5 ms·

Online dating apps struggle as people swear off swiping

54 points by geox 2y ago

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
haunter 2y ago
Not surprisingly these articles never talk about men’s experiences. Only women or “people”
- antisthenes 2y ago
  For 99% of these apps, the presence of women is what keeps the app alive, since men are the ones typically pursuing women in dating. Men's experience is relevant to them, but not the owners of the app.
  - datameta 2y ago
    And in the case of Bumble where the initiators are only women?
    - tennisflyi 2y ago
      They changed it recently to reduce the burden - I’m not kidding
      - datameta 2y ago
        Please explain, what do you mean by burden? To avoid me jumping to conclusions. You mean the heteronormative "burden" of the man shooting the first shot?
        tennisflyi 2y ago
        Yes! https://finance.yahoo.com/news/bumble-relaunches-app-tool-relieve-121128209.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/bumble-relaunches-app-tool-re...
        Tade0 2y ago
        That's how they phrased it, but the underlying reason was that users weren't using the app as intended - those first moves quickly devolved into a token "hey".
        datameta 2y ago
        I'm surprised that phenomenon wasn't called out virally just like men were dragged through internet streets in the mid 2010s with the rise of swiping-style app.
        bdjsiqoocwk 2y ago
        Ahhh I just wrote the same thing, you beat me to it. Glad to see I'm not the only one with this reading.
        ralferoo 2y ago
        It's a shame Bumble has changed. As a guy, I think even a token "hey" is good to know if they are at least interested in you. The ratios are skewed so badly that women get at least an order of magnitude more likes that men on average, so having the woman at least indicating that they are marginally interested lets you know it's worth spending the effort on making the next move. If you're an incredibly good looking guy, women will put some effort in, but for ordinary looking guys, the vast majority of women don't even bother to respond with an autoreply "sorry, not interested". They just ignore your message entirely, and there's only so many interesting and well-thought out first moves you can send based on something in someone's profile that you resonated with, only be be completely ignored, before you realise that it's all just an utter waste of time if you're not in that top 10% of guys. To me, it seems that Bumble doesn't really know what it's lost by changing that behaviour, as it's now become just another Tinder.
        wakawaka28 2y ago
        >It's a shame Bumble has changed. As a guy, I think even a token "hey" is good to know if they are at least interested in you. It would be nice but women are literally flooded with options. You should know they're interested if they match with you and have a conversation with you. At least, you get the same information as a "hey" from that. Bumble is just trying to promote actual dates with their paying customers who don't get a "hey" and scarcely get a match in the first place, because women aren't very interested in dating normal guys.
    - bdjsiqoocwk 2y ago
      This never actually worked this way. Women are rarely ever the initiators, so what happened on Bumble is that women would say "hi" so that the man had the chance to actually initiate; if he didn't, nothing would happen. The real reason women are on bumble at all isn't because they like the gimmick. Instead they just hope that men there are better than the ones on tinder.
      - wakawaka28 2y ago
        >The real reason women are on bumble at all isn't because they like the gimmick. Instead they just hope that men there are better than the ones on tinder. Nailed it... Maybe they are predisposed to think the guys are better because they would only feel like messaging exceptional guys anyway. But in general, they would really prefer guys to take all the risks.
  - wakawaka28 2y ago
    >Men's experience is relevant to them, but not the owners of the app. Men are typically the vast majority of paying customers. If guys have a terrible experience they will stop paying eventually. But there's a sucker born every day, as the saying goes...
    - illiac786 2y ago
      No, the previous poster wrote: Men will pursue women wherever they are. So if you have women on your platform, the experience for men can be horrible, they will still come to your platform. Are they suckers? Probably. Do the platform owner care? Nope.
      - wakawaka28 2y ago
        The platform owners clearly care about user experiences because they tweak stuff all the time. I don't think most men are suckers. Even a real sucker will stop paying if they are not getting any benefit from paying. If you put all this together, the most reasonable thing a dating app could do to make money is actually try to provide good experiences. Of course, these days, it may be a bit much to assume that the management of any company actually cares more about making money than their pet causes.
        illiac786 2y ago
        They could be tweaking the stuff for the women?
        wakawaka28 2y ago
        That is also possible. But since most women don't pay, the ultimate objective would be to get more women on to improve the experience of the actual customers.
eska 2y ago
The article makes it sound as if „200 question“ dating sited like eHarmony were any better, but it’s scientifically proven that there’s no correlation between such questionnaire matches and actual relationship compatibility
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- fullshark 2y ago
  They are barriers to entry that maybe ensure your match is serious about a partnership I’d guess though.
  - mattmaroon 2y ago
    That and the relatively high fee.
- btrettel 2y ago
  Can you post a link to the study?
  - eska 2y ago
