling that each date is so fatalistic / it's the end of the world if the person who seemed awesome when messaging is actually a jerk. It'd be nice if an app facilitated this type of routine and figured out a feedback mechanism to reward users who were generally pleasant / respectful on their dates.

gnicholas 3y ago
Why do you think apps don't do (1), if it would benefit dating? Because people would just choose to use different apps because of the perceived quality issue you mentioned? To what extent do you think the core issues are driven by the different goals of men/women, and the dynamics they create?
- Fr0styMatt88 3y ago
  Not the OP but I think they don’t because it’s more profitable and makes a more addictive experience for the user. Think about it - an app can directly influence the amount of matches you get. Show your profile to everyone at the beginning, a fair number of matches. Not paid yet? Show their profile to fewer people, then when you think the user is about to leave, ramp up the visibility for just enough matches to keep them hooked. User just paid for the Gold tier? Increase their profile visibility… Not too much though, you want to create that dry spell so you can repeat the cycle and get them onto the Gold Plus tier. For-profit dating apps are essentially gambling apps.
- sweetro17 3y ago
  Great qs - As for why apps don't show profiles more randomly - I think because the space is so competitive, perceived quality is so important and frankly its "easy" for apps to leverage who they show to who and when in order to make users most likely to keep swiping and/or upgrade. I do think apps generally want you to find a partner, but are generally okay with making the experience valuable to them (even if that means gamifying and playing with who gets to see who and when) along the way. I'd say (assuming by the way you phrased the question you're referring to men who are generally interested in women, women who are generally interested in men) there are certain factors and preferences that trend across genders which do influence dating behavior and outcomes for these populations. Based on survey data we collected a few years ago - some are shared across genders (e.g. political views) others are not (e.g. height). But I wouldn't say there were glaring different "goals" by gender, so much as some difference in how important certain factor were.
  - gnicholas 3y ago
    Thanks for the responses. In terms of goals, I was thinking more of the relationship goals. Many men are happy using apps to play the field (I've talked with friends who simultaneously 'dated' half a dozen or more women), whereas most of the women I know used apps to find longer-term relationships. This can result in a small fraction of men going on a large number of dates (expecting that they don't need to commit) and a large fraction of women not thrilled that the desirable guys don't want to get serious. Are there ways around issues like this? Or is this more of an urban myth than a reality?
    - sweetro17 3y ago
      There are statistics studies both endorsing and invalidating this concept. Some OkCupid / Tinder data suggest that "likes" are not evenly distributed, which has been extrapolated out to mean that dating is unbalanced. On the same token, unmarried rates are pretty equal across genders in the US suggesting that from an outcomes perspective people are achieving their relationship goals (at least in terms of marriage there are other goals). In our app, which was much more heavily skewed toward actual dates than likes, I would not characterize the pattern of people who went on dates heavily skewed toward a small portion of men - so it may be real from a liking perspective (I can't claim to refute data directly from the dating apps) but may be more of a myth when it comes to actual dating.
notso411 3y ago
[dead]
Fr0styMatt88 3y ago
Thank you for showing up, it would be great to hear more of your input. #1 is so, so key. Dating apps made me feel terrible about myself and invisible (“why am I getting no likes?” — for context I’m a guy). It wasn’t until I realised I had no idea who my profile was actually being shown to that it all started to make sense and I realised that’s the lever that apps can pull to make money. Fundamentally though I think your comment about human behaviour is spot-on and at the end of the day my belief is that dating is something you just can’t short-cut with technology. Parabox of choice and low investment are garbage-in, garbage-out so to speak. You can’t ‘Uber Eats magic food box’ dating.
- sweetro17 3y ago
  For sure! "something you just can’t short-cut with technology" - totally agree - it can be a helpful part of the process provided the service is in service of the customer's goals, which often isn't the case. That said, there are definitely things products can do to improve the experience for users - this paper is a bit old, but was eye opening to our team when thinking about designing our product https://people.duke.edu/~dandan/webfiles/PapersUpside/People%20are%20experience%20Goods.pdf https://people.duke.edu/~dandan/webfiles/PapersUpside/People...
carabiner 3y ago
What about throwing out the whole swipe-app paradigm with the matches and algo-stack and going back to okcupid style profiles that you can browse? Anyone can message anyone. It was the best dating site by far.
- sweetro17 3y ago
  OkCupid actually wrote an article about this that's pretty interesting - https://theblog.okcupid.com/why-okcupid-is-changing-how-you-message-f14d492e7853 https://theblog.okcupid.com/why-okcupid-is-changing-how-you-... tl;dr tons of spam / offensive messages. I actually think that with advances in NLP and content moderation since then, you could re-introduce a paradigm like this with potentially less spam.
