eHarmony is giving me more matches now

[Realitynut]

My brother met his wife a few years ago on eHarmony. they married this summer. He says she WAAAAY Hot...in and outta the sheets!

[Blue Spiral]

I tried signing up for eHarmony a long, long time ago, back when I was in relationship mode.

 

They wouldn't even let me on the site. I believe that there were some questions about marriage and religion, and I probably gave them the "wrong" answers.

[Rosti87]

I live in Iowa. I guess all the people I'm compatible with live in Texas!

 

LOL! may consider relocating (teasing).

[Rosti87]

Another thing about eHarmony is I'm tired of reading about everyone's grandmothers. One of the questions on the front page of an eH profile is "What person was most influential in your life?". Women go into exhaustive detail about what their grandmother has taught them here. I never realized before how many people's grandmothers were the most influential people in their lives, and quite frankly I don't care! I want to know about you, not your grandmother!

 

Actually you can tell a lot about a person based upon how they admire family members. It reveals their core values, their perspective of life in general and what they want out of life.

[Rosti87]

I just don't believe that the algorithms used on the software is robust. And like others on here, I believe eHarmony 'excludes' people who are not 'girl next door'/'boy next door' types. If you are fairly conventional (ie, Christian, conformist, suburban, conservatively leaning) you will get better or more matches. I also agree with Sportster. I think attraction is the first (especially for men toward women) and then the rest follows. I agree with MCJD it would be nice if they could combine attraction with compatibility. Yes, a good size of people in America are 'all-American,' but many are not and that part of the population is growing by the year. By 2050 they will be the majority and eHarmony does not seem to acknowledge this part of the population.

[pl3asehelp]

I just don't believe that the algorithms used on the software is robust. And like others on here, I believe eHarmony 'excludes' people who are not 'girl next door'/'boy next door' types. If you are fairly conventional (ie, Christian, conformist, suburban, conservatively leaning) you will get better or more matches. I also agree with Sportster. I think attraction is the first (especially for men toward women) and then the rest follows. I agree with MCJD it would be nice if they could combine attraction with compatibility. Yes, a good size of people in America are 'all-American,' but many are not and that part of the population is growing by the year. By 2050 they will be the majority and eHarmony does not seem to acknowledge this part of the population.

 

I'm openly agnostic and never ventured outside downtown Chicago or San Francisco for dates and had awesome results. I can be attracted to almost anyone physically who isn't fat though - for me it's about who the person is.

[John John]

I just don't believe that the algorithms used on the software is robust. And like others on here, I believe eHarmony 'excludes' people who are not 'girl next door'/'boy next door' types. If you are fairly conventional (ie, Christian, conformist, suburban, conservatively leaning) you will get better or more matches. I also agree with Sportster. I think attraction is the first (especially for men toward women) and then the rest follows. I agree with MCJD it would be nice if they could combine attraction with compatibility. Yes, a good size of people in America are 'all-American,' but many are not and that part of the population is growing by the year. By 2050 they will be the majority and eHarmony does not seem to acknowledge this part of the population.

 

Yeah I don't think the algorithms are that robust at all. I think eHarmony especially likes to overrate how well it can match people with.

 

I seem to remember one of the questions eHarmony asks you is "How important is physical attractiveness to you." I know I said it was "very important," it has to be there for everyone. But I can't remember if it also asked "how physically attractive do you consider yourself" (I know OKC does)...because if everyone is saying "I'm hot," then the algorithm isn't going to work.

 

I dont know if any of you know about "link removed." I was on that site briefly, but it sucks. They make you submit a picture, and they vote you in or out over 48 hours. I admit, I felt weird about this, but I was curious to see what the site was about. The problem is that that site is global, and I was getting winks/emails from girls literally accross the globe. And the interface was very archaic as well. As bad as this site was, I wonder if it may precipitate some sort of trend where these dating sites really do try to evaluate your looks and match you with equally attractive people of the opposite sex. It would be VERY controversial, there's no doubt about that...but I wonder if it could eliminate a lot of the "noise" we all get in terms of interest from people we're not attracted to. I wonder if it could streamline things, somehow (at least, as far as OLD is concerned).

 

As we all know, looks are far from being the end all be all, and beauty is in the eye of the beholder (as cliched as it is, it's true)..but we all want to be turned on by our significant other, right?

[Rosti87]

I'm openly agnostic and never ventured outside downtown Chicago or San Francisco for dates and had awesome results. I can be attracted to almost anyone physically who isn't fat though - for me it's about who the person is.

 

So for you compatibility is more important than 'attraction.' Nothing wrong with that. But others on here prefer a different combo.

[Rosti87]

As was mentioned by other posters attraction is in the eye of the beholder. I would propose an application that allows you to select from a range of 'looks' that you could choose that was attractive to you. In turn they are able to take your appearance and place it into a range of attraction. It could be an optional feature for people to experiment with. It would probably take a while for the data mining to pick up a pattern of choices in then aggregate it. It would have to be a beta software for a long period of time, but maybe some solid analytics could be harvested from the activity and a better software created from it.

[mfan]

I would propose an application that allows you to select from a range of 'looks' that you could choose that was attractive to you.

I think it could be done; after all there are different types of physical beauty, like "cute", "pretty", "sexy", "classy", "sophisticated", "full-figured", etc. You could self-describe or have other people rate you. For example I'm attracted to the cute type and not so much the classy type.

 

Doesn't matter much in what order the matches are presented if there are only 5 women on there who don't want kids, but I think the concept is sound.

[Rosti87]

I think it could be done; after all there are different types of physical beauty, like "cute", "pretty", "sexy", "classy", "sophisticated", "full-figured", etc. You could self-describe or have other people rate you. For example I'm attracted to the cute type and not so much the classy type.

 

Doesn't matter much in what order the matches are presented if there are only 5 women on there who don't want kids, but I think the concept is sound.

 

I don't think the program should allow people to direct rate others. I think the program should pull a range of 'looks' and have people select from that pool of selection what they find most appealing. The program will should be able to take your look and place it within one or more of those categories. Then people can indirectly select.

 

Direct evaluations are brutal and are highly subjective. Your attraction will vary depending on the the collection of users online at the time your image is available. That is not effective analytics. The developers/analysts can always expand or fine tune the selection of the range as new data is gathered.

 

Another feature that would be cool in the application is if the person does not like any of the images in the range and has an option to upload a picture of a 'look' that appeals to he or she. Overtime if a pattern builds for a certain look that is not in the range, that look can be added. We need a sophisticated app that has 'intuitive' capabilities.

[mfan]

We're on the same page Rosti. I think computer-based cuteness recognition is light years away so I'm looking for workarounds now, but they have their major problems like you point out.

[pl3asehelp]

So for you compatibility is more important than 'attraction.' Nothing wrong with that. But others on here prefer a different combo.

 

Then use a different site! Compatibility is what eHarmony is for - that IS the product. You don't like it, don't buy it. For people that roll that way, it's perfect. If that's not your thing, use another site that agrees with and supports your approach. Many exist. Eharmony has no competition for what they do.

[Rosti87]

Then use a different site! Compatibility is what eHarmony is for - that IS the product. You don't like it, don't buy it. For people that roll that way, it's perfect. If that's not your thing, use another site that agrees with and supports your approach. Many exist. Eharmony has no competition for what they do.

 

I don't think there is an app that does that yet. There are facsimiles but nothing that truly does this.