Online dating apps struggle as people swear off swiping

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/article/2024/aug/17/dating-apps-decline-bumble-tinder

by geox • 2 years ago

54 96 2 years ago

haunter• 2 years ago

Not surprisingly these articles never talk about men’s experiences. Only women or “people”

For 99% of these apps, the presence of women is what keeps the app alive, since men are the ones typically pursuing women in dating.

Men's experience is relevant to them, but not the owners of the app.

datameta5• 2 years ago

And in the case of Bumble where the initiators are only women?

wakawaka285• 2 years ago

Men's experience is relevant to them, but not the owners of the app.

Men are typically the vast majority of paying customers. If guys have a terrible experience they will stop paying eventually. But there's a sucker born every day, as the saying goes...

eska2• 2 years ago

The article makes it sound as if „200 question“ dating sited like eHarmony were any better, but it’s scientifically proven that there’s no correlation between such questionnaire matches and actual relationship compatibility

fullshark• 2 years ago

They are barriers to entry that maybe ensure your match is serious about a partnership I’d guess though.

mattmaroon2• 2 years ago

That and the relatively high fee.

btrettel2• 2 years ago

Can you post a link to the study?

eska2• 2 years ago

I wasn’t thinking of any particular paper there, but if you look at some papers you’ll usually find the following reasons:

1. The app algorithms are usually black boxes, so who knows whether they’re really using scientific methods

2. Apps often include questions such as height due to customer demand, which are known to be very bad predictors

3. The interaction between the factors is very significant and complicated/unknown

4. People don’t answer truthfully

5. People don’t know what they want

What is known however is that there’s a strong placebo effect initially, i.e. the mere suggestion that somebody is a good match although they aren’t increases the success of first dates, but not in the long term. There’s also research on how these systems can be designed to be addicting, which is surely being done.

One of the strongest known predictors instead is “shared emotional experiences”, e.g. a study about making people walk over a wobbly bridge together. Hence why “running groups” and so on are popular nowadays among people disillusioned by algorithms

isodev2• 2 years ago

Indeed, these kind of apps make dating so … official and formalized. You need a profile, you need to answer questions (which implies knowing what you’re actually looking for), you need to fit into the options offered by the app (which vary depending on religion and politics in your area) and then “the algorithm” trying to match you based on engagement. It’s just not an enjoyable process.

Of course, just a list of profiles may not be helpful either e.g. I met my husband on Grindr but that required a lot of effort and enduring the emotional downsides of the experience. Dating online also deprives one of using all of one’s senses to “feel” if the person(s) in front are a good match.

PS: For some of us, online dating is not always a choice as you can imagine, so even with the downsides, these apps are needed still.

oidar• 2 years ago

it’s scientifically proven that there’s no correlation between such questionnaire matches and actual relationship compatibility

Citation?

OfCounsel• 2 years ago

Is Romantic Desire Predictable? Machine Learning Applied to Initial Romantic Attraction

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28853645/

Johanx64• 2 years ago

Most important is phermone compatibility, and you can only gauge it by smell and presence. Online dating is therefore doomed to failure from the get go, because it ignores it completely. Of course, you can get very, very lucky... If the woman doesn't smell right (read: irresistible), all the other qualities don't really matter. It happens pretty rarely that a woman smells just so right that your head starts spinning, and that's the only type of girl worth going out with as far as I'm concerned.

I surmise that a big portion of people that hooked up via dating apps are incompatible at a fundamental level and they just don't know better.

0xcde4c3db2• 2 years ago

As far as I know, eHarmony's claim of the questionnaire and algorithm being based on science was marketing fluff from the beginning [1]. One of the founders was a clinical psychologist, but the only science I've ever seen them cite is just studies that they claim show eHarmony to be more successful than other dating sites (which might have something to do with the company's policy of outright rejecting users who are too depressed or too divorced [2]).

[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-42546586

[2] https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2007/may/22/no-love-lost...

andrewstuart• 2 years ago

Yep I’m never doing online dating again.

Totally not something I want as part of my life.

laurels-marts2• 2 years ago

What sort of mating strategy are you optimizing for?

datameta5• 2 years ago

I imagine it would be spontaneous interaction in places of interest or leisure.

dotcoma• 2 years ago

Not everything needs to be optimised.

throwup238• 2 years ago

I’m looking to emulate the mating strategy of a preying mantis.

