[HN Gopher] Dating: A Mysterious Constellation of Facts
___________________________________________________________________
Dating: A Mysterious Constellation of Facts
Author : tobr
Score : 56 points
Date : 2025-10-30 16:20 UTC (2 days ago)
(HTM) web link (dynomight.net)
(TXT) w3m dump (dynomight.net)
| gassi wrote:
| I think the author missed an important factor: misaligned
| incentives.
|
| Dating apps make money when users spend time (and money) on the
| platform. Users who find a partner tend to leave the platform, so
| dating companies are incentivized to prevent that from happening.
| Those companies then have more opportunities to up-sell those
| users on premium features, which they're more likely to purchase
| due to repeated failure and/or feelings of inadequacy.
| cbondurant wrote:
| This is exactly why I always make it a point to discourage my
| friends from using dating apps.
|
| A dating app that is effective at solving the problem it is
| ostensibly designed to solve will never make money as people
| will be matched quickly and will have no need to pay for the
| service. So clearly no profitable dating app is good at
| matching people.
|
| I'm of the opinion that using a tool that is constantly setting
| you up for romantic failure and rejection in the name of
| keeping you on its platform is a really good way to wreck your
| mental health.
| zelphirkalt wrote:
| On the other hand, if it was so easy to find a match, then we
| wouldn't be trying to use dating apps. I think it is just
| generally hard to find a good match for many people these
| days.
| nradov wrote:
| The other side of that is that many people are simply
| terrible and really unsuitable for being in any sort of
| long term stable relationship. No dating app can solve that
| problem (unless maybe they incorporate mental health and
| life coaching services, which seems kind of sketchy as a
| combination). Whether the situation has gotten generally
| harder these days is impossible to say but I certainly
| don't envy those still in the dating pool.
| 10000truths wrote:
| This is often parroted, but the reasoning is flawed. The vast
| majority of the platform's growth will come from new users, who
| are _entering_ the dating scene. If they fail to capture that
| audience (say, by having a reputation of not performing as
| advertised), then no amount of upsells or string-alongs of
| existing users will sustain them, as their user base will only
| ever decrease, and investors will see that and withdraw
| accordingly.
| djoldman wrote:
| > The vast majority of the platform's growth will come from
| new users...
|
| Userbase expansion is new users less leaving users for a time
| period. So there are two factors, not just "new users."
|
| In any case, Match Group apps are _well_ into the phase of
| focusing on extracting the most money possible from their
| paying users as opposed to gaining new users.
|
| After all, infinite users are useless to a company, even if
| it costs nothing to support them, if none of them pay.
| parpfish wrote:
| And to add to that- seeing a real world friend go on dates or
| start a relationship because of an app is better than any
| marketing you could ever buy.
|
| If you want to drive top-of-the-funnel growth, make the
| product good even it causes some folks to drop out once
| they're in a relationship.
| Etheryte wrote:
| I don't think this counterargument holds. It's a hell of a
| lot easier to get a customer who already paid once to pay a
| second time than it is to get a customer to pay for the first
| time. Also, I think most people are well aware that by and
| large, dating apps have a very low success rate for the
| majority of their users. People use them anyway.
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| Everything about this is wrong.
|
| 1) The platforms aren't growing that impressively. Most of
| their users have been on the platform for a while, were
| previous users, etc.
|
| 2) It doesn't matter how good the app is, you need a network
| effect. New users are going to go to where the potential
| dates are.
|
| 3) Marketing does wonders. An app can suck and have great
| marketing. It will get users over an app that actually works
| and doesn't have good marketing.
|
| 4) Lots of people on dating apps are looking for dates
| (hookups), not partners. If the apps can keep you getting
| dates, not partners, they can keep you on the app and happy.
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| Match's growth peaked a long time ago. The site is now trying
| to grow by "offering new products" and "cutting operational
| costs."
|
| The relative newcomers - Bumble and Hinge - grew by trying to
| offer a better experience, especially for women, who are
| traditionally overwhelmed with unreciprocated interest on
| conventional apps. Both seem to have admitted defeat now and
| moved to the usual model.
|
| In terms of revenue, the incentive to keep millions of users
| spending is far higher than the nominal gains from persuading
| friends of a successful couple to join up. Given that most
| users aren't successful, that network effect is _tiny_.
|
| There's an opposing network effect of *keeping customers
| unmatched, because this provides gossip and entertainment
| among friends, which gives them a reason to continue using a
| service.
|
| We know that string-alongs are a real thing on dating sites -
| especially, but not exclusively, for men.
|
| There's also a small but not negligible subculture of
| (mostly) women who use dates for free meals and get a good
| return on their monthly subscription.
|
| And a lot of sites - not just Tinder - overlap hook-up
| culture with people seeking marriage and kids. If anything
| the former is a more popular option now.
| brudgers wrote:
| _Users who find a partner_
|
| Tinder is not Match is not Grind. People partner for various
| reasons and durations.
| e2e4 wrote:
| Facebook dating has different incentives.
|
| https://www.facebook.com/dating
| jeffbee wrote:
| The only thing I can dream up less appealing than that would
| be dating on Nextdoor.
| feoren wrote:
| This is exactly why a dating app should be developed and
| provided by the government. Side note: If this gives you the
| heebie jeebies, you are part of the problem.
| DaSHacka wrote:
| > This is exactly why a dating app should be developed and
| provided by the government. Side note: If this gives you the
| heebie jeebies, you are part of the problem.
|
| Bravo, I haven't laughed this much in a while. God-tier
| satire.
| linguae wrote:
| I'm sure there are many people who don't want their dating
| lives influenced by whatever rulers are in charge of their
| governments. Democrats won't like a MAGA dating service, and
| vice versa.
| tbossanova wrote:
| What about a nonprofit instead?
| sqrt_1 wrote:
| I think Japan did this last year
| https://japandaily.jp/japans-government-initiatives-to-
| boost...
| TimTheTinker wrote:
| Bingo. This is the effect that keeps (a) incumbent platforms in
| place, (b) users on those platforms, (c) and potentially new
| platforms from coming online and offering a "superior"
| experience.
| ed wrote:
| I don't think speed dating is as popular as submarine[1] articles
| suggest. But the constraint of being in-person and with a limited
| set of options may be helpful for some people. The paradox of
| choice is a significant issue on apps.
|
| I do agree that bandwidth is significantly higher in person,
| we've evolved efficient pattern detection, and wish it were more
| acceptable to meet up for a quick coffee immediately after
| matching. But a few bad apples spoil the bunch.
|
| There's an alternate explanation - that the fittest companies
| prioritize engagement and revenue until reaching some threshold
| of user dissatisfaction. The healthiest businesses often have
| customers who wish they could leave, but can't.
|
| 1 - https://paulgraham.com/submarine.html
| johnfn wrote:
| Tangential from your point, but I don't think this is a
| submarine article. This is just a single blogger. "Submarine
| article" typically refers to articles written by large news
| corporations (NYTimes eg) and incentivized by PR firms - none
| of which applies here.
|
| The reason I mention this is that "submarine article" is
| typically used to cast suspicion at the aims of the article. I
| can't see any reason to do that to this article.
| ed wrote:
| [delayed]
| Aaargh20318 wrote:
| From the article:
|
| > (...) pictures also give lots of information about important
| non-superficial things, like your personality, values, social
| class, and lifestyle.
|
| This is the one thing that puzzles me most about dating apps:
| where do all these pictures come from? People seem to have
| pictures of them doing all kinds of activities. When I'm out with
| friends doing whatever, no one is taking pictures. Even if they
| did, it's not like we exchange pictures afterwards.
|
| I genuinely don't have any pictures of myself.
|
| Are me and my friends weird for not documenting every second of
| our lives?
| DaSHacka wrote:
| I've been around someone trying to get into dating apps, he
| just started asking us to "take a picture of him real quick"
| while we're doing outings with the bois "so I can out it on
| tinder".
|
| I assume most people are this way, you just have others start
| taking pictures of the things you normally do (but didnt
| normally take pictures of) when you feel the need to make/flesh
| out a profile.
| Artoooooor wrote:
| I used to take more pictures of myself on parties and general
| group events. Now I am less involved so less pictures are
| taken.
| bovermyer wrote:
| You're not weird. I've wondered the same thing myself.
| tbossanova wrote:
| You only need a few pictures to fill a profile. Taking a few
| snaps when doing interesting stuff likely spread over months or
| years isn't "documenting every second of our lives".
| Aaargh20318 wrote:
| If I take a picture I'm not in it. If someone else takes a
| picture they don't share it with me. How would I get pictures
| for a profile?
| zug_zug wrote:
| I think it's actually very simple... the paradox of choice.
|
| You introduce somebody to your attractive single friend there's a
| real chance they hit it off and form a relationship. You
| introduce them to 100 attractive friends, one makes more money,
| one has a mores table job, one is flirtier, etc then it's both
| exhausting and none of them seem like a great opportunity.
|
| I think there are certain basic psychological facts that are
| anti-standard-economics that nerds (and therefore tech companies)
| almost always tend to be completely blind to. This is one of
| them.
| nkrisc wrote:
| Commonly called "analysis paralysis". For most people, I
| believe, once you have more than a small number of options it's
| basically impossible (or feels so) to analyze and compare all
| options to make what seems like a rational and logical
| decision. So some people will just get frustrated and pick one
| arbitrarily, or give up and pick none. A small number of people
| will make a spreadsheet and devote way too much time to over-
| analyzing the situation, and maybe never come to a satisfactory
| conclusion.
