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?
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!"
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'm not sure how I feel about this. They aren't matching you up with people they've vetted or know -- they're just finding you a date from other online dating services. And then charging you $75 (which could end up being $150 for them if they get both people via their site).
We've setup drinks for people through our own personal networks (one or two degrees away from the matchmaker), and they've gone well. We use a variety of options, but our philosophy is: we don't care where we find a match, as long as they're good, that's all that matters. We can also keep notes on everyone using it.
So the 75 bucks is to cover the actual match making? Or are you sending people to some really fancy bars. How's that even work? I'm in Canada, You have deals with franchises here?
Ah no, that's a US zip code you're asking for. I'm very familiar with the US zip code, you see, as most US based web services present themselves as a global service rather than a US based one, and the zip code is often the only sign that they arn't catering to my nation.
We haven't worked with any venues or had any dates in Canada. We're primarily focused in SF, LA, Chicago, and NYC. Sorry about that. Hope we can add support for you soon.
We have people who don't drink using the service and they order non-alcoholic drinks at the venue--sometimes they're bars, sometimes lounges.
Alcohol does act as a pretty good social lubricant though. The girls actually prefer that to extravagant dates when we've suggested them because there's less pressure--if the chemistry isn't there, it's more acceptable to leave after that first round rather than commit to spending a lot of time with someone up front.
I don't think this service is for me at all. I'd prefer flexibility in places to meet and not having to resort to getting inebriated to meet someone :/ Coffee shops? I'm a girl, btw.
We're not saying you have to drink something alcoholic, we're just saying whatever beverage you choose to drink, we'll cover it. Think of the bar as a neutral place in public to meet up.
Our focus is on reducing all effort that goes into meeting someone, and the scheduling is part of that. Meeting during the day won't work because most our members are working on regular 9-5 schedules. Weekends are usually booked too.
What usually happens is if both people feel like it's going well, they'll exchange contact info at the venue and then plan something the following weekend and do something different.
You may want to check out Coffee Meets Bagel or How About We.
We at Truffle are building something similar but with linkedIn authentication - catering to working professionals.
We tried doing work email verification but users revolted against that and we have to revert back to linkedIn. I guess people on HN are right when they say that facebook logging is instant turn off but for some people entering email address and password is even bigger.
Also yah I like your service, though you are my competitor but 75$ is a lot. Try out making it a coffee, first date at a bar is a big sell.
By the way, if anyone of you here on HN are from Seattle and looking to grab a coffee with someone interesting, try out www.jointruffle.com :)
- If we can't setup a match, you are either being unrealistic with your expectations (you consistently pass too often on people who we think are a good fit), or we just don't have enough people in the pool who are in your proximity. If it's the former, you'll need to adjust your expectations, if it's the latter, we'll focus more attention on that area. If we just can't make it work, we'll give you a refund. We usually can tell whether people are being unrealistic. If you can't tell, there's a simple experiment you can run: setup your own online dating profile to gauge the type of women who want to talk to you.
- If someone is stood up, we'll refund the money and the person who stood the other up won't be invited or allowed to go out with any of our members again. Standing people up isn't cool.
- Our current ratio is 1:2 girls to guys. We will find you a match one way or another. Our matchmakers border on obsessive with this stuff.
If you are only supporting certain zip codes then I'm going to be real annoyed when I enter half a dozen questions and THEN you tell me you're not available in my zip code.
If you live close to a major city (SF, NYC, LA, Chicago, Austin, Miami, Seattle) we can do it. If you don't, I would suggest waiting until we grow the user base out more.
It is interesting that there's a human in the loop. It's sort of a Mechanical Turk approach to web dating, and notable because it's the opposite of sites like E-Harmony that trump the superiority of their algorithm.
If you're too busy for online dating, aren't you too busy for dating in general? Seems like a vanishingly small market - people willing to pay $75 for a date, but unwilling to take the time to look on match.com. But I'm usually wrong about this sort of thing, so carry on!
It'd be a false dichotomy if you said "people who are too busy to date are too busy for falling in love" or something similar. People are busy and online dating eats up more time than any other type of application, including social networking.
Matchmaking is already going on and successful relationships have been established that way, we just make it more affordable and transparent. Linx Dating charges $30,000 for 11 dates spread out over 2 years, and they charge $500 just for the screening process.
Online dating has a higher frequency of use than social networking sites. It requires more time than you'd think if you haven't tried it before.
Just wanted to say you're doing an A+ job of responding to people's concerns here in the thread. People usually suck at this, too, but you've really got your shit down. Which, to me, demonstrates that you've been working the product over and over in your head, i.e., the opposite of what everybody else in this space is doing.
Because you're absolutely right. Fuck the Match.coms. Fuck the click click click click model. I'm not 16. I have neither the time nor the inclination.
Thank you. I think some people's concerns are valid. There's a quote that I really like: "The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference." - Eli Wiesel
In other words, we'd rather have people pissed off or uncertain about something than to not care at all.
I'd be tempted to sign up with Facebook and receive a reply on exactly what kind of person you'd try to connect me to, given what you glean from FB.
If you got it right, I'd be a step closer to giving you money (if you operated near me). If you got it wrong, and I freely admit that I expect you will, I'd keep my money.
Either way, I am able to determine the quality of your service. I regularly spend $75 in a bar and have no trouble meeting people, despite how busy I am. You don't provide a compelling reason to give that $75 to you instead of my friendly local bartenders.
Meeting people isn't the problem. Meeting the right person, with whom I'd be interested in more than sharing a few drinks and conversation, is the problem. My closest friends of more than a decade, who know me exceedingly better than FB, have routinely tried to connect me with someone or other. Not one has been the right fit.
Hell, just cos I'm feeling generous, I'd even give you a hint and say one of your staffers has the look. But that wears off in about 2.3 minutes.