Please just eat me after we’re done doing the dirty.

antisthenes2• 2 years ago

Women are optimizing 80% of men out of the gene pool.

What the men do is irrelevant.

hasbot• 2 years ago

OP wrote "dating" but you replied with "mating." Why?

lifestyleguru3• 2 years ago

"polar bear stuck on an iceberg" mating strategy

archagon• 2 years ago

Why have one to begin with?

lifestyleguru3• 2 years ago

The thought of setting up and paying for tinder again makes me scream internally. Even sadder is that most sex in my life was indeed through paid tinder subscriptions and almost all sex through dating apps. It's too easy for women to simply launch the app, upload the photos they already have from FB and IG, then start swiping with very high match ratio. It's too tempting even from sheer boredom and vanity. Real life chat and pickup will bring you only frustration and sometimes even problems. There are numerous male on female incidents of pushiness and violence and you will be immediately associated with them. It's impossible to succeed if all initiative is on you and you're ruthlessly judged by every gesture, word, sentence, verbal proposal, appearance detail. Delegate all these to an app even if success ratio is only 0.1% or so.

transcriptase• 2 years ago

The problem with online dating sites is that from a financial perspective, their incentive is to keep you from finding someone who causes you to stop using the site. Every single A/B test and algo run with revenue or engagement as the metric to be optimized is actually doing the opposite of what users want and preventing really good matchups.

nkrisc• 2 years ago

I don’t think there’s really a good model. If the app charges when a match is made, the consumer is paying without really knowing of the match is good. As I understand, this is the model early dating sites used. If the app charges for access at all, then it’s incentivized to keep you from finding a match, and the overall pool of people shrinks from the barrier to entry. Charging once you’re satisfied with a match isn’t practical without some kind of binding contract, which I imagine most people will not want to sign.

It’s almost as if you can’t commoditize emergent social behavior.

derbOac• 2 years ago

I've sometimes wondered if dating apps are best served through some kind of nonprofit decentralized format, maybe something grassroots, or through the government or something, precisely because of the issues you raise. I admit that might sound a little loony but dating or pairing is a fundamental human activity, and it doesn't seem too farfetched to me to think that people might build out something outside of a profit model. Also, some countries are starting to openly discuss declining birth rates, with government actively encouraging mating, so I could see something like that being developed in certain settings.

I also have a hunch, though, that some of what makes relationships click is hard to formalize in an app focused on dating per se. In person chemistry, development of an initial relationship without an explicit shared dating goal, and so forth. Sometimes I wonder if it would be better to just incorporate dating options and features into a more general purpose social app.

blfr• 2 years ago

How does that work? I keep hearing this objection but how is the app supposedly stopping you from forming a happy relationship?

Operator would need to know who is a good matchup for you and then not present you that person but present you enough other subjectively attractive (but again somehow not good) matches so that you keep swiping. That's almost omniscience when it comes to dating which they would need to attain from a phone number, pic, couple of sentences, and maybe whatever they can buy via adtech.

brigadier132• 2 years ago

I keep hearing this objection but how is the app supposedly stopping you from forming a happy relationship?

Most of these apps use ab testing to determine what features are launched. The speculation is that they optimize for retention and conversion into paying users, not for forming long lasting relationships. Retaining users is good for a business but terrible for people trying to form long term relationships.

It's pure speculation that this is what they are optimizing for in their experiments but I wouldn't be surprised if it's the case.

k__2• 2 years ago

Also, it doesn't make much sense on platforms like Tinder, where the majority of users does short term hook-ups all the time.

Even if they meet someone there, they will come back to meet more.

iambateman• 2 years ago

This is the wrong way to think about it. The optimization problem happens before a second person is directly involved at all.

The operator simply encourages behaviors which people _feel_ moves them closer to meeting someone but which are relatively time-inefficient. So the user has to spend much more time on the app, which increases all the relevant metrics of engagement and profit.

To fix the problem, one would expect an app which either charges a lifetime fee upfront or upon delivery.

Since it is hard to collect payment on delivery, the best case to eliminate the principal-agent problem would be a $2,499 one time fee for unlimited lifetime service.

naveen99• 2 years ago

In the limit, for every person who dies, you do get approximately 1 new person of dating age every year. It’s not like ob gyn’s try to prevent the baby coming out to keep their pregnant customer.

add-sub-mul-div• 2 years ago

And the problem with dentistry is that not every one of my teeth needs an expensive root canal or crown. But the logical consistency of a hypothetical conspiracy isn't evidence of its existence. It's just paranoia and virtue signaled cynicism.

bemmu• 2 years ago

With generative AI for text, images, and now even video, it must be harder than ever to know if you are even talking to a real person.

lotsofpulp3• 2 years ago

It's going to be really funny if technological advancement brings human and face to face interaction back into the mix. Basically, you need to beef up your social networks to help filter the bullshit via human "brokers" or "agents" that have their reputation within their social graph on the line.

