you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 36 points 2 days ago (10 children)

Glad I finally am in a position where I'm not on the apps (knock on wood, etc). I was getting dates but I could always tell it was in spite of their best efforts.

And even the person I'm with now, I feel like the app algorithm thought we'd be like an 80%. On paper it doesn't seem like it'd be a long term fit- i have a cat, she has a dog. I like a lot of metal, she likes jam bands. Lot of room for the algorithm to predict we'd have a few dates and then it wouldn't work out.

And as someone else said, most of them are owned by Match group. Even the myths of capitalism require competition for products to be good. Match should be broken up.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    On paper it doesn’t seem like it’d be a long term fit- i have a cat, she has a dog. I like a lot of metal, she likes jam bands. Lot of room for the algorithm to predict we’d have a few dates and then it wouldn’t work out.

    It's almost as if those preferences are not really significant in long-term relationship outcomes.

    My wife and I differ on a large number of preferences, but we align in a few that are the most important to us. If were were a 100% match on superficial characteristics, that'd be boring. We've been married a very long time.

    Dating algorithms are fundamentally unsound because many (most?) preferences are non-commensurate, so weighted scores are impossible to derive from pairs of them. There is no tradeoff of dog vs cat relative to metal vs shoegaze, and people and (and often do) enjoy both dogs and cats or metal and shoegaze. There's no useful information to be found in how people self-report their scores on unrelated false dichotomies. It's just shit experimental design.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago

    I don't know. I think some things are important. Someone who loves live music and goes to see something a few nights a week would probably be happier with someone else who, all other things equal, had a similar interest. If you're looking to pair people up in ways that won't work long term, because you're a company of ghouls looking to make money, then matching the music lover with the music disliker is better for your business. With enough data points, you can probably make some confident predictions.

    Hinge also isn't making you pick from dichotomies. You enter free text for most of it, and pick as many from a list as you like for others.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 2 days ago (3 children)

    Curious to know which app it was. My partner and I have been together for 12 years now thanks to the og OKC.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 2 days ago (2 children)

    This was Hinge, which is owned by Match Group (who own okcupid and many others). It's the least bad, I found, but that is extremely faint praise.

    I used to use OKCupid way back. It used to be better. I'm pretty sure you could search. Like you could just type in "Star Trek" or "Dark Souls" and find people who had that on their profile. Nowadays you just take what the algorithm gives you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 days ago (3 children)

    I married my wife the year before tinder was first created. I've watched other friends struggle with the apps. I personally experienced it after we briefly experimented with an open relationship. It's a fucking nightmare out there.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments