Of Science and Choice In Online Dating 311
Must be summertime, as online publications turn to the contemplation of Internet dating. The NY Times's piece (registration may be required) takes a not particularly deep look at the reality behind the "science" claims of chemistry.com, eHarmony.com, and others. "The question is how much it really matters to users if the methods have any scientific basis. A friend of mine... said she looked at several dating sites and chose the ones that looked like they had 'the least riffraff.'" Technology Review focuses on studies showing that the overwhelming number of choices presented by many dating sites can be counterproductive: "...more search options lead to less selective processing by reducing users' cognitive resources, distracting them with irrelevant information, and reducing their ability to screen out inferior options." The article concludes with a look at the startup Omnidate, which offers technology for 3D virtual dating. The site has had twice as many women (by percentage) sign up as the other dating sites typically see.
No OkCupid mentioned (Score:1, Informative)
Re:There's also okcupid (Score:2, Informative)
Re:No OkCupid mentioned (Score:2, Informative)
Of course not. That entire "article" was written by a PR firm. How can you tell? A bunch of facts and experts and the mention of "Omnidate" at the end.
See: The Submarine [paulgraham.com].
Re:The biggest problem with dating... (Score:2, Informative)
I don't know about you, but with every couple I know of the guy is the cook. Most of the single guys I know can cook, but I can't recall the last time I met a woman under the age of forty that could cook at all.
My girlfriend is 35, and a fabulous cook. I occasionally cook too ... And, we met on OKCupid.
Most sites are loaded with fake profiles or worse. (Score:1, Informative)
Who would join a dating site with no members? No one! So how does a dating site get started? They fill up their bucket with fake profiles. (Hundreds of thousands of them).
Even better, watch out for the "free to sign up" sites. Yes, they are free to sign up! Within hours or days you will get a message from a lady, telling you how cute you are and that "she likes whatever you like too".
This girl is called a dating angel. She works for the dating site (outsourced to the Philippines). Her job (the job of the team of angels) is to reply to ALL new "free" members. The trick? The new member needs to pay his membership to write back to his new angel. He will pay up, write back and never hear from her again!
Watch out for the Filipino "Chat scammers they will befriend you inside a dating site, and then try to get you to either pay to see them on cam on a pay cam site or ask for money because their carabao died.
Re:Easy for you to say (Score:2, Informative)
>There are plenty of places dedicated to single people anywhere in Europe or in the USA
Indeed, but "single people" >> "people looking for an LTR". After I ditched my abusive, BPD ex-wife, I tried some singles events. At some, the median age was at least mine+20. At the rest, the population consisted largely of men trying to get laid, and women looking for men who'd look good in a snapshot with them.
Someone above mentioned looking for a dating site with the lowest riffraff factor -- indeed it varies considerably, and there's a strong inverse correlation between riffraff and cost. Yahoo personals was free, so there were lots of window-shoppers, and a fair number of, well, let's call them "pros". Match.com charged a bit, so it was a bit better. eHarmony cost a bunch, and had an exhaustive (well, exhausting, at least, as it lacked the ability to specify non-starters other than smokin) entrance survey -- both of which served to *drastically* weed out those who weren't serious about a relationship.
I went into the process at 38 thinking that I'd find women who, like me, were exiting a mistake relationship with an abusive/drunk/etc. partner, and who had a better set of lasting-relationship criteria this time around. I saw a bit of that, but to a surprising extent I found two clusters:
1) Shopping for exactly the sort of dork they broke up with, somehow expecting a different outcome this time
2) Those who in their mid-late 30's had never had a long term relationship (and may never) because instead of considering a guy who they could have that with (be it me or anyone) they were holding out for Superman.
Another recurring theme was hair - lots of women said they wanted a guy with a full head of hair, but temporized when presented with one. In the end, the single most important criterion I saw was height. A majority of women required a guy to be at least 5'10", and very few would even talk to one under 5'8". I once overheard a lunchtime first-coffee-date downtown -- the woman was telling the guy about some previous guy who expressed interest, laughing at how foolish he was because he was, and I quote, "tiny, like 5'7" ". This sort of thinking concentrates interest on a limited set of the single population, with the result that yes there indeed "must" be a girl feeling lonely just like you, but there's a good chance that she's holding out / competing for the same subset of guys as a much larger subset of women. Many veg*n women, for would rather have a 6'4" blood-guzzling hunter than a 5'6" veg*n guy.
After, say, 42 or so, this seemed to fade a bit, once they start seriously being afraid of middle age alone.
In the end I found someone on eHarmony, got married again, and have arguably the most adorable baby son on the planet. It took a *lot* of searching and lots of wasted time/energy to find that.
Re:eHarmony "success" story (Score:3, Informative)
Are you a Christian? eHarmony, when I last looked at it, seemed to have a nastily religious bent.