Hacker News Reader

Comment by Pepe1vo | Hacker News Reader

When I was single I absolutely hated the mandatory 1-3 days chatting that was necessary until it became acceptable to ask someone on a date. One day I encountered the dating app Breeze (only in Dutch) which works with the same swiping gimmick, but the the twist is that once you have a match you HAVE to go on a date. You have to enter your availability, pay 5 euro and if you don't show up on your date you get perma-banned for life.

This works so much better than swipe-and-chat, because you become much more selective in who you like (keeping you from swiping endlessly) and because it's so focused on getting people to meet IRL I imagine it has a much better higher success rate than Tinder et al. Needless to say, I met my SO through the app after using it for a couple of months. :)

View on HN

This reminds me of this quote:

> Ironically, both genders are motivated by the same factor not wasting time but we do it in reverse. To overgeneralize, women think: Why waste my time meeting in person if I'm not into his personality? (Then Tinder-messaging is used to help screen for personality.) And men think: Why waste my time Tinder-messaging if I'm not going to meet her in person?

Source: https://www.glamour.com/story/tinder-guys-dont-message

> When I was single I absolutely hated the mandatory 1-3 days chatting that was necessary until it became acceptable to ask someone on a date.

This was not my experience at all. 1-3 days of chatting would destroy any chance of ever meeting someone for me. Having a nice intro chat immediately followed up by a question to meet or exchange numbers within the first 10 messages worked significantly better than trying to have meaningful chats over tinder. I find that the first excitement of a match very quickly tapers of, so either you build on that initial momentum to transition into a date, or interest will fade quickly. Because let's face it, you'll both match other people in the mean time, and then those new matches become more exciting than coming up with new small-talk when the first few messages have become stale.

Getting to know a person works better face to face, so I'd rather be quick to move to that stage, and be more selective about who I think I might want to spend a first-date hour with. (My go-to was to grab a beer at a bar and then see if there's enough interest to spend the rest of the evening together walking through the city).

> or exchange numbers

Okay, finally a place I can ask this. I hope you and others can explain. Why would exchanging numbers (or Snap accounts, etc.) with someone be a goal? You already have a way to communicate! I understand moving to in-person dating, but not to another way to text.

> I'd rather be quick to move to that stage, and be more selective about who I think I might want to spend a first-date hour with.

I think either you mistyped the funnel or I misread it. You make it sound like a first-date hour (or so) is given freely and first-date evenings are rarer. Which sounds reasonable, but also seems contradicted by the part I quoted.

> Why would exchanging numbers […] with someone be a goal?

Because it is the next step on the way to exclusivity.

On the dating platform you are one of potentially hundreds (or thousands) of message chains and easily overlooked. In their phonebook you are most likely not.

So it's a promotion that happens to one out of hundreds or thousands of message chains, where the expectation is that it happens after several days of messaging in Tinder and standing out from those chains?

> Why would exchanging numbers (or Snap accounts, etc.) with someone be a goal?

If you think of apps as locations, you are switching from "meeting at the bar"(dating app) to going somewhere where you both spend more time "happily" (some other app/messaging). A lot of people used to swipe like two sessions a day, but would be texting/snapchatting all day. So you are inviting that person to be more present in your days.

It signals that you are willing to take one small step towards something vs. "just chatting on tinder"

The framing helps. It also helps that you referred to going into Tinder as a "swipe session".

Also, not sure if it's incompetence or decision, but Tinder has atrocious messaging compared to dedicated messaging systems.

"Why would exchanging numbers (or Snap accounts, etc.) with someone be a goal? You already have a way to communicate! I understand moving to in-person dating, but not to another way to text."

Because you can then simply talk on the phone.

Phones are not just for texts.

Hearing their voice is important. I once matched with a women who looked intriguing, met up for coffee after texting and as soon as she started talking my overwhelming shock was "dear god, she sounds EXACTLY like my ex-wife!" That went nowhere in a hurry.

