Online Dating

The Gnome

AnnyHallsal wrote: »

Holy God .. bet you're moving in together now :pac:

Let's not go crazy :P

Galvasean

Snow-Monkey wrote: »

why ? i mean 6 hours on a first date is a long time. most times in that situation a good face wearing of comp is a good way to end the night. :pac:

I said not one :pac:

Otis Driftwood

Galvasean wrote: »

I said not one :pac:

Galva = trampoline.
:cool:

Snowie

Galvasean wrote: »

I said not one :pac:

man stop being clever with words :mad: and stuff :pac:

go you...:)

as long as you did'nt druel all good.

billy the squid

Had a read deleted overnight, nowt else happening otherwise. couple of unreads

and i think that quiver thing on okc is crap. all three of them today were onces which i had messaged already.

parker kent

Didn't see this linked here yet, it was in The Observer last Sunday. eHarmony is the focus of the article but some interesting (and snakeoil salesmen tactics from eHarmony at times) points made throughout.

I recently went to the wedding of a friend who had met her spouse online. I expected the fact to be referred to, obliquely, in the best man's speech, where it would cause a twinge of embarrassment in the marquee, and never be mentioned again. But the place was buzzing with it, and not in a whisper-behind-the-hand way, but in a spirit of inquiry. Which site had they used? And how much did it cost?

Internet dating has come out of the closet. A few years ago, if I told a friend I was meeting a man I'd met online, they adopted a frozen smile and told me to be careful, then rapidly changed the subject. Today, I'm likely to be blitzed with a battery of success stories. According to a survey by parship.co.uk, two-thirds of UK singles have now tried online dating, and it's a virtuous circle for the dating sites – the more success stories there are, the more "normal" it becomes, the more people sign up.

Among the major players jostling to claim the UK market are a number from the US, which remains at the forefront of internet dating. Match.com, which began in Dallas, Texas, is the UK's biggest dating site, with seven million users; Zoosk, which launched here in January, is pouring £2m into its UK marketing campaign. But neither can make the claims of eHarmony, which has arrived in the UK with a grand ambition: to lower the national divorce rate.

The company isn't interested in brief encounters; their system, based on psychometric testing, is supposed to pair you with your most compatible long-term partner. If the concept sounds Orwellian, their results seem utopian. Although it has more than 20 million users worldwide, eHarmony likes to rate its success on the number that make it through to marriage, and in the US last year they could claim 271 weddings a day: that's 4.77% of all marriages that took place in the country. Even more impressive is their divorce rate. Based on a survey of 500 couples, eHarmony could boast that those they'd brought together were 66% less likely to get divorced than the average.

The company soft-launched the UK site two years ago, but its American adverts – beautiful couples with gleaming teeth and floaty outfits running along beaches together – didn't chime with a savvy, sceptical British clientele. Now eHarmony has regrouped and last month launched a vigorous marketing campaign, aiming at the 30-plus demographic, particularly those who have traditionally not been drawn to dating sites before. The plan, says Sean Cornwell, its vice president for international markets, is to change the face of UK dating for good. "We're much more of a matchmaking service," he tells me, "and that's very different to what was out there before we entered. We don't hide what we're about, which is finding your soulmate."

For those looking for love, the shelves are packed with product. Hundreds of brands cater to all different kinds of loveseekers, in ever more niche markets, whether it's London professionals (lovestruck.com), gardeners (lovegarden.co.uk) or redheads (dateginger.co.uk). As a 32-year-old who's dipped her toe in these shark-infested waters and emerged with all her limbs still intact, I like to think I know a few things. One is that it really does matter which site you choose. Forget the old saw about opposites attracting: in the online world like attracts like, and you are far more likely to agree to a drink with someone who already owns the same DVD collection as you. On mysinglefriend.com – set up by TV property expert Sarah Beeny – I met a lot of Sloaney skiing types who work in property, or the city, or who have their own cabinet-making business. Dates on Guardian Soulmates often involved the Southbank, or existential cinema, or both.

Every site has their gimmick – chatboards, notes of recommendation from a friend, virtual gift-giving – though most are based on the same formula: browse people's profiles, look at their pictures, engage in some mild flirting over email. But eHarmony's process is undeniably different. You fill in their patented online questionnaire (essentially, a psychometric test) and then a computer algorithm – eHarmony's secret compatability weapon – matches you with only those you're likely to share a long and satisfying relationship with. It sounds so good that I have to try it. At the very least, I'm told, I'll receive a free personality profile based on my answers.

