Show HN: Dating Site Without Pictures
ohmyperson.com
ohmyperson.com
I went to the settings, selected 25 miles radius and Black only. The next match I got was not Black, and over a thousand miles. Now we are married with children.
I think dating apps all look for a trick, a gimmick, or a twist. We will find you the perfect match. The real issue is as we get more disconnected from one another, we don't know how to deal with another person.
Here is what the dating app I won't build will do. It will tell you how to start a conversation. Help you get dressed on a first date. Help you hold a conversation. Teach you étiquettes. Tell you what to do when you don't get an answer. These are all real relationship building tips that dating apps don't bother with.
The date you get sent on is engaging and topical: a dance class or a tennis class or a guided tour in a museum, something that's engaging in the right way and avoids restaurant first date awkwardness.
It strikes me that the problems are more related to increased isolation/individualism, increased distraction, degradation of real-world communities, and increased fear of making unwanted/unexpected advances. People who have free time just aren't choosing to use it in ways that encourage the creation of organic relationships.
Most dating apps try to answer the "who" and "where", but the OP is trying to answer the "how" as well which is brilliant.
Another twist I thought might be effective was suggesting a first date based on mutual interests.
Or, one person could lead with a blanket first date offer: 2 tickets to XYZ on MM/DD. Kind of like a timed auction where they select their date partner by a specified time.
I think it would be interesting to see the variety and creativity increase when you're showcasing a first date.
It would be more costly than even high end dinner dates, but at least your date like the same music you do?
It could work well if there is a mechanism to reduce serial abusers and moochers - maybe you can only get invited to a date after you invited someone else to one?
The faster you find a real partner, the less money the app makes. And the quicker its userbase shrinks.
You could brand yourself as the "one and done" dating site of you're really that good.
Or, come up with a payment model that's more like an a recruiter where you get paid when there's a match (assuming you can verify a successful relationship).
It's challenging but I don't think the industry is doomed towards conflicting interests for users and match makers.
Assuming word-of-mouth promotion doesn't do anything beneficial for the app makers.
If apps can teach us quantum mechanics, I think an app can at least attempt to teach us relationships.
I don’t think that’s what most people need help with, especially most females. The only people left would be supremely introverted males with a high dose of self-awareness (those few rare people openly admitting they need such help). Based upon my personal relationships who have used dating apps to meet people the audience is mostly people who have trouble finding people for dates or people completely lacking self-awareness. As a result that’s the audience most dating apps target and try to connect, which is why the real world results are sometimes underwhelming for many users.
Honestly, if the apps connected people with as strong compatibility as they claim users would not need multiple disappointing dates. The problem, in many cases, isn’t the app though (at least when the app does pick desired criteria). Some people seriously look into a figurative mirror and see something extremely different than what much of the world sees which likely explains why they might need a dating app in the first place.
I know, for me, when dating either I cannot think of things to say, or the date couldn't think of things to say. When you're on your computer (or phone) you have tons of time to get things moving.
I have a lot of ideas now from the one you stemmed. Maybe I'll be the one who builds this. I am in the middle of another site, but this would be fun to try as well. If it every turns into something, I'll make sure to look you up and thank you .
Also, by reading the previous statement "good luck", you have agreed to give me 92% of all future profits... jk
My mother taught these skills to me.
The fun feature would be "bumping phones". You could bump phones with people using this app, and it'd share additional details, and give you a list of questions and suggestions of things to talk about that you could ask your date to keep things moving.
But sexual attraction is an important part of relationships, so going in blind is inherently risky (from a time utilization perspective). With old school blind dates, your date is friend/family selected so some level of filtering is already done for you.
I guess a good portion of dates are disappointing anyway and there are even those that get catfished, so it's always worth trying something else out.
That is, imagine a tinder-like app where 50% of the things shown to you are photos and 50% are bios. But they are all mixed up so you don’t know whose photo matches to whose bio.
You only “match” with someone if you swipe right on their photo and their bio.
A simple fix would be to only allow users to swipe on 20% of the photos and 20% of the bios.
And everybody else will follow suit once they realize it's an effective strategy. And you'll have a race to bottom.