    I wasn’t thinking of any particular paper there, but if you look at some papers you’ll usually find the following reasons: 1. The app algorithms are usually black boxes, so who knows whether they’re really using scientific methods 2. Apps often include questions such as height due to customer demand, which are known to be very bad predictors 3. The interaction between the factors is very significant and complicated/unknown 4. People don’t answer truthfully 5. People don’t know what they want What is known however is that there’s a strong placebo effect initially, i.e. the mere suggestion that somebody is a good match although they aren’t increases the success of first dates, but not in the long term. There’s also research on how these systems can be designed to be addicting, which is surely being done. One of the strongest known predictors instead is “shared emotional experiences”, e.g. a study about making people walk over a wobbly bridge together. Hence why “running groups” and so on are popular nowadays among people disillusioned by algorithms
andrewstuart 2y ago
Yep I’m never doing online dating again. Totally not something I want as part of my life.
- laurels-marts 2y ago
  What sort of mating strategy are you optimizing for?
  - antisthenes 2y ago
    Women are optimizing 80% of men out of the gene pool. What the men do is irrelevant.
  - datameta 2y ago
    I imagine it would be spontaneous interaction in places of interest or leisure.
    - tomrod 2y ago
      The third space.
  - dotcoma 2y ago
    Not everything needs to be optimised.
  - throwup238 2y ago
    I’m looking to emulate the mating strategy of a preying mantis. Please just eat me after we’re done doing the dirty.
  - hasbot 2y ago
    OP wrote "dating" but you replied with "mating." Why?
    - laurels-marts 2y ago
      Is there a meaningful difference?
transcriptase 2y ago
The problem with online dating sites is that from a financial perspective, their incentive is to keep you from finding someone who causes you to stop using the site. Every single A/B test and algo run with revenue or engagement as the metric to be optimized is actually doing the opposite of what users want and preventing really good matchups.
- nkrisc 2y ago
  I don’t think there’s really a good model. If the app charges when a match is made, the consumer is paying without really knowing of the match is good. As I understand, this is the model early dating sites used. If the app charges for access at all, then it’s incentivized to keep you from finding a match, and the overall pool of people shrinks from the barrier to entry. Charging once you’re satisfied with a match isn’t practical without some kind of binding contract, which I imagine most people will not want to sign. It’s almost as if you can’t commoditize emergent social behavior.
  - derbOac 2y ago
    I've sometimes wondered if dating apps are best served through some kind of nonprofit decentralized format, maybe something grassroots, or through the government or something, precisely because of the issues you raise. I admit that might sound a little loony but dating or pairing is a fundamental human activity, and it doesn't seem too farfetched to me to think that people might build out something outside of a profit model. Also, some countries are starting to openly discuss declining birth rates, with government actively encouraging mating, so I could see something like that being developed in certain settings. I also have a hunch, though, that some of what makes relationships click is hard to formalize in an app focused on dating per se. In person chemistry, development of an initial relationship without an explicit shared dating goal, and so forth. Sometimes I wonder if it would be better to just incorporate dating options and features into a more general purpose social app.
- blfr 2y ago
  How does that work? I keep hearing this objection but how is the app supposedly stopping you from forming a happy relationship? Operator would need to know who is a good matchup for you and then not present you that person but present you enough other subjectively attractive (but again somehow not good) matches so that you keep swiping. That's almost omniscience when it comes to dating which they would need to attain from a phone number, pic, couple of sentences, and maybe whatever they can buy via adtech.
bemmu 2y ago
With generative AI for text, images, and now even video, it must be harder than ever to know if you are even talking to a real person.
- lotsofpulp 2y ago
  It's going to be really funny if technological advancement brings human and face to face interaction back into the mix. Basically, you need to beef up your social networks to help filter the bullshit via human "brokers" or "agents" that have their reputation within their social graph on the line. Finding a life partner by being recommended by a relative/friend/coworker/college organization/etc is probably way less work and stress for the individual, assuming they have a decent social network.
- lou1306 2y ago
  On the contrary, it's exceedingly easy. The vibes are all off.
_yb2s 2y ago
I think the swiping model actually works better for compatibility in serious relationships than the question based ones, because the questions are not actually about anything important (lots of political questions- I don’t date based on politics)- but the simplicity of swiping lets you just interact with a lot of people until you find the right one. I met my fiancee on Tinder 3 years ago, wedding is next week! My advice is to read the bios and swipe based on more than just looks- interesting hobbies, fun, playful, and personal integrity are important also. The down to earth introverted and nerdy women I’m compatible with, like my fiancee tend to spend less time staging flashy photos to look attractive in a bio.
- k__ 2y ago
  OKC is good only if you answer the right questions. If I answer 500 questions and 400 are about basic decency, that doesn't give a good match. If I answer only 50 questions but they're all about relationship and intimacy that works much better.
  - _yb2s 2y ago
    I tried that and still found the matches weren’t good compared to Tinder… I think I’m not even sure which questions really matter, and there’s just a lot less potential people on OKC.
- kingkongjaffa 2y ago
  > I don’t date based on politics That’s weird because at least in the US and UK people definitely do date based on this and it makes sense. If you are mildly politically literate, then in those two countries, you know there’s really two realistic parties you can pick who are opposed from each other. Given then it’s pretty strange to want to be with someone who is diametrically opposed to making your country better, and actively voting to make the country worse, regardless of your POV either way.
  - _yb2s 2y ago
    It is weird… weird is an important dating requirement for me ;-) You cannot solve real problems in the real world or actually make the future better with blind application of a simple ideology- real life is too nuanced and complex. You have to approach each individual problem with creativity, and an open mind. You also have to take an active leadership position to solve a real problem, not just watch TV and vote. If someone sees the world like you are suggesting, they are not intelligent enough to date. I want a partner, not a pet.
SteeCee 2y ago
I've been a big fan of IRL singles events in my area recently. Speed dating and mixers are great ways to meet quality people who are in the same boat as you. I highly recommend them!
- nextworddev 2y ago
  They are better for 45+, divorced people
  - datameta 2y ago
    Isn't the whole message of this article that younger generations are seeking interactions that those events can provide? Also what city do you refer to?
- bradlys 2y ago
  I found speed dating and mixer events to be absolute terrible for the under 35 crowd. Obviously, ymmv, but I remember hearing from my own head and other people as we all left these events “why didn’t we just talk to the women at the bar? They’re way more attractive than the women at the event we were just at.” If you’re in a place like NYC, the more attractive people don’t go to these events. They just don’t need to. Most of the folks I know meet their partners through apps because everyone is super picky about looks, income, status, and so on. Going to random bars and events isn’t efficient for that. Personally, I’ve been single the entire time. I can’t get matches on apps due to poor facial attractiveness. So, I stick with IRL scenarios. It works a little better but it’s still bad.
cloudking 2y ago
Why hasn't this space been disrupted? All of these apps are the same scam-like experience filled with dark pattern UX. They purposely limit communication & exposure behind paywalls, while allowing bots to roam free. Also most of them are owned by the same company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Match_Group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Match_Group
- poikroequ 2y ago
  It's a very hard market to get into these days when you don't already have millions of users. The problem is, if someone signs up for your app and there are only a few other people using the app in the same area, it's not very useful and they'll quickly uninstall it. So how do you launch a new dating app that already has millions of users? You need to have an existing app/service which already has millions of users that can segue into a dating app. Such as when Facebook launched their dating feature...
  - bradlys 2y ago
    Yep. If you try looking at new dating apps, the main complaint from users as they leave negative reviews is this: "I couldn't find anyone in my area. There were 3 profiles in my area and that was it." I think that's why a lot of dating apps start out as regional, often niche focus, and slowly expand out. They know that they'll be review bombed with negative reviews like the above if they try to do a national/worldwide launch.
- dylan604 2y ago
  What is someone going to do, build an app that does exactly what these apps are not doing so that they make no money and go out of business?
  - swed420 2y ago
    Maybe it should be a non-profit endeavor, where the actual profit is a society of happy, lasting relationships.
- 0xcde4c3db 2y ago
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
bookofjoe 2y ago
Off topic pretty much: my then 13-year-old daughter told me (divorced x 4 years at the time) not to use online dating sites as they were for losers and weirdos. That was in 1996. In 2008, in her final year of law school at Duquesne University in Pittsburgh, she met a guy on JDate whom she subsequently married in 2012; they just celebrated their 12th wedding anniversary. Here's the thing: he lived three blocks from her; at the time he was an associate at law firm Jones Day, working 90 hours/week; no way would the two of them ever have met absent the internet.
drakonka 2y ago
I met my ex on Bumble; we were together for about 5 years. I met the man I'm currently dating on Hinge. Both times when getting back into dating after long relationships I heard that dating apps sucked, and that it would take forever to meet someone I actually like, and to prepare myself for a string of bad experiences. So I kind of prepared for the worst and thought of it as just practice for talking to people. Luckily, every man I met was a legitimately interesting and cool person. I only got _slightly_ uncomfortable vibes from one of them, and he (like all the others) handled it very maturely when I later told him I just wasn't feeling a connection. None except one ended up being a romantic match, but I had a really nice time talking with all of them. Maybe part of it is just that I'm pretty particular with who I bother talking to and meeting. I don't have much energy or time for meeting new people, so don't schedule many dates. On the other hand, this also means my positive experience is not very trustworthy, as it is likely I just haven't met enough people to give myself a proper chance at a negative experience. Nevertheless, I do not find dating apps fun or pleasant in any way - they're more like a means to an end that I'd rather step away from as soon as I meet someone I actually like. This tends to be a bad strategy, as from what I understand the other party often doesn't approach focus or exclusivity on the same timeline. So there's a risk of a mismatch in investment (time and emotional), which can become a problem.
- ddmf 2y ago
