[runsonmagic]

The latest threads on online dating got me thinking... How would you design a better online dating site? A red pill version?

Most online dating sites are predicated on blue pill assumptions about negotiating desire and finding love through compatibility. The reality is status, game, and preselection drive women to men who share none of their interests. Most women barely fill out their profiles, because they're not used to qualifying themselves, instead turning to apps like Tinder where they can get by on looks alone and check out men's social status through their facebook.

The current system spams women with the attention of omega men, flooding 6's with the attention of 8's, and creates a talent pool of flakey less attractive women.

If you were to design a better online dating site, based on red pill assumptions, what would it look like? Keep in mind, it has to bring women in and make them want to sign up, prevent thirty betas from flooding women with validation and pathetic attention, and get women hooking up without triggering the hamster. How would you do it? How would you improve online dating?

[cardguy]

This is the next big business opportunity. It reminds me of when Google were sitting on a gold mine with their search engine. But hadn't yet found a way to capitalise on it. Until they eventually honed in on pay-per-click AdWords (the key breakthrough being the auctioning to the highest bidder of any search word). Last year alone it made $42.5 billion.

Anyone tried this? Seems like an ingenious way to filter out fatties.

http://www.fitness-singles.com/

It is tricky. Women want attention. Men want sex. To be honest - the idea of sex secretly repulses most women. So they need alot of cajoling - and they need you to jump through alot of hoops before they will put out.

It is a dilemma which online dating is making worse. Not better.

Maybe sites like Ashley Maddison provide the best approach (for now). Since it filters for people who are pretty devious and who are pretty clear in their intentions. Since the idea of the site is for those in relationships who want to cheat.

I read an article about them the other day and they seem to be doing very well.

But I still think there is an ingenious solution somewhere. But it is difficult because women really don't like sex.

Dan Ariely has a good article on this:

http://blogs.hbr.org/2010/09/where-the-f...-fails-on/

[j r]

I dont think that there is a way to "fix" online dating. Dating sites aren't broken. People just approach them with unrealistic expectations and inferior methods.

If there was a dating site that forced women to recognize their true SMV, they would run from it. Likewise, if there was a site that only allowed men to see an contact only women with whom they actually have a shot, the men would all complain about the lack of hot women.

For most people, Internet dating is about hopes and dreams.

[Basil Ransom]

Fix American Women

Seriously though, you have to identify your goal first. Is your goal to promote sweaty anonymous instantaneous gay sex? Or marriage between Hasidic Jews? There are online sites for both of those.

Are you trying to promote one night stands for alphas? Marriages for betas? relationships? fuck-buddies? The goal with the broadest demographic is probably: heterosexual dating with potential for a long-term relationship.

A central dynamic with online dating and bar hookups is that guys fuck girls that are beneath them. These guys will never seriously date these girls. And these girls will NOT turn down opportunities to fuck these guys, at least until they're 30 and finally know better, at which point they're already embittered. So if you want anything more than a hookup service for male eights to bang female sixes, or male nines to bang female sevens, you'll need some strong sorting mechanisms.

• 1. Add incentives for meeting up
  Find some way to reward girls for actually getting off their computer and meeting up with someone. Add increased incentives for second and third dates. Disable their profiles after several dates have been had together.
  
  2. Charge per male message sent
  If you look at what women say about online dating, they say they get lots of low quality messages from men. If you charged per message, men would send fewer but higher quality messages.
  
  3. Charge men subscription fees but do not charge women
  Clubs and bars do this all the time for a reason. Without it, it's a sausage fest. Men who can't be bothered to pay a few dollars are either broke or getting enough pussy as it is. Both of those groups will probably decrease the typical woman's satisfaction with the site.
  
  4. Match people with users of similar attractiveness
  I know OKCupid does this to an extent. Another tack to cut down male dumpster diving. Perhaps introduce barriers to certain men communicating with certain women, so that women don't get exhausted by bad matches and dudes don't fuck down as much.
  
  5. Be mobile first
  If you want young girls, mobile will be your location of first and last resort. Without it, you're nothing. The older players have a sucky mobile experience, and they're probably suffering for it among their younger demographics. Then again, they may not have paid for monthly subscriptions anyway.
  
  6. Men chase, women idle
  Only let men message first - this could cut down on dudes dumpster diving for pussy. You could have a function where guys can see that a girl visited their profile, or liked them - OKCupid and others have those features.
  
  7. State a woman's BMI on her profile.
  This one's just for kicks . Not really convinced that it would help things really from a system-wide perspective though.
  
