Yet people keep making them. Am I correct to deduce they are popular and there is market for them, and that it's only HN that hates them?
Using Facebook solves many problems that we'd rather stick with it--I have no idea how many users we're missing out on. Probably a lot. I would say only use Facebook if it makes sense for your product and your users, and it doesn't for everyone. The mistake most FB-connected dating companies make (and why most people don't like them) is they abuse the implicit trust. They post stuff to people's walls or activity feeds because they're trying to grow quickly. As long as you don't do that, I think you'll develop enough trust with people for them to recommend you to their friends.
Its incredibly easy to make fake FB accounts these days and just based on many Disqus comment sections I have seen across the internet, I don't know that a lack of anonymity really cures bad behavior.
A more intrusive, but verifiable method may get fewer signups, but the higher intent shown by someone giving real info may mean you can avoid FB pitfalls and actually charge lower prices, while getting a richer community for matches and thus a better product.
You would have been correct to deduce that young 20-something people who are trying to scratch an itch keep thinking that a better dating site (as measured by one that can get them dates) is a real need, and the FB tie-in is an obvious way to do it.
They keep failing for the reasons that are pointed out on HN. And since they fail, not long after someone else looking around for an itch to scratch says, "Why doesn't someone make a better dating site using FB? Doesn't seem like anyone has done it yet. And HN is the perfect place to get feedback on it!"
That's why I almost always look at a project as allowing Facebook sign-up first, then e-mail/twitter/google/linkedin, etc. etc.
More pragmatically:
1. Do you mind that your users may get locked out of your product for violating Facebook's real name or one-account-only policies?
2. Do you really want to phone home to a publicly-traded advertising company every time someone logs into your site?
3. Social auth asks users to make a significant trust decision before they can even begin to engage with your product. Are you OK with that friction?
Passwords are a pain in the ass, but there are alternatives without the downsides and centralization of social auth. I personally work on Mozilla Persona (https://persona.org), and I'm more than happy to personally help out anyone interested in exploring it for their project. My contact info is in my profile.
This is basically Grouper, without the group, and way too expensive ($75 per date? Are you kidding?). I would also say much less appealing then Grouper as well, because going solo is a much harder sell, at least to the younger demographic.
When we setup drinks, you see who you're going out with, so it isn't blind. You know there's at least some physical attraction, or something about the other person you're interested in. We don't assume for you that it'll work out, both people decide in advance that they want to meet up. Worst case scenario is you meet someone interesting, and maybe you'll stay in touch after that.
As for pricing, I still think the service we offer isn't priced high enough. Grouper makes $120 per night out, we make $75 or $150 and it's not blind--they're splitting the cost between your friends. If you're busy, your time is valuable. For every 100 messages you send out on a dating web site, you'll get on average 10 replies. For every 10 replies, you'll on average get 1 date. For every 10 dates, you'll have 1 or 2 good matches. That's a lot of manual time, and I'd say that alone is worth $75 if you're a busy professional.
We will never attract professional grade matchmakers at this price point, but we can at least do a lot of the work for you and suggest good matches. If you want to hire an actual matchmaker, you'll be paying in the order of thousands of dollars. Linx Dating, just to use an extreme example, is $30,000 for 11 introductions over 2 years. And that's not counting the $500 application process.
> We charge $75 up front because people who are serious about going out are willing to pay this (so it acts as a filter for our matchmakers).
It's a very good explanation and it needs to be said upfront because otherwise people who have seen Grouper will be outraged.
Alcohol does act as a pretty good social lubricant though. The girls actually prefer that to extravagant dates when we've suggested them because there's less pressure--if the chemistry isn't there, it's more acceptable to leave after that first round rather than commit to spending a lot of time with someone up front.
Matchmaking is already going on and successful relationships have been established that way, we just make it more affordable and transparent. Linx Dating charges $30,000 for 11 dates spread out over 2 years, and they charge $500 just for the screening process.
Online dating has a higher frequency of use than social networking sites. It requires more time than you'd think if you haven't tried it before.
Just wanted to say you're doing an A+ job of responding to people's concerns here in the thread. People usually suck at this, too, but you've really got your shit down. Which, to me, demonstrates that you've been working the product over and over in your head, i.e., the opposite of what everybody else in this space is doing.
Because you're absolutely right. Fuck the Match.coms. Fuck the click click click click model. I'm not 16. I have neither the time nor the inclination.
What happens if someone is stood up?
What happens if you have a skewed ratio of men to women?
- If we can't setup a match, you are either being unrealistic with your expectations (you consistently pass too often on people who we think are a good fit), or we just don't have enough people in the pool who are in your proximity. If it's the former, you'll need to adjust your expectations, if it's the latter, we'll focus more attention on that area. If we just can't make it work, we'll give you a refund. We usually can tell whether people are being unrealistic. If you can't tell, there's a simple experiment you can run: setup your own online dating profile to gauge the type of women who want to talk to you.
- If someone is stood up, we'll refund the money and the person who stood the other up won't be invited or allowed to go out with any of our members again. Standing people up isn't cool.
- Our current ratio is 1:2 girls to guys. We will find you a match one way or another. Our matchmakers border on obsessive with this stuff.
If you are only supporting certain zip codes then I'm going to be real annoyed when I enter half a dozen questions and THEN you tell me you're not available in my zip code.
Semi-related, but Tim Ferriss has an interesting story about how he "outsourced his love life": http://blog.timferriss.com/1/post/2009/07/how-to-tim-ferriss...
Ah no, that's a US zip code you're asking for. I'm very familiar with the US zip code, you see, as most US based web services present themselves as a global service rather than a US based one, and the zip code is often the only sign that they arn't catering to my nation.
We tried doing work email verification but users revolted against that and we have to revert back to linkedIn. I guess people on HN are right when they say that facebook logging is instant turn off but for some people entering email address and password is even bigger.
Also yah I like your service, though you are my competitor but 75$ is a lot. Try out making it a coffee, first date at a bar is a big sell.
By the way, if anyone of you here on HN are from Seattle and looking to grab a coffee with someone interesting, try out www.jointruffle.com :)
I'd be tempted to sign up with Facebook and receive a reply on exactly what kind of person you'd try to connect me to, given what you glean from FB.
If you got it right, I'd be a step closer to giving you money (if you operated near me). If you got it wrong, and I freely admit that I expect you will, I'd keep my money.
Either way, I am able to determine the quality of your service. I regularly spend $75 in a bar and have no trouble meeting people, despite how busy I am. You don't provide a compelling reason to give that $75 to you instead of my friendly local bartenders.
Meeting people isn't the problem. Meeting the right person, with whom I'd be interested in more than sharing a few drinks and conversation, is the problem. My closest friends of more than a decade, who know me exceedingly better than FB, have routinely tried to connect me with someone or other. Not one has been the right fit.
Hell, just cos I'm feeling generous, I'd even give you a hint and say one of your staffers has the look. But that wears off in about 2.3 minutes.
DoubleHell, just cos I'm feeling that much more generous, let me suggest (if you haven't already thought of it) that you mesh HN activity with FB activity for an even better understanding.
Sadly, to my knowledge, we haven't yet figured out a way to determine likelihood of chemistry between superficially compatible people. Perhaps I'm just a naysayer, but until we can figure that out, online dating just isn't working. Apparently almost 75% of US single people have tried online dating. Only 20% have found committed relationships (assuming that's everyone's goal, which it isn't).[1]
We need a chemistry detector, not a compatibility detector (machine or human).
[1]: quick search leads me to stats from 2012 at http://www.statisticbrain.com/online-dating-statistics/
Seems doing similar things but targeting different group of people.
