Hacker news dating ring

Your parents must be proud. If it takes a lot of karma to save a soul, maybe we can pool our collective scores to save more? I see some pessimism in these comments, but IMO one needs to consider the problem from both genders assuming we're talking about straight dating exclusively for a sec. The problem with OkCupid is that the experience is horrendous for women. While the men would love to have choice, and "unlimited" matches, in reality this only means one thing: Spam spam spam spam spam spam.

The success of Tinder should be in large part attributed to the fact that the basic interaction model removes spam. Men will swipe right on the majority of "matches", making women the actual gatekeepers of conversation - and this model works, though you obviously lose a lot of nuance and depth along the way. Women have far more choice on OkCupid, it's the men who do not: Because the site is so difficult for men. I think the reality is a bit more complex. Women have "more choice", expressed in the form of an avalanche of messages that would take a part-time job just to cut through.

Which is a bit of a false freedom. You're presumably there to find promising dates, not take on a new part time job sorting messages.

Dating Ring Is Hiring a New Matchmaker | Hacker News

It sucks for both sides, in different ways. Except women on OKC can just ignore the spam messages, look at a couple of profiles and send their own messages. Their messages won't be buried in piles of spam. The best interactions I had on OKC worked that way. It is really taxing for women to have to deal with the spam, though, and that can really burn users out of even using the site.

Too many messages and too few messages are both problems for different sometimes overlapping groups of people. I think you're missing the idea that women can just ignore all incoming messages , and get a much better response rate for outgoing messages than men do. I've dated several women that I've met on OKC for various lengths of time and they all agreed that for the most part OKC was a good experience.

I could see how people without a thick skin could be turned off by the spam, but that hasn't been the case in my experience. The women I've met have mostly seemed to treat the spam similarly to YouTube comments, it's just accepted that most of them are garbage. One of them described the experience with something like "It's Amazon for boys, for negative money.

Beasting on Oct 16, I think Tinder's model is more aligned with how men and women meet IRL. As a guy, my modus operandi is to present myself as a high-valued man to everyone and have the women pre-select me so I can start the interaction. How men use Tinder: With all that repetition, I think there must be an even better model for matching people up Kalium on Oct 14, The problem is that women don't use sites where they are in charge and make all the decisions.

So you get a catch Before anyone asks, of course it's been done. HerWay comes to mind. The userbase is miniscule. That's a bit of faulty induction going here. Just because one site didn't work doesn't mean it will never work. There are all kinds of other variables involved, maybe it was just the execution.


It is certainly insulting to say that women don't want to be in charge or make the decisions. Kalium on Oct 15, I've looked at sites that try the empower-the-women-depower-the-men approach. With depressing reliability, they all wind up re-introducing the ability for men to initiate contact. It's not perfect, but it's far from meaningless. Also, just because it can be read as insulting doesn't mean it's not true. If we want to identify and address problems, we have to deal in truths.

Welcome to Reddit,

If it eases your conscience any, I can edit in verbiage to make extremely clear that I as speaking solely to typical behavior in the arena of online dating. Yeah I've heard total horror stories from women. It's like men on OKCupid took the idea of "numbers game" way, way too far. Consequently I also didn't want to be on there and be lumped in with those guys either. Long story short, men discovered that being a well-behaved actor is a losing strategy on dating sites. A seemingly obvious solution is to limit the number of women that men can contact, something like 2 every 24 hours.

That way men are incentivized to put some effort into their messages, and women actually have an opportunity to read them due to reduced spam. It should be a win-win for everyone except the spammers, but I haven't heard of any sites that do it. Now I have N accounts and message whoever I like with those N accounts. Basically, a site has to offer something to both women and men to do better than OKC. That proposal just puts a minor speed bump in front of men. As a group, men have few compunctions about abusing sites in order to get what they want.

Multiple accounts to spam women is not a significant obstacle. And now you have to work harder to manage that, reducing the probability that you'll be doing it. Someone writes a script. It becomes a browser extension. Now it's zero work. Women abandon your site, because the experience is no better than OKCupid.

Men follow suit, because they tend to go where the women are. Basically, your approach is the functional equivalent of DRM. With all the problems that go with that. That still takes effort beyond just signing up. I think you're overestimating the willingness of the average guy to either script something up or go out of his way to find a browser extension. Most people's knowledge of browser extensions begins and ends with AdBlock anyway. It doesn't take much to go "Hey brah, follow this link, it'll let you hit on dozens of chicks a day". But you know what? It doesn't take all that many before women have experiences not so different from that of OKC.

Thanks for stereotyping me and grouping me with the worst actors in my gender. I, personally, discovered through direct and firsthand experience that being a well-behaved actor was a losing strategy. Then I stopped to think about it and understood why. I did speak for myself, you were the one that presumed to speak for me. Or would you prefer NotAllMen? Don't neg me, bro.