That being said, it seems silly to try and force people that only care about looks into caring about bios. Who are we to tell them how to select a partner? Maybe they would be most happy with an attractive partner that doesn't share any of their interests. If that's who they want to find, then instead of telling them they're wrong, we should help them do it.
You can unlike to prevent this from happening and it would be nice with a slight delay in notification to the person you liked so they're not swamped with likes and unlikes because people are trying to beat the system.
[1]Who view themselves as such, anyway.
For most of us, there's also a very strong mental component to sexual attraction; I mean, sure, there's also a very strong physical component, but I personally think that the text a person generates is a fairly good indicator of how I will feel about the mental component, while dating site photographs, in my experience, tend to be much less representative of how physically attractive I will find the person once we meet. (note, my experience is old, but my experience is that I'm just as likely to find someone way more physically attractive in person than in a photograph as I am to find them way less physically attractive in person. My suspicion is that some people try to present their very best angle, others try to present their most representative side, while others don't put much effort into choosing a photograph at all.)
The other problem is that people make certain, ah, assumptions about me based on how I look. Assumptions that, well, probably will lead you to an incorrect idea as to my personality and values, I mean, more so than usual.
I mean, this is just my own experience. And mostly pretty old experience; I haven't had an online date in rather a long time, but the best online dates I've had were where we didn't exchange photographs ahead of time, either 'cause we met on a medium that didn't really support them, or because we met on dating sites but without uploading a photo. (and yes, sometimes there was, uh, nothing there, physically, but it was always at least an interesting evening.) - my experience was that on photo-focused sites, often I'd get the sort of 'total miss' - where someone would look at my photo and then make what are really pretty reasonable assumptions from looking at me and, uh, I was not at all what they were expecting.
Also, I would note that I know some very attractive women who do not put profile pictures on dating sites because they don't want to attract too much attention because of how they look. So this could mitigate the adverse selection problem.
When I first heard that some women did this, I started messaging women who had no pictures (or pictures that did not show what they looked like). Not long after, I met my wife, who would have been mobbed with messages had she put up a photo that showed what she actually looks like. I was the first and only person she dated online.
It's absolutely not all upside (to be beautiful) and it's a problem one cannot complain about. No one will have any sympathy whatsoever.
Your intuition was certainly good but her move was probably even smarter: she found an efficient way to attract the smart ones.
I would offer to test and report back but I have been happily out of the dating pool for going on thirteen years with no intention of returning soon. Two advantages to meeting your spouse via IRL social networks: none of this faffing about with profile pictures -- face to face doesn't lie. And you never have to do witty text message banter.
100%, well put
Hey, isn't that just the all-swipe?
Ha! That's true, but it can also be a really odd experience. E.g., I've found myself questioning how well the organisers really know me.
I’ve had to put it on hold because investor sentiment in the U.K. has been negative with the belief that no one will link their bank accounts to find a match (even if we’re transparent, regulated, etc).
As regards all the brilliant psychologists here who are commenting "looks matter to most people!": it's not as though you will find every person you meet on ohmyperson unattractive. The issue is that meeting people you find attractive might happen less frequently than it would on eg Tinder. How much less frequently is an empirical question. It's worth noting that edited, filtered, selection-biased Tinder profile pics are not always useful. Sometimes they're worse than nothing. I've been on a bunch of internet dates in the past year, and half the time my date looks nothing like their photos. At least with ohmyperson I won't feel duped.
The problem I see with this model is that it might naturally lead to the situation where people develop a strong connection over messages and then feel disappointed when they meet IRL, only to find that they are incompatible for reasons of physical attraction. This happens sometimes and it's a real bummer. (It's for this reason that I think you should meet - or pass - after sending a couple messages, rather than having a protracted convo).
Just as the Tinder model provides a coarse grained filter for looks, I can see ohmyperson providing a coarse grained filter for interests, values, and relationship goals. Some apps (bumble, okc) have various filters for these sorts of attributes, but in my opinion none have really figured it out all that well.
In my personal experiences I find myself having unexpectedly interesting conversations with a myriad of people, many who may not stereotypically raise my curiosity. I think looks can be deceiving, and this is an attempt to remove that factor to give a chance to anyone who you would find interesting.
