PRWEB — Mar 9 — weAttract released a report today identifying seven opportunities and seven threats facing online dating sites. Advice…FOR THE INDUSTRY 1. Open member feedback forum 2. Join in June meeting for agreement of guidelines 3. Share critical mass info. FOR CONSUMERS 1. Ask tough questions 2. Give feedback 3. Do other things besides online dating
Mark Brooks: weAttract is the company behind Yahoo Personals personality profiling. A number of serious issues are brought up in this report. A little controversial. Your comments please…
Congrats and good luck to weAttract.com! I have read the report and was impressed by its candor and thoughtfulness. I intend on citing this report in my upcoming journal article on compatibility testing.
Truly scientific applications to social networking and online matchmaking are sparse and in their infancy, but cyberpsychology is a quickly growing field.
The presence of respected psychologists who take an evidence-based approach like Drs. Mark Thompson and Glenn Wilson make me proud to be within the industry.
Thanks,
James Houran, Ph.D.
Chief Psychologist, TRUE.com
Although I am Argentinean and my mother tongue / language is Spanish, I had taken WeAttract’s personality test several times (in English)
In my opinion it is an excellent test that works only in English for USA.
(personality testing depends on the language of the person)
In my own case I noticed that WeAttract’s personality test:
Has a great precision to detect what I am looking for (a point in a scale from 1 to 10 in different personality factors of the desired partner)
BUT
Has a low precision to measure how are my personality factors (a bar, not a point, in a scale from 1 to 10 in my different personality factors)
Only works in English for USA, but not in other languages (like German, French, Chinese, Spanish For Spain, Spanish for Mexico, Spanish for Latin American, Sweden, etc, etc)
Cordially,
Fernando Ardenghi.
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
ardenghifer@argentina.com
Also, to be honest, I am the inventor of a dating method named LIFEPROJECT
http://mb.internetdatingconference.com/viewtopic.php?t=30
http://mb.internetdatingconference.com/viewtopic.php?t=134
It will take me more than a whole week to read the report.
It seems to be a great marketing brochure
+
a great OnLine Dating Industry analysis
+
a good amount of advice.
Kindest Regards,
Fernando Ardenghi
Buenos Aires.
Argentina
ardenghifer@argentina.com
I had been reading the report / whitepaper named CONSUMERS ARE HAVING SECOND THOUGHTS ABOUT ONLINE DATING; written by the company WeAttract and what most caught my attention was on page 22:
/////…..it should not be too surprising that online dating may have unanticipated consequences. In fact, studies of major technologies and inventions (from cell phones to antibiotics to cars) have found a repeated pattern of:
Intensity of spread and excitement
Disaster or highly publicized damage is observed
Reform occurs in the industry
Vigilance by industry and consumers become necessary.
If online dating follows this trend, we can expect problems to arise that will bring the “intensity” period to an end. This is not an inevitable cycle. The question for the online dating industry is:
What level of “disaster” will it take to lead to reform and new guidelines in the industry? Will the “disaster” have to occur on your own site before you make changes?……/////
The authors self asked in the report: / whitepaper:
What level of “disaster” will it take to lead to reform and new guidelines in the industry?
I think the answer is very easy: conversion rate from users to clients goes to 0.00% !!!
OnLine Dating & Social Networking Industry is in a SECOND BIG BUBBLE, that will explode soon. Some problems appeared in many sites:
Many are NOT profitable now and will never be.
Many are full of fake profiles, invented profiles to attract users and then try to convert in clients. The database is full of rubbish, ads, persons that tell lies or not exist, persons that use retouched or fake photos, etc. (LOW RELIABILITY)
Many have low reliability & low precision in matching persons.
All these make the average conversion rate from users to clients to decrease fast.
The strategy to give free memberships to have a good amount of users and then try to convert them in clients will not work any more, because they will remain as users for ever and ever. (a vicious circle)
Many new sites will try to specialize in different topics (like pets, children, food, education, lifestyle, geographical, cars), to serve a niche market, but the objective is to build an online community not a GHETTO.
