[akavi]

The algorithm used doesn't need to be any good at matching people for online dating to increase your chance of finding a suitable partner.

A system which showed people to each other in a totally randomized way would still drastically increases the number of people you can superficially evaluate, and even a tinder style photos + blurb profile is rich in personality/cultural clues to base evaluation on.

[docbrown]

>A system which showed people to each other in a totally randomized way would still drastically increases the number of people you can superficially evaluate

Is this really the ultimate goal for online dating? To expose us to a plethora of options in order to choose which one is best fit. It reminds of how Hot or Not could be seen as an early type of online dating that exposed us to randomized people, although without the option of being able to communicate with them beyond.

[akavi]

The ultimate goal of the user is to find a suitable partner. Whether you can achieve that goal better with sophisticated selection of who you show to whom isn't obvious to me either way.

(Anecdotally, having used multiple apps, there is one that seemed to effectively "learn" my preferences and was successful in showing me women I was interested in meeting at seeming better than chance. But that's a single data point, and it's possible I'm "oddly predictable" from their model's perspective)

[JakeTheAndroid]

I doubt it's the ultimate goal, but the baseline it provides is probably better than the one without such an option. I rarely feel like going out by myself to do something, so if it wasn't for dating apps I wouldn't think my pool of available women was very large, and in turn I might be contently or unhappily married today.

Instead, I have what appears to be never ending choices which makes it very unlikely I'll ever feel confident committing because 'the next one could be better', leaving me contently or unhappily single.

So, it seems like a wash now that I frame it in my own life...