In stating this, it's true that you may lose interest in someone after realizing a lack of physical chemistry, but I think the opposite also holds true where you lose interest in someone who's very attractive because of a lack of compatibility. Maybe the best relationships stem from friendships that develop into deeper understanding and compassion.
I think we're heavily focused purely on appearances, and in doing so neglect the other important features that define our uniqueness
After they were bought by Match Group, all those experiments stopped, and the site became one with the borg. It's depressing that one shitty corporation, controls every fucking dating site, and has the money to buy pretty much any competitor at this point.
[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/gwern/comments/aapn1l/okcupid_blog_...
In other words, the longer a conversation had been going on, the smaller the influence of learning what the other person looked like was.
In 3 months: Dating Site With Pictures, But Only Of Eyes
In 6 months: Dating Site With Pictures, Eyes and Nose
In 12 months: name change to ohmymember.com (adult site)
I vaguely remember some "hotornot" clones from 15 years ago doing that already.
I know that I'm probably unusual. I really haven't ever cared much about looks. I've mostly valued intelligence, good sense of humor, interest in sex, independence and (frankly) a credible career.
And in retrospect, among my former wives and lovers, it seems like the less conventionally attractive ones have aged the best.
The juxtaposition between dating and references.. doesn't work, at least to me. I can't imagine actually writing this about an ex. Especially, curious as to the circumstance in which this type of interaction would even occur. "Hey, sorry we didn't work out, now can you write a reference for my dating profile?"
The problem though is that there's an incentive to game the system.
I don't know what would feel worse, having to write reviews/reference of my one night stand for other guys, or having her write one about me for other girls.
Sounds more like an escorting service than a dating one. If a guy/gal is really great, you would be with him/her, or try to rekindle the relation ship.
Heck like this one that looks like it sounds great, "He was great, except for that one thing that I won't give detail about but was bad enough to stop me from wanting a relationship with him now or ever", that's not even a really good reference for dating, more like a huge red flag ...
You simply no longer see the person because you like to interact and have sex and do activities with many different people, not because of "red flags".
Or if you still want relationships, then the "red flag" is just "was merely a good fit but not an excellent fit for me".
Funny story. Good references from one of my ex wives got me in bed with two of her friends. However, they didn't want me, just my sperm. But it was still fun.
But if you were looking for a relationship, I can see how that wouldn’t have felt as...victorious? I didn’t get that context from your original comment though.
Anyway, good night.
So yeah, it was bittersweet.
Also, said ex wife was professionally quite awesome, so I think that sort of rubbed off on me.
But it's by no means purely a brag.
I mean, what. Divorce. And feeling used. Not fun.
As I recall, one of them was about to leave her husband, but a grandmother had offered her $1K if she had a kid. Which I learned just after sex.
But hey, dodged one there, didn't I?
Maybe I should have transformed it into a third person share.
Apparently they actually hinder matches unless both people are paying. Some of those prices are laughably ridiculous, like Tinder's $40 for a 3 hour "boost", with no indication of effectiveness, and sadly prey on desperation.
I'd love to see a modern service that aims to meaningfully connect people instead of perpetually preying upon them for cash.
On the other hand, the dating industry may be like the lightbulb cartel; if you're too effective, your customers will no longer need you. :)
My preference is a markup on the cost of validating alleged attributes. If you claim to be 6'2" tall, that might be validated with a notarized statement from a doctor. If you claim to have a degree, that can be checked via the usual electronic clearinghouse non-profit that universities use. If you claim to own property, county records can be checked. All this costs money. Apply a markup, and that gives a profit that will seem reasonably fair to most people.
Another way is to sell the obvious products, ranging from condoms to wedding rings.
Tinder is suitable for hookups, but not for dating. Your site is suitable for friendships, but not for dating. Both of these sites could create relationships that evolve into dating, but I don't think either of them are the path of least action for this purpose. Tinder focuses too much on physical attributes, text-only sites focus too little on physical attributes. Both solutions are at the poles of a spectrum. "Dating" is somewhere in the middle of that spectrum.
Also, dating sites should facilitate meeting, not pen-pals or “virtual” phony “relationships.”
