> The full right way, of course, would be a revival of OKCupid.
> Here we have a product that me and essentially everyone else who has ever heard of it says was insanely great. If you put in the time on the questions, which was inherently fun, the people who match highly with you are almost always extraordinarily good matches, with very good response rates. My initial response rate was something absurd, and when I got unprompted inquiries they were great. Rather than play a numbers game, I picked my spots and fully customized my messages, and it paid off. Positive experiences abound. Everyone constantly complains that it is gone.
> So, what if we simply created it again, the way it used to be? Do not reinvent the wheel, unless the wheel is lost, in which case by all means go reinvent it, people need wheels.
I was one of those people who got into online dating just at the transition from "Only weirdo losers do online dating" -> "The only way to meet anyone is online dating".
So for about two years, I was there, on OKC as sooooo many brand new people discovered it, in a huge city, in my mid-twenties. It was an incredible time. I met so, so many interesting people, who were so similar to me. I couldn't believe it. It was all free, too.
No lasting relationships ever came from it. I met my partner of 10 years at work eventually.
I've never been on Tinder or any other online dating platform, but it sounds like the industry (it is now an industry...) has gone through the same cycle of VC-driven monetisation, removing all incentive for the platform to function correctly in the user's interest, much like any big platform nowadays.
So, I guess we'll need some kind of online dating fediverse to fix this. I'd recommend copying exactly how OKC worked. It was the best approach I've ever seen. But also the only one ;)
> removing all incentive for the platform to function correctly in the user's interest, much like any big platform nowadays.
People keep saying this, but it's just not true. Tinder does function in many people's interest. I had a lot of success using Tinder, and eventually met my wife on there. People keep implying there's some kind of hidden algorithm at play that somehow pairs you up with people who are "Okay, but not great" to keep you hooked on the app. How the hell would it manage such an amazing feat?
You are right, my statement was too extreme, borne from frustrations over the degradation of many online services by profit-motives.
I'm sure online dating platforms, so long as they get user profiles in front of user eyeballs, are inevitably going to lead to people getting into relationships.
Much like with Facebook or, say, news media, the algorithm has a specific purpose and, as we see rather often, that purpose is not "make the user happy", it is "keep the user engaged by any means". So, for a news media website, the purpose is no longer "deliver the best news", but "deliver the most engagement". And that process can be automated by changing content subtly and measuring again, until the content pulls the most attention.
I guess with Tinder, that's not necessarily how it works? Do they have ads on there? No idea. But again, I wouldn't be surprised if there is some kind of data collection / trading going on. But who knows, I have no evidence of this and wouldn't want to badmouth Tinder just because it's trendy to bash big platforms. Please consider this an attempt at making a more balanced comment :)
I appreciate your response. I apologise if my initial response seemed too hostile. I've seen the claim made a handful of times on Hacker News that Tinder somehow games the results to maximise engagement. Admittedly I've been waiting since the last thread about Tinder to refute this point. I apologise for targeting you in doing so.
Simply by removing any feature that the algorithm recognizes as "reducing engagement". Features that improve the chance of people getting into relationships would certainly fall under that.
This proposed revival must constitutionally prohibit selling or sharing of the question response data in a way that an acquirer cannot undo. Match group, upon buying OkCupid, ended up providing question response user data to third-parties, which caused many people to immediately delete their accounts and never trust any product from Match Group ever again.
It's almost insulting how predictably this happened. I do wonder how much more money they made by selling information instead of just having a paid subscription model.
> The full right way, of course, would be a revival of OKCupid.
> Here we have a product that me and essentially everyone else who has ever heard of it says was insanely great. If you put in the time on the questions, which was inherently fun, the people who match highly with you are almost always extraordinarily good matches, with very good response rates. My initial response rate was something absurd, and when I got unprompted inquiries they were great. Rather than play a numbers game, I picked my spots and fully customized my messages, and it paid off. Positive experiences abound. Everyone constantly complains that it is gone.
> So, what if we simply created it again, the way it used to be? Do not reinvent the wheel, unless the wheel is lost, in which case by all means go reinvent it, people need wheels.