Finding a life partner by being recommended by a relative/friend/coworker/college organization/etc is probably way less work and stress for the individual, assuming they have a decent social network.

lou1306• 2 years ago

On the contrary, it's exceedingly easy. The vibes are all off.

UniverseHacker8• 2 years ago

I think the swiping model actually works better for compatibility in serious relationships than the question based ones, because the questions are not actually about anything important (lots of political questions- I don’t date based on politics)- but the simplicity of swiping lets you just interact with a lot of people until you find the right one. I met my fiancee on Tinder 3 years ago, wedding is next week! My advice is to read the bios and swipe based on more than just looks- interesting hobbies, fun, playful, and personal integrity are important also. The down to earth introverted and nerdy women I’m compatible with, like my fiancee tend to spend less time staging flashy photos to look attractive in a bio.

k__2• 2 years ago

OKC is good only if you answer the right questions.

If I answer 500 questions and 400 are about basic decency, that doesn't give a good match.

If I answer only 50 questions but they're all about relationship and intimacy that works much better.

UniverseHacker8• 2 years ago

I tried that and still found the matches weren’t good compared to Tinder… I think I’m not even sure which questions really matter, and there’s just a lot less potential people on OKC.

kingkongjaffa3• 2 years ago

I don’t date based on politics

That’s weird because at least in the US and UK people definitely do date based on this and it makes sense.

If you are mildly politically literate, then in those two countries, you know there’s really two realistic parties you can pick who are opposed from each other.

Given then it’s pretty strange to want to be with someone who is diametrically opposed to making your country better, and actively voting to make the country worse, regardless of your POV either way.

UniverseHacker8• 2 years ago

It is weird… weird is an important dating requirement for me ;-)

You cannot solve real problems in the real world or actually make the future better with blind application of a simple ideology- real life is too nuanced and complex. You have to approach each individual problem with creativity, and an open mind. You also have to take an active leadership position to solve a real problem, not just watch TV and vote.

If someone sees the world like you are suggesting, they are not intelligent enough to date. I want a partner, not a pet.

surgical_fire2• 2 years ago

Given then it’s pretty strange to want to be with someone who is diametrically opposed to making your country better

Most people in real life don't really give a fuck about politics.

My wife is a lot more conservative than me. But I don't care about politics that much, neither does her. We both like traveling, we both like football, we both support the same football team, we both enjoy cooking and have similar tastes for food, so on and so forth. All of those I rank higher than being with someone that happens to think like me in politics or economics.

SteeCee• 2 years ago

I've been a big fan of IRL singles events in my area recently. Speed dating and mixers are great ways to meet quality people who are in the same boat as you. I highly recommend them!

nextworddev• 2 years ago

They are better for 45+, divorced people

datameta5• 2 years ago

Isn't the whole message of this article that younger generations are seeking interactions that those events can provide? Also what city do you refer to?

bradlys4• 2 years ago

I found speed dating and mixer events to be absolute terrible for the under 35 crowd. Obviously, ymmv, but I remember hearing from my own head and other people as we all left these events “why didn’t we just talk to the women at the bar? They’re way more attractive than the women at the event we were just at.”

If you’re in a place like NYC, the more attractive people don’t go to these events. They just don’t need to. Most of the folks I know meet their partners through apps because everyone is super picky about looks, income, status, and so on. Going to random bars and events isn’t efficient for that.

Personally, I’ve been single the entire time. I can’t get matches on apps due to poor facial attractiveness. So, I stick with IRL scenarios. It works a little better but it’s still bad.

cloudking• 2 years ago

Why hasn't this space been disrupted? All of these apps are the same scam-like experience filled with dark pattern UX. They purposely limit communication & exposure behind paywalls, while allowing bots to roam free. Also most of them are owned by the same company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Match_Group

poikroequ• 2 years ago

It's a very hard market to get into these days when you don't already have millions of users. The problem is, if someone signs up for your app and there are only a few other people using the app in the same area, it's not very useful and they'll quickly uninstall it. So how do you launch a new dating app that already has millions of users? You need to have an existing app/service which already has millions of users that can segue into a dating app. Such as when Facebook launched their dating feature...

bradlys4• 2 years ago

Yep. If you try looking at new dating apps, the main complaint from users as they leave negative reviews is this: "I couldn't find anyone in my area. There were 3 profiles in my area and that was it."

