"Letting fatties roam the site is a direct threat to our business model"(news.bbc.co.uk)
news.bbc.co.uk
"Letting fatties roam the site is a direct threat to our business model"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8439495.stm
6 comments
Let's give these douchebags all the attention they're asking for! No way did they think this could cause a media storm that would land them on the front page of ABCNews.com! Let's make sure we put them there! That'll show 'em!
I think it's safe to assume that the Hacker News demographic is not exactly the main target audience of this site. I submitted the story because it poses interesting questions about the ethics of provocation-based promotion, the viability of a business model that purposely excludes customers, the popularity of exclusive online communities, and so on.
It's rather hard to be mentionable without being very lucky or very controversial. I'm still working on a way to run an honest site and manage to get some media attention. I refuse to operate at their level.
Sorry that was more of a rant on the subject of self promotion through shady means than a commentary on the actual article.
Sorry that was more of a rant on the subject of self promotion through shady means than a commentary on the actual article.
An Open Letter to Robert Hintze, founder of BeautifulPeople.com, and its Members from iChange.com http://www.ichange.com/blog/2010/01/04/an-open-letter-to-rob...
Don't easier-to-access porn sites (with not-so-picky models) exist?
"Shallow people have shallow standards" - what a surprise.
This seems oddly relevant:
http://img39.yfrog.com/img39/6247/h807.png
On a more serious note, there are a lot of difficult problems in onlne dating that someone could make a lot of money by solving. The lack of attractive pictures is not one of them.
http://img39.yfrog.com/img39/6247/h807.png
On a more serious note, there are a lot of difficult problems in onlne dating that someone could make a lot of money by solving. The lack of attractive pictures is not one of them.
Online dating has two problems.
1. Limited corpus. This is usually the result of sites going after very specific verticals (i.e. race, religious, <some-other-facet> specific).
2. Terrible search. Granted, determining compatibility isn't easy, but you typically can at best search on dimensions to limit gender, sexual orientation, proximity and age. After that... then what? If you're using a site with a large corpus (Match, PoF, etc.) you end up subconsciously surrendering your standards and resort to "clicking on the hot ones".
I would liken search on dating sites to be similar to web searches before Google. Actually, before AltaVista. It really is that bad.
If compatibility could be determined quickly and reasonably accurately, on a large number of dimensions, one company could crush every other dating site like an ant. Especially if that score is used all over... for instance, your mail could be sorted by potential compatibility - so you don't waste your time looking at messages from individuals that aren't remotely relevant.
The problem is that sort of quantitative analysis is very computationally expensive in a high-dimensional space, especially for a large corpus (say, 5 to 10 million users).
1. Limited corpus. This is usually the result of sites going after very specific verticals (i.e. race, religious, <some-other-facet> specific).
2. Terrible search. Granted, determining compatibility isn't easy, but you typically can at best search on dimensions to limit gender, sexual orientation, proximity and age. After that... then what? If you're using a site with a large corpus (Match, PoF, etc.) you end up subconsciously surrendering your standards and resort to "clicking on the hot ones".
I would liken search on dating sites to be similar to web searches before Google. Actually, before AltaVista. It really is that bad.
If compatibility could be determined quickly and reasonably accurately, on a large number of dimensions, one company could crush every other dating site like an ant. Especially if that score is used all over... for instance, your mail could be sorted by potential compatibility - so you don't waste your time looking at messages from individuals that aren't remotely relevant.
The problem is that sort of quantitative analysis is very computationally expensive in a high-dimensional space, especially for a large corpus (say, 5 to 10 million users).
I actually think OkCupid does a decent job on most metrics. Their matching algorithm is simplistic, but adaptable and dynamic. It's globally available with almost every interaction with other people on the site and the extensive profile information usually results in decent keyword search. Frustratingly they don't allow you to search by specific personality traits they detect, but sorting by match score actually tends to yield more relevant results than sorting by other fields.
I would agree that most dating sites suck, but surprisingly it turns out one of the free ones is pretty decent. (Being free helps deal with the limited corpus issue nicely as well.)