  - slothtrop 3y ago
    Interesting. Though it also seems redundant in the sense that swiping no longer really deters spam / offensive messages, does it?
  - carabiner 3y ago
    Ok, that explains requiring a match before messaging. But the swiping and algo-determined stack? That seems purely intended to make it more like a gambling app.
- slothtrop 3y ago
  That was a more effective and pleasant experience. Sending a well-crafted message drawing on someone's profile usually worked for me, and I completely ignored the "matches" gimmick. Been off the market for many years now.
assimpleaspossi 3y ago
The solution to dating app problems is actual human contact and throwing dating apps away. There is too much to get wrong with text only. Say the wrong thing online and you're done. Say the wrong thing in person and you can judge by facial expressions that you did and get a chance to correct a misunderstanding. You also get a chance to actually see what the other person subliminally likes and dislikes. All in real time. Sure, you can text "I like that" but how would you know what you were getting into?
- maxlamb 3y ago
  I’ve dated for years without apps trying to meet people organically, and then also years through dating apps, and I’ve had way more opportunities for human contact with dating apps. I mean the whole point of dating apps is to meet in person once you feel the person might be a good match
  - Legend2440 3y ago
    Really? I find that it is way easier to meet people in person. In real life, girls approach me at the gym. On apps, I get maybe one like a week and it's usually not someone I'm interested in.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - maxlamb 3y ago
      Where do you live? Most girls I know where I’ve lived would never approach random guys at a gym…
      - Legend2440 3y ago
        US West Coast. Just casually make eye contact with people and see who looks back. Smile at them. If they smile back, that's an invitation to talk to them - or sometimes they'll just walk up and talk to you.
ed_balls 3y ago
Is there a good analysis on what are the strongest predictors a good long term relationship? I've broke up with my ex a few months ago. She was an MD. Now a lot of my matches on Tinder are medical workers (over 30%) and I'm baffled why. tin_foil_hat_mode: He spoke with X last, recommend similar matches, he will come back, we will have recurring revenue.
- graeme 3y ago
  The likeliest explanation is something on your profile makes MDs interested. For example a professional photo or something in your bio. Dating profiles have a limited set of info. Tiny tweaks can generate massive filter effects.
  - ed_balls 3y ago
    I have very little info. I like snowboards, standup, dogs, no description. I've put software engineer as a job. A couple years ago, I've A/B tested a few photos and with regular photo in a t-shirt I've only got a 2-4 likes per week. With a very similar photo to this one https://e0.pxfuel.com/wallpapers/29/831/desktop-wallpaper-ios7-harvey-specter-street-parallax-iphone-ipad.jpg https://e0.pxfuel.com/wallpapers/29/831/desktop-wallpaper-io... I've got about 60 likes per week. I've thought that's a lot, but my ex told me she's got almost 2000 in a first week.
    - devilbunny 3y ago
      If your "best foot forward" is a snapshot in a T-shirt, that is understandably going to draw less interest than a professional model shot by a professional photographer with professional hair, makeup, lighting, and expensive clothes. I've got clothes that probably aren't much cheaper than that, and while I do look my best in them in random photos, it's nothing compared to the response I get when I'm seen wearing them in person. I'm not a model (I don't have the looks), but a man in a good suit is going to provide enough pause to make most women at least consider him. Then it's up to you to be charming.
      - 3y ago
lumost 3y ago
I recently wondered if AI could reasonably help with the awkwardness of such interactions. Could AIs do the awkward "is this a match" chatting anonymously and asynchronously? At least enough to conclude that a) If matched, these two people will likely reach their first date?
- ipnon 3y ago
  Yes this seems a totally reasonable approach, especially for those seeking long term arranged situations.
hnthrowaway6543 3y ago
> Apps are more transparent and equitable with how they expose profiles to other users. Don't bias toward highly liked people to increase perceived "quality" and shadow-hide show profiles that aren't liked often (and then ask them to pay lol). Show people more randomly, to better represent the true cross section of people on the app. This won't work; if you do this, you'll expose that the average online dating user is... well, average. There's a bit of kayfabe going on; users want to think the other users of online dating are 8+/10, sexy, flirty, fun, and desirable singles. Unfortunately, 69% of Americans are overweight and 36% are obese. If profiles users see weren't heavily weighted toward highly-rated ones, the perception of online dating would immediately change from "online dating is fine, a bunch of attractive people are using this" to "online dating is only for the ugly and desperate"; the article points out that this is the way Gen Z perceives online dating already. Dating apps really struggle to keep the most desirable, because those are the ones least likely to need it. Yet they're also the most important for a dating app to have. As fewer desirable people use it, the less perceived legitimacy it has, which results in fewer people using it, particularly the desirable ones. I suspect dating apps are experiencing this death spiral now.
- jessriedel 3y ago