In general I absolutely agree with you, I also never understood this either, and have chalked it up to being an "American-ism" (meaning: it's not something that people do in my part of the world (=Europe)). But I still prefer to switch to a "normal messenger" when on tinder (e.g. WhatsApp is what most people in my area use) quickly. Mostly it's just part of playing the dating game: you don't use Tinder to talk to your friends or other people, so moving off that platform is a natural "next level". It also helps when meeting up (I can share my current location so it's easier to find me in a public place once we actually meet up). But in general I don't see this as an important step of dating.

I don’t know what’s the gender ratio on dating apps in the western world but here in India - it’s too skewed; so as a man, getting the number usually means you’re among the 2-3 in the WhatsApp inbox at a time.

Inside the dating app messenger? No idea — her right sweep will mostly result in a match so you’re competing for attention with potentially a huge number of people depending upon how much that person right sweeps. (PS. I am not kidding — this could be true even for female profiles with zero pictures, zero details :D).

So it’s a way of getting filtered up.

That's exactly how this should work. You should move from messaging to a meeting as quickly as possible. If you try to set up a date and other side proposes something like a week from now - it's already over. It's simply too long to hold most conversations on apps like Tinder, most women have 10-100 other guys that write to them at the same time as you. It's also hard to judge a character from chat, hence like you wrote, meeting quickly allows you to know if it's a person for you as soon as possible.

I tried to setup a meeting within 10-15 messages and it worked, I'm in a second relationship that started from Tinder, one lasted 4 years, current one is going on for almost a year. Moving to a meeting is the most important step, noone wants to maintain tedious in-app conversations with dozens of people for a long time.

Also, be creative, ask whatever comes to your mind, even if you find it weird, all the girls I met were bombarded with either boring jokes, repetitive compliments or 'Hi's. After first few it's impossible to answer nicely or make a conversation out of those. I got best conversations out of weird questions, I asked what pierogi does she like f.e.

>I absolutely hated the mandatory 1-3 days chatting

That's fascinating, as somebody who loves this period and thinks of it as a requirement to find out my compatibility with somebody before we go on an actual date. If you're not up to scratch on the initial few days of chatting then I have no interest in taking it further. And I appreciate that many people aren't interested in this, but then it just means the two of us aren't compatible, and that's fine.

I find text chatting with a stranger to very difficult compared to talking in person. I've never managed to move from the chat stage on a dating app to a real date.

I generally find people easy to talk to in person. All my romantic partners have been people I've met in real life. It's much easier to gauge their reactions, read their body language, etc. Waiting for a response on a chat fills me with anxiety.

Once I've met someone in real life, text chatting becomes much easier.

"I find text chatting with a stranger to very difficult compared to talking in person"

I've always just talked on the phone. I know a lot of younger people are afraid of phone conversations too, but I'm fortunate to be of an older generation for whom it's not a big deal.

I guess you could also try a Zoom date.

I'm from an older generation that used to talk on the phone a lot, and I still hate talking on the phone nowadays.

I think it has something to do with the absolutely abysmal audio quality of today's phones, which makes it a lot harder for some of us to process speech and hear the more subtle vocal communications.

Those "you're muted"s really help set the mood.

Personal experience - back when I was using dating apps - I was bored and wanted to have a nice time somewhere. Sure meeting someone was the goal but going to a nice place was usually the only expectation I've had. I've had meh encounters - but the places we went to were usually nice. I've had the most fun with the girl I had no interest in sexually - we went out then kept in touch and traveled around.

I'd rather just go with a friend than with some random. Seems like it'd be much more enjoyable that way. Nothing wrong with going alone too. "Table for one" should not be embarrassing.

It's not the same dynamic. Even when I'd met someone I wasn't clicking with - I still made an effort to make the experience pleasant and it would make the dates I was into smoother.

Also when I moved to another city was a great way to get out of the apartment since I knew nobody there.

Going solo is counterproductive if your goal is meeting new people.

A suggestion for next time: try the bar. Even if you’re not a drinker, it’s a great way to meet people, romantically or otherwise. After all, if they didn’t want to talk to random strangers, they’d be drinking/dining at home (or a table).

I would suggest dive bars. Many of the "hip" places blast music so you can't talk.

