I understand that each dating site tries to distinguish itself from others and each has a "gimmick" that they use, or a different set of criteria that you can enter to select a potential date. I just think a number of the sites go too far!
A while back, OkCupid decided to hook up with a scientific matching company to find potential dates based on DNA. Apparently after a lot of negative feedback from users, they announced that they had nixed that idea. When I looked, though, there are a number of other dating sites, many in Europe, who are using this technology.
Read more about DNA matching and dating
Plenty of Fish just started displaying two new categories on user's profiles: "Smarts" and if the user owns a car! The "Smarts" categoryis filled in by a field where the user records their highest level of education! As a Master's student, I can attest that the amount of education a person has clearly does not equate to "smarts"! In fact, studies have shown that Ph.D.'s do NOT score higher on IQ tests - they only show a higher level of persistence! As for owning a car, what about the cities full of people who use public transportation and CHOSE not to own one! Talk about narrow-mindedness on the part of these website designers!
Match.com also has a bunch of wacky categories that you can complete to indicate what you would like or not like in a potential mate. So many of those things, though, are circumstantial. Take tattoos or piercings for instance. I happen to have a small tattoo that is not highly visible. I placed it in a spot that could be covered if I chose to. It's a part of my personal identify and I got it for me. I'm not covered in tattoos and everyone who has seen mine has complimented me on it. I don't have any piercings, but I know plenty of people who have one or two small piercings that are barely noticeable or are hidden by clothes. So, if a person indicates that they don't like tattoos or piercings - we, my friends and I, appear to be less desirable mates than those who indicate that they don't have tattoos or piercings! It's ridiculous that someone would make a judgment about dating someone based on that kind of singular answer.
Another item Match.com has in their criteria is whether or not you find thunderstorms to be a "turn-on" or a "turn-off". C'mon people! Are you really going to toss someone to the side because they hate thunderstorms!
What other craziness exists out there? I'm interesting in hearing from readers their experiences or observations of ridiculous selection criteria used by dating sites.
Photo courtesy of Deviant Art
7 comments:
That OKC DNA "matching" was an April Fool's joke, but there's another site which is using it for real. I blogged about it last month here: http://www.okcupid.com/profile/Selkie24/journal/7263721191542862188/ScientificMatch
Recommendation systems, such as Amazon's and the one at Netflix, simply use a statistical methodology - people who liked x also liked y. They produce remarkably useful recommendations, even if we can't say exactly why someone who likes All About Eve, All the President's Men, and Annie Hall would also like Au Revoir Les Enfants.
Similarly, you can imagine datamining that showed that, say, the divorce rate is remarkably low in couples where both people are turned on by thunderstorms. You could, of course, also imagine a dating site using such a criterion without any such data.
Selkie - thanks for stopping by - I'll definitely check out your post.
Metaphorical - I'm working off the assumption that it's the latter situation with match and thunderstorms, etc., but who knows - maybe couples have great sex during thunderstorms and that's what keeps them together............
Julie - The DNA was indeed a hoax. Having said that I have found the definitive way to find the perfect match.
The process takes about 1 hour. You need to do the following.
1. Each person gets naked
2. Have sex with each other
3. Repeat several hundred times over the next few years.
4. If after 5 or 6 years you still want to have sex with the other person you have found your perfect match.
TIP: For best results it is best to try this with as many people as possible all at the same time otherwise it may take a lifetime to find that special someone.
I meant 1 hour per night (but this depends on how many people you are 'testing' with at the same time)
Fitz~
I like your test, but isn't one hour a night a little stingy? I mean, if you really like the person enough to have sex with them for five or six years you might want to give a little more time~
If you have multiple people you're trying this out with, you might have to stagger the nights~
So, how's this testing working out for you?
Hi there : )
Why do people (society in general) still pre-judge people with body art. women especially?
I am a 26 year old F, have got 9 tats, lots of which can't be noticed on my daily travels. Five To Six during the summer are pretty much constantly on display. I don't work for attention and i also have a loving boyfriend Without TATTOOS .I get the impression that numerous people believe that tattooed people are blind, once we get stared at, even when we return a glance many people continue staring. When will society improve?
Post a Comment