  8. Make online dating FUN
  I'm not sure exactly how to do this. But the current model is - "hey, using our service sucks - but we promise you that for a fraction of your dates you will have fun." If you can make the service itself fun to use, you'll get more girls and a quicker adoption. That's how Tinder got so big so fast. All the other dating sites SPEND 50% OF REVENUE on ads, because their service is such a pain to use. As far as I know Tinder has no ads - it never needed them because it was light and FUN.
  
  

Honestly though, I can't stand whole-heartedly behind some of my recommendations because you'd just have to test them out. It's stupid to get caught up on one fix or another - you will never know what will help until you just experiment with it.

The thing with online dating is it's so oligarchic that you can have the perfect site and still fail, because it's hard to get enough users to succeed and attract others. The best thing to happen would be for pre-existing sites to experiment, but they're almost all owned by the same one or two companies (Match), full of stupid blue pill betas who think sifting through thousands of matches is a better exercise than talking to someone on the phone for five minutes.

PS: Repped you, strong posts.

[Mikev75]

Have some sort of Real Photo validation service. Anyone looking at a "validated" photo would have certainty that the person they meet will look like the photo. There could also be age, weight and marital status verification services.

[Timoteo]

I don't think the sites themselves are the issue, but the users. As you stated, women barely fill out profiles. They drag their feet when it comes to actually meeting men that show interest. Women might get higher quality messages if they gave men something to work with. Also, they don't reply to messages, or take a long time to do so. When they do reply, it's one and two word answers - they don't contribute to getting dialogue going. They join, then don't invest anything in terms of effort. I've thought about ways of making users truly invest in the experience, first by filling in the profile completely. It's difficult to come up with a formula that people won't find a way around, and sites don't have tons of employees to sift through and message users who have sub-standard profiles requesting they revise, or get deleted. In the end, it's all about the goals of the members and how serious they are about meeting people. I like Basilransom's ideas, and some sites probably already employ some of these methods. There are plenty of niche sites out there for people with particular wants, needs and interests, but I wonder again how serious women are about meeting.

[Basil Ransom]

Timoteo, the women don't fill out profiles because they don't have to, as you know I'm sure. There's a flood of male interest that makes them this way. If you want to make women more active, you've got to get some dikes and stanch the flood.

That's the idea behind my methods - make that flood a manageable but interesting trickle, which she will work harder to attract.

The phenomenon of decision fatigue describes the experience of most cute girls with online dating very accurately: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_fatigue

[josephkay]

(12-08-2013 01:02 PM)Mikev75 Wrote:  

Have some sort of Real Photo validation service. Anyone looking at a "validated" photo would have certainty that the person they meet will look like the photo. There could also be age, weight and marital status verification services.

How about validate everything? A girl or guy says she's into running races, have their 5k time. If a girl says she's into yoga, have a photographer come to her yoga club and photograph her in five poses. If she says that she's as comfortable wearing a dress having a night on the town as she is in sweats watching a movie on her couch, hook her up to some machine, get her pulse and sweat readings and make sure she's really is that comfortable.

I had a brief foray in online dating and then thought, "what the f--- am I doing? Why am I trying to prove to some social-phobic girl that I'm awesome. I am awesome and there's a million things I'd rather do than this. And there's a whole other social networking site full of people who would vouch for me being awesome." I closed my account within the week. So the validation problem is significant and especially strange when there is already lots of validating data already online.

[WestIndianArchie]

It's called seeking arrangement.

WIA

[cardguy]

Never done online dating myself.

Just curious. What is the situation with the photos? Do chicks put up photos of other people and pretend to be them? Or do they just put up their best photo - even if they don't look like that anymore? Or do they even resort to photoshopping?

[scorpion]

You can't fix online dating by forcing people to be more honest. No one wants to be honest, male or female. Online dating is all about trying to make yourself look as good as possible, which is inherently deceptive by nature, since we are intentionally omitting our flaws.

A theoretical website that forced women to acknowledge their flaws? Yeah, good luck with that. The vast majority of women can't even objectively acknowledge their flaws to themselves. You think they're suddenly going to do so on a website for prospective suitors? And for men, what's the incentive? What man in his right mind would want to reveal all his flaws to women right off the bat? I literally don't think any man, no matter how cool or well put together would be getting laid if he had to be totally honest about himself from the get go. Women are just too quick to disqualify, they evolved to be that way because men evolved to be deceptive. So a man who is totally honest is at a huge disadvantage compared to a man who is willing to deceive in order to get laid, since the woman is designed to zero-in on any perceived flaws, which the honest man will obviously show much more of compared to the deceptive man.

