[inetknght]

OkCupid is a terrible service. It disassociates real people who don't pay, and encourages fraudulent scams such as pig butchering. Bots are ridiculously easy to spot. You can end up in an endless loop of the same rejects unless you start blocking them.

[dmd]

On the other hand, I met my wife there and my two children wouldn’t exist if not for it. That said, the OkCupid of today and that of 2011 when I used it are probably quite different.

[RandomBacon]

It probably started when they sold to The Match Group a while back.

I used it a little back in 2014, and again in 2021. The second time around, it was very different.

I don't know of any dating companies that focus on matching people versus optimizing for revenue.

[robocat]

Unfortunately most consumers are unwilling to pay what something is worth to them. Businesses are often the same so it isn't just consumer behaviour.

Meeting the right person should be worth a lot, and we should be happy to pay thousands for that.

Of course the profit depends on the user statistics too: I'm not sure what the economic term for profit thresholds for power law masses versus targeting - where say lots of users with a low profits per user (say advertising) beats reasonable profits per user (say kagle).

[typewithrhythm]

It's because we loosely understand that value based pricing is a scam.

An insulin shot at the right moment can be of unlimited value to the consumer. SaaS salesmen try to capture the entire value add a tool gives a user, but this seems to kill companies as the price a competitor can undercut by is huge (so much that the original price seems exploitative).

Basically any marketing based on the "value to me" I'm sceptical of.

An approach with transparency, that shows "this is what delivering an actually good product costs", might be possible...

[toast0]

The problem is most people won't send in a check to the matchmaker when they get married (or whatever the success criteria is). You've got to pay before the introduction, and you can't know if the introduction will be good before you have it.

E-Harmony seemed like it was going for the pay a bit more, one time, and you'll take who you get and be done. But I don't know if that worked for them.

[thaumasiotes]

> Meeting the right person should be worth a lot, and we should be happy to pay thousands for that.

We're happy to pay much more than thousands to marry the right person.

Meeting the right person doesn't do anything for you; why would you pay thousands for it?

[torton]

"A Jewish man goes into the synagogue and prays. "O Lord, you know the mess I'm in, please let me win the lottery."

The next week, he's back again, and this time he's complaining. "O Lord, didn't you hear my prayer last week? I'll lose everything I hold dear unless I win the lottery."

The third week, he comes back to the synagogue, and this time he's desperate. "O Lord, this is the third time I've prayed to you to let me win the lottery! I ask and I plead and still you don't help me!"

Suddenly a booming voice sounds from heaven. "Benny, Benny, be reasonable. Meet me half way. Buy a lottery ticket!""

[thaumasiotes]

I think you'll find that the market price for speculative lottery tickets is very far below the value of winning the lottery. Do you not agree?

[RandomBacon]

It made the news a while back when someone was offering $10k USD to anyone who introduced them to someone he would marry.

I would do the same, but I don't know how to make it feasible without sounding terrible.

I do often let people know I'm open to matchmaking if they know any women my age.

[MostlyStable]

It seems like these dating services could hold the bulk of the money in escrow pending the marriage. Maybe you pay a few hundred up front, but a few thousand in escrow, and when you get married, it gets paid out.

[HappMacDonald]

Well, you can't marry who you never meet. What would it be worth for you to pay a bribe to a time traveler not to go into the past to prevent your parents from ever meeting? ;)

[Gualdrapo]

Are you implying there are companies that don't focus on optimizing for revenue?

[MassPikeMike]

Perhaps not. But you could still imagine a for-profit matchmaking service that would do a better job of aligning its interests with those of its clients. For example, it could collect only a small fee upfront with an agreement that if you meet Mr. or Ms. Right you'll release a larger fee held in escrow.

I imagine that would need to be quite personalized and high touch, but it would be an appealing contrast to standard dating sites, which have interests diametrically opposed to those of their users: a user who makes a long-term match will stop paying the membership fee, so the site owner has no real incentive to help the user do anything but churn.

[RandomBacon]

I mean, if I had the time, I would create a non-profit to do so.

And yes, there are probably small mom-and-pop types of businesses that just want to keep their status quo.

I believe I've heard a few years ago, that at least one country operates a dating service for their citizens. I can't find it now, but apparently the Tokyo Metropolitan Government just launched their own dating app, "TOKYO Enmusubi"

[AbstractH24]

Are you saying non-profits aren't concerned with trying to generate earned income to stay afloat and grow their impact?

Different words, same problem.

[ChickeNES]

Yeah from what I've heard it's nothing like it was in 2010-2014

[xeromal]

OKCupid in those days had some really cool technical blogs about their processes that's worth reading.

https://web.archive.org/web/20101016050944/http://blog.okcup...

[bigstrat2003]

Same, although for us it was 2015. But that is 10 years ago (noooo I hate getting old), and to your point I can imagine it changing a ton in that time.

[timewizard]

Your current children. It's highly possible that by now you would have had two other children. As you can tell, I do not myself, have children.