I think what you said in your reply works just fine: I have no wish to go out of my way to discredit a valid observation about general behavior over a population so you can say NotAllMen. Do you have any evidence that your behavior is typical of the population? The entire seduction and pickup community is based on the idea that women say they want a guy who's nice and plays by the rules but that that isn't what they respond to. They respond to assholes, bad-boys and dominant men. Obviously not every woman, but there are plenty of independent scientific studies to support this theory.

I'm aware of those studies, but skeptical of some of their methods and claims. I'm especially skeptical that when they claim causation and not correlation. In any case, there's a big difference between 'spammer' and 'bad-boy' as well as a big difference between demonstrating the success of a strategy and demonstrating it's prevalence. There may be some good studies demonstrating causation but I am not familiar with them.

Why does taking offense at the assertion that all or most men spam women on online dating sites deserve down votes? The "but we're not all like that" response is inappropriate and unhelpful when one is talking about particular bad actors, a group of bad actors or even about a general form of behavior. However, when the statements are of the general form about the group as a whole, I think it is a perfectly appropriate response.

If you say "All men are misogynists" saying "no we aren't" is perfectly valid, so is taking offense to the statement. Now if you have evidence that your assertion applies to the majority of men on dating sites, feel free to post it. Then at least your stereotype will be an evidence backed one. I don't think so. While most spammers aren't particularly sophisticated, it doesn't take a genius to figure out you can copy-paste formulaic messages to hundreds of women in only a few minutes.

Even a user who isn't particularly nefarious and say, sends 20 original not copy-pasted messages each session, it's still an overwhelming amount of messages for women to sort through. It's important to note that when I say "spam" I don't just mean "bad actors who deliberately attempt to game the system". I mean that even what appears to a user as a "natural" amount of messages in fact makes the system nearly unusable.

It's almost trivial for female users to end up with literally hundreds of messages per day - just managing the messages themselves is a chore, much less viewing the profiles associated. Could you please elaborate? Do women get spammed a lot? Do men have to spam to be spoken to? Women receive more messages from men then men receive from women. From complains that women leave in their OKCupid profiles I would say that a lot of these messages are not from people trying to intelligently converse with the women that they are trying to connect with. While some of these might not qualify as "spam" compared to a scammers emails, I would say that wading through all of that seems akin to wading through one's spam folder The effort required to write a better message does not correspond to a sufficiently high chance of a response.

Couple that with strong evidence that profiles and messages don't matter nearly as much as photos. The net result, is most any given man is going to see more success in getting responses - and dates - by spamming any woman within a hundred miles than by writing the kind of message women publicly opine to want.

  • identical twins dating site.
  • Why investors don’t fund dating | Hacker News.
  • If you're refering to one of the founders of Dating Ring (Startup Season 2), the | Hacker News;

The problem is that the women on dating site become a lightning rod for messages. If every message were of a kind that interested a particular woman, how would she respond to e. She's likely not going to end up going on dates with multiple people at a time, and if she finds someone long-term, it's more than likely only going to be a single person.

She likely will only be able to carry on a few meaningful conversations at a time, and the rest just get dropped. If she were trying to meaningfully respond to everyone then going on a dating site would end up being a significant chore. Also, it's probably difficult to respond to someone that puts in the time to right a well-thought-out message, but doesn't come across as interesting or expresses views that are contrary to your own -- e. You don't necessarily want to be the bearer of bad news, so it's easier to not do it at all or you convince yourself that you'll respond 'later' but 'later' never happens.

Yes, it is cynical, but it's a general cynicism. Dating sites are very much a "worse is better" sort of environment. I agree, it's absolutely not worth it. No one should expect anything but a short canned message. Regardless, why should it matter anyway? If you like the person--something you'll know mostly from pictures--who sent you the message go out on a date! What a novel idea.

If not, move on. To publicly opine that you want detailed messages tailored to your profile is presumptuous. It's the sort of presumption you feel you can afford when you have hundreds of people messaging you. While it wouldn't be perfect, it would act like the minimum reading level from most grammar checks. This feels like something that must have been tried, or dismissed, before. Bootvis on Oct 14, I believe it will increase message quality but maybe not in a good way: What gets measured, gets improved.

Unfortunately, measuring real success is quite hard because successful stop using the dating site. Real success is extremely hard to quantify, which is why i'm not suggesting that as the goal. The goal is to grade spam messages, and encourage people to not repeat known spam patterns. And, if you show the score to the recipients, it also acts as a spam filter. It also provides some minimum level of feedback to the people who get zero responses from their messages. So they probably have lots of good data on success. Assuming the self-reporting is truthful. How many people are selecting the "this sucks I give up" box?

Self-reporting in general is fraught with problems, doubly quadruply so when it's something as close to the ego as dating. Also assuming the account is shut off at all as opposed to simply idled. They have actually done the work: Thing is that people who comment on HN are used to writing longish form text with correct spelling and grammar. There are also many people who have a lower education level but still want to use OKCupid and might be a good match for someone.