  > "online dating is only for the ugly and desperate"; the article points out that this is the way Gen Z perceives online dating already. The article notes that Gen Z usage of dating apps is down, but it's not clear to me it's because they think it's low status. (Polo is unpopular, but it's high status.) Do you have more info on why Gen Z isn't using dating apps? It being low status is certainly possible, but lower over all interest in romance is too; Gen Z is famously having less sex. I followed the "failing to woo Generation Z" link, and just got this PDF, which didn't help much: https://www.generationlab.org/_files/ugd/b2ee84_c2430c8256ff4de09da688999acd4f74.pdf https://www.generationlab.org/_files/ugd/b2ee84_c2430c8256ff... (College students are using dating apps less than post-college 20-somethings, but I think that's always been true.)
  - zarzavat 3y ago
    When people say Gen Z are they talking about Gen Z in America or Gen Z on Earth? I notice many qualities ascribed to Gen Z seem to be completely alien to Gen Z where I live which makes me suspect that these qualities are simply random variation and correlation hunting, and not inherent to that cohort’s formative experiences (smartphones, covid, etc).
nradov 3y ago
I am married so outside the target customer base, but do you think there is a market opportunity for a dating app with some sort of built in coaching service? Based on complaints I hear it seems like a lot of younger people are so awkward and lacking in social skills that they literally don't know how to act and move the dating process forward. Maybe they need at LLM (or human coach for a premium fee) to prompt them on how to chat without seeming boring/crude/creepy/narcissistic, ask someone to meet in person, and then follow up after a date. Of course some people are just shitty and beyond help, but others just need a nudge in the right direction.
- zilti 3y ago
  LLMs won't help them any more than "normal" dating/socializing advice did and does - which is not much. In the end, you just gotta socialize, and practise that. Advice is just merely a small nudge, has to be very personalized, and is full of the tiniest subtleties depending on the situation. LLMs would just repeat the generic advice out there which is 95% total crap.
swozey 3y ago
> and the sheer number of interactions that lead to nothing is much higher and more quantifiable than IRL I've done tons of online dating and used to bartend so I'm around single IRL people all the time. I absolutely have far, far more "successful interactions" in OLD, unless you're also referring to chatting, which is pointless to even discuss. I'm referring to actually meeting the person and whether that turns out success in whatever way someone considers that. If I go out to a bar and hang out, and potentially start talking to some new woman for hours knowing absolutely nothing about her - I have no idea if she's attracted to me, nor single, etc. I've probably spent thousands of hours casually talking to someone I may find interesting only to find out before they leave that they're either not interested or not single or not hetero, whatever. I'm not one to ever care about rejection but the fact that people take it personally in OLD and call it "ghosting" when someone you've matched with and don't connect with through chatting and move forward to meet and etc is absolutely pathetic.
- arvinsim 3y ago
  The reason why people hate ghosting is because it is not explicit rejection. It wastes your time by making you wait in a state of uncertainty.
  - swozey 3y ago
    That isn't ghosting. GHOSTING is when someone who actually is involved with you in a RELATIONSHIP beyond a 1 steak dinner tinder date disappears from your life without any recognition that they're leaving. Someone you ACTUALLY have ties to. I've had it happen before. I've also had thousands of OLD rejections (uwu oh no), and there is absolutely no comparison between some dweeb getting rejected after 2 dates and crying about it and having someone you've been with for years disappear. My partner in 2020 disappeared when she stopped taking her medication. It was absolutely traumatizing that this person I spent 2 years with just disappeared without a word one day. I know she's alive and in my city but in 4 years I've never heard a word. No drunk texts, nothin. And I'm not going to track her down or seem stalkerish if she clearly lost interest in having me in her life. And you know what one of the most frustrating parts of that 2020 when I was stuck at home hiding from covid and my partner just disappeared? When I'd look up support from other people online about being ghosted/dear-johned and 99% of the posts on reddit/etc where about ONLINE DATING GHOSTERS. God. Some of those people were absolutely pathetic. It's ABSOLUTELY ridiculous to expect someone you've hung out with a few times via OLD to NOT disappear without telling you why. Christ I've done it a billion times. You don't feel a connection, you move on, both people USUALLY understand and are mature about it and don't cry and almost all of the time it's mutual because if I'm not feeling a vibe I'm probably not going to seem interested, and vice versa. I don't think I've ever had a woman cause any stress when we've ended things and moved on.
felsokning 3y ago
>...and figured out a feedback mechanism to reward users who were generally pleasant / respectful on their dates. This sounds like a social scoring system, which is bound to be fraught with issues. It's also possible/plausible that trying to increase the instances of this proposed reward (e.g.: per date) is bound to end-up being an objective - in and of itself; not to mention that the reward instances would potentially occur far more frequently for people who are generally considered "attractive".