I think that's why a lot of dating apps start out as regional, often niche focus, and slowly expand out. They know that they'll be review bombed with negative reviews like the above if they try to do a national/worldwide launch.

dylan604• 2 years ago

What is someone going to do, build an app that does exactly what these apps are not doing so that they make no money and go out of business?

swed420• 2 years ago

Maybe it should be a non-profit endeavor, where the actual profit is a society of happy, lasting relationships.

0xcde4c3db2• 2 years ago

I'm starting to feel like it might make more sense to model these sites not as matchmaking services, but as unregulated online casinos where the jackpot is sex instead of money. The odds are heavily stacked against the average customer, but you have to make them believe they can win if you want them to keep pulling the lever.

lifestyleguru3• 2 years ago

I fully agree here from male perspective with difference that online casinos give "begginer's luck" wildcard initially. Dating apps attempt somehow similar but if you make a mistake with your profile or in chat after match, you're a failure.

UniverseHacker8• 2 years ago

It’s not “gambling,” you either succeed at seeming attractive or not based on what you put in your profile. It’s not the apps fault if you get no matches. Attractive people (both men and women) have an endless supply of potential interested dates. As a nerdy, bald, middle aged single dad I was able to find many more attractive women to date on Tinder then I had time for, but did 3-4 dates a week when I was single, with about 95 percent of the women coming home with me after the date, and inviting me on a second date. When these threads come up on here every few months, sometimes I’ve explained to guys complaining about no matches what women are actually looking for, and what they can do about it, but get downvoted by angry people that feel they should be entitled to interest from the opposite sex, when they offered nothing interesting in return.

bookofjoe• 2 years ago

Off topic pretty much: my then 13-year-old daughter told me (divorced x 4 years at the time) not to use online dating sites as they were for losers and weirdos. That was in 1996.

In 2008, in her final year of law school at Duquesne University in Pittsburgh, she met a guy on JDate whom she subsequently married in 2012; they just celebrated their 12th wedding anniversary.

Here's the thing: he lived three blocks from her; at the time he was an associate at law firm Jones Day, working 90 hours/week; no way would the two of them ever have met absent the internet.

drakonka• 2 years ago

I met my ex on Bumble; we were together for about 5 years. I met the man I'm currently dating on Hinge. Both times when getting back into dating after long relationships I heard that dating apps sucked, and that it would take forever to meet someone I actually like, and to prepare myself for a string of bad experiences. So I kind of prepared for the worst and thought of it as just practice for talking to people.

Luckily, every man I met was a legitimately interesting and cool person. I only got _slightly_ uncomfortable vibes from one of them, and he (like all the others) handled it very maturely when I later told him I just wasn't feeling a connection. None except one ended up being a romantic match, but I had a really nice time talking with all of them.

Maybe part of it is just that I'm pretty particular with who I bother talking to and meeting. I don't have much energy or time for meeting new people, so don't schedule many dates. On the other hand, this also means my positive experience is not very trustworthy, as it is likely I just haven't met enough people to give myself a proper chance at a negative experience.

Nevertheless, I do not find dating apps fun or pleasant in any way - they're more like a means to an end that I'd rather step away from as soon as I meet someone I actually like. This tends to be a bad strategy, as from what I understand the other party often doesn't approach focus or exclusivity on the same timeline. So there's a risk of a mismatch in investment (time and emotional), which can become a problem.

ddmf3• 2 years ago

A few of my friends have had this experience - I think there are a couple of groups at play here, basically "old online dating pros" and "unjaded newbies" and I don't mean either title as disparaging.

When I've met an unjaded newbie we've had a great conversation, we've met for a date easily with no hassle and in one case it's worked out for a decent period of time, and in most if it doesn't we part with good communications. I've even become close friends with a couple of women I've met this way.

The old pros are people you constantly see on the apps, they're flaky and jaded and addicted to the swipe/match/chat/move on paradigm.