It's all personal, so you aren't wrong, but I have the near opposite opinion.

I believe the days messaging are a waste of time as I have no clue if a spark is there in person before I see you in the flesh. And very quickly, short time for physical attraction, and within 2-3 minutes for interaction, I can tell if there is the potential for something growing. None of that happens in messaging beyond very basic filtering of basic comms.

Messaging back and forth really doesn't mean much for me. I spend relationships with a person in the flesh, and message not very often, so initial contact on dating websites beyond a few basic messages back and forth are essentially just more dancing around before we get to the brass tax of whether there is any chance at all of attraction.

But that's me and how it worked for me and my partner. Everyone's different of course.

"initial contact on dating websites beyond a few basic messages back and forth are essentially just more dancing around before we get to the brass tax of whether there is any chance at all of attraction."

"brass tacks"[1], not "brass tax".

[1] - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/brass%20tacks

Ha. TIL. Boneappletea.

No you see I use a brass abacus to do my tax im not an idiot I'm right thanks.

Yup, saved it jaunty, you've still got it.

My personal take is opposite of yours. No matter what amount of chemistry and compatibility I’ve built on text, it might go down the flush the moment I see you, or within first few seconds. And this happens most of the time. So yeah, that “texting period” is a waste of time; at least personally for me.

From the company's POV, aren't they likely to benefit from setting you up on dates that either go mildly unfortunately, or leading to a short-term relationship at best? The customers are paying for dates after all, not long term relationships.

Certainly one way to deal with ghosting though - I can understand the reason behind it, but it's incredibly inconsiderate and harmful behaviour. On the other hand I've taken to double checking plans with people 24 and ~2 hours before they were scheduled, which sometimes helps people not forget about plans they agreed to a while back.

> From the company's POV, aren't they likely to benefit from setting you up on dates that either go mildly unfortunately, or leading to a short-term relationship at best? The customers are paying for dates after all, not long term relationships.

Short-term, probably yeah. But long-term, if they want to get a reputation like what parent describes ("I met my wife on platform X") then they better optimize for good dates rather than "unfortunate" ones.

Most businesses only look at growth, and for this they only require short to medium term satisfaction of their users. Long term satisfaction, such as marriage, is mostly irrelevant.

There is something funny about the financial incentives of a dating app pushing the app to make sure its users don't date.

I mean they're dating apps, not relationship apps! Tinder was built to facilitate quick hookups, not being selective about your next long-term relationship.

Of course, Tinder is synonymous to dating for some, which is the weird part.

Notably, I don’t think an app helping manage a relationship would gain traction. Which would seem to be the extension of your pointing out they’re dating apps.

>From the company's POV, aren't they likely to benefit from setting you up on dates that either go mildly unfortunately, or leading to a short-term relationship at best? The customers are paying for dates after all, not long term relationships.

I can't imagine there's a data scientist alive who could devise an algorithm that accurately, reliably predicts "kind of a good match but not really", given only some limited inputs (basic info + photos).

I reckon from the company's perspective that positive word of mouth from people who like the app is a much better focus point.

I was more thinking based on input data about things like what you are looking for in a partner, whether you are after a long-term relationship or not, etc. Then you throw in all that data to the ML deities and hope the output is something roughly related to what you're after.

Fair enough about word of mouth though, relationship durations are probably linearly correlated to the number of endorsements given by each customer - at some point in a relationship you end up with a rehearsed "so how did you two meet?"!

Actually I think this would be relatively easy, you're just looking for a bit of alignment in worldview and significant desperation.

The old ok cupid had a bunch of quiz questions that it'd match you for, both similarity and dissimilarity weighted by self reported importance.

Then Match Group bought them out and mostly gutted that system and turned it into another swiper :/

There's still eharmony, but I think that's just for white Christian boomers mainly.

The "limited" inputs include: All your conduct on the app, your "advertising" dossier.

Seems doable, frankly.

> I can't imagine there's a data scientist alive who could devise an algorithm that accurately, reliably predicts "kind of a good match but not really", given only some limited inputs (basic info + photos).