gnicholas 3y ago

Why do you think apps don't do (1), if it would benefit dating? Because people would just choose to use different apps because of the perceived quality issue you mentioned? To what extent do you think the core issues are driven by the different goals of men/women, and the dynamics they create?

Fr0styMatt88 3y ago
Not the OP but I think they don’t because it’s more profitable and makes a more addictive experience for the user. Think about it - an app can directly influence the amount of matches you get. Show your profile to everyone at the beginning, a fair number of matches. Not paid yet? Show their profile to fewer people, then when you think the user is about to leave, ramp up the visibility for just enough matches to keep them hooked. User just paid for the Gold tier? Increase their profile visibility… Not too much though, you want to create that dry spell so you can repeat the cycle and get them onto the Gold Plus tier. For-profit dating apps are essentially gambling apps.
sweetro17 3y ago
Great qs - As for why apps don't show profiles more randomly - I think because the space is so competitive, perceived quality is so important and frankly its "easy" for apps to leverage who they show to who and when in order to make users most likely to keep swiping and/or upgrade. I do think apps generally want you to find a partner, but are generally okay with making the experience valuable to them (even if that means gamifying and playing with who gets to see who and when) along the way. I'd say (assuming by the way you phrased the question you're referring to men who are generally interested in women, women who are generally interested in men) there are certain factors and preferences that trend across genders which do influence dating behavior and outcomes for these populations. Based on survey data we collected a few years ago - some are shared across genders (e.g. political views) others are not (e.g. height). But I wouldn't say there were glaring different "goals" by gender, so much as some difference in how important certain factor were.
- gnicholas 3y ago
  Thanks for the responses. In terms of goals, I was thinking more of the relationship goals. Many men are happy using apps to play the field (I've talked with friends who simultaneously 'dated' half a dozen or more women), whereas most of the women I know used apps to find longer-term relationships. This can result in a small fraction of men going on a large number of dates (expecting that they don't need to commit) and a large fraction of women not thrilled that the desirable guys don't want to get serious. Are there ways around issues like this? Or is this more of an urban myth than a reality?
  - sweetro17 3y ago
    There are statistics studies both endorsing and invalidating this concept. Some OkCupid / Tinder data suggest that "likes" are not evenly distributed, which has been extrapolated out to mean that dating is unbalanced. On the same token, unmarried rates are pretty equal across genders in the US suggesting that from an outcomes perspective people are achieving their relationship goals (at least in terms of marriage there are other goals). In our app, which was much more heavily skewed toward actual dates than likes, I would not characterize the pattern of people who went on dates heavily skewed toward a small portion of men - so it may be real from a liking perspective (I can't claim to refute data directly from the dating apps) but may be more of a myth when it comes to actual dating.

