1. Dating apps/sites are a rich-get-richer market. Most people go where everyone else goes, because everyone else is there.

2. The more work you ask your users to do up front, (e.g. answering a bunch of survey questions, taking high quality photos, paying up front) the fewer highly desirable people you'll have, because they can easily find people wherever they go without doing all that work.

3. Swiping is more fun (more addictive) than answering survey questions. OKCupid switched to swiping when A/B testing showed that swiping retained people better than survey questions.

▲

TZubiri 5 hours ago | parent [-]

1. Dating apps/sites are a rich-get-richer market. Most people go where everyone else goes, because everyone else is there.

I get that this is true for social networks in general, like messaging platforms, there's a first mover and network effect.

However for dating apps specifically, there is not truly a network effect, all you need to find is one person, and for monogamous relationships (which incidentally are more common among heterosexual couples, whereas Tinder and its descendants, coming from grindr heritage, tend against) it's even more true, as in the ideal scenario each user finds one other user, there's not a huge amount of network interaction.

I also think that both in the general and specific course, there's a lot of incentives for niches, subcultures, alternative cultures, often times part of a culture is to avoid the monotonizing mainstream tropes and memes.

▲

Conscat 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

There exist hundreds of fly by night matchmaking apps, but most people can only name about half a dozen off hand.

	▲	nomilk 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		There's a hack: if the platform appeals to some of the most sought-after women, it can win, since the most sought-after men will follow, and the marjority women/men will follow chasing the first two groups. (same dynamic is used to fill empty nightclubs). Bumble did this to Tinder. Coffee Meets Bagel is currently trying to do it to Bumble.

▲

zmgsabst 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You also have a self-selection effect: users willing to fill out more involved surveys may pair with each other at a higher rate than the overall background.

▲

bbor 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> for monogamous relationships (which incidentally are more common among heterosexual couples, whereas Tinder and its descendants, coming from grindr heritage, tend against)

Describing everyone who isn't straight as "tending against monogamy" is bigotry. I'm aware that there's a 0.1% PP difference or whatever -- still absurd.

▲

someguynamedq an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Describing accurate statistics is not bigotry. Abusing people based on it is

▲

spronk 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

There's no suggestion of that in the quotation. The author is suggesting that Tinder was designed as a straight hookup app inspired by grindr, the gay hookup app. This is not really true in the specific but certainly isn't implying non-straights are "tending against monogamy".

There isn't an offensive imputation contained in being called non-monogamous anyway, unless you in turn have a prejudice against polyamory etc.

▲

TZubiri 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Not sure if it helps, but I mean male homosexuals. Lesbians are more monogamous, so it's not a matter of being homosexual that makes one less monogamous, it's more that men are more hypergamous.

This is true in almost all species, as there is an evolutionary benefit for males to mate in excess of one partner, as each subsequent mate increases the chance and amount of offspring. Whereas females have little benefit to mating in excess of 1 partner, as she cannot have more than 1 child in that period.

So if anything I would be sexist against males (of any species)? Or sexist against women? It depends on whether you consider monogamy virtuous or not. Or maybe pointing out any difference, even if morally neutral, between two group of people is enough to be a bigot, in which case I would avoid speaking about protected classes of people, which doesn't sound great.

I don't know what the rules for bigotry are, (but I know it when I see it). But I'd dare say that even pointing out negatives of a protected class can be fine. If we are talking about basketball and I point out that the Japanese team is too short, that's not bigotry. That a comment is tangential instead of central to an argument is probably also relevant.

As for the accuracy of the claim, I won't cite a study, some truths are accessible by simpler, perhaps more social means. If you know gay people, talk to them, ask them directly if they feel comfortable and you care about it. Also take a look into the history of dating apps, is it a coincidence that Grindr was originally gay only? Is there an equivalent Lesbian hookup app?

Also, I'm sorry if you are gay and found this offensive, I just assumed you were straight and were just being offended in the name of someone else. I don't think many gay people would question that men are less monogamous, but I may be wrong..

	▲	someguynamedq an hour ago \| parent [-]
		You don't need to overexplain