Online community is a group of persons that interact each other and a person who is paying a fee is a client –not a free user- and of course, sooner or later, will like to meet other compatible real persons. (high reliability). He or She is not loosing precious time, He or She is investing in a long term relationship with future in mind. I also think that the Industry will require a collaborative environment to develop innovations in “Personality Test Matching / Dating Method” (eg: a group of engineers, psychologists, marketing consultants working together) in next 5 years. The future will be in applying border studies (frontier studies, a combination of different knowledge from different sciences)
A new great niche market will appear:
– all the persons that have been hurt in their feelings by other persons in many actual on line dating sites. Many people COMPLAINT ABOUT AN IMPORTANT THING: SOONER OR LATER, they want to contact COMPATIBLE REAL PERSONS, so they will need reliability / high precision in on line dating.
– persons that are SEARCHING for a multicultural on line dating. (e.g. a German person living in Germany and compatible with a Brazilian person who speaks Portuguese and lives in Australia)
– persons that have time to wait. (as long as a whole year, or more).
And all of them have the same reason to pay a fee:
This fee will work as a barrier to avoid free users, who could hurt their feelings.
2005 – 2010 The Flight to Quality
All the discussion about background checks legislation in USA, shows that now, a more complex process started.
I named this process “the flight to Quality”. From now to the next 5 years the OnLine Dating & Social Networking Industry will need more than a simple “Code of Ethics”.
It will need an “internal procedures / quality / evaluation code”; i.e. how to manage clients, like a ISO 9001:2000 Quality Norms for this service Industry.(ISO 9001:2000 formerly known as ISO 9002) and external evaluators that will certify the companies complies with Quality norms,
like Bureau Veritas
http://www.bvqi.com
TÜV Reinhland
http://www.tuv.com/en/index.php
or others.
Perhaps by 2010, ALL serious Dating Sites MUST have been certified and proudly show its certification mark/seal online.
ON Line Dating future = = QUALITY like actual OFF Line Chains.
Kindest Regards,
Fernando Ardenghi.
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
ardenghifer@argentina.com
MISTAKES ON WeAttract’s report / whitepaper AND other comments
http://www.weattract.com/images/weAttract_whitepaper.pdf
Please see endnote#8 on page 46
////
If the probability of any random match being a future spouse is 1 in 500, then the probability of the match not being a future spouse is 499/500.
For this exercise, we assumed that each of the dates were independent, although this would probably not be the case in reality.
The probability of finding your spouse after 2 matches would be (499/500) * 2 and after N such encounters would be (499/500) * N.
Since (499/500) * 346 is 0.50, then one runs a 50% chance having not found a spouse and 50% of finding a spouse after 346 matches.
Good statisticians would want us to remind you that the probability of any given date along the way being a future spouse doesn’t change, even if one seems overdue to have a good date (aka, the “gambler’s fallacy). This probability is meant to reflect what we can say about where you are likely to be a year from now, and the probability says that somewhere along the way you have a 50/50 chance of getting married.
////
If
the probability of any random match being a future spouse is 1 in 500 == 1/500
then the probability of the match not being a future spouse is 499/500.
After 2 independent matches;
The probability of finding your spouse after 2 matches will be (1/500) * 2 == 2/500
After N independent matches; (N <= 500; N must be less or equal the whole sample) The probability of finding your spouse after N matches would be (1/500) * N == N /500 After 346 independent matches; (approximately 1 date a night per year) The probability of finding your spouse after 346 matches would be (1/500) * 346 == 346 /500 == 0.692 or 69.20 percent Please see page 11, So for Mark (a guinea pig) Will need only 250 independent matches to reach 0.500 or 50.00 percent If the company named on that page delivers 1.5 dates per month, 18 per year. Mark will require 250 dates or 13.88 years to reach 50.00 percent and NOT 19 years. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Please see endnote#26 on page 46 screening tests / diagnostic tests ////….Online dating is basically conducting a screening test on a non-existent relationship to predict its likelihood of developing into a good marriage or a bad one….. (then comes a THEORETICAL EXAMPLE)……//// The probability of true disease if the screening test is positive (the positive predictive value) seems to be not correct. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - COMMENTS Please see endnotes #5 and #6 on page 46, and page 6 //// 5 This is particularly bad news since marketing research has found that negative word of mouth is the most powerful predictor of future revenue decline. In fact, it’s a much better indicator of true customer sentiment than satisfaction ratings. Frederick Reichheld reported in his 2003 Harvard Business Review article, that the number of net promoters (those who recommend you) minus the number of detractors is the best predictor of revenue growth. 6 Having worked in the healthcare industry during a similar shift in sentiment, I (Thompson) saw this process in action with the Kaiser Permanente brand. Although the health plan had the highest customer satisfaction and quality of care in California, consumers were more likely to remember or mistakenly associate negative incidents with the brand. Thus, we observed the opposite of “a rising tide lifts all boats.” In this situation, sinking ships tow the bigger ships down first. ///// They say: word of mouth is the most powerful predictor of future revenue decline AND sinking ships tow the bigger ships down first Quite interesting!!!. I believe this will happen. Applied to (page 6) ///// As new waves of consumers enter the market, they bring higher expectations than the early adopters. The industry is also encountering a cohort of singles, who have struggled with dating and relationships. They are deciding to give online dating a try. Unfortunately, these new consumers typically encounter “one size fits all” websites that offer nothing in the way of customized information or services. Not surprisingly, customer satisfaction with online dating has dropped. Plus, word of mouth, which had contributed to the industry’s growth, is now more bad than good. [Endnote#5] The most popular websites may be especially vulnerable since stories (good and bad) tend to “stick” to their brands. [Endnote#6] Thus, the same forces that shifted industry perceptions in a positive way are now apparently pushing in the opposite direction. ///// - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Please also see endnote#52 on page 47 ////52 To take this a step further, we believe the fundamental “problem” the industry is trying to solve is misguided. Even in an (impossibly) perfect form, an online dating service could only help courier people one small leg on the journey. The process of meeting a potential partner is challenging (especially for shy or quirky people), but it is hardly the only or even the most difficult obstacle in building a good relationship. In reality, the success or failure of a romantic relationship is shaped by the dynamics that emerge as the two of them grow together (or apart) over time.//// Kindest Regards, Fernando Ardenghi. Buenos Aires. Argentina. ardenghifer@argentina.com
More comments on WeAttract’s report / whitepaper
Please see endnote#8 on page 46 (THE SMALL LETTERS)
////
If the probability of any random match being a future spouse is 1 in 500, then the probability of the match not being a future spouse is 499/500. …………………….
////
The authors said / assumed: “If the probability of any random match being a future spouse is 1 in 500”
The statement above is only THEORETICAL / HYPOTETICAL. It is not a real measurement, like you could go and measure a distance between two points.
It was deduced from this way / this reasoning: The company named on page 11 reported 10,000 marriages from their site; 10,000,000 matches, and a database of 6,000,000 persons.
10,000 matched pairs -out of 10,000,000 matches- ultimately married, or 0.001 or 0.1%. Thus, for every 1 recommended match that actually resulted in marriage, there were 999 matches that did not. (BUT PERHAPS THEY ARE IN-LOVE FOR SOME YEARS, 4 or 5 years, THEY DO NOT MARRY INMEDIATELY AFTER THEY WERE MATCHED)
SO
10 million matches were made, but only 20,000 people (0.002 or 0.2% OR 1 in 500 or 1/500) (10,000 marriages X 2 people) walked away with a success story.
Thus, for every 1 person who goes on a date and meets their future spouse, 499 went out that night and did not. (BUT PERHAPS THEY FALL IN-LOVE AFTER 5 or 6 dates with the same person)
If more persons / pairs / matches -that are in love now- decide to marry soon they will change the figures. I.E. Suppose there are 90,000 new marriages during next 3 years 2005 to 2008, the TOTAL marriages will be 100,000 or 200,000 persons over 10 million matches (0.02 or 2.0% OR 1 in 50 or 1/50) and also suppose the database is 6,000,000 persons (the new users / clients rate is equal to the rate of persons leaving the database)
By 2008 the FREQUENCY of any random match being a future spouse will be 1 in 50 (ten times higher than the initial condition), and if you assume the FREQUENCY trends to PROBABILITY after many random tries
Please see page 11,
So for Mark (the guinea pig) By 2008 will only need 25 independent matches to reach 0.500 or 50.00 percent to find her future wife.
If the company named on that page delivers 1.5 dates per month, 18 per year.