|
| This applies to almost anything, even "which restaurant should
| we go to tonight?"
| 1659447091 wrote:
| > ...once you have more than a small number of options it's
| basically impossible (or feels so) to analyze and compare all
| options to make what seems like a rational and logical
| decision.So some people will just get frustrated and pick one
| arbitrarily, or give up and pick none.
|
| In this context (non-work related decisions) I find the
| "analysis paralysis" stems from a person not knowing
| themselves well enough or knowing themselves but not sure how
| to assert it without coming off in an off-putting way.
|
| For the latter, "which restaurant should we go to tonight?" I
| take that as whatever I pick is it so I pick what I want (as
| long as I know the other people dont have allergies to the
| place or something) and that's it. When people ask for a
| place to pick they usually mean it (from my experience), and
| they are happy to tag along whereever -- otherwise they will
| suggest something and ask others opinion, I take that to mean
| they want to go there but don't want to seem bossy or some
| other weirdness, and so we go there unless I have a problem
| with it that I'll voice and suggests something similar.
|
| For the former, I think people are too worried about coming
| off as "selfish". And it makes sense because some people
| really are, and being around them makes decent people really
| not want to be that. But knowing what you like and want
| especially when it's not what you have been told to like and
| want is the biggest hurdle to getting past the "analysis
| paralysis" here. If you know you and what you like and want
| than there is really not much to analysis, the analysis
| should be happening everyday of your life so when these big
| things come up you have a solid foundation to go on.
| Otherwise, a lot of it is trying to figure out what the best
| option is according to outside guidelines you've been given
| -- which is great for work, but not so much for oneself.
|
| Of course, maybe there are people who can't do the above for
| whatever, but it's a skill to know what you like and want and
| a skill to put it into practice without being rude, just like
| talking to random people or programming. You get better with
| real world practice/exposure.
| HPsquared wrote:
| There's also something like a "market for lemons" effect where
| the best people (i.e. those most suitable for relationships and
| capable of sustaining them) tend to pair off and disappear from
| the market.
| Gigachad wrote:
| Isn't market for lemons about a situation where consumers can
| not tell the difference between good and bad quality product
| so they only buy the cheapest assuming it's bad.
| zeroonetwothree wrote:
| Yes, and that also applies to dating apps. It's easier to
| fake being attractive on an app than in real life. So the
| apps will be dominated by low cost fakes.
|
| You're right that the comment you replied to was describing
| a different effect (adverse selection?)
| SpicyLemonZest wrote:
| I'm just not sure there's a real phenomenon here. People's
| complaints about dating apps match up pretty precisely with
| common complaints about dating more generally. It's an inherently
| frustrating process!
|
| I think it's pretty telling that the alternatives people talk
| about are always alternative strategies for how to meet lots of
| people. The most common pre-app experience, where you _didn 't_
| meet lots of people and married a random person in your social
| circles rather than a best friend who gets you and shares your
| key interests, isn't something most people are interested in.
| tern wrote:
| A major factor in my world: the coolest people don't use dating
| apps because they find the experience awful and they have no
| problem meeting people in real life
|
| The spicier version: dating apps select for personality
| disorders, and as such, being on a dating app in the first place
| is a negative signal
|
| For what it's worth, I think this has always been true of the web
| in general (forums, chat, social media, comments sections, etc.)
| aleph_minus_one wrote:
| > A major factor in my world: the coolest people don't use
| dating apps because [...] they have no problem meeting people
| in real life
|
| > The spicier version: dating apps select for personality
| disorders, and as such, being on a dating app in the first
| place is a negative signal
|
| I guess a lot of people you would call "cool" I would rather
| call "annoying self-centered people who are often very
| concerned about their public image (i.e. narcists)".
|
| Yes, this people may have a much easier time finding dates in
| real life, but if you are rather into different kinds of people
| for a relationship and are more on the introverted side, I
| guess dating in real life is not the best idea for success.
| HPsquared wrote:
| It's even more stark if you weight it by online content rather
| than lurkers. Certain types of people tend to post a LOT, so a
| random sample of online content will be biased towards the
| "high posting frequency" type of person, who is probably not a
| normal average type of person.
| lordnacho wrote:
| Everyone is playing the secretary problem. If you're popular, you
| have to turn down a lot of candidates before you try to find one
| that's in whatever you measure to be in your league (better than
| all the ones you saw previously, but I wonder how many people are
| really going with that). If you're on an app, that's a lot of
| people.
|
| At the same time, there's a bunch of people who aren't so popular
| who are now done checking a short queue of candidates, and
| willing to go with whoever shows up next above their bar.