One approach would be to make the problem easier, just preferentially match people with a partner who is known to have short relationships and no/few awful reviews, based on history on the site.

Another option is speed dating. You meet dozens of people in person right away. After a couple of minutes of chatting with each, you tell the organizers who you're interested in, and if both of you want they'll give each of you the other's contact info.

I'm not sure if such events still exist in this pandemic era, though, when people are afraid to meet face to face.

Are most people afraid to meet face to face still?

I guess there’s an obvious selection bias in the people I’m actually meeting, but that general fear seems to have dramatically dropped off by spring 2022 or so.

Isn't that a bit harsh? If something comes up and you can't make it, or your date didn't like you and says you didn't come, you can no longer date?

Definitely. That's why 24h before your date a support phone number would come online where you could call about this kind of stuff. Explaining to another human on the phone why you can't make it is IMO exactly the right amount of friction for cancelling a date!

Oh that's pretty cool!

> When I was single I absolutely hated the mandatory 1-3 days chatting that was necessary until it became acceptable to ask someone on a date.

That's very strange to me - a date takes up so much time that I always want to go on a date only after I have some reason to think I'll like the guy I'm talking to.

Why would I get dressed, find a nice place, get there, and risk enduring a boring time with a stranger who I may have absolutely nothing in common with?

My experience is that getting along while chatting on an app has had zero correlation with how well I get on with someone on an actual date.

Also, for me, working out what to say on a dating app to someone I don’t know is a lot of effort. It might easily take me an hour to think of an appropriate reply. A date is actually less time wasted than 2-3 days of texting for me.

The problem with chatting with a stranger in app is being asynchronous, with varying response times, is that people can be completely different vs in person (hence your first point).

I like to say that anyone can be funny/clever/considerate/thoughtful/etc when you have 30 seconds or longer to come up with a reply. In messaging that’s normal but that kind of latency just doesn’t happen in conversation. Real time conversation in dating and meeting someone is much, much closer to the “real” person than texting via an app. Chatting in app is often closer to their social media persona (if that applies) or some other affectation.

Just showing up to a 30 min date (even if it takes a couple of hours all in) actually saves a lot of time and effort.

I can’t imagine texting/chatting with someone for days at a time only to meet up with them and realize they’re vastly different.

I get that, but for me, if I don't know anything about someone besides a picture or two, I have no desire to block off an hour or two to get to meet them. Chatting instead, that I can always fit into my regular activities, exactly because it is asynchronous. And a lot of the time, even a little bit of chatting will make it clear I don't want to meet up (and/or they don't want to meet up with me!).

Don't get me wrong, I do think in-person conversation is much much better than chatting. If I happen to meet someone that I like while I'm already outside, I'd much rather talk then exchange numbers and chat, of course. But going on blind dates is really not doing it for me.

Do note that I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong, not at all! I'm just exploring this significant difference in outlook, it's interesting to me how differently people can feel about a subject. It also gives me some insight into other's behavior on dating apps that before I'd just seen as sort of rude or rushed, so I think this is an actually useful conversation.

Everyone has what they’re comfortable with and dating is all anecdotal, personal experience and preference, etc. If you bring data to dating there’s a decent chance that will cross-over into the experience (read: come across as creepy or pathological), lead to more games, etc.

Anyway, texting with a stranger is really hard. A good portion of the time (especially for men, from women) you’ll get things like “I’m bored, entertain me”. Maybe a good way to filter people out, but annoying.

I’d also much rather just block off some time on a schedule to actually meet someone than have them interrupt my life at any moment, react when I don’t respond in X time, etc. Generally it all seems very low effort and sporadic. If you get “going” in a text conversation you can easily spend more time than you would actually meeting them.

Again, maybe these are ways to filter incompatibility but extended and prolonged texting just seems like a waste of time - especially as it often leads absolutely nowhere.

"I like to say that anyone can be funny/clever/considerate/thoughtful/etc when you have 30 seconds or longer to come up with a reply. In messaging that’s normal but that kind of latency just doesn’t happen in conversation. Real time conversation in dating and meeting someone is much, much closer to the “real” person than texting via an app."

