| HN Mirror

Among many other good reasons, it's an app whose nature is determined by the same kind of dynamics that govern many restaurant and product reviews.

Most of the time, satisfied customers don't bother to review the product or service because a certain psychological barrier first needs to be overcome (i.e. "writing this review is worth my time because it's SO good/bad"). Middle-of-the-road reviews rarely make it through, and when they do, they are typically short and uninsightful. Reviews that draw the most attention are those at the extremes.

Human beings are generally more prone to extreme dissatisfaction than extreme satisfaction. It's in our nature. When is the last time you thought, "Man, that person drives SO well!" or "My bill is SO low this month!"?

In the case of Lulu, the comments will heavily skew to the negative since "satisfied customers" will likely still be dating the guy (and thus not posting reviews) and dissatisfied ones will have every incentive to write vindictive comments in a last attempt to "get even". And those who are initially angry with the guy but later change their minds are likely to write a review during the angry phase and forget about it later, when their opinion of him has moderated. The end result is that most of the guys on the site will be portrayed in a much more negative light than is actually merited.

In terms of its user base, it's really just catering to the female equivalent of guys who engage in "slut shaming". But it's more socially acceptable because the app targets men instead of women, and men are expected to be more psychologically durable.