[ambulatorybird]

I agree wiht a lot of his points. I think people do tend to be more superficial or picky when evaluating profiles, because the photos are really the only thing to go on -- you can't get a sense of a person's body language or speaking style online, and textual data only goes so far. And I found the actual "first dates" to be stressful because they're more like interviews for dates rather than real dates -- much of the spontaneity and chemistry of meeting a person for the first time is gone. Finally, as a non-white male, the odds online are somewhat stacked against me, which is discouraging.

I'm intrigued by the guy's idea about creating interactive virtual spaces for dating, rather than searching through textual profiles. I.e., put people together in a rich, dynamic environment, let them observe the complexity of each other's interactions, and they can gravitate toward one another on that basis. Heck, it doesn't even have to be virtual -- you could launch something like a matchmaking amusement park.

[potatolicious]

I've thought for a long time that the removal of profiles (that are viewable by the other party) is pretty much the key that will make online dating actually work.

People are far too picky, and reject far too many people they would otherwise get along with famously in real life - I've noticed this pattern in myself also. Profiles suck at describing people, not to mention their compatibility with you - yet they have this air of authority and legitimacy about them.

If we had a decent matchmaking service that wasn't just a complete crapshoot (i.e., high-scoring matches are actually good matches), I'd say a blind-date system may in fact work better than what we've got now - get people out there and interacting in real life as opposed to a terminal with a bunch of droll readouts of vital statistics.

[hapless]

A blind date system would suffer from the adverse selection problem. As long as any other system exists, the blind date system would be disproportionately used by predators and other undesirables who find it disproportionately helpful.

Worse, in this case, the adverse selection problem builds on itself. Over time, "normal" users would be driven out until only problematic candidates remained.

[hugh3]

I can see the pitch now: it's like Chatroulette, only in real life!

[tomjen3]

You laugh, but Chatroulette could be an awesome way to do dates, you are randomly pared with a person (properly of the gender and sexual orientation you desire somewhere near you) you don't know the name of that person so you can talk as you want, but if you are both interested you can get a link to them so that you can talk again, and if things pan out, get to know who the other person is.

[klipt]

A location aware version of Chatroulette could work, but you'd need a much larger userbase (a few thousand people scattered around the world might not provide any geographically close matches...)

[Goosey]

Off the cuff solution: Require accounts be tied to a real identity (provide driver's license #?.. No I haven't thought about legal/privacy repercussions) and introduce a post-date rating system. Sprinkle in some sort of staleness algorithm along with an anti-maliciousness algorithm (IE: someone who always rates their dates as creeps might themselves be a nutjob) and perhaps the system can survive.

Off the cuff so tear this to pieces. Perhaps I just WANT the idea to work so well that I am not seeing the forest through the trees.

[hugh3]

You'll eliminate the complete creeps after one date. (Still gives a woman a significantly nonzero chance of winding up with a complete creep on his first date anyway).

But you won't be able to eliminate those who are merely boring, or ugly, or abrasive, or have an annoying personal habit. Your rolls will fill up with people like these.

[DennisP]

I've thought about that before, what trips me up is thinking about incentives. If you have a really great date with someone, chances are you don't want to increase your competition by giving them a good rating.

[touqen]

Just to toss this out there. The OKCupid guys have(it's currently down for a reworking?) site called CrazyBlindDate.

And basically they gave you a tiny bit of information about the person and a blurry picture and a location of one of your choosing (a coffee shop/bar/restaurant). In my experiences she was the one who chose the location to meet. We would meet up and have a drink or two and talk. They generally were really quite interesting. I didn't run into any women who were particularly creepy. A couple who were absolutely terrible dates (unable to converse, etc).

I can't speak for the women, but of the ones I talked to who had done it prior to meeting with me were generally pleased with their experiences also.

[psyklic]

I've done quite a bit of online dating. It is very difficult to figure out someone's personality from profiles on dating sites. However, I can figure out personality VERY well (and hence whether we'd click) from someone's Facebook profile, if they are an active user.

It's things like -- what kind of people do they hang out with? Who posts on their wall and what do they say? How do they talk with their friends? What type of profile pictures do they post? What do they do with friends? etc. Some people say that Facebook is TMI for dating (or that it's too much personal info to give out before meeting), but it has helped me avoid many awkward first dates!

[Goosey]

This blind date idea is really what interests me. I think profiles create two issues beyond the ones you already pointed out. I am pulling these examples from my experience on OkCupid.

1 - People don't give fully honest answers to personality questions. Instead it seems people craft a personality they think will either get them the most results or get the the specific results they are looking for. So not only the profile, but also the questions become gamed due to the 'aggressive filtering' people do.

2 - People spend obsessive amounts of time crafting their profile, which actually gets read, and very little time answering personality questions, which don't. Assuming the personality question formula is more reliable for matching than making decisions based on someone's profile writing skills, this reverses the emphasis.

I think a basic system like OkCupid's could work for matching. I like the way you both give your answer and you give the answer you want your mate to have. It's intuitive and allows for complex dynamics like a submissive person seeking a dominant person. But the profile viewing/filtering gets in the way of the legitimacy. If it was a blind-date popcorn machine I think it would work a lot better (and be a lot more fun!)

[asdflkj]

A matchmaking amusement park is also called a bar.

[klipt]

But some people don't like alcohol.

[zackattack]

I go to bars all the time and don't drink. If I feel like drinking something, I order water and tip the bartenders. Nobody cares.

[klipt]

Interesting, I might have to try that. Thanks!

[fairlyodd]

While I agree with some of what he says, I still think he discredits online dating sites far too much. Being single in a city (SF) I moved into recently, I've tried both online & offline, and I'd say I'm more satisfied with my dates that came out of the online one. The city is full of singles, but most singles are crowded in bars, and that is not the most conducive environment to find someone for a meaningful relationship. Also, most past attempts have been crapshoot, where I end up conversing with girls that are either superficial, uninteresting, have nothing in common, committed, married (they want to 'network') etc. No real success with the bar scene so far except for a phonebook harder to navigate, and a really attractive girl that also told me she was institutionalized once, and that her parents are cons.

On a paid online dating site (for eg: match.com), you know that the people are there because they really are looking for a relationship (and that they care enough to pony up ridiculous money for the site). You get a sense of a person by various things that they say about themselves, and you only initiate conversations with ones that you'd be interested in. Though much of the Ariely discrediting is with the search attributes, those open-ended questions offer a peek into how the person views himself/herself. If you move beyond the superficiality, there is definitely a good chance there. I've been on a dates with people I met online, and I do feel that there was better chemistry on these dates rather than the offline ones.