Perhaps a more palatable way to approach this is to legitimately screen/curate each applicant and rate them honestly so that there’s less disappointment on blind matching. Also, you don’t what a Philip DeFranco moment of moving to NYC for a would-be significant other that is actually a 16-year-old con artist in Idaho.
This. So much this. Above all else.
Playing the whole game of an online back-and-forth "relationship" before the first meeting is annoying and exhausting. Honestly, it feels like a complete waste of time as well.
There will be a yay/nay decision made by at least one party, within the first FIVE MINUTES of that first in-person meeting, that will render EVERYTHING previously exchanged online to be completely irrelevant. Better to just get to that point as quickly as possible, and not kid ourselves about it.
Pay the fee, exchange 5 minutes with 24 assorted people of your same age. Next!
From what I gather, dating sites are dealing with the reality that women tend to want relationships before sex and men tend to want sex. Women also face various safety concerns when going out to meet people in person that they only know via internet.
If you want a meet-and-greet site, those are some of the issues that would need to be addressed to make it fly.
The next steps can be to assess the other person's appearance, style, etc. It's kind of like Tinder inverted where analysis comes before photo.
Users of this site aren't forbidden from exchanging contact info and swapping photos / video chat. That scenario seems far fetched.
But please consider not making all data go through Google (analytics (which can be blocked) and firestore (which is required)) and allow logins without Google or Facebook accounts. Sharing browsing data of a dating site with a third-party should be considered a privacy issue.
I tried it in IE11 (where broken things go) and I get the You Need Javascipt message on an otherwise blank page.
Guessing this page just can't live in a decrapified world.
Ah. That's probably why it doesn't load for me.
I block local storage.
Also, that sounds like some seriously uncomfortable potential scenarios to me. Like someone who was using 10 year old pics of themselves finally meeting you at the bar. What exactly is the upside again? Getting to pretend like looks don't matter when they actually do?
Also, in case the system is selective, then you know that the other person likes you for something other than looks, which is also a good indicator for a better experience, both in a short-term and a long-term relationship.
That's a very optimistic outlook. The person you replied to said, "If you’re ugly like me this is great", and I think they're closer to the reality. I predict the site will be filled with mostly unattractive people that care about looks as much as everyone else.
Supper simple, attractive as is.
Found missing:
- Qualities the person might be seeking in a potential mate; the existing user profiles signal that need.
- The button to go to the next profile seems out of place. Could enjoy more focus.
- Completing my own profile could be a little more nudging.
The Rick Singer scandal has dramatized how non-academic criteria affect college admissions. Graduates from HYPS/MIT are on average smarter than other college graduates, but a more granular filter based on test scores would be helpful.
Then your matches would be made if both sides had high "similarity scores" for each other's pictures.
It just seemed like a bit of a hurdle to launch with
So a dating sites without pictures would never work. I hope to be proven wrong, but I don't think so.
Height and income seem to be important according to this okc study (based on millions of profiles):
https://theblog.okcupid.com/the-big-lies-people-tell-in-onli...
People (especially women in mainstream society) mostly ignore looks when they have already had a real-life pleasant interaction; however, it is very challenging to replicate that online, since it's very hard to give incentives to be genuine.
The American obesity rate is something absurd like 40% among adults. A bunch of these people aren't actually half-bad looking if they were able to drop the weight.
Dating sites are simply horrible at actually creating awesome interaction, and one of the first reason is the fact that obviously looks are pretty much irrelevant for that, yet most seem centered on photos.
The site is empty for me other than the top bar though, so can't give any more advice for it.
IMHO the most important thing though is to match people that want the same thing out of dating.
I.e. if someone wants to have a one night stand and the other wants a long monogamous relationship they should not even see each other's profile, yet pretty much all dating sites don't even let you state your goals!
Simply allow the photo to be viewed after a mutual text-like occurs
There might be value in a dating site for really ugly people, but it's niche at best.
Let's define two win conditions, and you have to hit just one:
1. How to make this actually profitable without being more dark-patterny than Tinder?
2. How to help at least some of the people who are not finding what they need on Tinder, while expending only a reasonable amount of resources?