Why Dating Apps Don't Work Well

This is true and you're right to say it. However much like other problematic software products in the attention economy, I don't know that there's really a solution. By definition: if a dating app (assuming it isn't a hookup one anyway) is doing it's job, it will lose two users with every "success" it achieves. Which means success for the user and success for the company are not just different, they are opposed. An attention-monetizing free service such as needs users, they need user numbers and user engagements, and if they lose users, especially women who are damn hard to get on these platforms in the first place, then they begin to lose value and lose the ability to make money.

And, even if we discard the notion that attention is being monetized, the presence of women as stated is essential to any of these dating apps' long term viability as a business. I think that's why there's this low-level constant outrage that exists with men who use them; they feel de-prioritized and discarded next to their female counterparts in the user base, because fundamentally, these platforms know they don't have to do shit to get male users. They will come, they will stay, regardless of what they're asked to do or deal with, and therefore they are not valuable to the platform and their needs, desires, and preferences are not catered to. As long as they can attract enough women to meet an emotional threshold for prospective male users, they'll come in droves, and probably spend money too.

I don't know if this is exactly it, but your idea for designing a system that encourages fewer but much higher-quality interactions is a good one.

In nearly all cases, a profile, blog / whatever is of little value the first thing that happens is they check the profile photo and that is it for the most part

I think that (in general) is a good way to be thinking about it.

I have a friend who is interested in using settlements of either real or phony money to offer incentives and change people's behavior in online settings and I'm going to talk with him about applying this to dating tonight.

Some of the reason why it is easy to meet people when you are in school is that you are not just doing it one on one but you are in a group of people that share activities and interests and couples can break off but they have the support of the group from before they meet all the way to the wedding and beyond.

A site that builds a real community could capture all of this. Another thing to think about is habit change. I've written about a recent experience I've had and I've been thinking about what I can do to right now to help it develop and I know I need to get practice in showing gratitude, giving complements and doing little nice things because I'd like to be able to show my love.

On today's online dating sites on the other hand you are feeling ugly or harried or angry or frustrated and none of those those feelings are going to help you give and receive love.

I understand the desire for asymmetry in a heteronormative context, but I think the only real solution is one that just encourages all users to feel more invested in forming genuine connections (e.g. microblogging or whatever).

I think Hinge actually had a pretty good system when I was using it a few years ago. It had a strict bio format, which required every used to answer exactly 3 questions (of their choice) - this format allowed me to identify people who cared about genuinely meeting someone, and had the depth of character to communicate well with me. The incentive to over-share is gone, because you're limited to 3 answers. The incentive to under-share is gone, because you know everyone is also sharing so you're not going to look desperate. People who couldn't or wouldn't give 3 interesting and honest answers were easily ruled out and a lot of the alluring "mystery" of those under-filled profiles was stripped away.

I like the idea of having limited but higher quality interactions.

Another way to encourage this I think is making it a paid service. Filters out anyone just using it to look at pictures or waste time.

I liked the bumble founders idea of having LLMs trained on peoples texts/social-media activity and having them talk to each other and then matching people based on that. Might be a good way to determine that one daily match.

So 1) have money, and 2) have money. We also don't know what you look like which is a hugely important factor, maybe even the most important with app based dating where the swiping decisions are made in fractions of a second.

I'm not trying to downplay your experience but these kind of anecdotes don't mean much, especially when we're missing so much information.

Being a paypig is my limit. Fortunately it's not expectation in my country.

Because it's lower effort to use, especially for hot people, so that's where hot people will converge.

This is a form of dating I would much more likely choose, if I had to. Worst case is that you don't like each other but you still can have a nice holiday, perhaps then with people you meet locally. It is a bit crazy, but nobody can say you lack the effort. I had people move in my shared apartment without ever meeting me, so I believe the risk isn't too real. You have to take a risk or two in life and the chance of meeting a serial killer is pretty low.

To be honest, the people in my life with successful relationships often have in common that they never once dated in their lives. At least not to get to know a potential partner, they all have met through other means.

Of course not everybody is that lucky, but the people that do dating as a leisure activity and those that do not might simply not fit together and many only use online dating because they cannot find connections elsewhere. Perhaps I am lost in translation here, but none of those couples I know would ever say or have said "I am dating someone". They would do things together and maybe end up in a relationship. There is a difference and I think this approach might offer something better.