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?
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.
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.
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.