DoubleHell, just cos I'm feeling that much more generous, let me suggest (if you haven't already thought of it) that you mesh HN activity with FB activity for an even better understanding.
Sadly, to my knowledge, we haven't yet figured out a way to determine likelihood of chemistry between superficially compatible people. Perhaps I'm just a naysayer, but until we can figure that out, online dating just isn't working. Apparently almost 75% of US single people have tried online dating. Only 20% have found committed relationships (assuming that's everyone's goal, which it isn't).[1]
We need a chemistry detector, not a compatibility detector (machine or human).
50 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 111 ms ] threadYet 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?
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!"
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.)
No personal offense to you, or your business. Just telling you as a geek, this is a non-starter for me.
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.
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.
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.
That's why I almost always look at a project as allowing Facebook sign-up first, then e-mail/twitter/google/linkedin, etc. etc.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> We charge $75 up front because people who are serious about going out are willing to pay this (so it acts as a filter for our matchmakers).
It's a very good explanation and it needs to be said upfront because otherwise people who have seen Grouper will be outraged.
Semi-related, but Tim Ferriss has an interesting story about how he "outsourced his love life": http://blog.timferriss.com/1/post/2009/07/how-to-tim-ferriss...
Ah no, that's a US zip code you're asking for. I'm very familiar with the US zip code, you see, as most US based web services present themselves as a global service rather than a US based one, and the zip code is often the only sign that they arn't catering to my nation.
Alcohol does act as a pretty good social lubricant though. The girls actually prefer that to extravagant dates when we've suggested them because there's less pressure--if the chemistry isn't there, it's more acceptable to leave after that first round rather than commit to spending a lot of time with someone up front.
Our focus is on reducing all effort that goes into meeting someone, and the scheduling is part of that. Meeting during the day won't work because most our members are working on regular 9-5 schedules. Weekends are usually booked too.
What usually happens is if both people feel like it's going well, they'll exchange contact info at the venue and then plan something the following weekend and do something different.
You may want to check out Coffee Meets Bagel or How About We.
We tried doing work email verification but users revolted against that and we have to revert back to linkedIn. I guess people on HN are right when they say that facebook logging is instant turn off but for some people entering email address and password is even bigger.
Also yah I like your service, though you are my competitor but 75$ is a lot. Try out making it a coffee, first date at a bar is a big sell.
By the way, if anyone of you here on HN are from Seattle and looking to grab a coffee with someone interesting, try out www.jointruffle.com :)
What happens if someone is stood up?
What happens if you have a skewed ratio of men to women?
- If we can't setup a match, you are either being unrealistic with your expectations (you consistently pass too often on people who we think are a good fit), or we just don't have enough people in the pool who are in your proximity. If it's the former, you'll need to adjust your expectations, if it's the latter, we'll focus more attention on that area. If we just can't make it work, we'll give you a refund. We usually can tell whether people are being unrealistic. If you can't tell, there's a simple experiment you can run: setup your own online dating profile to gauge the type of women who want to talk to you.
- If someone is stood up, we'll refund the money and the person who stood the other up won't be invited or allowed to go out with any of our members again. Standing people up isn't cool.
- Our current ratio is 1:2 girls to guys. We will find you a match one way or another. Our matchmakers border on obsessive with this stuff.
If you are only supporting certain zip codes then I'm going to be real annoyed when I enter half a dozen questions and THEN you tell me you're not available in my zip code.
Seems doing similar things but targeting different group of people.
Matchmaking is already going on and successful relationships have been established that way, we just make it more affordable and transparent. Linx Dating charges $30,000 for 11 dates spread out over 2 years, and they charge $500 just for the screening process.
Online dating has a higher frequency of use than social networking sites. It requires more time than you'd think if you haven't tried it before.
Just wanted to say you're doing an A+ job of responding to people's concerns here in the thread. People usually suck at this, too, but you've really got your shit down. Which, to me, demonstrates that you've been working the product over and over in your head, i.e., the opposite of what everybody else in this space is doing.
Because you're absolutely right. Fuck the Match.coms. Fuck the click click click click model. I'm not 16. I have neither the time nor the inclination.
In other words, we'd rather have people pissed off or uncertain about something than to not care at all.
I'd be tempted to sign up with Facebook and receive a reply on exactly what kind of person you'd try to connect me to, given what you glean from FB.
If you got it right, I'd be a step closer to giving you money (if you operated near me). If you got it wrong, and I freely admit that I expect you will, I'd keep my money.
Either way, I am able to determine the quality of your service. I regularly spend $75 in a bar and have no trouble meeting people, despite how busy I am. You don't provide a compelling reason to give that $75 to you instead of my friendly local bartenders.
Meeting people isn't the problem. Meeting the right person, with whom I'd be interested in more than sharing a few drinks and conversation, is the problem. My closest friends of more than a decade, who know me exceedingly better than FB, have routinely tried to connect me with someone or other. Not one has been the right fit.
Hell, just cos I'm feeling generous, I'd even give you a hint and say one of your staffers has the look. But that wears off in about 2.3 minutes.
DoubleHell, just cos I'm feeling that much more generous, let me suggest (if you haven't already thought of it) that you mesh HN activity with FB activity for an even better understanding.
Sadly, to my knowledge, we haven't yet figured out a way to determine likelihood of chemistry between superficially compatible people. Perhaps I'm just a naysayer, but until we can figure that out, online dating just isn't working. Apparently almost 75% of US single people have tried online dating. Only 20% have found committed relationships (assuming that's everyone's goal, which it isn't).[1]
We need a chemistry detector, not a compatibility detector (machine or human).
[1]: quick search leads me to stats from 2012 at http://www.statisticbrain.com/online-dating-statistics/