Dating apps are akin to being in dante's pergatory.

mensetmanusman• 2 years ago

Marriage rates down 70% compared to 50 years ago. Natural selection will play out here.

tenebrisalietum• 2 years ago

"Dating" means different things to different people. Some people A) are really looking for potential life/long-term partners and want to take it really slow, others B) are really looking for sex partners with varying degrees of commitment. The general standards and expectations for A and B vary widely amongst individuals, so widely that really IMHO any dating app can't effectively promise anything other than "we'll introduce you to people" unless it explicitly limits its target group to A or B. Even then, people will lie to try get what they want, especially in cultures where honesty about sexual needs and goals is not valued or is only valued if part of a greater economic/societal goal which often has a perceived or actual high bar of entry.

Regarding ecomonics: IMHO there is a general social breakdown related to the general economic breakdown for the non-rich in the U.S.

It's easy to have fun with social and sexual life when it's easy to take care of your basic needs like food, medical care, housing, etc. The 1970's was a lot of fun I guess at least in certain places of the country. Having fun in general has gotten much more difficult for non-rich people over the past 30 years, and it makes intimate/fun social relations also much more difficult. Example: Being a single person living with one's parents because they cannot afford a house or apartment places one at a significant disadvantage, more so if male than female, but females living with their parents and trying to have a dating life may have a hard time.

brayhite• 2 years ago

I think this is great news.

Social media gets a lot of deserved blame for worsening our ability to connect meaningfully across interests and differences in beliefs.

But I have to imagine dating apps have been nearly as bad in terms of their impact on emotional development alongside another person.

They commoditized relationships, whether intentionally or not. They squarely fit the bill of “too much of a good thing”. Relationships are hard, and dating apps removed the incentive (i.e. avoiding the effort of having to find someone new) to work through the hard shit.

I’m sure there’s been a net positive effect for some demos or cohorts. My bet though is a significant number of people are facing an increasingly harder time finding meaningful, long-lasting relationships, either because they or their partner have too high of expectations for how “easy” they should be, and they know they only need a few swipes in an app to reset and try again.

isodev2• 2 years ago

I think these apps do have a meaningful function and can potentially fill a gap - e.g. as a meeting place or at least initiation of intent.

For example, folks rarely go out of their weekly habits. We tend to go out to the same places which means there are probably people out there we'd enjoy spending time with but we never get a chance to meet. The neighbour you never meet can potentially be a good match.

So there is definitely a need for a way to "put oneself on the map". I don't think apps need to take on the ambition to "find my next spouse" which is a big undertaking and unlikely to happen while swiping left or right.

bradlys4• 2 years ago

I’d argue that it’s not just online dating apps that are struggling. I think as a culture we’re struggling. Dating apps are just an indicator of that.

I’m currently on a self-improvement journey where I’m literally now injecting “research chemicals” shipped in from China just because it’s the only way I’m gonna get good looking enough to compete in this ridiculous market. As much as I’ve improved myself over the years I’ve been alive, the standards have gone even higher. That said, I’m not sure if the improved version I’ve made of myself would’ve done well ten years ago either. Maybe I was always doomed to die alone.

6treeblue• 2 years ago

Just don't even try to date in the United States. If you believe you are a great guy with a lot to offer, go where people actually value you. Try dating internationally. The same profile that gets me one like per month in my major metro area in the US, gets me 20 likes per day in major metro areas outside of the US. I met my wife this way. When we were dating, it was shocking to see the amount of foreign men (like me) with local women. Nearly every time we go out, we would meet another couple.

emestifs• 2 years ago

What type of chemicals would these be?

I can only think of cosmetics (makeup), skin care (acne, moisturizer), botox, and steroids/PEDs/HGH/etc that could improve physical disadvantages that cant be improved otherwise. But not an area I'm too experienced in. What type of chemicals are you talking about?

bradlys4• 2 years ago

You’re on the money so far. I’d add peptides as a separate category in there. They’re not as well known. Steroids/PEDs already covers things like SARMs and some other stuff people will inject to get advantages.

It’s insane that I have to go to these lengths though to even be considered in this dating market. I’m still waiting to see evidence of effects in my own body for a couple of these but if they pan out for improved recovery (e.g. bpc-157) then I’ll be doing more cosmetic surgery. My biggest complaint with cosmetic surgery is that it’s just so painful for the recovery, recovery takes forever, and it’s why I don’t do more of it. Cause I have very obvious facial flaws that could be improved by a skilled and knowledgeable surgeon who focuses on improving beauty.

Online dating apps struggle as people swear off swiping

Related Stories