notso411 3y ago

[dead]

Fr0styMatt88 3y ago

Thank you for showing up, it would be great to hear more of your input. #1 is so, so key. Dating apps made me feel terrible about myself and invisible (“why am I getting no likes?” — for context I’m a guy). It wasn’t until I realised I had no idea who my profile was actually being shown to that it all started to make sense and I realised that’s the lever that apps can pull to make money. Fundamentally though I think your comment about human behaviour is spot-on and at the end of the day my belief is that dating is something you just can’t short-cut with technology. Parabox of choice and low investment are garbage-in, garbage-out so to speak. You can’t ‘Uber Eats magic food box’ dating.

sweetro17 3y ago
For sure! "something you just can’t short-cut with technology" - totally agree - it can be a helpful part of the process provided the service is in service of the customer's goals, which often isn't the case. That said, there are definitely things products can do to improve the experience for users - this paper is a bit old, but was eye opening to our team when thinking about designing our product https://people.duke.edu/~dandan/webfiles/PapersUpside/People%20are%20experience%20Goods.pdf https://people.duke.edu/~dandan/webfiles/PapersUpside/People...

carabiner 3y ago

What about throwing out the whole swipe-app paradigm with the matches and algo-stack and going back to okcupid style profiles that you can browse? Anyone can message anyone. It was the best dating site by far.

sweetro17 3y ago
OkCupid actually wrote an article about this that's pretty interesting - https://theblog.okcupid.com/why-okcupid-is-changing-how-you-message-f14d492e7853 https://theblog.okcupid.com/why-okcupid-is-changing-how-you-... tl;dr tons of spam / offensive messages. I actually think that with advances in NLP and content moderation since then, you could re-introduce a paradigm like this with potentially less spam.
- slothtrop 3y ago
  Interesting. Though it also seems redundant in the sense that swiping no longer really deters spam / offensive messages, does it?
- carabiner 3y ago
  Ok, that explains requiring a match before messaging. But the swiping and algo-determined stack? That seems purely intended to make it more like a gambling app.
slothtrop 3y ago
That was a more effective and pleasant experience. Sending a well-crafted message drawing on someone's profile usually worked for me, and I completely ignored the "matches" gimmick. Been off the market for many years now.

assimpleaspossi 3y ago

The solution to dating app problems is actual human contact and throwing dating apps away. There is too much to get wrong with text only. Say the wrong thing online and you're done. Say the wrong thing in person and you can judge by facial expressions that you did and get a chance to correct a misunderstanding. You also get a chance to actually see what the other person subliminally likes and dislikes. All in real time. Sure, you can text "I like that" but how would you know what you were getting into?

maxlamb 3y ago
I’ve dated for years without apps trying to meet people organically, and then also years through dating apps, and I’ve had way more opportunities for human contact with dating apps. I mean the whole point of dating apps is to meet in person once you feel the person might be a good match
- Legend2440 3y ago
  Really? I find that it is way easier to meet people in person. In real life, girls approach me at the gym. On apps, I get maybe one like a week and it's usually not someone I'm interested in.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - maxlamb 3y ago
    Where do you live? Most girls I know where I’ve lived would never approach random guys at a gym…
    - Legend2440 3y ago
      US West Coast. Just casually make eye contact with people and see who looks back. Smile at them. If they smile back, that's an invitation to talk to them - or sometimes they'll just walk up and talk to you.