I don't see any problem with that. Just as they are in real life.

Want to add to the discussion?

They are bring honest. This leaves you with a good set of people. The next step would be for the system to learn what the user wants, and start to filter these messages. As simple as it seems, that is the primary driver of the success of Tinder, helped generously by a smart on-campus initial seeding strategy for the customer base. Every other dating site allows members to contact other members at the initiating member's will. All it takes is a few people with a dearth of tact and an overabundance of time to completely blow up mostly women's inboxes.

Tinder is considered a success? I've used it and maybe I'm just a loser, but my experience and I believe the general consensus is that it is mostly for hookups. I am highly doubtful that women are meeting men that are actually interested in a long term relationship. Although women still have the power to reject the date, they at least might be relinquished of the power to all go after the same guy much to the chagrin of the guy who wants to fool around with all those women.

Too bad I currently have so many other issues in my life more critical than wasting time in the dating scene, or I would try this one out. So the problem isn't that its impossible for apps to match these people to each other as it never happens, rather how to facilitate it on dating apps, what happens in real life. In general, dating apps have a higher percentage of traditionally "unappealing" users than the real world, for obvious reasons. Because males are generally the aggressors, in the sense that they compete for attention from females from an evolutionary biology perspective , obviously there will be more males on dating sites.

And if there are a more males on dating sites, b more "unappealing" users on dating sites than the real world, then it follows that there will be a lot of unappealing males on dating sites. Not exactly a winning proposition for women. Women generally get lots of low-effort messages, so they start to ignore most of them; men then generally realise that the probability of their messages getting read is low, so it's not worthwhile to put a lot of effort into them, but better to send lots of message to maximise the probability of being seen.

A lot of men find it easier to send short and generic messages "Hey ur cute wats up? The logic is that if you message women, at least a few are going to respond. As a result of this, female members are under a constant barrage of mindless messages, which is what's being referred to as spam. While this is true that some people subscribe to this logic[1], the number of messages good or bad that women get seems to out-weigh the number that the men get. I've heard anecdata alert! He would get lots of slaps in the face, but he never went home empty-handed allegedly.

Though depending on the situation one other the other might be more stressful e. I think the post was taken down after Match bought them. Men grow frustrated and get tired of wasting their time, so they stop sending in-depth messages. Women are then even less likely to respond, which ultimately sends men into a downward spiral of desperation. It's not just that if you message women, a few will respond. It's that you tried being thoughtful and genuine and discovered it was a waste of time.

Though it's of course anecdata, this is a huge problem for basically every woman I know who's used the service. Not only is it mostly spam, a lot of it is pretty horrible and demeaning. A few friends post the worst of it to Facebook and tumblr and it's cringe-inducing. Can't speak to the male side of things, as I haven't used it myself. But I feel gross being lumped in with the things that friends have shown me.

The male experience on dating sites is soul-crushing. It consists mainly being utterly ignored by everyone. Then, when you read profiles and put in effort, you discover that you're shouting into the void. So you move to copy-paste in part because it hurts less and in part because it gets you more responses. Chirael on Oct 14, It's a marketing effort.

Your goal is to communicate the benefits of your product you to your prospective customers. And just like real marketing, there is a ton of other marketing competing for the same customers. If nearly everyone else is sending copy-paste short messages, do you really think doing the same is going to succeed?

Yes, it sucks to actually read profiles, compose thoughtful initial intro messages, and then be ignored. Just like it sucks to come up with a great startup marketing campaign and then not get the results you were hoping for. I understand the "trough of sorrow" of shouting in the void. But I don't think the answer is to start doing what everyone else is doing - unless you want to get the same results as everyone else of course. Not meant to you specifically, Kalium; "you" is meant in a general sense above.

What you've missed - and I implied instead of stating outright - is that the "same results as everyone else" is in fact more desirable. Mainly because it is something other than the null set. The copy-paste-spam method produces better net results that the thoughtful, targeted approach.

The only other more successful method I've ever even heard of rests on data mining OKCupid's users, carefully crafting your profile for them, and so on. Also, getting meaningful data is nearly impossible here. When most of your iterations come up with a lot of no responses, you've really got nothing to go on.

You cannot target without data. The blast approach compensates for that. Imagine doing a dozen very different marketing campaigns and being greeted with an identical total lack of response from all of them. Hard to learn from that. Someone mentioned "HerWay" in another comment. I checked it out, and one unique thing they offer if you are a male user is, a limited form of analytics on your profile.

Important, because men can't initiate contact. I was the one who mentioned HerWay. In fact, men can initiate contact to any woman whose profile they can see. Think about what it would take for a site centered on the idea of taking power from men and giving it to women to make that product move. The guy basically data-mined OKC and gamed the matching system. Then suddenly the site began working for him, since he looked like The Perfect Match to a sizable number of people.

