‘It’s quite soul-destroying’: how we fell out of love with dating apps::For a decade, apps have dominated dating. But now singles are growing tired of swiping and are looking for new ways to meet people – or reverting to old ones

    • Dark Arc
      link
      fedilink
      English
      22
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I liked what bumble did with the “lifetime premium”. It gives them an incentive to actually get you a match.

      Coincidentally… I met my current girlfriend on Bumble after trying a litany of apps over the course of years… Definitely not saying it’s a good or easy option though. Part of it is that I’m picky, but I treated it a lot like a job for years to get this relationship.

      • @RoxActually
        link
        English
        121 year ago

        Met my wife on Bumble and we just had a baby in June

        • @khannie
          link
          English
          41 year ago

          Congratulations :)

        • @pirat
          link
          English
          1
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Wait until you find out that she isn’t real, and you’ve been transferring almost all your savings of semen to one nasty guy in Nigeria…

          (lol, this presumes you haven’t even met your “baby” yet, only believed in the cute photos your “wife” sent of them, since she still needs a bit more money (probably crypto or giftcards) to be able to afford the transport to come live with you!)

          Hopefully, it’s a very different story. Anyway, congratulations!

      • @pete_the_cat
        link
        English
        111 year ago

        I think the lifetime premium is a joke because you’re paying a lot up front instead of monthly or weekly. Yeah, they may get less money, but probably not. As the article says, people tend to stop using them after a month or two regardless of the outcome (that’s definitely my experience), so getting like $150 up front for lifetime access is a lot better than someone paying $35/month for two months.

        • Dark Arc
          link
          fedilink
          English
          61 year ago

          For me, it was definitely a huge money saver. Working in tech (now a remote job), not drinking, not being religious, and having extremely “meet a girl” friendly hobbies like hiking and gaming … it was extremely limiting.

          A 1 time $150 was a steal compared to some of the other apps like the scam that is eharmony.

            • Dark Arc
              link
              fedilink
              English
              2
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I mean, if you’re wasting money on other apps… And you just want an app with a pretty good population that you’re not constantly paying money into and also not artificially knee capped on… It’s a pretty good deal assuming they still offer it

          • @pete_the_cat
            link
            English
            11 year ago

            I was you for 5 years (12 hour shifts 7-7, 6 months night, 6 months day, worked 3 days a week and every other Saturday) but in Manhattan. I bought 3 and 6 month subscriptions and I think that was the only time I actually got dates on there. I was surprised when I got one a few months back on a free account.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        141 year ago

        Kinda like Luxottica being the reason why most sunglasses cost $175 for $0.10 worth of plastic.

      • @Clbull
        link
        English
        141 year ago

        That pisses me off more than anything.

        I really wish the FTC would go ham on Match Group and break up that monopoly…

        • @krakenx
          link
          English
          11 year ago

          Match group beat Apple. In Europe.

    • @cynar
      link
      English
      71 year ago

      Back in the day, plenty of fish did an interesting blog post on that very topic. Unfortunately, it vanished when they were brought up by one of the big dating site groups that now dominate.

      They also did some amazing meta data analysis of their users, and discussed it publicly. E.g. including the word “awesome” in your opening message improved multi message response rate by 18% (from memory).

      • @Clbull
        link
        English
        14
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It was actually OkCupid.

        They also did one where they looked at how men and women rate each other on looks, and found that women rate a whopping 80% of men as below average attractiveness.

        This was made back when you could rate profiles out of 5 stars.

        Archived link to that blog post

        • @cynar
          link
          English
          31 year ago

          I stand corrected. I used both back in the day. I even met my wife on there! Somehow I got the 2 swapped in my mind.

          • @Clbull
            link
            English
            41 year ago

            The way I remember them is that POF had a horrendous turquoise website design and looked like a circa-2003 webpage that hadn’t been updated in years, while Okcupid was a lot more competently designed.

    • @SCB
      link
      English
      71 year ago

      Their business model doesn’t really require that, as relationships have a natural attrition rate, and new people are constantly entering the market.

    • @systemglitch
      link
      English
      31 year ago

      I met my partner on Kijiji. Never been happier, so they can work just fine.

      I admit I’m as surprised as anyone because it was such a slog before talking to her initially.