After a few pages of standard questions on education, income and physical appearance, comes the deep stuff. How well do I stick to a plan? Am I easily discouraged? How often do I do nice things for other people? There are 250 questions in all, and it takes an extended lunch hour to complete. (Maybe others could do it quicker – by the end I was flagging and finding it hard to decide whether I was "very", "somewhat" or "not at all" romantic. Final answer: "somewhat". ) The computer runs its judgment over me. There's a moment of suspense before the screen delivers its verdict: eHarmony has "no appropriate matches" for me at the moment. I haven't felt so crushed since the humiliation of the end-of-school disco.

After a week, I've still not had a single match, so I decide to look at the results of my psychometric report. Under the "Agreeableness" heading, the report tells me: "You are best described as: CONSISTENTLY TAKING CARE OF YOURSELF". Those are their capitals, by the way, not mine. Delving a little deeper, I find myself described as "reserved, private, introverted", qualities I have never been accused of having by anyone who's met me. I think I've discovered why I don't have a date: eHarmony thinks I'm a sociopath.

Pasadena is a pleasantly quiet, residential suburb of Los Angeles and a surprising location for one of America's brightest dotcoms. EHarmony was born here, the unexpected child of Dr Neil Clarke Warren's marriage-counselling practice. In his work, Warren saw too many fighting couples who, he realised, were fundamentally mismatched in the first place. He decided to dedicate his own scientific research to finding out what kept couples together in the long-term; his findings provided the basis for eHarmony's original model and a multi-million dollar company.

In the basement of the eHarmony offices, Dr Gian Gonzaga, the company's head of research and development, sits in the command centre of their "relationship laboratories". EHarmony has seven PhDs on its staff, and its R&D team is constantly revising and extending Warren's original thesis. Surrounded by recording equipment and monitor screens, Gonzaga can listen in on the interactions that are taking place in the next-door rooms, where couples are talking about their lives: love, lunch, laundry.

"Compatibility is something that people don't see," says Gonzaga, a handsome statistician in his 30s who, it disappoints me to learn, has been married two years himself. "You don't know where the conflicts are likely to come when you first start in a relationship, because a lot of people haven't been there. I haven't been married for 30 years, for instance – so I don't know what's going to be important 30 years from now."

Gonzaga has been with the company since 2005 and is genuinely passionate when he talks about relationship science, but I remain sceptical that a computer algorithm can fathom the heart. He picks up a napkin and starts drawing a flowchart on the back of it, combining phrases like "dyadic adjustment scale" and "regression analysis", with helpful little diagrams of stick people. "If we match you with someone," he explains, "its because you share the same characteristics in the same ways that the happiest married couples we've interviewed share. The more something impacts relationship satisfaction – having the same faith, say, or being a similar personality type – the heavier they're weighted in the algorithm. It's like walking into a party and instead of having to talk to all 100 people, here are the 10 you should start with, the ones you have the best chance to get along with in the long haul."

He points out that they have taken 12 months studying British couples, in partnership with Oxford university, to refine the psychometric questionnaire for a UK audience. It turns out you can't just use the same algorithm across continents: "Things like passion for life, or desire displayed toward the partner, tend to be a little more impactful in Brazil, for instance," says Gonzaga, "and religion, that's a little more impactful in the UK than it is in the US."

Mention eHarmony in LA and it seems that everyone can tell you of a friend or a relative who met a wife or husband through the site. Often you hear them add: "And that was the first person they'd dated on the site!" It all sounds too good to be true, but at the relationship lab I'm introduced to Katy and Paul, an attractive couple in their mid-20s, who met six months ago and are about to move in together. "Katy was the first girl I even spoke to after I subscribed," says Paul. "We got on the 'secure call' service and we just seemed to be able to talk really naturally about things. And then when we met I realised she was hot, too…"

Gonzaga sends them into one of the surveillance rooms. It's been set-designed with armchairs, lamps and a coffee table to look like a lounge, although there's also a sinister hint of the dentist's waiting room, not to mention the hidden cameras and the disembodied voice that issues instructions from speakers in the wall. We watch on monitors as the pair are asked to talk about their week. Gonzaga jots down notes. "Do you see how she leaned forward and told him that he was right?" he grins. "That's called 'capitalising'. It's a really strong sign for the future health of a relationship."

Surely she was just being polite and agreeing with him? "It's not about agreeing or disagreeing. It's about whether the couples understand what's important to each other. She's telling him: 'I know you.'" Apparently, Katy and Paul are in it for the long haul, and Gonzaga is a scientist, so I'm prepared to believe him. By the time I leave, I'm so convinced of the power of eHarmony that I'm ready to start picking out my wedding dress.