Meekro on Oct 15, OkCupid is one of the few dot-com companies whose customers have a bad experience for example by getting no replies , and then blame themselves rather than blaming the company. If more guys blamed OkCupid, maybe they'd be willing to try things like Dating Ring instead?

That'd put pressure on innovators to innovate, rather than stopping at "men need to try harder. I don't know about you, but I actually have gone exploring. It turns out the bad experience on OKCupid is actually better than most dating sites. I know what you mean, "traditional" sites like eharmony and Match. I haven't tried tinder yet, so I can't comment. But is OkCupid really the best we can do? Is there no combination of computer bits and human processes that would result in fewer guys getting ignored and more getting dates?

The problem is that men and women want very, very different things from dating sites. Now I'm going to follow this by generalizing terribly, mostly because it's easier and faster than couching everything in the most appropriate disclaimers. As other conversations today show, someone will certainly take truly horrible offense to my doing so.

I'm just trying to communicate the tendencies of groups. Men want to be able to contact the women who interest them read: Men desperately want to not be filtered out, and will stoop to basically any amount of lying to get around filters. Women only want to be exposed to the men who interest them. Women want sites and systems to do their filtering and selecting for them. Right there, there's some substantive conflicts. You have very different strategies from the get-go. But that's not all. Women don't want to do any of the work or take any of the risk.

Women expect men to approach them, and then they will sift through the suitors for the promising ones. And at the same time, men will lie, cheat, and otherwise bullshit to avoid being filtered out so they can spam dick-pics at every woman in range. Think of your typical hormone-driven bar scene. You'd think you could change these patterns, by putting women in control on a site and inverting the central power dynamic.

It turns out that when you do that, people still behave the same way. You wind up having to re-introduce the dynamic you were explicitly trying to avoid in order to get people interacting with one another at all. In short, the world of online dating is a clusterfuck of opposing strategies and people who will systematically subvert any system you use to impede those strategies.

OKCupid wins by not trying to force people to behave a certain way. The result is a shitshow for everyone, but all the alternatives seem to be worse. At a guess, it's because that's the culture we live in and it's what people are most comfortable with. Also, people will be exactly as shallow as technology allows them to be. In short, men want an endless buffet of women while women want the build-a-boyfriend workshop.

The two don't match up well. I think you must be doing it wrong. There's a lot that's unpleasant and stressful about online dating, but with a few classes of exceptions it's not society, it's not women, it's not the site, it's not anything else but you that's keeping you back. While I appreciate the attempted positive message, it's pretty clear to me that it's simply not an accurate reflection of reality. The common experience for guys on OKCupid does not involved any amount of "swimming in dates".

Where do you live? The gender balance on OkCupid varies a lot by region, and needless to say when your gender is rarer lower supply per demand you'll have a better experience. At the time I was in central NJ. Pretty sure OkCupid is worse for guys in the Bay Area because the influx of software engineers who are both mostly male, and the kind of people to try online dating skews the site's demographics. This is exactly what I've found and exactly what I used to do.

So much less painful and so many more dates. The dates themselves, however Yeah, that's the risk you take. That said, you're more likely to get what you're after with many runs at a high-risk process than no runs at a low-risk process. There's actually something of a negative feedback loop that's taking place. Women get a ton of junk messages spam, inappropriate, etc. So the women continue to be frustrated by the dozens of terrible messages they get and men continue to get frustrated by the low return on their efforts when they take the time to read profiles and craft thoughtful messages.

In the end, it's a lot of effort on both parts to even establish a conversation. While the feedback on Tinder where there is less investment required by both to start a conversation early on was positive in my circles, it's starting to turn really noisy too. In the end, I think we'll see a successful model where you have the low barrier to conversation as per Tinder but a bit more info about the person as per OKC. Well not spam per exactly, but the ratio of messages is like a couple of orders of magnitude different. The difference is so large it is kinda of looked at by both genders with humor.

The side-by-side screenshots are pretty funny if you Google for them. Also take a glance at http: Could you share some more insight into your "Women as the gatekeepers and men will hit on anything" life view? Maybe some men would prefer not to have to "swipe right" and face constant rejection? Maybe some women might prefer to approach men first instead of waiting on a man to present himself? Naw, what am saying? Gender roles were defined for a reason. Let's all just stay in our places. Men and women statistically behave differently in known ways on dating websites.

This is a fact, not advice or a prescription. This also says nothing about how you behave or should behave, or how any particular person you know behaves or should behave. Recognizing this does not mean that you think that the behavior causes the expectation, as opposed to the expectation causing the behavior, the expectation and the behavior both being caused by a third thing or combination of things, or the behavior and the stereotype being a result of random coincidence.

It also doesn't mean that other behaviors shouldn't be accommodated, even if it inconveniences the most common usages. Specifically for Tinder, this is a good strategy. Dating is a numbers game. Online dating, even more so. By spamming right swipes, you increase the chances of finding someone who swiped right on you. Unless you're a good looking guy. To which, I am not. I don't know why this was downvoted.