  A few of my friends have had this experience - I think there are a couple of groups at play here, basically "old online dating pros" and "unjaded newbies" and I don't mean either title as disparaging. When I've met an unjaded newbie we've had a great conversation, we've met for a date easily with no hassle and in one case it's worked out for a decent period of time, and in most if it doesn't we part with good communications. I've even become close friends with a couple of women I've met this way. The old pros are people you constantly see on the apps, they're flaky and jaded and addicted to the swipe/match/chat/move on paradigm. Dating apps are akin to being in dante's pergatory.
mensetmanusman 2y ago
Marriage rates down 70% compared to 50 years ago. Natural selection will play out here.
tenebrisalietum 2y ago
"Dating" means different things to different people. Some people A) are really looking for potential life/long-term partners and want to take it really slow, others B) are really looking for sex partners with varying degrees of commitment. The general standards and expectations for A and B vary widely amongst individuals, so widely that really IMHO any dating app can't effectively promise anything other than "we'll introduce you to people" unless it explicitly limits its target group to A or B. Even then, people will lie to try get what they want, especially in cultures where honesty about sexual needs and goals is not valued or is only valued if part of a greater economic/societal goal which often has a perceived or actual high bar of entry. Regarding ecomonics: IMHO there is a general social breakdown related to the general economic breakdown for the non-rich in the U.S. It's easy to have fun with social and sexual life when it's easy to take care of your basic needs like food, medical care, housing, etc. The 1970's was a lot of fun I guess at least in certain places of the country. Having fun in general has gotten much more difficult for non-rich people over the past 30 years, and it makes intimate/fun social relations also much more difficult. Example: Being a single person living with one's parents because they cannot afford a house or apartment places one at a significant disadvantage, more so if male than female, but females living with their parents and trying to have a dating life may have a hard time.
brayhite 2y ago
I think this is great news. Social media gets a lot of deserved blame for worsening our ability to connect meaningfully across interests and differences in beliefs. But I have to imagine dating apps have been nearly as bad in terms of their impact on emotional development alongside another person. They commoditized relationships, whether intentionally or not. They squarely fit the bill of “too much of a good thing”. Relationships are hard, and dating apps removed the incentive (i.e. avoiding the effort of having to find someone new) to work through the hard shit. I’m sure there’s been a net positive effect for some demos or cohorts. My bet though is a significant number of people are facing an increasingly harder time finding meaningful, long-lasting relationships, either because they or their partner have too high of expectations for how “easy” they should be, and they know they only need a few swipes in an app to reset and try again.
- isodev 2y ago
  I think these apps do have a meaningful function and can potentially fill a gap - e.g. as a meeting place or at least initiation of intent. For example, folks rarely go out of their weekly habits. We tend to go out to the same places which means there are probably people out there we'd enjoy spending time with but we never get a chance to meet. The neighbour you never meet can potentially be a good match. So there is definitely a need for a way to "put oneself on the map". I don't think apps need to take on the ambition to "find my next spouse" which is a big undertaking and unlikely to happen while swiping left or right.
bradlys 2y ago
I’d argue that it’s not just online dating apps that are struggling. I think as a culture we’re struggling. Dating apps are just an indicator of that. I’m currently on a self-improvement journey where I’m literally now injecting “research chemicals” shipped in from China just because it’s the only way I’m gonna get good looking enough to compete in this ridiculous market. As much as I’ve improved myself over the years I’ve been alive, the standards have gone even higher. That said, I’m not sure if the improved version I’ve made of myself would’ve done well ten years ago either. Maybe I was always doomed to die alone.
- 6treeblue 2y ago
  Just don't even try to date in the United States. If you believe you are a great guy with a lot to offer, go where people actually value you. Try dating internationally. The same profile that gets me one like per month in my major metro area in the US, gets me 20 likes per day in major metro areas outside of the US. I met my wife this way. When we were dating, it was shocking to see the amount of foreign men (like me) with local women. Nearly every time we go out, we would meet another couple.
  - bradlys 2y ago
    [flagged]
- emestifs 2y ago
  What type of chemicals would these be? I can only think of cosmetics (makeup), skin care (acne, moisturizer), botox, and steroids/PEDs/HGH/etc that could improve physical disadvantages that cant be improved otherwise. But not an area I'm too experienced in. What type of chemicals are you talking about?
  - bradlys 2y ago
    You’re on the money so far. I’d add peptides as a separate category in there. They’re not as well known. Steroids/PEDs already covers things like SARMs and some other stuff people will inject to get advantages. It’s insane that I have to go to these lengths though to even be considered in this dating market. I’m still waiting to see evidence of effects in my own body for a couple of these but if they pan out for improved recovery (e.g. bpc-157) then I’ll be doing more cosmetic surgery. My biggest complaint with cosmetic surgery is that it’s just so painful for the recovery, recovery takes forever, and it’s why I don’t do more of it. Cause I have very obvious facial flaws that could be improved by a skilled and knowledgeable surgeon who focuses on improving beauty.

54 points by geox 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

haunter 2y ago

Not surprisingly these articles never talk about men’s experiences. Only women or “people”

antisthenes 2y ago
For 99% of these apps, the presence of women is what keeps the app alive, since men are the ones typically pursuing women in dating. Men's experience is relevant to them, but not the owners of the app.
- datameta 2y ago
  And in the case of Bumble where the initiators are only women?
  - tennisflyi 2y ago
    They changed it recently to reduce the burden - I’m not kidding
    - datameta 2y ago
      Please explain, what do you mean by burden? To avoid me jumping to conclusions. You mean the heteronormative "burden" of the man shooting the first shot?
      - tennisflyi 2y ago
        Yes! https://finance.yahoo.com/news/bumble-relaunches-app-tool-relieve-121128209.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/bumble-relaunches-app-tool-re...
      - Tade0 2y ago
        That's how they phrased it, but the underlying reason was that users weren't using the app as intended - those first moves quickly devolved into a token "hey".
        datameta 2y ago
        I'm surprised that phenomenon wasn't called out virally just like men were dragged through internet streets in the mid 2010s with the rise of swiping-style app.
        bdjsiqoocwk 2y ago
        Ahhh I just wrote the same thing, you beat me to it. Glad to see I'm not the only one with this reading.
        ralferoo 2y ago
        It's a shame Bumble has changed. As a guy, I think even a token "hey" is good to know if they are at least interested in you. The ratios are skewed so badly that women get at least an order of magnitude more likes that men on average, so having the woman at least indicating that they are marginally interested lets you know it's worth spending the effort on making the next move. If you're an incredibly good looking guy, women will put some effort in, but for ordinary looking guys, the vast majority of women don't even bother to respond with an autoreply "sorry, not interested". They just ignore your message entirely, and there's only so many interesting and well-thought out first moves you can send based on something in someone's profile that you resonated with, only be be completely ignored, before you realise that it's all just an utter waste of time if you're not in that top 10% of guys. To me, it seems that Bumble doesn't really know what it's lost by changing that behaviour, as it's now become just another Tinder.
        wakawaka28 2y ago
        >It's a shame Bumble has changed. As a guy, I think even a token "hey" is good to know if they are at least interested in you. It would be nice but women are literally flooded with options. You should know they're interested if they match with you and have a conversation with you. At least, you get the same information as a "hey" from that. Bumble is just trying to promote actual dates with their paying customers who don't get a "hey" and scarcely get a match in the first place, because women aren't very interested in dating normal guys.
  - bdjsiqoocwk 2y ago
    This never actually worked this way. Women are rarely ever the initiators, so what happened on Bumble is that women would say "hi" so that the man had the chance to actually initiate; if he didn't, nothing would happen. The real reason women are on bumble at all isn't because they like the gimmick. Instead they just hope that men there are better than the ones on tinder.
    - wakawaka28 2y ago
      >The real reason women are on bumble at all isn't because they like the gimmick. Instead they just hope that men there are better than the ones on tinder. Nailed it... Maybe they are predisposed to think the guys are better because they would only feel like messaging exceptional guys anyway. But in general, they would really prefer guys to take all the risks.
- wakawaka28 2y ago
  >Men's experience is relevant to them, but not the owners of the app. Men are typically the vast majority of paying customers. If guys have a terrible experience they will stop paying eventually. But there's a sucker born every day, as the saying goes...
  - illiac786 2y ago
    No, the previous poster wrote: Men will pursue women wherever they are. So if you have women on your platform, the experience for men can be horrible, they will still come to your platform. Are they suckers? Probably. Do the platform owner care? Nope.
    - wakawaka28 2y ago
      The platform owners clearly care about user experiences because they tweak stuff all the time. I don't think most men are suckers. Even a real sucker will stop paying if they are not getting any benefit from paying. If you put all this together, the most reasonable thing a dating app could do to make money is actually try to provide good experiences. Of course, these days, it may be a bit much to assume that the management of any company actually cares more about making money than their pet causes.
      - illiac786 2y ago
        They could be tweaking the stuff for the women?
        wakawaka28 2y ago
        That is also possible. But since most women don't pay, the ultimate objective would be to get more women on to improve the experience of the actual customers.

eska 2y ago

The article makes it sound as if „200 question“ dating sited like eHarmony were any better, but it’s scientifically proven that there’s no correlation between such questionnaire matches and actual relationship compatibility