When I return to the site, I've finally got a few matches. A new profile is emailed around 8am most mornings, a clever ruse, because there's no better way to start your day than to have the prospect of eternal love arrive in your inbox with a satisfying ping. And unlike other sites I've been on, I don't feel overwhelmed by the sea of available profiles, or anxious that my perfect mate might remain hidden if I don't click on just one more page…

But it's not all good news. Whereas most sites encourage flirting through instant chat and email, the eHarmony site comes across as a matronly chaperone, keeping a keen eye and a restraining arm on you and your prospective lover. Once I've found a likely looking man, I have to send him an eHarmony-approved "icebreaker". I'm not sure I want the first thing I say to my future husband to be "Wink!" or, worse, "You seem interesting. Why don't you finish your About Me questions?"

The "guided communication" system that follows is as time consuming as a tax form, and about as sexy. Before you talk to your date, eHarmony wants you to get to know them through a series of closed and open-ended questions, which get straight to the serious stuff: "Financially, how would you characterise yourself?" "Which of the following marriage issues do you fear the most? Choose from: Growing Apart, Marrying the Wrong Person, Being Hurt." No opportunity for wit in that exchange, and from there you exchange your "Must Haves and Can't Stands", which are your non-negotiables for a partner and more difficult to choose than you would think. I settle on "Good Hygiene" and "Not Racist".

It's an infuriatingly slow burn that doesn't do much to distinguish between the Darrens, Johns and Peters and makes the banter rather earnest ("If you had three wishes, what would they be?" "Just one. To meet you. You can have the spare two in exchange for a kiss.") In most cases one or other of us gets bored and gives up before we reach the ultimate goal of actually emailing each other. I manage to arrange one date with a chap who has a list of similarly geeky interests to mine, but I have to call it off after a curious phone conversation in which he puts me on the line to his cat.

After six months on the site, I haven't had a single date. Eventually I spot Phil, a friendly, cuddly looking chap who in his profile photo is standing on the Spanish Steps in Rome, one of my all-time favourite places. This time, I skip straight to the email option (which eHarmony does not recommend) and we agree to meet up for a drink after work. Phil's taken the train in from Buckinghamshire, where he lives, so I know he must be serious, and I've worn my cutest work outfit so that he knows I am.

Has eHarmony's "values-based" system worked? Well, I warm to him quickly, and the conversation doesn't stay on small talk long. Before the first beer is through we're agreeing animatedly on methods of education (he's a teacher) and there's a lot of capitalising going on. During dinner, I decide Phil is a fine fellow. But I don't fancy him, and from the fact that he never gets back in touch I suspect he feels the same.

EHarmony may provide you with a compatible partner and hope there's a spark, but at the moment, at least, they can't guarantee to light the touchpaper. I've told eHarmony that career ambition, financial security, shared interests and liberal views are all important to me in a partner, and Phil had them all. Then, last month, I went to the American south on a trip and met a registered Republican who spends his day playing banjo, lives with his parents and is too young to recognise half the films in my DVD collection. I fell for him instantly. Would eHarmony have deemed us compatible? No. Can the relationship work? No idea. But, surely, half the fun is in finding out.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/jul/10/online-dating-will-we-click

billy the squid

had not considered eharmony.

cyrusdvirus

don't think eharmony service us over here

zuroph

billy the squid wrote: »

Had a read deleted overnight, nowt else happening otherwise. couple of unreads

and i think that quiver thing on okc is crap. all three of them today were onces which i had messaged already.

ran a search earlier, between the age of 21-35, there is SEVEN girls active in limerick area in the last month. 7. theres 32 pages of girls in dublin. but only seven girls in limerick. how many girls are we both messaging I wonder

billy the squid

has free travel so am not confining my search to Limerick. although I think I have contacted them all.

billy the squid

gatecrash wrote: »

don't think eharmony service us over here

couple of people from Ireland on it. although the price is a little prohibitive

Galvasean

Had a second date today...
In A&E

billy the squid

Galvasean wrote: »

Had a second date today...
In A&E

Was it that good?

Kya1976

Just saw this pic in tll.
Think this is what us ladies are looking for:D

Lord TSC

Kinski wrote: »

Putting down Dublin wouldn't be very convenient if you didn't live in Dublin or at least in the commuter belt. Are you trying POF too? There's probably a greater geographical spread on there. Though 'tis an ugly site compared to OKC...oh, and how bad does OKC wanna be the Facebook of online dating!