It's a fair argument. Eh, I felt it was accusatory and putting words in my mouth though I didn't downvote it - I can't, since he replied to me. He seems to have taken my description of general gender dynamics in online dating to be an endorsement of said gender dynamics. This is in no way true. He seems to also have taken my description of aggregate gender behavior in huge user bases to indicate specific individual behavior - this is also in no way true.

There are plenty of users on both sides who don't subscribe to the larger usage trends, but ultimately the trends are pretty overwhelming. I for one am all for upending gender roles, but we're talking about how online dating works right now, not how it could hypothetically work in a society where gender roles as we know them didn't exist. It was the phrase "and this model works". You could have said "and this model is very profitable". But "works" implies correctness and fit for purpose which is seen to me as an endorsement.

But yet it works. The tricky thing about gender roles is that while they may not be progressive nor just, much of the participation is voluntary. These trends are voluntary from the participants. This may be a bit tragic - i. Again with the generalizations that lead to stereotyping. Beyond that, you must realize that a platform environment can reinforce and even encourage a particular behavior. Research has shown many times that people react differently based upon their environment.

One may see Tindr's popularity happening for a different reason. Dating sites are a network effect business like no other. Tindr was very effective at their initial marketing push at colleges. Could it actually be Tindr's very effective network building and marketing at the early stages that has to do with it's success? Could it be that Tindr is closer to how college age daters work? And once the network effect took hold it spread to other demographics the mechanics were not the reason for it's growth?

I'm sure some will agree that much of OkCupid's early success had to do with the fact that people just thought the quizes were fun. Plenty of people go to clubs with music they don't really like because they want to meet new people and that is where the people are right now. All of a sudden we might discover a situation where a platform is reinforcing gender stereotypes proactively. In many cases against the wishes of non trivial portions of their users simply because that is where the people are? This reinforcement can actually change the views of people outside an environment once they have spent significant time inside of it.

Unfortunately, all of this is a lot more complicated just like stereotypes are. And is why we should take a step back and be careful when saying things that might reinforce them. UX suggestion from someone who decided to give you a try and fill out your application form: If you're only open for business currently in NYC and SF, maybe mention that before you have me fill out the long form rather than waiting until after I've submitted it, OK?

Because otherwise the user who doesn't live in one of those places feels like you just wasted a bunch of their time. This is something that is a difficult decision for a fledgling startup trying to get traction with a highly local product. It is hard enough to get traction in one market because you don't have an email list to start necessarily. However if you collect all this great segmentation data and email addresses from people in other cities, suddenly you have a huge head start when prepping to launch in new markets.

I am not for one moment disagreeing that it is a poor user experience. Just saying that from a business standpoint, I can see where they may make the decision to frustrate some users initially who aren't in their active markets to get a leg up when they expand. Sure you could argue that if they piss you off here, you'd be unlikely to consider them in the future, but then it becomes a numbers game. People who have a hard time finding a good date may still have that problem if this company grows into their market in the future, and may still be willing to give it a shot at that time since the chance for finding love probably outweighs that one time they had a less than ideal user experience.

Anyway, just thought I'd play devil's advocate here as you hit on an interesting lead generation point.

  • free online dating sites sri lanka?
  • 'White hat hacker' talks directly to man through his Nest camera | Daily Mail Online.
  • dating sleeping over.
  • Ask HN: How to find a wife? | Hacker News;
  • 'White hat hacker' talks directly to man through his Nest camera.
  • ?

Sorry about that - great suggestion. Will add that to the form. I would hope they are saving the application for when they do launch in your city? Saying that up front would be nice though. So here is a perspective from one of your users. Of that I've only been on two "bad" dates. Most were mediocre, but we had fun, mostly because I know how to be entertaining over drinks.

A couple I was interested in but never really had a good relationship develop from it. In general, I had fun so it was money well spent. I'm new to the city and the site was a great way to meet totally new people frequently without having to jump through all the hoops of stuff like OkCupid. I have to say I am curious about this "pivot" in how you are approaching matchmaking.

It is nice to have an "out" and not waste my time if it is clear that I won't find the person attractive mentally or physically. Honestly I think I've stuck with the site out of curiosity, and not really the expectation of having a good date. Mostly because I can better select dates that are attractive and interesting. DontBeADick on Oct 14, What makes your matchmakers any better than a random stranger?

Or a computer algorithm? Or a pile of bricks? I searched through your whole website trying to figure out why your matchmakers are worth my time and money but it doesn't seem like you've made any attempt to address those concerns, which is extremely odd since their matchmaking skills are the core of your business. Am I missing something? Based on the lack of info on your website, your matchmakers really could be random people you pulled off the street. Have a page about our matchmakers that we'll be adding back this week, and you also get more info about your matchmaker after signing up.