ed_balls 3y ago

Is there a good analysis on what are the strongest predictors a good long term relationship? I've broke up with my ex a few months ago. She was an MD. Now a lot of my matches on Tinder are medical workers (over 30%) and I'm baffled why. tin_foil_hat_mode: He spoke with X last, recommend similar matches, he will come back, we will have recurring revenue.

graeme 3y ago
The likeliest explanation is something on your profile makes MDs interested. For example a professional photo or something in your bio. Dating profiles have a limited set of info. Tiny tweaks can generate massive filter effects.
- ed_balls 3y ago
  I have very little info. I like snowboards, standup, dogs, no description. I've put software engineer as a job. A couple years ago, I've A/B tested a few photos and with regular photo in a t-shirt I've only got a 2-4 likes per week. With a very similar photo to this one https://e0.pxfuel.com/wallpapers/29/831/desktop-wallpaper-ios7-harvey-specter-street-parallax-iphone-ipad.jpg https://e0.pxfuel.com/wallpapers/29/831/desktop-wallpaper-io... I've got about 60 likes per week. I've thought that's a lot, but my ex told me she's got almost 2000 in a first week.
  - devilbunny 3y ago
    If your "best foot forward" is a snapshot in a T-shirt, that is understandably going to draw less interest than a professional model shot by a professional photographer with professional hair, makeup, lighting, and expensive clothes. I've got clothes that probably aren't much cheaper than that, and while I do look my best in them in random photos, it's nothing compared to the response I get when I'm seen wearing them in person. I'm not a model (I don't have the looks), but a man in a good suit is going to provide enough pause to make most women at least consider him. Then it's up to you to be charming.
    - 3y ago

lumost 3y ago

I recently wondered if AI could reasonably help with the awkwardness of such interactions. Could AIs do the awkward "is this a match" chatting anonymously and asynchronously? At least enough to conclude that a) If matched, these two people will likely reach their first date?

ipnon 3y ago
Yes this seems a totally reasonable approach, especially for those seeking long term arranged situations.

hnthrowaway6543 3y ago

> Apps are more transparent and equitable with how they expose profiles to other users. Don't bias toward highly liked people to increase perceived "quality" and shadow-hide show profiles that aren't liked often (and then ask them to pay lol). Show people more randomly, to better represent the true cross section of people on the app. This won't work; if you do this, you'll expose that the average online dating user is... well, average. There's a bit of kayfabe going on; users want to think the other users of online dating are 8+/10, sexy, flirty, fun, and desirable singles. Unfortunately, 69% of Americans are overweight and 36% are obese. If profiles users see weren't heavily weighted toward highly-rated ones, the perception of online dating would immediately change from "online dating is fine, a bunch of attractive people are using this" to "online dating is only for the ugly and desperate"; the article points out that this is the way Gen Z perceives online dating already. Dating apps really struggle to keep the most desirable, because those are the ones least likely to need it. Yet they're also the most important for a dating app to have. As fewer desirable people use it, the less perceived legitimacy it has, which results in fewer people using it, particularly the desirable ones. I suspect dating apps are experiencing this death spiral now.

jessriedel 3y ago
> "online dating is only for the ugly and desperate"; the article points out that this is the way Gen Z perceives online dating already. The article notes that Gen Z usage of dating apps is down, but it's not clear to me it's because they think it's low status. (Polo is unpopular, but it's high status.) Do you have more info on why Gen Z isn't using dating apps? It being low status is certainly possible, but lower over all interest in romance is too; Gen Z is famously having less sex. I followed the "failing to woo Generation Z" link, and just got this PDF, which didn't help much: https://www.generationlab.org/_files/ugd/b2ee84_c2430c8256ff4de09da688999acd4f74.pdf https://www.generationlab.org/_files/ugd/b2ee84_c2430c8256ff... (College students are using dating apps less than post-college 20-somethings, but I think that's always been true.)
- zarzavat 3y ago
  When people say Gen Z are they talking about Gen Z in America or Gen Z on Earth? I notice many qualities ascribed to Gen Z seem to be completely alien to Gen Z where I live which makes me suspect that these qualities are simply random variation and correlation hunting, and not inherent to that cohort’s formative experiences (smartphones, covid, etc).