Yeah, I noticed POF is better, in that it brings up about 10 girls in my area, as opposed to OkC which brings up none :P


Got an invite from a girl on PoF to "Meet up". Now, I'm not that way inclined to just meet someone without ever even talking to them, but what irks me is her profile pic is one of five girls. Presumably she's one but I've no clue which one :S

Or maybe she's all five. I don't know...

billy the squid

I wouldnt read too much into that meet up thing. it is just a picture with yes / no / maybe option. she probably hasnt even looked at your profile.

Galvasean

Yeah, that meet up option is silly. I've had a few click they wanted to meet me, only for me to mail them and then no reply.

So... no one's gonna ask how my second date went?

Kevin Duffy

Galvasean wrote: »

So... no one's gonna ask how my second date went?

The Emergency Medical Theme you chose may have discouraged people from asking what may have have turned out to be a overly prying question

cyrusdvirus

Kevin Duffy wrote: »

Galvasean wrote: »

So... no one's gonna ask how my second date went?

The Emergency Medical Theme you chose may have discouraged people from asking what may have have turned out to be a overly prying question

Buuuuuut, now that you've brought it up, how did ya get on Galva?

Galvasean

gatecrash wrote: »

Buuuuuut, now that you've brought it up, how did ya get on Galva?

Terrible. :P
She slipped and banged her head off the pavement on the way over to meet me. So we ended up sitting in the A&E department in Saint James' hospital for hours surrounded by junkies. She's alright though. Minor concussion and bruising. Has to rest up for a few days.

cyrusdvirus

Galvasean wrote: »

gatecrash wrote: »

Buuuuuut, now that you've brought it up, how did ya get on Galva?

Terrible. :P
She slipped and banged her head off the pavement on the way over to meet me. So we ended up sitting in the A&E department in Saint James' hospital for hours surrounded by junkies. She's alright though. Minor concussion and bruising. Has to rest up for a few days.

That's not so bad really. Not when you think about it.

Look at it this way, you stayed with her, in the hospital, more than likely with both of you bored out of your trees, BUT not as a result of the conversation, more as a result of the circumstances. And you are guaranteed a 3rd date from this too!!

xxdilemmaxx

xxdilemmaxx wrote: »

Well he text and we have another date arranged for this weekend, I would have txted him if he hadn't as I think I really like him! But was hoping he would make the first move. Anyway, result!!

Second date went well enough in that we had loads to talk about, but I don't think I am feeling any spark and he seems to be a lot more into it than me. Arrggh not sure what to say now to him he wants us to meet again tomo night and I am pretty sure I don't want to

Otis Driftwood

If there is no spark then there isnt any point really.Best not to give him false hope if you arent feeling it.

zuroph

ahahahaha. poor poor girl, mortified?
you get the knight in shining armour bonus off this GS, well played, I'd almost suspect you greased up the footpath.

Wolfe Tone

Galvasean wrote: »

Terrible. :P
She slipped and banged her head off the pavement on the way over to meet me. So we ended up sitting in the A&E department in Saint James' hospital for hours surrounded by junkies. She's alright though. Minor concussion and bruising. Has to rest up for a few days.

I say she was mortified!

cyrusdvirus

xxdilemmaxx wrote: »

Second date went well enough in that we had loads to talk about, but I don't think I am feeling any spark and he seems to be a lot more into it than me. Arrggh not sure what to say now to him he wants us to meet again tomo night and I am pretty sure I don't want to

Yep, you gotta let him know that you aren't feeling it.

It's hard being the one to call it, but you have to do it to be fair to both of you.

billy the squid

has been a pretty lousy day online wise

ran out of POF Yes/no/maybes again
no replies - nothing new there
one of my quivers looked like zumo from Fair City and the other two were in the UK

oh well.

HellFireClub

Here's a frightening bit of news that is coming out from across the pond lad's, in relation to online dating.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Clares-Law-Government-Considering-Giving-Internet-Women-Daters-Right-To-Know-About-Partners/Article/201107316031931?lpos=UK_News_First_Home_Article_Teaser_Region_3&lid=ARTICLE_16031931_Clares_Law%3A_Government_Considering_Giving_Internet_Women_Daters_Right_To_Know_About_Partners

Kevin Duffy

HellFireClub wrote: »

Here's a frightening bit of news that is coming out from across the pond lad's, in relation to online dating.

How do you mean "frightening"? I'd be for this, subject to the right controls. If it could be as simple as she asks my permission to access what is already mostly a public record, I say yes, she looks, I see hers and off we go, why not?
If I say no or she doesn't like what she sees, she can decide to say no. Fair enough.

Covert access, no way. Mutual open access with consent make sense to me.

Galvasean

The only thing 'frightening' about that is

Women could be allowed to find out if their partners have a history of violence under new proposals being considered by the Government.

So, can men not see if their date is a psycho too?