You're completely right that we should have more info on the matchmakers featured prominently on the site. Appreciate that feedback and will be changing that soon! In short - they've been with us for the past year and matched thousands of people. You didn't answer the question. He asked you why you think your matchmakers are better. Not for a page about them. We have 5 full-time matchmakers with varied backgrounds, mostly in psychology, theater, and working at other matchmaking agencies.

We often get questioned more on what makes our matchmakers good, than another company would get questioned on what makes their engineers, or other employees good. This is both because matchmaking isn't a common profession, and because matchmaking is a majority female profession that tends to get undervalued and not viewed as a 'real' profession.

QuotedForTruth on Oct 14, You get that question more because you're selling a service and thus the matchmakers are your product. A company that sells physical goods like a smart phone dont get asked about their engineers because there is a product to look at. If I was buying a consultant's time for any other business I would also want to know their qualificaitons. Do you have any data or evidence that says matchmakers outperform random chance random chance within certain parameters, basically age and sexual orientation? I'd be interested in the odds of two people selected at random forming a relationship vs the odds of two people selected by a matchmaker forming a relationship.

As well as two people selected by a computer algorithm vs two people selected by a matchmaker. And two people selected by some random asshole off the street vs two people selected by a matchmaker. You need to demonstrate with data your "service" is useful to convince people to use it. The thing is, you don't. All you need to do is to market the living shit out of this idea, and since no one can reliably answer whether it beats random chance people will use it.

You get to earn the benefits for as long as it takes for someone else to actually do the studies that debunk you and then one-up you at marketing. I was more talking about the people here asking questions that weren't being answered with a straight answer. Surely people do use unproven or even disproven products all the time.

I was just frustrated with the non answer marketing talk. I've been doing a little googling and I do mean a little and it seems as these matchmakers will offer dubious value for predicting long term relationship satisfaction. Yet our review of the literature reveals that aspects of relationships that emerge only after two people meet and get to know each other — things like communication patterns, problem-solving tendencies and sexual compatibility — are crucial for predicting the success or failure of relationships.

For example, study after study has shown that the way that couples discuss and attempt to resolve disagreements predicts their future satisfaction and whether or not the relationship is likely to dissolve. In addition, a study of more than 23, married couples showed that similarity on the major dimensions of personality e.

Sure it will get you to meet singles, but there probably isn't anything special about it other than that. Adding someone who majored in theater arts is unlikely to add value for the cost involved. I feel your frustration about the non-answer marketing talk. For me, the primary value is not however their Premium Matchmakers beat random chance; it's taking away the work required to find a date. After you finish high school, or graduate from university, finding a potential date gets incredibly more difficult. You no longer spend majority of your day with hundreds of people, many of whom could be your potential partners - you have to work to expand your social circle and meet people most of whom are already in stable relationships anyway.

I'd gladly pay Dating Ring for the sole reason of helping me meet people who are also looking for a date. Oh, I agree it has value for just that reason. Just I didn't like the supposed magic sauce that got throw around to justify the value without proof. I dont believe the value is in the matchmakers who might as well be a computer algorithm but access to singles also looking for a date or relationship with little work. It is overpriced for what it is though. If I were single I might be interested in a service that did similar at a lower price point that didn't emphasize on "how great our matchmakers are.

Especially when you get older and all your friends all are busy with families and what not. And you still didn't answer the question - WHY are they better? Just because they read on psychology, and "have exceptionally high EQs" what is that? This PR has been a trainwreck. So kind of like emotional intelligence.

I'm sure I could find much more info about these terms and proper usage with a google search. I really like this idea In return, you get ONE match a month. If they don't want to meet you, that's too bad. The two things you would need to do to sell me are: I'd be fine scanning a driver's license for you that matches the name on the credit card I pay with. So if the service is even basically working from a matching perspective [1], you should get a date. I also think it's interesting that you focussed on the possibility of you being rejected as opposed to you rejecting the match.

I'm skeptical about the whole thing, specifically about the "we match people, not profiles" claim, which makes little sense to me, since your profile is all they know about you. But my point is that the economics of it seem OK. Plus, of course, we're using all of the research we've collected on what makes people compatible. So it's definitely off of more than just a profile, but I get what you're saying. Honest question, if you think someone is unmatchable based on their expectations not matching up with what they offer.

Will you let them know and refuse their business, or will you just throw other unmatchable people at them and keep taking their money. If it's that their expectations are too high, we have it on our list to guide some people toward Premium. Not so we can make more money from them our margins on Premium are lower but because some people need coaching more than they need matches.

That doesn't really answer the question of the reject pool. To me it just kinda says you will fault the user if their matches don't result in a date, but try to keep 'helping' them while you are getting paid. As a further question how do you even out demand for the different matches. Assuming the number of matches contracted by men for women is not the same as the number of matches women for men? Do some people not get matches do some people get surprise double matches in which case if they were only expecting one date a month won't they generally reject the lesser of?