Sorry to keep harping on this, but why can't people just talk on the phone?

It has all the real-time advantages you're talking about in your critique of texting, but doesn't require a trip anywhere, any expenses, or the risk of meeting in person with someone you might be able to screen out via a simple phone call.

I would love for this app to come to the US.

The company I currently work for, Coffee Meets Bagel, does aim to help form serious relationships specifically, and does operate in the US.

The anti-Tinder, till-death-do-us-part market exists, and is likely somehow under-served. It's just a bit harder to market for, and the matching is much harder to implement than Tinder's.

I tried CMB a few years ago and it showed me non-stop Asian women. Nothing against them but it's not like they are the only type I want to date. Has this been addressed?

A huge lot of things has changed since a few years ago, at least on the technical side where I am. The matching engine is now quite different. Consider trying again.

I was using CMB until recently, and can confirm carabiner's comment. Asian women seem to dominate it to such an extent that I have friends who use the app specifically because they prefer Asian women!

I’m friends with two married couples who met on CMB. So keep up the good work, I guess!

> which works with the same swiping gimmick...

Thus the same inherent flaw of non-representative profiles and pictures, to give false impressions or present a false image that can be used to trick others.

Things on peoples profile can not actually be confirmed, to include pictures and real life appearance not matching up. They can say they are a banker or a professional dancer, but are actually unemployed or have never done what they claim. So the beliefs people have, when going on the date, can still be based on deception.

The persons engaging in deception, only has to maintain the facade for a while, to hook the other person into a relationship. Not saying that such can be eliminated, because that's life, but rather no app can ever be foolproof. People, for whatever their reasons, will find flaws in it.

> ...but the the twist is that once you have a match you HAVE to go on a date. You have to enter your availability, pay 5 euro and if you don't show up on your date you get perma-banned for life.

This is a significant advantage of the app and community, which is cutting down on pranksters and time wasters. Thus would of course lead to a much higher success rate to Tinder and similar apps.

And about Tinder... Tinder of today, was much different than when it initially came out.

Many people don't realize that Tinder back then was quite Grindr-like (who they were copying), but mainly heterosexual, and heavily meet or "sexual encounter based", whichever you prefer. The culture and thinking was different. People showed up, because it could be a stealthy way to go have fun.

When Tinder tried to distance itself from the "meet up and encounters" perception and concerns, that opened the door to way more pranksters, attention seeking only, and time wasters. There was a shift in culture and who was using the app.

The Tinder of today has arguably become less focused on people meeting, but instead making Tinder as much money as possible and riding out to the last on its old reputation (of being Grindr-like), and usually at the expense of guys. Swiping left or right, by itself, is almost like any downloaded game.

What’s the goal of a date if you can’t stomach chatting for a few days? Is this a hookup thing?

Some people cannot write well and rather chat in person.

Not to sound snarky, but what’s the point of chatting if you could hang out face to face and have the same conversation in a ten minute timeframe while seeing their reactions?

And why waste time chatting online? The first person to land a successful in person session is winning, generally speaking.

Safety. Establishing that the other person is safe to meet.

Figuring out if they are boring or not.

Depending on your circumstances, meeting in person can take significant time, effort, and possibly money.

Chatting is quick, convenient, low risk, and low-effort.

I personally prefer to talk on the phone to chatting over text, because it's much faster and you can tell all sorts of things about a person by the way they talk that you can't over mere text.

I think from my perspective, this entire line of reasoning betrays a lack of empathy. It’s deeply important to many people, especially for safety.

If you unilaterally decide it’s an unworthy stage of the process, that’s likely to be very self limiting and signals quite a bit about this person’s ability to “eat their vegetables of life.”

Another perspective: would you interview someone who just sends, “I don’t do well with résumés or phone screenings. Let’s jump to the interview.” ?

Edit: to more directly answer your question, if both parties prefer that then by all means! But that’s not exactly what this thread is about.

