[CodeFoo]

These dating/find-a-friend services that require Facebook show up often on HN, and like clockwork are berated because they are Facebook-only (and the privacy issues that go along with it).

Yet people keep making them. Am I correct to deduce they are popular and there is market for them, and that it's only HN that hates them?

[jmtame]

Most dating services allow you to join using any e-mail address, but with that comes a lot of problems such as fake accounts, spam, data mining, creepy behavior because of anonymity, no real ability to ban someone, etc.

Using Facebook solves many problems that we'd rather stick with it--I have no idea how many users we're missing out on. Probably a lot. I would say only use Facebook if it makes sense for your product and your users, and it doesn't for everyone. The mistake most FB-connected dating companies make (and why most people don't like them) is they abuse the implicit trust. They post stuff to people's walls or activity feeds because they're trying to grow quickly. As long as you don't do that, I think you'll develop enough trust with people for them to recommend you to their friends.

[BrianEatWorld]

Have you all considered other methods of dealing with those issues?

Its incredibly easy to make fake FB accounts these days and just based on many Disqus comment sections I have seen across the internet, I don't know that a lack of anonymity really cures bad behavior.

A more intrusive, but verifiable method may get fewer signups, but the higher intent shown by someone giving real info may mean you can avoid FB pitfalls and actually charge lower prices, while getting a richer community for matches and thus a better product.

[jmtame]

I think cell phones are fairly easy to replicate (prepaid), but they'd be a moderately decent proxy for identity.

It'd be very difficult to get a fake FB account through our matchmakers. You not only need to trick Facebook (the company) into believing you're real, but our matchmakers will look at your photos, interests, likes, etc. when putting together your profile for internal use. Not to say it can't be done, but it'd require a lot of work.

One friend suggested we verify some form of identification. That's not a bad alternative. There would still be a lot of manual work required from both sides on things like "what are your interests" or "send us some photos of yourself" which we then use for the matchmakers, who will throw out a majority of it that's not relevant or interesting in the context of dating.

[btilly]

No.

You would have been correct to deduce that young 20-something people who are trying to scratch an itch keep thinking that a better dating site (as measured by one that can get them dates) is a real need, and the FB tie-in is an obvious way to do it.

They keep failing for the reasons that are pointed out on HN. And since they fail, not long after someone else looking around for an itch to scratch says, "Why doesn't someone make a better dating site using FB? Doesn't seem like anyone has done it yet. And HN is the perfect place to get feedback on it!"

[jmtame]

We never started with the thought "why don't we use FB to build a dating site." Facebook is simply a means to solve a lot of different problems that come up in dating, and it ends up providing a better experience. That's all we care about.

[disc]

Just to give you one user's perspective (which honestly, by virtue of being a HN reader probably represents a very small fraction of general users); anytime I see a service that requests I login via FB or Google, I assume you're trying to mine my personal data. Unless you are Facebook, or Google, or maybe LinkedIn (with whom I'm already willing to share my personal data) I'm not going to use these options. Make this your only option and I'm going to close the tab.

No personal offense to you, or your business. Just telling you as a geek, this is a non-starter for me.

[tomp]

But they are trying to mine your personal data, to confirm that you're real, and to get to know you better so that they can match you. It's really all up there on their website.

[btilly]

Your comment is perfectly in line with my second paragraph.

I got sloppy with wording in my third paragraph, but meant the same thing again. (We want a better dating site. We think that FB is a good tool to use for that. Etc.)

[kevincrane]

For their use case, using Facebook makes perfect sense. It's way easier to get a feel for someone and get an idea of what kind of match would work when you can see their photos or posts, especially when there is a human at the other end doing the matchmaking. It might not be for everyone, but it definitely makes sense, at least to me, of why Facebook integration is worthwhile here.

[retroafroman]

Tinder requires sign in with FB but still seems awfully popular. They make sure to make it clear before and after sign up that they'll never spam your wall, which is very important. Few young people are willing to admit that they do online dating, there's still quite a stigma attached.

[pedalpete]

Not referring to dating sites in particular, but the requirement of a Facebook sign-up for start-ups I think is a good idea. For everybody who says "I don't want to give you my details", I suspect their are 50 who will just be thankful for not having to give you an e-mail password and remember login details, get spam, etc. etc.