Mark will require 25 dates or nearly 1 year 4 months and 21 days to reach a 50.00 percent probability. Very Good and Quite Quickly!!!! because serious dating it is not instant soup, instant coffee not a CALL-NOW instant offer.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Please see endnote#26 on page 46
////#26 It is important to distinguish between the nature of screening tests (which are for asymptomatic people) and diagnostic tests (which are calibrated among people already showing a disease, disorder, or problem behavior). Online dating is basically conducting a screening test on a non-existent relationship to predict its likelihood of developing into a good marriage or a bad one. False positives outnumber true positives with every screening test in medicine and psychology. Because screening tests are not 100% accurate and are performed on symptomatic and unlikely to be in the situation being considered (i.e. date, get engaged, get married, and then divorced), the risk of a false-positive result is significant. As with all tests, the interpretation of the result depends upon the prevalence of the disorder in the population being tested (Bayes Theorem). For example, if in a pool of potential dating candidates, 1% is a potential divorce (meaning I’d likely want to date this person, marry her, and years later decide to divorce). This would be the only value of the test, since if I would exclude the remaining people from consideration myself, only this 1% is worthy of concern. If the hypothetical “divorce detection device” has a sensitivity and specificity of 90%, the positive predictive value (i.e., the probability of true disease if the screening test is positive) is 8.3%. Thus, 11 patients will receive false positive results compared with every one true positive (or true potential divorce predicted). This is only a concern if one of the false positives is a person I am very interested in meeting and would be a wonderful match and spouse. Thus, the impact of “saving” people from negative events has to be balanced with how the false conclusions might change the course of the future in unanticipated way.
False negatives would also be an issue, since such couples would have “false reassurance” and not take steps to address underlying problems along the way. Although most of us expect we could ignore such findings if we disagreed with them, research suggests that false tests results in medicine (such as being inaccurate diagnosed with hypertension or high cholesterol) resulted in lasting disability, even though the false positive test results was corrected relatively quickly. For future background see the indepth mathematical treatments by evidence-based medicine champion David Eddy (1991), USPSTF (1996), and for unanticipated effects of screening tests see Croyle, RT (1995).////
AND endnotes #27 and #28 on page 47
////
#27 We have been advocates of telling consumers when a particular match is not a good fit according to the matching system. Before our first generation system was released on Match.com, search results were ranked, such that the best available person, no matter how poor the fit was at the top. With our systems, we are telling the consumer that based upon what they have said their preferences are, a specific person is considerably off what you way you wanted. If the user wishes to disregard this, they are simply over-riding their own opinion. We see a clear distinction between labeling someone as a bad fit based upon the user’s articulated preferences in a dating context (where the risk of a False Negative or False Positive are low) versus the same absolutes in prediction when marital outcome is at stake.
#28 If we have contributed to the impression that personality is the necessary and sufficient cornerstone for matching and predicting outcomes, this would be a case of our using persuasive tactics too well. //////
I had read these 3 endnotes #26, #27 and #28 several times, and they look very contradictory. (It appears #26 is not correct and looks opposite to #27)
Although I think this report is very valuable, it has a good amount of advice, situation analysis and explanations about what this On Line Dating Industry will need in a near future, like Quality Norms; this report / whitepaper is not fully honest, has MISTAKES that could confuse readers.
Kindest Regards,
Fernando Ardenghi.
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
ardenghifer@argentina.com
It is easy to see that there are excellent personality tests available in different languages, like 16PF5 16 personality factors, in: Danish, Dutch, English for Australia, English for Canada, English for the United Kingdom, English for the United States, French (European), German, Greek, Italian, Norwegian, Portuguese (European and New World), Portuguese of Brazil, Spanish (Castilian), Spanish-American, Swedish & Turkish. coming soon: Chinese, English for South Africa, Finnish, Japanese.
source: http://www.16pfworld.com/languages.html
The 16PF5 was invented by Dr. Raymond Cattell in 1949! Proved in millions of persons over the world and actualized using census 2000 figures. OVER 50 years of experience!!!
Different personality possibilities: 1 x 10raised_to16, more than persons exist in the world, that are nearly 6 x 10raised_to9.
The main problem to solve IS NOT to design personality tests for dating.
The main problem to solve IS TO invent a precise way / method to COMPARE the results of the tests between each others.
