4 ms·

Not to hate on a startup, but I've dated on OkCupid before, and while it's not foolproof, you can meet someone who seems perfect online and then you don't hit i

Not to hate on a startup, but I've dated on OkCupid before, and while it's not foolproof, you can meet someone who seems perfect online and then you don't hit it off in person. Having limited matches is just a dealbreaker. Sure there's the idea of too many possibilities leading to the 'paradox of choice' or 'fear of missing out', but let's be honest, you really need to have a lot of options to meet someone who's right for you (unless you're really lucky). "Your matchmaker will send you a new match each week" -- a match, singular, is just not going to work for the majority of the population.

laurenkay 12y ago
Perfectly valid comment, and not hating on us at all. If this were just a random match each week, you'd be completely correct. Dating is definitely a numbers game, and it takes a lot of choices in order to find the right person. But there is a whole lot you can do behind the scenes to improve those odds. We've gone through the research, we've met thousands of members in person and coordinated thousands of dates, and we've learned how to greatly improve the odds when it comes to personal introductions. I'd say a big reason other dating sites don't do this is because the more clicks they get, the more money they make. But we're not in it for clicks.
- Benjammer 12y ago
  OkCupid and other sites also use algorithms to increase the chances, but you also get way more than 1 "match" a week, and you can also peruse tons of random profiles as often as you want (and these still usually give some kind of compatibility score). You could very conceivably set up a new date every night with someone who has gone through some sort of "algorithm" to match up with you. Is your algorithm/method so much better than any other site that you can afford to only send one match per week and hope to achieve the same (or, hopefully, better) results as other sites? When it comes to dating, I don't think success/date matters as much to people as success/time.
colmvp 12y ago
> Having limited matches is just a dealbreaker. I guess your mileage may vary. I don't consider wide options to be a positive for me in online dating, as the total number of potentials is particularly deceiving. OkCupid for me had the most results for people I could message but had the poorest ratio of time invested in messaging to time spent dating. eHarmony had significantly fewer results for me but had a much better outcome. Personally, I'd rather have one potential match a week with a higher chance of actually going on a date, than messaging many people a week with little to no response. Granted, I realize I'm making the assumption that this service will actually provide a higher probability.
- jonathanjaeger 12y ago
  I see what you're saying, but let's say on OkCupid the vast majority of people you wouldn't want to message, let alone meet. You message the highest matches based on similarity, interests, and appearance (who you might be potentially attracted to in real life). If you're particular, that might mean only messaging one or two people per day depending on your style. What happens if you get that one match per week from Dating Ring and you automatically are not attracted to them based on appearance or personality? There are certainly people who seem really interesting and then they message me back and then it's pretty clear that we're never going to have a fun conversation, and you move on. Hard to do that with one match per week. I know online dating can be tedious at times, but let's be honest, going to bars all the time or picking up a ton of new hobbies to meet new people is even more time-consuming and from what I've seen from myself and many other people definitely less fruitful.
- laurenkay 12y ago
  Predicting who people will be attracted to is not actually that hard, and if you get a match and aren’t attracted, you tell us why and we’re able to improve future matches. Heck, some people email us pictures of their exes and we use that to send them better matches. You’re right that similarity / interests / and whether you’re attracted are all important. This is something that we can predict really well. A big part of this though is that people (especially women) are so inundated with ‘matches’ and messages on other sites that they never meet. OkCupid had a great recent blog post that showed that the power of suggestion is just as important as the matching algorithm. So what’s nice about our service is that people are much more likely to meet, since they only get 1 match and because of the matchmaker suggestion. This is not to say that it’s not worth using OkCupid or going to bars or picking up hobbies but I’d say to do them all. What’s $20 if it means a 1% higher chance of meeting your next partner? I know people hate putting a value on love, but the happiness I get from my partner is worth at least a million bucks (he cooks and cleans..). I was single for 3 years before meeting him, and if someone had told me there was a 1% chance of meeting him, that would be equal to $10,000. So even if you don’t agree with my math, $20 is still a far cry from 10k, and I would have paid a lot of money to have spent less time single. Of course, tons of people are fine being single or dating around, so it definitely depends on your priorities.

laurenkay 12y ago

Perfectly valid comment, and not hating on us at all. If this were just a random match each week, you'd be completely correct. Dating is definitely a numbers game, and it takes a lot of choices in order to find the right person. But there is a whole lot you can do behind the scenes to improve those odds. We've gone through the research, we've met thousands of members in person and coordinated thousands of dates, and we've learned how to greatly improve the odds when it comes to personal introductions. I'd say a big reason other dating sites don't do this is because the more clicks they get, the more money they make. But we're not in it for clicks.

Benjammer 12y ago
OkCupid and other sites also use algorithms to increase the chances, but you also get way more than 1 "match" a week, and you can also peruse tons of random profiles as often as you want (and these still usually give some kind of compatibility score). You could very conceivably set up a new date every night with someone who has gone through some sort of "algorithm" to match up with you. Is your algorithm/method so much better than any other site that you can afford to only send one match per week and hope to achieve the same (or, hopefully, better) results as other sites? When it comes to dating, I don't think success/date matters as much to people as success/time.

colmvp 12y ago

> Having limited matches is just a dealbreaker. I guess your mileage may vary. I don't consider wide options to be a positive for me in online dating, as the total number of potentials is particularly deceiving. OkCupid for me had the most results for people I could message but had the poorest ratio of time invested in messaging to time spent dating. eHarmony had significantly fewer results for me but had a much better outcome. Personally, I'd rather have one potential match a week with a higher chance of actually going on a date, than messaging many people a week with little to no response. Granted, I realize I'm making the assumption that this service will actually provide a higher probability.

jonathanjaeger 12y ago
I see what you're saying, but let's say on OkCupid the vast majority of people you wouldn't want to message, let alone meet. You message the highest matches based on similarity, interests, and appearance (who you might be potentially attracted to in real life). If you're particular, that might mean only messaging one or two people per day depending on your style. What happens if you get that one match per week from Dating Ring and you automatically are not attracted to them based on appearance or personality? There are certainly people who seem really interesting and then they message me back and then it's pretty clear that we're never going to have a fun conversation, and you move on. Hard to do that with one match per week. I know online dating can be tedious at times, but let's be honest, going to bars all the time or picking up a ton of new hobbies to meet new people is even more time-consuming and from what I've seen from myself and many other people definitely less fruitful.
laurenkay 12y ago
Predicting who people will be attracted to is not actually that hard, and if you get a match and aren’t attracted, you tell us why and we’re able to improve future matches. Heck, some people email us pictures of their exes and we use that to send them better matches. You’re right that similarity / interests / and whether you’re attracted are all important. This is something that we can predict really well. A big part of this though is that people (especially women) are so inundated with ‘matches’ and messages on other sites that they never meet. OkCupid had a great recent blog post that showed that the power of suggestion is just as important as the matching algorithm. So what’s nice about our service is that people are much more likely to meet, since they only get 1 match and because of the matchmaker suggestion. This is not to say that it’s not worth using OkCupid or going to bars or picking up hobbies but I’d say to do them all. What’s $20 if it means a 1% higher chance of meeting your next partner? I know people hate putting a value on love, but the happiness I get from my partner is worth at least a million bucks (he cooks and cleans..). I was single for 3 years before meeting him, and if someone had told me there was a 1% chance of meeting him, that would be equal to $10,000. So even if you don’t agree with my math, $20 is still a far cry from 10k, and I would have paid a lot of money to have spent less time single. Of course, tons of people are fine being single or dating around, so it definitely depends on your priorities.