The only way to make online dating better would require so much heavy-handed intervention that no one would use it. I'm talking photo verification, interviews, etc...

[AnonymousBosch]

(12-08-2013 02:32 PM)josephkay Wrote:  

I had a brief foray in online dating and then thought, "what the f--- am I doing? Why am I trying to prove to some social-phobic girl that I'm awesome. I am awesome and there's a million things I'd rather do than this. And there's a whole other social networking site full of people who would vouch for me being awesome." I closed my account within the week.

Exactly.

I tried online dating for a while in the late 90's, but have seen mates persist with it for months and years at a stretch.

I've never seen a high value girl on a dating site. I honestly believe women aren't serious about dating profiles and just use it to gain easy validation for their attractiveness, as it involves no more effort than sitting on your arse, and we know how girls favour sloth. It also favours no consequences for their poor behaviour, as they believe the computer gives them reason to string along and drop contact when it suits them (ie. her constructed persona is threatened with exposure by a real life meeting). This means there's just lots of sixes, (at best), pretending to be eights with photos that are:

- a washed out, brightly-lit, high contrast shot;

- an unfocused, low contrast, grainy shot;

- selectively-cropped;

- years out of date;

- appealling to male dominance by implying false submission, (eyes looking up at camera), despite feminist proclamations;

- high-angled fat girl shots, beloved of girls who mistake flabby breasts for big breasts.

If none of these tricks are used, and she's skinny and has a pretty face, I guarantee you that she will be batshit. Pretty girls have too many real life options. There's a reason why she's single.

Quick rule of thumb: even on Facebook and Twitter, her main profile pic is how attractive she wishes she was. The majority of women drop 2 points when you check out their other pics. (I was impressed with Tuthmosis' Twitter fans for holding their value on further examination).

Women are always going to hold the power in online dating, so I don't see any point in fixing it. Get out there and approach.

[Sombro]

Full body pic with date stamp mandatory.

[Basil Ransom]

Seems like most people here are being small-minded. They're looking at how online dating has been done in the past and concluding that that's how it will always be, and will therefore always suck. The best consumer products don't come from asking customers what they want to improve - it comes from radical or visionary changes. You can't really write off the future of an entire medium when it's constantly changing and evolving.

Tinder is one example of online done differently and done well. And in weird niches like the ones I cited, it's been very effective. Tinder is not without its frustrations but neither is night game. And I'm still getting girls to show up on weeknights for some strange. And Tinder is super simple.

[Dusty]

Don't do it, day game instead.

[AnonymousBosch]

(12-08-2013 03:43 PM)basilransom Wrote:  

Tinder is one example of online done differently and done well. And in weird niches like the ones I cited, it's been very effective. Tinder is not without its frustrations but neither is night game. And I'm still getting girls to show up on weeknights for some strange. And Tinder is super simple.

I hear chicks make fun of Tinder prospects with their frenemies all the time. It's back to my point about easy validation and flirting without lack of consequences.

They'd still want to meet in a public place. Why not just day game? I just see it as a step that doesn't need to be there, but I guess text game is the way the world is heading, because I'm seriously noticing that girls under 25 are growing incapable of actively-engaging in a real world conversation without the safety of a screen.

[eradicator]

(12-08-2013 03:14 PM)cardguy Wrote:  

Never done online dating myself.

Just curious. What is the situation with the photos? Do chicks put up photos of other people and pretend to be them? Or do they just put up their best photo - even if they don't look like that anymore? Or do they even resort to photoshopping?

Fatties will often use myspace camera angles and only use headshots so you cant see their body. So we end up with the term "secret internet fatty"(SIF)

[Aliblahba]

(12-08-2013 03:47 PM)Dusty Wrote:  

Don't do it, day game instead.

(12-08-2013 04:02 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

They'd still want to meet in a public place. Why not just day game?

Daygame is almost non-existent in Kuwait. Online is the method foreign girls and the occasional Persian girl flirt. Also, between there and the DR, some days were just to hot to move, so why not stay in the A/C and set up dates? And let us not forget pipelining. Invaluable. The more you travel the more you'll realize the need for online dating.

And don't forget about work hours. What harm is there to send out a few messages on your phone during the day when you can't get out to beat the hardball?

I've sat in a bar working on barmaid game, waiting for the bishes to pile in, and messaging girls on Skout, pretending I was shooting out normal texts.

[la_mode]

Some sort of video chat option within the dating site (so no personal info has to be revealed) would fix a lot of it without really having to do much. Better chance of snowfall in Miami of course.