I think they solves the high-dimensional space issues by lazily evaluating match scores and caching. I have no idea what they're doing on the backend, but I'd guess they don't actually calculate scores for all n^2 matches everytime someone answers new questions.
The computer science behind the site is frankly fascinating. While the site itself doesn't take itself seriously, they seem to take the algorithms driving it very seriously.
The bottom line is it's worked for me. I'm not someone who can't talk to people in person, I'm just someone who's busy and found it more efficient to meet people online. For me what exists now is actually workable, not limiting and efficient.
I'm sure it could be improved, but the two problems you cite haven't been that problematic in my experience.
I would agree that most dating sites suck, but surprisingly it turns out one of the free ones is pretty decent. (Being free helps deal with the limited corpus issue nicely as well.)
I think they solves the high-dimensional space issues by lazily evaluating match scores and caching. I have no idea what they're doing on the backend, but I'd guess they don't actually calculate scores for all n^2 matches everytime someone answers new questions.
The computer science behind the site is frankly fascinating. While the site itself doesn't take itself seriously, they seem to take the algorithms driving it very seriously.
The bottom line is it's worked for me. I'm not someone who can't talk to people in person, I'm just someone who's busy and found it more efficient to meet people online. For me what exists now is actually workable, not limiting and efficient.
I'm sure it could be improved, but the two problems you cite haven't been that problematic in my experience.
One could argue that online dating is a natural monopoly. It’s a waste of effort for a person to subscribe to five different dating services and enter the same demographic and contact information into multiple databases, just as it would be inefficient for someone to have wires leading into their house from five different electric companies. Perhaps a more enlightened government would arrange for the database of matchmaking information to be run as a state agency or a closely regulated public utility.
Agree fully with point #2. Have you used OkCupid? I think it's better than most in that regard, but the people on the site tend to be a bit full of themselves. Also, compatibility has a lot more to do with what people do than with what they say, which is why surveys and "shared values" questionnaires fall flat.
>Have you used OkCupid?
Yes. I'd consider it more of a machine-gun approach than a sawed-off shotgun. Potentially more accurate, but by and large you're still using more ammo than should be necessary.
>which is why surveys and "shared values" questionnaires fall flat Bingo.
Surveys actually provide a way of gaming the scoring system as well, since you can make a reasonable assumption of what your ideal partner would want you to say.
That's the biggest flaw with dating sites, is that you can only trust so much user input - everything needs to be taken in context. Even simple things such as "interests" should be evaluated in their own context, because you can't rely on exact matches or even fuzzy matches - you have to infer what else their might be interested in. Granted, you also get the problem where you don't get enough user input, therefore being able to infer other information becomes ridiculously valuable.
I agree that you can't perform N^2 searches in real-time. A lazy match is fine until a more accurate index is generated. However we still lack a reasonably accurate index. We also have to do all the searching ourselves, instead of the system working harder to provide far greater relevancy than it does now. I think the best analogue is Netflix - I want recommendations based on my interests and behavior. Again, the issue is dating has far more dimensions than movie recommendations.
>which is why surveys and "shared values" questionnaires fall flat Bingo.
Surveys actually provide a way of gaming the scoring system as well, since you can make a reasonable assumption of what your ideal partner would want you to say.
That's the biggest flaw with dating sites, is that you can only trust so much user input - everything needs to be taken in context. Even simple things such as "interests" should be evaluated in their own context, because you can't rely on exact matches or even fuzzy matches - you have to infer what else their might be interested in. Granted, you also get the problem where you don't get enough user input, therefore being able to infer other information becomes ridiculously valuable.
I agree that you can't perform N^2 searches in real-time. A lazy match is fine until a more accurate index is generated. However we still lack a reasonably accurate index. We also have to do all the searching ourselves, instead of the system working harder to provide far greater relevancy than it does now. I think the best analogue is Netflix - I want recommendations based on my interests and behavior. Again, the issue is dating has far more dimensions than movie recommendations.