You know, there's probably fewer perverse incentives with a government run dating service. Obviously I can imagine ways it could suck, but when I compare them to how commercial dating services are run it's hard to see how they could do a _worse_ job.
On the other side you got a fresh supply on both sides from kids growing up to be adults and from adults divorcing and even if your matchmaking is perfect and divorce culturally shamed against, people still die which leaves widow(er)s behind, of whom a certain amount will want a new relationship.
Dating apps are a race to the bottom. They're collecting a tax on the lonely and desperate of dwindling populations. Ironically it's not sustainable over the long term.
> Ironically it's not sustainable over the long term.
The entire idea of just wanting MRR and be done with it is a huge, huge part why the world is so screwed. So much of the economy is just devolved into rich people seeking rents.
A dating app with an MMR score for the players is an interesting idea, with matchmaking done based on MMR similarity. Then there could be an annual dating tournament for the best players.
I don’t think that a market for lemons is the right analogy or how it relates to your other claims. A market for lemons is one where buyers cannot distinguish between high and low quality goods (eg used cars). I think people are mostly ok at judging the ‘quality’ of romantic partners and the problem you describe is a different thing.
You’re not really demonstrating anything with this comment. My complaint was with your above non-sequitur. You’re welcome to claim that dating looks like a market for lemons but I encourage you to follow up that claim with explanations or corollaries that line up with what a market for lemons is, rather than your other opinions on dating.
The divorce rate doesn’t really show that people are bad at judging the ‘quality’ of romantic partners for the same reason that cars breaking down or needing maintenance after hundreds of thousands of miles does not show that people cannot judge the quality of second-hand cars.
I think that's a bit too reductive, but the incentive mismatch is real. Commercial apps generally benefit from people staying on the app; a government service theoretically benefits if people pair off and leave.
It's an interesting question, because on one hand the government goals will remove a lot of the perverse incentives. E.g. having people who aren't going to answer in the pool of profiles shown is mostly a negative. Doing actual, well thought out matches makes sense where for a commercial app favouring one-sided matches that keep one side wanting and not getting frequent answers can be better.
But on the other hand, if it appears "too limited" because the most desirable people disappear off quickly because of a successful match, maybe they'll still struggle to keep the users coming back to it even if they're actually doing a better job at matching people up...
Really depends whether the track record (assuming its good) becomes known enough to people, I'd guess.
That's half of it. The other half is make people think they have a chance of pairing up but try to avoid them actually pairing up because, as Plenty of Fish once wrote in a blog post, it's not just that your users leave you, it's that they leave your service in pairs
Tinder side-stepped this issue when they changed to be a hookup site. The downside, of course, is you end up with a bunch of one-night stands instead of stable families producing babies.
water-data-dude · · focus · HN ↗
sergiotapia · · focus · HN ↗
Keep supply of women high because men will pay anything for a chance?
I am very curious how this will be changed in this government platform. Maybe it won't LOL
some_furry · · focus · HN ↗
Bluestein · · focus · HN ↗
mschuster91 · · focus · HN ↗
On the other side you got a fresh supply on both sides from kids growing up to be adults and from adults divorcing and even if your matchmaking is perfect and divorce culturally shamed against, people still die which leaves widow(er)s behind, of whom a certain amount will want a new relationship.
stymaar · · focus · HN ↗
derangedHorse · · focus · HN ↗
Dating apps are a race to the bottom. They're collecting a tax on the lonely and desperate of dwindling populations. Ironically it's not sustainable over the long term.
mschuster91 · · focus · HN ↗
The entire idea of just wanting MRR and be done with it is a huge, huge part why the world is so screwed. So much of the economy is just devolved into rich people seeking rents.
logicchains · · focus · HN ↗
dan-robertson · · focus · HN ↗
some_furry · · focus · HN ↗
dan-robertson · · focus · HN ↗
The divorce rate doesn’t really show that people are bad at judging the ‘quality’ of romantic partners for the same reason that cars breaking down or needing maintenance after hundreds of thousands of miles does not show that people cannot judge the quality of second-hand cars.
some_furry · · focus · HN ↗
You must be really lonely lol :D
dan-robertson · · focus · HN ↗
SwtCyber · · focus · HN ↗
eru · · focus · HN ↗
> Keep supply of women high because men will pay anything for a chance?
Grindr has a different fix.
jansan · · focus · HN ↗
<a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-42609353" rel="nofollow">https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-42609353
vidarh · · focus · HN ↗
But on the other hand, if it appears "too limited" because the most desirable people disappear off quickly because of a successful match, maybe they'll still struggle to keep the users coming back to it even if they're actually doing a better job at matching people up...
Really depends whether the track record (assuming its good) becomes known enough to people, I'd guess.
bluecheese452 · · focus · HN ↗
tomjen3 · · focus · HN ↗
Tinder side-stepped this issue when they changed to be a hookup site. The downside, of course, is you end up with a bunch of one-night stands instead of stable families producing babies.