nradov 3y ago

I am married so outside the target customer base, but do you think there is a market opportunity for a dating app with some sort of built in coaching service? Based on complaints I hear it seems like a lot of younger people are so awkward and lacking in social skills that they literally don't know how to act and move the dating process forward. Maybe they need at LLM (or human coach for a premium fee) to prompt them on how to chat without seeming boring/crude/creepy/narcissistic, ask someone to meet in person, and then follow up after a date. Of course some people are just shitty and beyond help, but others just need a nudge in the right direction.

zilti 3y ago
LLMs won't help them any more than "normal" dating/socializing advice did and does - which is not much. In the end, you just gotta socialize, and practise that. Advice is just merely a small nudge, has to be very personalized, and is full of the tiniest subtleties depending on the situation. LLMs would just repeat the generic advice out there which is 95% total crap.

swozey 3y ago

> and the sheer number of interactions that lead to nothing is much higher and more quantifiable than IRL I've done tons of online dating and used to bartend so I'm around single IRL people all the time. I absolutely have far, far more "successful interactions" in OLD, unless you're also referring to chatting, which is pointless to even discuss. I'm referring to actually meeting the person and whether that turns out success in whatever way someone considers that. If I go out to a bar and hang out, and potentially start talking to some new woman for hours knowing absolutely nothing about her - I have no idea if she's attracted to me, nor single, etc. I've probably spent thousands of hours casually talking to someone I may find interesting only to find out before they leave that they're either not interested or not single or not hetero, whatever. I'm not one to ever care about rejection but the fact that people take it personally in OLD and call it "ghosting" when someone you've matched with and don't connect with through chatting and move forward to meet and etc is absolutely pathetic.

arvinsim 3y ago
The reason why people hate ghosting is because it is not explicit rejection. It wastes your time by making you wait in a state of uncertainty.
- swozey 3y ago
  That isn't ghosting. GHOSTING is when someone who actually is involved with you in a RELATIONSHIP beyond a 1 steak dinner tinder date disappears from your life without any recognition that they're leaving. Someone you ACTUALLY have ties to. I've had it happen before. I've also had thousands of OLD rejections (uwu oh no), and there is absolutely no comparison between some dweeb getting rejected after 2 dates and crying about it and having someone you've been with for years disappear. My partner in 2020 disappeared when she stopped taking her medication. It was absolutely traumatizing that this person I spent 2 years with just disappeared without a word one day. I know she's alive and in my city but in 4 years I've never heard a word. No drunk texts, nothin. And I'm not going to track her down or seem stalkerish if she clearly lost interest in having me in her life. And you know what one of the most frustrating parts of that 2020 when I was stuck at home hiding from covid and my partner just disappeared? When I'd look up support from other people online about being ghosted/dear-johned and 99% of the posts on reddit/etc where about ONLINE DATING GHOSTERS. God. Some of those people were absolutely pathetic. It's ABSOLUTELY ridiculous to expect someone you've hung out with a few times via OLD to NOT disappear without telling you why. Christ I've done it a billion times. You don't feel a connection, you move on, both people USUALLY understand and are mature about it and don't cry and almost all of the time it's mutual because if I'm not feeling a vibe I'm probably not going to seem interested, and vice versa. I don't think I've ever had a woman cause any stress when we've ended things and moved on.

felsokning 3y ago

>...and figured out a feedback mechanism to reward users who were generally pleasant / respectful on their dates. This sounds like a social scoring system, which is bound to be fraught with issues. It's also possible/plausible that trying to increase the instances of this proposed reward (e.g.: per date) is bound to end-up being an objective - in and of itself; not to mention that the reward instances would potentially occur far more frequently for people who are generally considered "attractive".