|
| But those people are still busy rejecting everyone in a seemingly
| infinite line of suitors. So we have a problem getting people to
| match.
|
| Add to this that the sexes are not distributed the same way.
| There's a few ultra hot guys who will never not have a date, and
| there's a more even number of hot women who the less hot guys are
| waiting on.
|
| If you're speed dating or doing any other real-world dating, your
| queues are a lot shorter. You will feel like your idea of the
| market is set much sooner, and you can start picking out a
| candidate.
| nextworddev wrote:
| Nerds will do everything to avoid practicing game, including
| writing blog posts
| etothepii wrote:
| My guess is that most startup founders are in a relationship.
|
| I've been in a monogamous relationship for nearly 16 years I
| would thus not be in a position to be a first customer.
| roenxi wrote:
| The author didn't consider a more basic selection bias that the 3
| contradictory facts are driven by different groups of people.
| That makes it rather easy to reconcile 3 apparently contradictory
| views. You can't jump-start a new market for a dating app with
| in-person speed daters because they are the people who refuse to
| use an app!
|
| And it is worth being a little suspicious of the people who
| 'hate' dating apps. There are valid criticisms, but the people
| who are just bad partners are going to turn up somewhere and it
| might be that pool of people - they tend not to be big on
| reflecting on their own flaws with rigorous intellectual honesty
| and would blame the apps.
| aleph_minus_one wrote:
| Concerning "dating apps suck": OkCupid was decent in its heyday.
| But even at that time, there were very few users of it near the
| city where I lived or even in the country where I lived. Thus, it
| simply was nevertheless not useful to me. But no other dating
| site uses a similar algorithm; perhaps most people care about
| other things in dating than what OkCupid is optimized to give
| them.
| johnfn wrote:
| Controversial take, but have we considered that possibly dating
| apps _dont_ suck, and that this perception is driven by a vocal
| minority of the people who have the worst experience on them? (A
| sad fact is that dating will just suck for some % of the
| population. Is it possible that if there were no apps the same %
| would be saying how IRL dating sucks?) I know many people in
| stable LTRs or married who met through dating apps. But I don't
| think you typically find these people participating in discourse
| about dating apps. If anything they've probably moved on to
| complaining why wedding planners and baby books or whatever suck.
| Gigachad wrote:
| The fact is that younger generations are increasingly more
| single and finding it harder and harder to date. If dating apps
| are primarily to blame could be up for debate but something
| about the modern world is clearly not working.
| jacob235 wrote:
| The problems, in my view, are bandwidth and behavior, but not for
| the reasons noted. In a dating profile, you can carefully curate
| every part of your first impression. This means that 1) you need
| to have basically a perfect profile (doesn't mean you come off as
| the hottest, just that it's all green flags) because otherwise
| you are not putting your best foot forward, and 2) the dating
| profile is not reflective of the reality of the person.
|
| This leads into behavior, as you can spend however much time you
| want vibing and talking through text, but meeting and spending
| time together in person will invariably be different. This
| results in two major high-pressure, high-filter events as opposed
| to the one from initially meeting in person.
| aleph_minus_one wrote:
| > The problems, in my view, are bandwidth and behavior, but not
| for the reasons noted. In a dating profile, you can carefully
| curate every part of your first impression. This means that 1)
| you need to have basically a perfect profile (doesn't mean you
| come off as the hottest, just that it's all green flags)
| because otherwise you are not putting your best foot forward,
| and 2) the dating profile is not reflective of the reality of
| the person.
|
| I would rather create a very honest profile because if some
| potential candidate is rather into the "artificial persona"
| that I project in my profile, when the relationship gets more
| serious, the match will soon realize that in real life I'm not
| a particular good fit.
| socalgal2 wrote:
| Nice theory but in my experience 98% of profiles are generic
| and say almost nothing.
| knotimpressed wrote:
| Not related directly to the article, but I'm so glad there's a
| "tell me mistakes I made to fix" box. I wish more sites, hell
| even news sites had that.
| noduerme wrote:
| I went to a speed dating thing once that tried to incorporate its
| own (clearly homemade) tech stack into the experience. Every few
| minutes you'd get a text telling you who to find next... to look
| for the person in the red scarf or cowboy boots or something. By
| the time you found them and found somewhere to sit, you had a few
| minutes to talk.
|
| It felt a bit unnecessary. In any case, maybe it was just how
| totally random in age and interest the people there were, but the
| result wasn't like cramming 15 online dates into the span of a
| single one. It was more like 15 conversations with people I would
| never have had the slightest impulse to contact via an online
| dating app. Most of the conversations had what felt like a
| comfortable mutual vibe of "we both understand we could not
| plausibly be attracted to each other."
| rolandog wrote:
| [delayed]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-11-01 23:00 UTC)