That's why I almost always look at a project as allowing Facebook sign-up first, then e-mail/twitter/google/linkedin, etc. etc.

[callahad]

I'd respectfully disagree. User testing generally shows a pretty strong aversion to and misunderstanding of Facebook Connect. Here's one such study: http://www.guanotronic.com/~serge/papers/chi13a.pdf

More pragmatically:

1. Do you mind that your users may get locked out of your product for violating Facebook's real name or one-account-only policies?

2. Do you really want to phone home to a publicly-traded advertising company every time someone logs into your site?

3. Social auth asks users to make a significant trust decision before they can even begin to engage with your product. Are you OK with that friction?

Passwords are a pain in the ass, but there are alternatives without the downsides and centralization of social auth. I personally work on Mozilla Persona (https://persona.org), and I'm more than happy to personally help out anyone interested in exploring it for their project. My contact info is in my profile.

[goeric]

Grouper is growing like crazy and requires Facebook.

This is basically Grouper, without the group, and way too expensive ($75 per date? Are you kidding?). I would also say much less appealing then Grouper as well, because going solo is a much harder sell, at least to the younger demographic.

[jmtame]

I've been on a few Groupers. The reason they ask you to bring friends is because they're setting you up on a blind date. If the blind date goes bad and there's no chemistry, your friends act as a hedge against having a bad night. Sure, the girls may not be good, but you've still got your friends so you can go somewhere else afterwards.

When we setup drinks, you see who you're going out with, so it isn't blind. You know there's at least some physical attraction, or something about the other person you're interested in. We don't assume for you that it'll work out, both people decide in advance that they want to meet up. Worst case scenario is you meet someone interesting, and maybe you'll stay in touch after that.

As for pricing, I still think the service we offer isn't priced high enough. Grouper makes $120 per night out, we make $75 or $150 and it's not blind--they're splitting the cost between your friends. If you're busy, your time is valuable. For every 100 messages you send out on a dating web site, you'll get on average 10 replies. For every 10 replies, you'll on average get 1 date. For every 10 dates, you'll have 1 or 2 good matches. That's a lot of manual time, and I'd say that alone is worth $75 if you're a busy professional.

We will never attract professional grade matchmakers at this price point, but we can at least do a lot of the work for you and suggest good matches. If you want to hire an actual matchmaker, you'll be paying in the order of thousands of dollars. Linx Dating, just to use an extreme example, is $30,000 for 11 introductions over 2 years. And that's not counting the $500 application process.

[realdlee]

I disagree with your numbers on the message/reply/date funnel (mine is much better and I would expect most people's are). I do like the idea of Wednesday Night though and hope you guys can execute well on it.

[Zakharov]

Meeting someone interesting isn't the worst case scenario. Meeting someone creepy is the worst-case (realistic) scenario, but in any case, thinking about the worst-case is kind of silly.

[jmtame]

Sure, there could be some mistakes but we find out every time it happens and we make effort to prevent it in the first place. On dating sites where there's no identity, you can go out and be creepy or misbehave all you want and you'll never get caught. We follow up with our members every time they go out to make sure they're having a good time.

If someone abuses the system, it was either intentional or accidental. If it was accidental, we may give them another chance. Dating is tough. But if it was intentional or over the top, then we're either going to refund, ban the other person, or some combination. As long as the experience is good, that's all we care about. If someone was like "he was awkward and I didn't feel comfortable, but I don't think he realized he was doing it" then we'd probably just let it go the first time and say something. I think anything weird that happens ultimately stems from nervousness or inexperience. Some guys (and possibly girls?) just need some instruction and guidance, which is why we also offer the coaching as a free service.

[heliodor]

I agree that Grouper's approach of six people is much better. To the founders of this project, I recommend you move the bit explaining the price to the top. It's this piece:

> We charge $75 up front because people who are serious about going out are willing to pay this (so it acts as a filter for our matchmakers).

It's a very good explanation and it needs to be said upfront because otherwise people who have seen Grouper will be outraged.

[ianstormtaylor]

Completely agree. I saw the price and thought "WTF?", but that explanation does, surprisingly, convince me a bit.

[jmtame]

Interesting. Thanks, we'll try to explain that better up front.