Sigh

[greenstorm]

Dear okc.

You're set up tinder-style now, which means that for someone to message me I need to "like" them. This means I will only recieve messages from folks I want messages from. This means that if I choose not to "like" someone, I probably don't want a message from them.

Soooooooo.... why would I care if I missed "liking" someone who "liked" me? Isn't the whole point that if I don't think someone is interesting, they stay off my radar and I don't need to worry about them? Why would I pay for the privilege of knowing that the folks I decided weren't interesting, were interested in me? And if I wanted to know, couldn't I just "like" them? I think you fundamentally misunderstand the service you're trying to provide, here.

Comments

[squirrelitude]

I think they lost the plot about 10 years back, when they decided to alter their algorithm to reduce the non-overlap penalty. (Instead of a quadratic reduction in match score based on number of questions answered in common, they changed it to linear -- because people were sad the numbers weren't large!) That really trashed the value of the match scores. I haven't paid much attention since they sold out to Match.com, but I can't imagine it has improved.

[greenstorm]

It's definitely been going downhill steadily, but it seems to be better than the alternatives still, at least in west coast population density. Flash-in-the-pan briefly popular apps don't get people out here, and things like Tinder are... not my style.