[DontBeADick]

What makes your matchmakers any better than a random stranger? Or a computer algorithm? Or a pile of bricks? I searched through your whole website trying to figure out why your matchmakers are worth my time and money but it doesn't seem like you've made any attempt to address those concerns, which is extremely odd since their matchmaking skills are the core of your business.

Am I missing something? Based on the (lack of) info on your website, your matchmakers really could be random people you pulled off the street.

[laurenkay]

Have a page about our matchmakers that we'll be adding back this week, and you also get more info about your matchmaker after signing up.

You're completely right that we should have more info on the matchmakers featured prominently on the site. Appreciate that feedback and will be changing that soon!

(In short - they've been with us for the past year and matched thousands of people.)

[imaginenore]

You didn't answer the question. He asked you why you think your matchmakers are better. Not for a page about them.

[laurenkay]

We have 5 full-time matchmakers with varied backgrounds, mostly in psychology, theater, and working at other matchmaking agencies. We often get questioned more on what makes our matchmakers good, than another company would get questioned on what makes their engineers, or other employees good. This is both because matchmaking isn't a common profession, and because matchmaking is a majority female profession that tends to get undervalued and not viewed as a 'real' profession.

Our matchmakers stay up to date on trends, have exceptionally high EQs, have experience matching thousands of people, and we accept under 1% of people who apply for the job.

[QuotedForTruth]

You get that question more because you're selling a service and thus the matchmakers are your product. A company that sells physical goods like a smart phone dont get asked about their engineers because there is a product to look at. If I was buying a consultant's time for any other business I would also want to know their qualificaitons.

[UrMomReadsHN]

Do you have any data or evidence that says matchmakers outperform random chance (random chance within certain parameters, basically age and sexual orientation)?

I'd be interested in the odds of two people selected at random forming a relationship vs the odds of two people selected by a matchmaker forming a relationship. As well as two people selected by a computer algorithm vs two people selected by a matchmaker. And two people selected by some random asshole off the street vs two people selected by a matchmaker.

I'm guessing not.

You need to demonstrate with data your "service" is useful to convince people to use it.

[TeMPOraL]

> You need to demonstrate with data your "service" is useful to convince people to use it.

The thing is, you don't.

All you need to do is to market the living shit out of this idea, and since no one can reliably answer whether it beats random chance people will use it. You get to earn the benefits for as long as it takes for someone else to actually do the studies that debunk you and then one-up you at marketing.

[UrMomReadsHN]

You're right! I was more talking about the people here asking questions that weren't being answered with a straight answer. Surely people do use unproven (or even disproven) products all the time. I was just frustrated with the non answer marketing talk.

I've been doing a little googling (and I do mean a little) and it seems as these matchmakers will offer dubious value for predicting long term relationship satisfaction.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/opinion/sunday/online-d...

>Because they gather data from singles who have never met, the sites have no way of knowing how two people will interact once they have been matched. Yet our review of the literature reveals that aspects of relationships that emerge only after two people meet and get to know each other — things like communication patterns, problem-solving tendencies and sexual compatibility — are crucial for predicting the success or failure of relationships. For example, study after study has shown that the way that couples discuss and attempt to resolve disagreements predicts their future satisfaction and whether or not the relationship is likely to dissolve.

>the information that they do collect — about individual characteristics — accounts for only a tiny slice of what makes two people suited for a long-term relationship.

>According to a 2008 meta-analysis of 313 studies, similarity on personality traits and attitudes had no effect on relationship well-being in established relationships. In addition, a 2010 study of more than 23,000 married couples showed that similarity on the major dimensions of personality (e.g., neuroticism, impulsivity, extroversion) accounted for a mere 0.5 percent of how satisfied spouses were with their marriages — leaving the other 99.5 percent to other factors.

Sure it will get you to meet singles, but there probably isn't anything special about it other than that. Adding someone who majored in theater arts is unlikely to add value for the cost involved.

[imaginenore]

And you still didn't answer the question - WHY are they better? Just because they read on psychology, and "have exceptionally high EQs" (what is that?), doesn't make them good.

This PR has been a trainwreck. You're the conductor.

[boyaka]

As IQ is to Intelligence Quotient, I assumed that EQ is to Emotional Quotient. So kind of like emotional intelligence. I'm sure I could find much more info about these terms and proper usage with a google search.