SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS — Feb 13 — Nearly all of the 1,650 new Bay Area members who joined Table for Six in 2004 were singles who stopped fishing online, said owner Julie Paiva. "A big reason why someone does online dating is to expand their social life,'' said Paiva. "But they find out what they're mostly doing is spending time in front of a computer screen." Cali, for one, paid for memberships at five sites before pulling the plug. “If you're serious about finding someone, you have to spend money and stick around to make the effort,'' she said. In 2000, when eHarmony homed in on the population of serious daters — armed with a 436-question personality test — many of its competitors laughed. EHarmony's algorithms for romance struck a chord; boasts a membership of 6.5 million, up from 1 million in 2003. Yahoo Personals, True, PerfectMatch.com and Tickle followed suit with their own love alchemy tests. At ColorCupid members are matched based on color preference tests. Mary.com launched this month offering compatibility testing, background checks and certified photos taken by its photographers to ensure people look like their photos.
The full article was originally published at Mercury News, but is no longer available.
Mark Brooks: Mary.com, what a great name!
Hi, Mark:
An important point of clarification warrants posting. eHarmony and other “compatibility testing” oriented services did not pioneer computer matchmaking. Such matchmaking was shown on TV as early as 1956, and then there was the computer dating craze through the 1970s and 80s. I discussed this in my recent article in the North American Journal of Psychology (2004, Vol. 6, pp. 507-526).
Dr. Glenn Wilson (UK) deserves much — if not most — of the credit for streamlining this approach and making it commercial. Kudos to Dr. Wilson for also publishing the academic research that formed the foundation of his compatibility testing. However, as we saw in the recent LA City Beat article, more scrutiny is forthcoming on these tests. This is long overdue, and I’m stunned that these claims of science have not been investigated sooner! Now individuals or companies making unsubstantiated claims of “scientific matchmaking” will need to offer consumers real evidence that its testing is reliable and valid, as opposed to the typical marketing ploy of selectively showcasing only positive testimonials.
Thanks