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
fullshark 2y ago
They are barriers to entry that maybe ensure your match is serious about a partnership I’d guess though.
- mattmaroon 2y ago
  That and the relatively high fee.
btrettel 2y ago
Can you post a link to the study?
- eska 2y ago
  I wasn’t thinking of any particular paper there, but if you look at some papers you’ll usually find the following reasons: 1. The app algorithms are usually black boxes, so who knows whether they’re really using scientific methods 2. Apps often include questions such as height due to customer demand, which are known to be very bad predictors 3. The interaction between the factors is very significant and complicated/unknown 4. People don’t answer truthfully 5. People don’t know what they want What is known however is that there’s a strong placebo effect initially, i.e. the mere suggestion that somebody is a good match although they aren’t increases the success of first dates, but not in the long term. There’s also research on how these systems can be designed to be addicting, which is surely being done. One of the strongest known predictors instead is “shared emotional experiences”, e.g. a study about making people walk over a wobbly bridge together. Hence why “running groups” and so on are popular nowadays among people disillusioned by algorithms

andrewstuart 2y ago

Yep I’m never doing online dating again. Totally not something I want as part of my life.

laurels-marts 2y ago
What sort of mating strategy are you optimizing for?
- antisthenes 2y ago
  Women are optimizing 80% of men out of the gene pool. What the men do is irrelevant.
- datameta 2y ago
  I imagine it would be spontaneous interaction in places of interest or leisure.
  - tomrod 2y ago
    The third space.
- dotcoma 2y ago
  Not everything needs to be optimised.
- throwup238 2y ago
  I’m looking to emulate the mating strategy of a preying mantis. Please just eat me after we’re done doing the dirty.
- hasbot 2y ago
  OP wrote "dating" but you replied with "mating." Why?
  - laurels-marts 2y ago
    Is there a meaningful difference?

transcriptase 2y ago

The problem with online dating sites is that from a financial perspective, their incentive is to keep you from finding someone who causes you to stop using the site. Every single A/B test and algo run with revenue or engagement as the metric to be optimized is actually doing the opposite of what users want and preventing really good matchups.

nkrisc 2y ago
I don’t think there’s really a good model. If the app charges when a match is made, the consumer is paying without really knowing of the match is good. As I understand, this is the model early dating sites used. If the app charges for access at all, then it’s incentivized to keep you from finding a match, and the overall pool of people shrinks from the barrier to entry. Charging once you’re satisfied with a match isn’t practical without some kind of binding contract, which I imagine most people will not want to sign. It’s almost as if you can’t commoditize emergent social behavior.
- derbOac 2y ago
  I've sometimes wondered if dating apps are best served through some kind of nonprofit decentralized format, maybe something grassroots, or through the government or something, precisely because of the issues you raise. I admit that might sound a little loony but dating or pairing is a fundamental human activity, and it doesn't seem too farfetched to me to think that people might build out something outside of a profit model. Also, some countries are starting to openly discuss declining birth rates, with government actively encouraging mating, so I could see something like that being developed in certain settings. I also have a hunch, though, that some of what makes relationships click is hard to formalize in an app focused on dating per se. In person chemistry, development of an initial relationship without an explicit shared dating goal, and so forth. Sometimes I wonder if it would be better to just incorporate dating options and features into a more general purpose social app.
blfr 2y ago
How does that work? I keep hearing this objection but how is the app supposedly stopping you from forming a happy relationship? Operator would need to know who is a good matchup for you and then not present you that person but present you enough other subjectively attractive (but again somehow not good) matches so that you keep swiping. That's almost omniscience when it comes to dating which they would need to attain from a phone number, pic, couple of sentences, and maybe whatever they can buy via adtech.

bemmu 2y ago

With generative AI for text, images, and now even video, it must be harder than ever to know if you are even talking to a real person.

lotsofpulp 2y ago
It's going to be really funny if technological advancement brings human and face to face interaction back into the mix. Basically, you need to beef up your social networks to help filter the bullshit via human "brokers" or "agents" that have their reputation within their social graph on the line. Finding a life partner by being recommended by a relative/friend/coworker/college organization/etc is probably way less work and stress for the individual, assuming they have a decent social network.
lou1306 2y ago
On the contrary, it's exceedingly easy. The vibes are all off.

_yb2s 2y ago

I think the swiping model actually works better for compatibility in serious relationships than the question based ones, because the questions are not actually about anything important (lots of political questions- I don’t date based on politics)- but the simplicity of swiping lets you just interact with a lot of people until you find the right one. I met my fiancee on Tinder 3 years ago, wedding is next week! My advice is to read the bios and swipe based on more than just looks- interesting hobbies, fun, playful, and personal integrity are important also. The down to earth introverted and nerdy women I’m compatible with, like my fiancee tend to spend less time staging flashy photos to look attractive in a bio.

