[wryoak]

The number one problem with dating apps is that they position themselves for self-selection and most people fail to select appropriate mates when given a whole shopping mall’s worth of candidates. I would never have swiped right on my current partner (7ish years). Or my first spouse, either. Two highly fulfilling relationships in my life that I never expected or tried to manifest initially.

People can generally identify when they have chemistry with someone, but not when they will have chemistry with someone, and most dating apps are run on the idea that you select whom you want to have chemistry with. Not whom you can or will, but want to have. All dating apps will converge to garbage because they focus on choice in love, rather than chance. They don’t throw you into a room with random people and let the real relationships blossom and the false ones fall away, they tell you to pick from a lineup of people whole you have never talked to (and to be honest probably will never talk to), but in real life we talk to random folks, sometimes that unattainable hottie and sometimes the perhaps homely but amiable passerby, and find out the brute force way which ones make us spark. It’s not about the subscription fees or the with dating apps, it’s about the fundamental disconnect between the freedom of election and the inability to act. The promise of consumption without the serendipity necessary to facilitate it.

[netsharc]

Serendipity makes me think of Omegle. Which makes me think of a "Speed-Dating" app: you get connected to a random person like Omegle, but there's a time limit, say 3 minutes, and at the end of it you can decide to either extend the conversation or record a "nice talking to you, but I didn't feel any spark" video (a recording makes rejecting them less confrontational).

Users can give feedback whether the opposite user was rude or offensive, and the service should be quite strict about bans.

I wonder if it'd be a turn-off though, if you spend 30 minutes to talk to ~10 people you don't find attractive. Maybe there should be a Tinder-esque selection process, so when you're online, you'll get offered other profiles which are also online, and if you both swipe right you'll get to a video-chat within seconds.

Ouch, imagine the pain if you're online, swiping right, but never get connected to anyone. Another problem is that the hot people will always be in a conversation and their profiles will only rarely show up (since they won't be instantly available).

[jmye]

> I wonder if it'd be a turn-off though, if you spend 30 minutes to talk to ~10 people you don't find attractive. Maybe there should be a Tinder-esque selection process, so when you're online, you'll get offered other profiles which are also online, and if you both swipe right you'll get to a video-chat within seconds.

And here I was going to one up this - make it a three minute convo without video. If both people choose to continue, the video starts afterwards.

I think a not-insignificant number of people will find someone who was fun to talk to more attractive then they might at first glance. Might still be some misses, and the number of people who’d sign up is probably low, but I think you’d see more successful matches.

[IAmBroom]

I think that would produce a lot of false positives, and therefore a lot of disappointment for physically unattractive people. Some people aren't particularly motivated to pick only 9s & 10s; most people accept people in their own range or higher; and sure, some people who are 6s end up happy with 2s. But "We're really hitting it off!" followed by "Um, oh, sorry, I just remembered I left a pot on the stove BYE" is much worse than just not getting any "likes" at all.

[toomuchtodo]

n=1, a friend met their husband on Omegle on opposite sides of the world. Might be on to something.

[thatguymike]

Harder to swipe in the bathroom as well. I reckon the meta would mean you have to be dressed nice and put on makeup just to sit down and scroll this app, which isn't usual app behavior.

[netsharc]

This app should've launched during Covid times, it'd be a replacement to getting dressed and going out on a Friday night. Well one would still dress up...

During Covid, friends had their work send them cocktail preparation equipment and have Zoom dates making cocktail with colleagues.

[fragmede]

maybe that app wouldn't need to support that use case. if you're not comitted enough to find a relationship, maybe that's why they're not in one.

[dobladov]

I have not tried it, there's this German app where the choosing of your matches is done by your friends, not yourself, and given that many people meets their partner in real life thought friends it seems like an interesting idea.

- https://blindmate.app/

[fynd_dating]

The idea that chemistry or serendipity should guide your choices is exactly what leads people into relationships that don’t last. Ideally, dating apps should be helping people self-select for compatibility, not chemistry. Not to say that chemistry isn't important, but the chance to facilitate that chemistry should happen within a pool of people you’re actually compatible with.

[spacemadness]

I think The Medium is the Message applies. Breaking down humans into some tables in a database is never going to be great and lends itself to superficiality. It’s transactional at best most of the time and makes a lot of people bitter. The app makers are incentivized to keep you on the platform. None of this is in your favor.

[frizlab]

happn was built on the concept of serendipity. “Find the people you’ve crossed path with” (tagline has now changed though).