I mean honestly I would rather not be matched and not be charged than matched with someone who got extra matches all the same day they weren't expecting. Mostly because I think I would very rarely reject a date. I like meeting new people even if I may not have a romantic future with them.

Even if I don't think they would be a good fit based on their profile, I'd always be up for having my expectations disproved. I also don't trust profiles to describe people very well. Much agreed with your points. In addition, this part: I need to trust that the people doing this selection understand the context of my pictures while not knowing me at all? If I'm serious about finding a match using this service, I will gladly spend a full hours filling out a form telling you more about myself, rather than giving you access to my FB account.

We do also have you fill out a profile, and you're able to share any info you want with your matchmaker. You can also update them after each match. If you really want to spend hours and do a more in depth search, that's what Premium is for. Those objections sound reasonable, but why do you think that you only get one match per month? I don't see that text on the front page -- do they tell you later? Values are more important, but you won't really know some of those upfront, only over time. The easiest way to solve this is to talk about some of the things important to you early on, with some tact.

FWIW, my spouse and I met online We lived in different countries, and have now been married nearly 4 years and together 9. We talked about much of this stuff fairly early on. No children happened to be important to both of us, for example. The place is not the filter, you are the filter. You can meet someone anywhere, but you have to converse with them to see if you are a fit both single, similar education etc. At most, you could wear a t-shirt to signal what kinds of things you like.

Avoid Big Bang Theory. I fail to understand how online dating or social events might be wrong places where to find a person you love. The "trick" is to use a bruteforce attack method: Learn to chit chat and be sociable, helps with engagement and retention of potential candidates. Lordarminius on May 13, Ask your close friends, colleagues and relatives to introduce you to single eligible women. You'll be surprised how effective this can be. Ironically, my own experience and observations from salsa dancing have been biased towards long-term relationships.

There are so many happily-married, engaged, or otherwise long-term couples in the London salsa scene. Obviously there's plenty of short-term stuff too. But you kind of get out what you put in. Other than the initial motivation to take classes in the first place, I do salsa because I like salsa. Surely the more important question you should be asking is why are you only having short-term relationships when you want a long-term one?

What's stopping these relationships developing? YuriNiyazov on May 13, Why do male software engineers as a profession need a special dating strategy? Because there aren't many women at work to meet? Maybe it sounds intuitively true, but in my experience that is quite the opposite.

Lordarminius on May 14, Willie Nelson--who must be an expert marriage because he's done it so many times at least four times --once said that rather than get married again, he would just save himself a lot of time and heartache by searching for the most unpleasant woman he could find and then give her half of everything he owned. Almost 7 years ago, I had just gotten back from teaching English in Israel and moved back home for a few months because I had no money and needed a job. Any job that required a Bachelors Degree, I had applied for. It was a programming job for an autobody shop that answered.

I went in and got through my interview. They tested me on my math knowledge, which I failed miserably, but they also tested me on my logic and my knowledge of the programming language, which I aced. They ended up hiring me. I had no car and before I left, I walked over to the saleswoman, touched her hand, and said, "Hey, can I use your phone? I have to call my ride. Anyways, on my birthday, she had gotten me a cake and asked me what I was doing that night.

I told her I was going to hang out with all the friends I didn't have She agreed and since I had no friends, she was the one who was there. We ended up talking, flirting, buying drinks, and eventually making out. She admitted ever since that day I had touched her hand that she wanted me. She had been trying to get my attention ever since and trying to get me to ask her out, even almost giving up at one point. I also feared that she was setting me up to knock me down sexual harassment , but that really wasn't the case because she really did like me. Our job had a policy of no fraternizing with co-workers and so we kept it a secret.

Eventually, we ended up getting another job because that boss was Fortunately, we got the same job together doing the same thing, in web design. At this job, our dating remained a secret for years.. She's not technically my wife today, as we are experiencing financial issues right now and getting married isn't the first thing on my mind to solve such situations, but she has been my girlfriend for 5 years and then we got engaged. I know this might be a rare situation, but it somehow worked out.

I think the workplace or college is a great place to meet people, but you also risk it: We did have one stint in which we separated for a month due to differences, but we casually dated again and realized how much we loved each other. During that month, we still had to work together and it was miserable. Before her, I really had no interest in dating at all.

Going on dates was just awful.. Asking girls out or even trying to recognize they were interested in me There were girls I'd meet where I knew they could be "the one".. It was few and far in between I think maybe only three girls or so before meeting my current lady were like that. One I met in college..

Years later, once she found out I was engaged, she took an interest in me, texted me, called me, wanted to hang out I was lucky to get any time of day with her. But its too late for her.. Definitely not worth the games at all. Our chance was in college Live, love, and learn. And then move on if you must. My advice is this: Don't look for love, but learn how to be observant. A girl who pays attention to you may be interested in you.