k__ 2y ago
OKC is good only if you answer the right questions. If I answer 500 questions and 400 are about basic decency, that doesn't give a good match. If I answer only 50 questions but they're all about relationship and intimacy that works much better.
- _yb2s 2y ago
  I tried that and still found the matches weren’t good compared to Tinder… I think I’m not even sure which questions really matter, and there’s just a lot less potential people on OKC.
kingkongjaffa 2y ago
> I don’t date based on politics That’s weird because at least in the US and UK people definitely do date based on this and it makes sense. If you are mildly politically literate, then in those two countries, you know there’s really two realistic parties you can pick who are opposed from each other. Given then it’s pretty strange to want to be with someone who is diametrically opposed to making your country better, and actively voting to make the country worse, regardless of your POV either way.
- _yb2s 2y ago
  It is weird… weird is an important dating requirement for me ;-) You cannot solve real problems in the real world or actually make the future better with blind application of a simple ideology- real life is too nuanced and complex. You have to approach each individual problem with creativity, and an open mind. You also have to take an active leadership position to solve a real problem, not just watch TV and vote. If someone sees the world like you are suggesting, they are not intelligent enough to date. I want a partner, not a pet.

SteeCee 2y ago

I've been a big fan of IRL singles events in my area recently. Speed dating and mixers are great ways to meet quality people who are in the same boat as you. I highly recommend them!

nextworddev 2y ago
They are better for 45+, divorced people
- datameta 2y ago
  Isn't the whole message of this article that younger generations are seeking interactions that those events can provide? Also what city do you refer to?
bradlys 2y ago
I found speed dating and mixer events to be absolute terrible for the under 35 crowd. Obviously, ymmv, but I remember hearing from my own head and other people as we all left these events “why didn’t we just talk to the women at the bar? They’re way more attractive than the women at the event we were just at.” If you’re in a place like NYC, the more attractive people don’t go to these events. They just don’t need to. Most of the folks I know meet their partners through apps because everyone is super picky about looks, income, status, and so on. Going to random bars and events isn’t efficient for that. Personally, I’ve been single the entire time. I can’t get matches on apps due to poor facial attractiveness. So, I stick with IRL scenarios. It works a little better but it’s still bad.

cloudking 2y ago

Why hasn't this space been disrupted? All of these apps are the same scam-like experience filled with dark pattern UX. They purposely limit communication & exposure behind paywalls, while allowing bots to roam free. Also most of them are owned by the same company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Match_Group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Match_Group

poikroequ 2y ago
It's a very hard market to get into these days when you don't already have millions of users. The problem is, if someone signs up for your app and there are only a few other people using the app in the same area, it's not very useful and they'll quickly uninstall it. So how do you launch a new dating app that already has millions of users? You need to have an existing app/service which already has millions of users that can segue into a dating app. Such as when Facebook launched their dating feature...
- bradlys 2y ago
  Yep. If you try looking at new dating apps, the main complaint from users as they leave negative reviews is this: "I couldn't find anyone in my area. There were 3 profiles in my area and that was it." I think that's why a lot of dating apps start out as regional, often niche focus, and slowly expand out. They know that they'll be review bombed with negative reviews like the above if they try to do a national/worldwide launch.
dylan604 2y ago
What is someone going to do, build an app that does exactly what these apps are not doing so that they make no money and go out of business?
- swed420 2y ago
  Maybe it should be a non-profit endeavor, where the actual profit is a society of happy, lasting relationships.
0xcde4c3db 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

bookofjoe 2y ago

Off topic pretty much: my then 13-year-old daughter told me (divorced x 4 years at the time) not to use online dating sites as they were for losers and weirdos. That was in 1996. In 2008, in her final year of law school at Duquesne University in Pittsburgh, she met a guy on JDate whom she subsequently married in 2012; they just celebrated their 12th wedding anniversary. Here's the thing: he lived three blocks from her; at the time he was an associate at law firm Jones Day, working 90 hours/week; no way would the two of them ever have met absent the internet.

drakonka 2y ago

I met my ex on Bumble; we were together for about 5 years. I met the man I'm currently dating on Hinge. Both times when getting back into dating after long relationships I heard that dating apps sucked, and that it would take forever to meet someone I actually like, and to prepare myself for a string of bad experiences. So I kind of prepared for the worst and thought of it as just practice for talking to people. Luckily, every man I met was a legitimately interesting and cool person. I only got _slightly_ uncomfortable vibes from one of them, and he (like all the others) handled it very maturely when I later told him I just wasn't feeling a connection. None except one ended up being a romantic match, but I had a really nice time talking with all of them. Maybe part of it is just that I'm pretty particular with who I bother talking to and meeting. I don't have much energy or time for meeting new people, so don't schedule many dates. On the other hand, this also means my positive experience is not very trustworthy, as it is likely I just haven't met enough people to give myself a proper chance at a negative experience. Nevertheless, I do not find dating apps fun or pleasant in any way - they're more like a means to an end that I'd rather step away from as soon as I meet someone I actually like. This tends to be a bad strategy, as from what I understand the other party often doesn't approach focus or exclusivity on the same timeline. So there's a risk of a mismatch in investment (time and emotional), which can become a problem.