[Basil Ransom]

Video chat could catch on, but only if it caught on as a medium of communication first. As in people would have to learn to use it with friends and family first, and then it would move into the realm of dating. And it would have to be mobile. If WhatsApp or a rival introduced it and it became dominant, it would pave the way for video chat dating apps.

It's been around for several years now in various forms but hasn't really caught on yet. Plus, data rates in the US are too expensive to allow for consistent use of it. Data allowances would have to at least double or triple to accomodate it.

[Timoteo]

(12-08-2013 04:12 PM)Aliblahba Wrote:  

(12-08-2013 03:47 PM)Dusty Wrote:  

Don't do it, day game instead.

(12-08-2013 04:02 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

They'd still want to meet in a public place. Why not just day game?

Daygame is almost non-existent in Kuwait. Online is the method foreign girls and the occasional Persian girl flirt. Also, between there and the DR, some days were just to hot to move, so why not stay in the A/C and set up dates? And let us not forget pipelining. Invaluable. The more you travel the more you'll realize the need for online dating.

And don't forget about work hours. What harm is there to send out a few messages on your phone during the day when you can't get out to beat the hardball?

I've sat in a bar working on barmaid game, waiting for the bishes to pile in, and messaging girls on Skout, pretending I was shooting out normal texts.

That's the problem with the perception of online. People make the mistake of thinking it's always a replacement for another aspect of gaming, instead of a supplement. The idea is to meet someone online that you might not randomly bump into, and get them to meet you as soon as possible. And yes, I use it almost exclusively for meeting foreign women.

[Hotwheels]

(12-08-2013 03:43 PM)basilransom Wrote:  

Seems like most people here are being small-minded. They're looking at how online dating has been done in the past and concluding that that's how it will always be, and will therefore always suck. The best consumer products don't come from asking customers what they want to improve - it comes from radical or visionary changes. You can't really write off the future of an entire medium when it's constantly changing and evolving.

Tinder is one example of online done differently and done well. And in weird niches like the ones I cited, it's been very effective. Tinder is not without its frustrations but neither is night game. And I'm still getting girls to show up on weeknights for some strange. And Tinder is super simple.

I'm working on something right now that incorporates some of what you described above Basil. Been on it for about a month now off and on.

Basic description;

Each profile will be approved manually
Shooting for a 10-1 female/male ratio
women join free
men pay a substantial monthly fee for access to a tacofest
women cannot initiate contact

Sounds pretty much like SA, correct? Thing is it will not be marketed as a sugar baby site. Yes, it is expected SB's will sign up and I'm fine with that. However, it will not have the prostitution overtones suggested by the "sugar" name so it will be more palatable to girls that have a problem with that.

The trick, as mentioned above, is getting the girls to fill out their profiles. And getting them to sign up in the first place of course.

The manual approval process can be used to reject empty profiles but I would rather find a way to provoke them into doing it themselves rather than kicking what what may be prime talent. Some good sales copy may help but I don't see broads reading a lot of that and don't want to rely on that solely anyway.

Marketing will be the issue although I have some ideas on that, using those that hate us the most to spread the word. Along with a private affiliate program with very good payouts.

Dating is pretty saturated so one needs something that can go viral, so I am incorporating ways to make it easy for girls to invite their friends.

Have a working site right now that is being tweaked. We'll see how it goes.

And am always open to suggestions.

[eradicator]

(12-09-2013 03:34 AM)Hotwheels Wrote:  

And am always open to suggestions.

no fat bishes?

Maybe try to seed the user base with hot bitches the way tinder did by hiring sororities to get their members to join?

maybe give guys a one week or one month trial and keep it free for bishes?

[Hotwheels]

(12-09-2013 03:44 AM)master_thespian Wrote:  

(12-09-2013 03:34 AM)Hotwheels Wrote:  

And am always open to suggestions.

no fat bishes?

Maybe try to seed the user base with hot bitches the way tinder did by hiring sororities to get their members to join?

maybe give guys a one week or one month trial and keep it free for bishes?

I forgot to mention that any broad that selects "overweight" will be rejected. And BBW is not an option.

Will have to look into the sorority thing. Forgot that Tinder did that and I love me some sorority girls even if they might not exactly fit the demo the site is likely to attract the most.

Talent onsite is important to start with of course, so the more pretty faces the better.

Thanks for the tip.

[eradicator]

my best suggestion would be to copy tinder as much as possible and include a 'hot or not' type of set up.

make it iphone only at first to seed the pool with hot bishes.