LIKE THIS:
Client #01 —- 16PF5 Profile Results
6.7.6.8.9.6.7.7.8.7.2.5.8.7.3.4 PERSONALITY PATTERN
—————————————————————————–
Client #02 —- 16PF5 Profile
5.7.4.8.7.4.5.6.4.6.8.9.6.8.4.4
——————————————-
Client #03 —- 16PF5 Profile
2.5.4.6.3.8.7.6.3.9.9.8.2.5.5.6
——————————————-
Client #04 —- 16PF5 Profile
7.7.6.8.8.7.6.5.8.7.4.5.7.7.3.4
——————————————-
Client #05 —- 16PF5 Profile
4.9.5.4.1.3.4.9.7.8.7.5.6.7.9.10
——————————————-
How similar is personality pattern of Client #01 compared to Client #02?
== 74.79865772% (Using LIFEPROJECT method algorithm)
How similar is personality pattern of Client #01 compared to Client #03?
== 54.09395973%
How similar is personality pattern of Client #01 compared to Client #04?
== 92.55033557%
How similar is personality pattern of Client #01 compared to Client #05?
== 57.71812081%
As it could be seen, the comparison method IS NOT a problem of psychology knowledge, it is only a problem of advanced applied math equations (an engineering problem).
Kindest Regards,
Fernando Ardenghi.
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
ardenghifer@argentina.com
LIFEPROJECT method DOES NOT apply Regression Weights Method NOR Band Method with optimal range of sten (standardized tens) scores.
LIFEPROJECT method DOES NOT USE Myers-Briggs Type Indicators.
LIFEPROJECT method uses advanced math equations, condensed in an algorithm, to compare the results with high precision.
Does anybody know if the WeAttract’s event in June was hold?
At WeAttract’s whitepaper version 1.4 page 44 says
INDUSTRY 2. Join in a June meeting to propose basic quality guidelines ……………
guidelines@weattract.com
(I asked several times but they never answered)
Kindest Regards,
Fernando Ardenghi.
ardenghifer@gmail.com
DIFFERENT PERSONALITY TESTS FOR ON LINE DATING
&
MORE POWER CALCULATION FOR COMPATIBILITY MATCHING.
Case 1)
Many dating sites are using an adapted Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) test.
MBTI is a psychological test designed to assist a person in identifying their personality preferences. It has four BIPOLAR independent variables:
Extraverted (E) or Introverted (I)
Sensing (S) or Intuitive (N)
Thinking (T) or Feeling (F)
Judging (J) or Perceiving (P)
The different possibilities are 2*2*2*2 == 16 (personality types), they name:
ISTJ – The Duty Fulfillers // ESTJ – The Guardians // ISFJ – The Nurturers // ESFJ – The Caregivers // ISTP – The Mechanics // ESTP – The Doers // ESFP – The Performers // ISFP – The Artists // ENTJ – The Executives // INTJ – The Scientists // ENTP – The Visionaries // INTP – The Thinkers // ENFJ – The Givers // INFJ – The Protectors // ENFP – The Inspirers // INFP – The Idealists
Test Result looks like this:
Personality type results: ESTJ
EI: 7 out of 17
Extrovert |————————————————-| Introvert
………………………….|
…………………………41%
SN: 8 out of 17
Sensation |————————————————-| iNtuition
………………………………|
……………………………..47%
TF: 5 out of 17
Thinking |————————————————-| Feeling
……………………|
…………………..29%
JP: 5 out of 17
Judging |————————————————-| Perceiving
……………………|
…………………..29%
As only 16 personality types are rather few, dating sites upgrade the model using photos, likes and dislikes formulary, etc.
– – – – – – – – – – — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Case 2)
Other dating sites use PROPRIETARY tests or models:
With 10 degrees per independent variable at the results of the test (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10):
If only 5 variables are used, like a 5 Traits Inventory, Big-5 dimensions of personality: Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness; the Ensemble (the whole set of different possibilities) is 10*10*10*10*10 == 1 * 10^5 == 100,000 different possibilities (personality types). This is only the whole set of different personality possibilities, the way to compare one to others is a another matter.
With 10 degrees per independent variable at the results of the test (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10)
If only 7 variables are used, Big-7 dimensions of personality: Neuroticism, Extraversion,
Openness, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Self-Esteem and Self-Doubt; the Ensemble (the whole set of different possibilities) is 10*10*10*10*10*10*10 == 1 * 10^7 == 10,000,000 different possibilities (personality types).
With 3 degrees per independent variable (Mostly agree / Nor agree nor disagree / Mostly disagree), at the results of the test; NOT at the questionnaire.