ddmf 2y ago
A few of my friends have had this experience - I think there are a couple of groups at play here, basically "old online dating pros" and "unjaded newbies" and I don't mean either title as disparaging. When I've met an unjaded newbie we've had a great conversation, we've met for a date easily with no hassle and in one case it's worked out for a decent period of time, and in most if it doesn't we part with good communications. I've even become close friends with a couple of women I've met this way. The old pros are people you constantly see on the apps, they're flaky and jaded and addicted to the swipe/match/chat/move on paradigm. Dating apps are akin to being in dante's pergatory.

mensetmanusman 2y ago

Marriage rates down 70% compared to 50 years ago. Natural selection will play out here.

tenebrisalietum 2y ago

"Dating" means different things to different people. Some people A) are really looking for potential life/long-term partners and want to take it really slow, others B) are really looking for sex partners with varying degrees of commitment. The general standards and expectations for A and B vary widely amongst individuals, so widely that really IMHO any dating app can't effectively promise anything other than "we'll introduce you to people" unless it explicitly limits its target group to A or B. Even then, people will lie to try get what they want, especially in cultures where honesty about sexual needs and goals is not valued or is only valued if part of a greater economic/societal goal which often has a perceived or actual high bar of entry. Regarding ecomonics: IMHO there is a general social breakdown related to the general economic breakdown for the non-rich in the U.S. It's easy to have fun with social and sexual life when it's easy to take care of your basic needs like food, medical care, housing, etc. The 1970's was a lot of fun I guess at least in certain places of the country. Having fun in general has gotten much more difficult for non-rich people over the past 30 years, and it makes intimate/fun social relations also much more difficult. Example: Being a single person living with one's parents because they cannot afford a house or apartment places one at a significant disadvantage, more so if male than female, but females living with their parents and trying to have a dating life may have a hard time.

brayhite 2y ago

I think this is great news. Social media gets a lot of deserved blame for worsening our ability to connect meaningfully across interests and differences in beliefs. But I have to imagine dating apps have been nearly as bad in terms of their impact on emotional development alongside another person. They commoditized relationships, whether intentionally or not. They squarely fit the bill of “too much of a good thing”. Relationships are hard, and dating apps removed the incentive (i.e. avoiding the effort of having to find someone new) to work through the hard shit. I’m sure there’s been a net positive effect for some demos or cohorts. My bet though is a significant number of people are facing an increasingly harder time finding meaningful, long-lasting relationships, either because they or their partner have too high of expectations for how “easy” they should be, and they know they only need a few swipes in an app to reset and try again.

isodev 2y ago
I think these apps do have a meaningful function and can potentially fill a gap - e.g. as a meeting place or at least initiation of intent. For example, folks rarely go out of their weekly habits. We tend to go out to the same places which means there are probably people out there we'd enjoy spending time with but we never get a chance to meet. The neighbour you never meet can potentially be a good match. So there is definitely a need for a way to "put oneself on the map". I don't think apps need to take on the ambition to "find my next spouse" which is a big undertaking and unlikely to happen while swiping left or right.

bradlys 2y ago

I’d argue that it’s not just online dating apps that are struggling. I think as a culture we’re struggling. Dating apps are just an indicator of that. I’m currently on a self-improvement journey where I’m literally now injecting “research chemicals” shipped in from China just because it’s the only way I’m gonna get good looking enough to compete in this ridiculous market. As much as I’ve improved myself over the years I’ve been alive, the standards have gone even higher. That said, I’m not sure if the improved version I’ve made of myself would’ve done well ten years ago either. Maybe I was always doomed to die alone.

6treeblue 2y ago
Just don't even try to date in the United States. If you believe you are a great guy with a lot to offer, go where people actually value you. Try dating internationally. The same profile that gets me one like per month in my major metro area in the US, gets me 20 likes per day in major metro areas outside of the US. I met my wife this way. When we were dating, it was shocking to see the amount of foreign men (like me) with local women. Nearly every time we go out, we would meet another couple.
- bradlys 2y ago
  [flagged]
emestifs 2y ago
What type of chemicals would these be? I can only think of cosmetics (makeup), skin care (acne, moisturizer), botox, and steroids/PEDs/HGH/etc that could improve physical disadvantages that cant be improved otherwise. But not an area I'm too experienced in. What type of chemicals are you talking about?
- bradlys 2y ago
  You’re on the money so far. I’d add peptides as a separate category in there. They’re not as well known. Steroids/PEDs already covers things like SARMs and some other stuff people will inject to get advantages. It’s insane that I have to go to these lengths though to even be considered in this dating market. I’m still waiting to see evidence of effects in my own body for a couple of these but if they pan out for improved recovery (e.g. bpc-157) then I’ll be doing more cosmetic surgery. My biggest complaint with cosmetic surgery is that it’s just so painful for the recovery, recovery takes forever, and it’s why I don’t do more of it. Cause I have very obvious facial flaws that could be improved by a skilled and knowledgeable surgeon who focuses on improving beauty.