Winter 2014 Companies (YC W14)

If she's playing with her hair, she really likes you. She wants to know you and wants you to know her and be in her life and in your life. Don't fear asking her out. Just ask her out. You have absolutely nothing to lose. If she rejects you, she is just helping you find the right girl for you. If she gives you a chance, don't try to be anyone but yourself. Don't be too weird.

You can be weird later when she is comfortable with you. Learn how to have a sense of humor in which you can make others and her laugh. At the same time, please don't assume that every woman at the office who isn't standoffish is into you. That kind of makes life hell for women who want to develop effective friendly working relationships with their colleagues just the same way men do. Sometimes women are just being nice and are not looking for a boyfriend.

So if you ask and they let you know they are not interested, or if they have a boyfriend, or if they just aren't interested, than take that as a sign for her letting you know: I'm letting you know, so you don't have to waste your time on me. Though I should have noticed too: But it goes back to my statement of: I admit, I can definitely be weird. I have my moments. And they came out when we were dating I also have to add to the story: She was older, had kids, smoked, ate fast food, financially irresponsible, and was everything I wasn't looking for in a woman. The odds were really against us.

Why did we end up going out and liking each other? Because we talked for like 2 hours and realized we had a lot in common and liked each other. That "chemistry" where you just know is hard to explain. We certainly have our moments of good and bad, but so does everyone. She has since curbed her fast food intake and quit smoking. I have taught her that she doesn't need to live paycheck to paycheck if she comes up with a budget for herself and doesn't spend habitually and mindlessly.

Having some extra money in the bank is always a good thing. As for her age So yeah, it wasn't just something that was instant. It really almost did not happen, but it did. And both of our lives changed.. And then there were things I had to get over, such as my acceptance of her children, which came with time. Every time I left her place, I would have to take a shower and wash my clothes because of her smoking habit. I didn't make her quit and had told her: Please keep smoking if you are going to blame me for making you quit. If she had kept at it though, we probably would've been done a long time ago.

I just didn't want to be with someone who had that habit. And I feel bad for thinking that, but again: Be with someone who you enjoy being around and who is compatible with you and can at least make some changes in their life to compromise with you. Of course, be willing to compromise too We all have our thing. If you don't like smoking and cannot stand the smell and she loves it, than let her do her You can either accept it or reject her.

There are certainly many sacrifices we both made to be in each other's lives since then, but nothing that has made us bitter towards each other. Changes are small and take a while, but they do happen, even if only minor. This is such a nice story, thanks for sharing. A brute force algorithm will do it: JPLeRouzic on May 13, You discuss mostly about places, strategies but it is about emotions and human beings, not business. If she is a women and you a man, she will take much more risks than you. Forget strategies, try to be nice and perhaps more than anything, be predictable: You must be trusted by her.

That said, find an equilibrium between what you drop and what you consider to be part of yourself, learn to say "Yes" and learn to say "No". Friends and social events, like people have been doing for centuries. There's nothing special or different about programmers with regards to dating. It might not be easy to find a partner, but it happens. Note that I know a handful of happy marriages that began with online dating, and there are some interesting apps like Bumble that try to shake up the online dating paradigm.

Also you might wanna consider moving to NYC. Lots of single women here apparently! Why not try single moms or mail order? If you live in SF women probably assume you are gay. If you take salsa classes but don't look like a Spanish model women probably assume you are gay. Hit the gym until you don't have to look for women. They will find you. Or if you don't like working out then try the renaissance fair. This is terrible advice. Is it because you really enjoy it, apart from meeting women?

Or is that a strategy? I started after seeing a dance movie, and wanted to learn to dance like that. I actually like it, and I often get compliments. And yes, dancing in clubs makes it so easy to meet women, as I discovered later. It then slowly became a strategy. If you really enjoy it, then great. As long as you didn't keep at it for so many years merely as a way to meet women. But what else do you enjoy doing? There are meetups and organizations of people doing almost any activity out there.

Maybe explore some other interests and find groups of people who do those things. You'll get exposed to a whole different group of women that way. Why did the relationships wind up being short term? I'm too focused on physical aspect -- my mistake, but don't know how to change that. I'm about to end a 9mo relationship with a girl that loves me, but I can't pass over not finding her very attractive. And the girls which are very attractive, don't find me attractive for them. Also, on the ones that were nice, I considered them without ambition, eg.

Even though we discussed about it, we couldn't find a solution for me just to accept this, rather than hoping they'd work on something more meaningful. How old are you? It sounds like you have no respect for your partner s. In the comment above you said they weren't attractive; in this comment you said that what they like to do is meaningless. If you want to live in a long term relationship, you need to stop comparing your partner to some arbitrary idea of what women should be like.

Respect your partner, and try to see the world from their point of view. Different things are "meaningful" to different people. Don't get stuck on whatever you consider to be your values. Instead of dismissing your partners habits, try to learn more about them.