If only 12 variables are used the Ensemble (the whole set of different possibilities) is
3*3*3*3*3*3*3*3*3*3*3*3 == 1 * 3^12 == 531,441 == 5.3 * 10^5 different possibilities (personality types). This is only the whole set of different personality possibilities, the way to compare one to others is a another matter.
If 16 variables are used the Ensemble is
3*3*3*3*3*3*3*3*3*3*3*3*3*3*3*3 == 1 * 3^16 == 43,046,721 == 4.3 * 10^7 different possibilities
With 5 degrees per independent variable at the results of the test (Highly agree / Mostly agree / Nor agree nor disagree / Mostly disagree / Highly disagree)
If only 12 variables are used the Ensemble is
5*5*5*5*5*5*5*5*5*5*5*5 == 1 * 5^12 == 244,140,625 == 2.4 * 10^8 different possibilities
If 16 variables are used the Ensemble is
5*5*5*5*5*5*5*5*5*5*5*5*5*5*5*5== 1 * 5^16 == 152,587,890,625 == 1.5 * 10^11 different possibilities
More than World Population (WP): nearly 6,400 millions persons == 6.4 * 10^9
Although the validity & reliability of the proprietary tests could be high, i.e. >80%, the main problem / endeavour appears in how to compare and assign compatibility.
A FREE test named IPIP-NEO can be taken at:
http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/j/5/j5j/IPIP/
http://ipip.ori.org/
Five broad domains of personality, followed by a more detailed description of personality according to the six subdomains that comprise each domain.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Case 3)
Using a complete 16 Personality Factors model, 16PF test, the Ensemble ( the whole set of different possibilities) is 10*10*10*10*10*10*10*10*10*10*10*10*10*10*10*10 == 1 * 10^16 == 10,000,000,000,000,000 of different possibilities (personality types), thus each person is really unique. This is only the whole set of different personality possibilities, the way to compare one to others is a another matter.
The output of the personality test is like this A:05, B:09, C:06, E:06, F:08, G:04, H:07, I:05, L:03, M:06, N:04, O:06, Q1:08, Q2:02, Q3:05, Q4:04.
(A) Warmth, (B) Reasoning, (C) Emotional Stability, (E) Dominance, (F) Liveliness, (G) Rule-Consciousness, (H) Social Boldness, (I) Sensitivity, (L) Vigilance, (M) Abstractedness, (N) Privateness, (O) Apprehension, (Q1) Openness to Change, (Q2) Self-Reliance, (Q3) Perfectionism and (Q4) Tension
World Population (WP): nearly 6,400 millions persons == 6.4 * 10^9
16PF`s Ensemble== E == 1 * 10^16
WP / E == (6.4 * 10^9) / (1 * 10^16) == 6.4 * 10^-7 == 64 * 10^-6
i.e. WP is 64 micro part of E!!!
If the comparison / matching algorithm “compares” each personality test’s result with the others, for a DataBase with an initial charge of N clients will need [ N * (N-1) ] / 2 comparisons.
For 100,000 clients needs nearly 5,000,000,000 of comparisons.
For 1,000,000 clients needs nearly 500,000,000,000 of comparisons
It is really a hard work, requires time and power calculation!!!
For the Dating Industry, the main problem to solve IS NOT to design personality tests for dating.
The main problem to solve IS TO invent a precise way / method to COMPARE the results of the tests between each others.
Kindest Regards,
Fernando Ardenghi.
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
ardenghifer@gmail.com
http://mb.internetdatingconference.com/viewtopic.php?t=30
http://mb.internetdatingconference.com/viewtopic.php?t=134
More than 6 months passed
“Are the Real Benefits Getting Lost in Over Promises?”
version 1.00 was released on March 9th.
http://www.weattract.com/images/weAttract_whitepaper_v1_4.pdf
version 1.40 was released on April 29th.
At page 22:
” -Intensity of spread and excitement
-Disaster or highly publicized damage is observed
-Reform occurs in the industry
-Vigilance by industry and consumers become necessary.”
The Industry is still in “Intensity of spread and excitement” level.
Regards,
Fernando Ardenghi.
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
ardenghifer@gmail.com
This post is from one year ago, but still valid!!!
Kindest Regards,
Fernando Ardenghi.
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
ardenghifer@gmail.com