Honestly this take is very strange to me and I think is indicative of a huge difference in how people experience dating apps. Another comment said the desire to chat for days before meeting was correlated with women, which we know receive orders of magnitude more messages on average then men.

Hypothesis: this behavior is correlated with how many messages you receive, so very attractive men with a photographer buddy likely have the same approach.

If you have 10 suitors at a time, it makes sense to filter them using days of texting. Much less time investment than going on a date with each of them.

When you have 1 or 2 matches a month, the texting game is a bigger waste of time.

From the point of view of a woman those 1-3 days of chatting make perfect sense, that way she can try to write off the creeps and the potential dangers. Not sure how it all goes on apps like Grindr, to be honest.

This is a fallacy that there can be a "win" or any guaranteed outcome by doing such things.

1) The so-called "dangerous ones", can be those that will play games, because they may have designated a target or are abnormally obsessed due to bad psychological issues.

Normal people, even more so for those of higher status, are likely not to have the patience to put up with detected nonsense or silliness.

2) Some are experts at online dating and playing along with such games, while others are not.

The filter that is created, are those that will say or type what the other wants to hear. So instead of a genuine interaction, it's lots of con games.

3) Stringing people along does not nor has ever proven to lead to successful long term relationships.

One of the major flaws in such thinking, is that by initially frustrating others, it will make them "prove" themselves. Some even taking it to extremes, to weeks and months.

However, this abusive behavior can become a filter, which leads to encountering those that will simply want to "climb the mountain" for revenge. After obtaining the relationship, its all the more sweet for them to break that person's heart (who initiated the game playing) by suddenly going ghost or bad treatment after having "accomplished the mission".

Overall, better to treat people as you wish to be treated and to be genuine in the interaction. Playing games, often leads to encountering those that like playing games too or possibly worse.

>mandatory 1-3 days chatting

This is not a real thing. In fact once you go above 2-3 back and forth messages your chances of actually going on a date start to go down.

Isn't that the point? If you are not interested enough to chat with that other person for mere three days, chances that you'll be interested in each other in the long term are slim.

It's just a very efficient, very selective filter. And it should filter out the majority of potential matches :(

Chatting with someone you don’t know over text is hard. You somehow have to capture their interest while having no idea what they’re interested in. In person, it’s much easier to get over this initial hump as you can try a bunch of topics quickly until you find one that’s interests both of you, and get much better feedback on the form of body language.

Yes, a text chat misses a ton of non-verbal cues. A video chat could work better.

That was never mandatory!

2 quick nice or funny replies and then ask someone out is ideal. Women don’t like wasting time chatting long either.

"I imagine it has a much better higher success rate than Tinder"

I imagine it would, since tinder is mostly used for hookups vs actual dating.

That 1-3d effort is a kind of "proof of work".

I love chat. I don't like real meetings :S

Yeah it would put a lot more pressure on women, though.

Well obviously a lot of guys in such an app(Tinder as well) will press match every time, hoping than some woman will press it as well.

Online dating is problematic in many ways and very hard for men especially. I think women see men who use those apps as of lesser value anyway.

Therefore I think the best advice for men is to understand how women signal interest in real life. Some people pick it up intuitively but many people today have to learn it. Undercover Sex Signals by Leil Lowndes is a good book to start. Don't use online dating!

I purchased the aformentioned book after reading this comment out of interest (happily married so I don't care about dating anymore). After about 70 pages I have to say that I am not impresed at all. A bullet point list with these "undercover sex signals" would have done.

In my view nothing more than badly written psychobabble which probably does more harm than good.

An unexpected book that I read years ago, was "Dating Japanese Women Secrets". It had some eye opening concepts and advice in general, not just for Japan. Along those lines is a book titled "Fundamentals of Female Dynamics", and it also goes against the grain and conventional thinking. I believe both are still on Kobo or Amazon.

Overall, a lot of guys don't take a moment to look more deeply into the overall picture of what is going on, but instead think everything is innate and/or are instead getting sucked into a game where they will constantly lose. Life is way too short for that. The argument more guys need to be making, is about what's truly helping their situation. Is the usage and way of using a dating app/site really doing that?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com