[welshwelsh]

Honestly, I am ok with this system. Paying a couple dollars for a matchmaking service isn't a big deal. If you go to bars instead you will pay way more. An introduction to a potential partner is worth at least $50 in my opinion, if anything Tinder is too cheap.

There are too many guys on tinder and most of them are not serious, mindlessly swiping as a way of wasting time. If you filter out the free users and only match guys who pay for boost with girls, it's a much better ratio for those guys and a better experience for the women since guys who buy boost are more invested and more likely to follow through.

[hahamrfunnyguy]

I don't mind paying something, but their goal of selling boosts, super-likes, etc runs counter to the goal of the customer which is to meet a compatible person IRL and then (presumably) stop using the site.

My experience with boosts is that they were counter-productive. While the boosts yield likes, but a lot of them would be profiles I'd already left-swiped on, should have been excluded by my filters, or just low-effort profiles. The same profiles would keep showing up in my feed too after I had swiped.

As for your second point, I think women do exactly the same thing. There's just more guys on the site so women are just getting a higher ratio low-effort likes. I'd say a good 50% of the profiles don't have anything written in them except a series of emojis or statements like "I don't know what to write here." or other really low effort content. Even the gold profiles sending messages would initiate a conversation with the dreaded "Hi." These interactions were always a complete waste of time, I just stopped responding to them after a while.

[maerF0x0]

IMO if the business model is to pay for impressions, I wish they'd be up front and just state and charge price per mille (or hundred or whatever). Instead you get an ambiguous "boost" with no accountability/metrics about what even happened? They could literally show you to no one and say "Oops, guess your profile sucks!"

The match rate thing is also kind of a lark because you don't care about matches. You care about matches with people you want to match with... in fact that kinda understates the ultimate goal -- you care about matches with someone who would be good for you (and you for them)... everything else is just vanity.

[michaelchisari]

I agree, but a honest model has a flat subscription fee instead of promising matches for free and upselling through nudging and manipulation.

I haven't online dated in a long time, but if I ever do again, I'll go with a service that has a transparent pricing model with no free plan.

[jrnichols]

unfortunately Tinder has become a lot less useful, and a rising number of OnlyFans creators are using it as a vehicle for advertising. They'll match with a guy, chat like normal, and then start dropping hints about their "spicy site."

it's really kind of depressing, honestly. Guys on dating sites are viewed as transactions. Tinder isn't alone with this - they're on multiple sites doing the same thing.

[blfr]

I've made a similar comment before[1] but this is exactly right. The price-to-benefit ratio for Tinder is incredible. You can literally fill your calendar with dates for months on a budget that would last a couple of decent drinks.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30485955

[kevin_thibedeau]

Only if you've hit the genetic jackpot.

[notch656a]

I've always wondered if online dating selects HARD (relatively to in-person invites) for looks. I don't look very pretty but when I was on the (IRL) dating scene I could get probably half the women I talked to out on a date if I really tried. Being fairly ugly I tried tender and OkCupid for a year or two and was lucky to have someone accept once every few months and I had a 100% no-show rate where the counterparty backed out. Online dating seriously hurt my self esteem until a few months after I stopped.

I gave up the apps and married someone meeting them the old fashioned way.

[valarauko]

> I've always wondered if online dating selects HARD (relatively to in-person invites) for looks.

I think it does, since it's the primary determinant of selection. I also find that in-person personality can be more attractive, unlike profiles where you have fewer dimensions to go on. Likewise, I do think certain types of people do better online and some do better offline.

[Firmwarrior]

I'm not the prettiest dude in the world, but I'm not really particularly ugly.. I look like a brown Matt Damon IRL.

I had absolutely zero luck with online dating back when I tried it around 2008. I think I just got downranked into oblivion by not gaming the system, since those dating sites use a ranking algorithm internally to gauge how attractive you are. If you click the "like" button on any woman you'd be willing to go on a coffee date with, it assumes you're a loser and hides you away.

Fortunately, you can network your way into a relationship the same way you can get a job.. just put out the word among friends, family, family friends, etc that you're looking for a girlfriend. Chances are you're within a couple of hops of hundreds or thousands of people. This isn't good for finding hookups or for incel jerks, but if you're ready to settle down it's the best method IMO.

[kevin_thibedeau]

For men it selects hard for height. Looks are secondary if you pass the magic threshold.

[alfnor]

False. Women see your face before your height on dating apps, but vice versa IRL.

[louissan]

Well I'd rather go to a bar/pub anyway. Social, human beings, brawling to order a beer at the zinc, contact and all that? Not to mention you at least get the tipsiness/(more: drunk) if/when all else fails... 8>

[throwaway289943]

Same here, I can look at, meet, and chat with 5-10 girls in one evening in a bar, and get a pretty good impression of them. Takes months to do the same on a dating app, with heaps of added toxic behaviour/people that you don't get in a bar. Gave it up a long time ago..

[nerdponx]

Maybe I'm just socially inept, but I have never once managed to meet someone at a bar that wasn't already part of some bigger group that I was with.

Edit: that's actually untrue, there are exactly 2 instances where it happened in my life. They were in the kinds of bars that I would usually avoid (too many drunk people shouting over loud music), in areas far from where I lived, that had pretty strong "going out" cultures.

Edit 2: now that I think about it, I'm not exactly dashing handsome. I've historically done a lot better in "house party" type of settings, but again that's with people who are already friends of friends.

[briga]

Have you tried to meet someone at a bar that wasn’t a part of your group?

[Shugarl]

I know that works to make friends, when you drunkenly, randomly start to talk to other people, or jump into conversations. But how does it work for meeting the opposite sex ? Being drunk for these kinds of things usually isn't good

[throwaway289943]

It's dishonest though, it should be clear that you get downgraded over time as well, and not just marketed as a "boost".