— Oct 11 — Match.com has launched Chemistry.com (Denver, Seattle, San Diego, Washington D.C.) using matching technology rather than search technology. You answer questions and then a computer algorithm finds matches . Now I'm going to surrender my control to let the computer do all the work for me? Here's the thing, though: Search doesn't work. Match.com believes there's a large audience who want a more structured online dating experience and who'll pay a premium. Alas, matching is still highly unproven. You have to devote about 40 minutes at the outset to completing a profile in the hopes that it'll bear fruit in the end. In my experience, the harvest is a long way off. I think that matching has to get more sophisticated–and quickly. Chemistry's answers are either geared in such a way that you don't have any bad traits, only lesser degrees of positive ones, or they make it so that any reasonable person would answer "Sometimes" almost every place it's offered as a response. In the end, you're left with a middle-of-the-road profile that's going to mean that you're still most likely to get paired up with a mate based on whether you both smoke or not rather than based on how likely you both are to share your feelings. On the whole, I'm bullish on the idea of matching technology.
The full article was originally published at Fast Company, but is no longer available.
Mark Brooks: Matching holds high promise. Is it delivering right now? If not, when will it deliver? Please comment? TRUE uses the only validated test I've come across yet btw.
Dear Mr. Brooks:
It could be interesting if you could interview the Chemistry’s team and ask how the method works (if the personality assessment core is an adapted DISC model)
or
Do you know who is the Chief Psychologist/Sociologist of the team?
(I tried to contact them several times, but no answer until now)
Kindest Regards,
Fernando Ardenghi.
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
ardenghifer@gmail.com
First of all your blog is looking good. Keep up the great work!
I’m very interested in matching technology here at AppleDates and I’ve surveyed Chemistry.com. It’s fine as a generic system for generic people but I feel strongly that their system breaks down in a complex place like the New York City. Our lifestyles and habits are very peculiar and vary considerably from neighborhood to neighborhood, from borough to borough. The lifestyle of singles living in the Upper East Side differs drastically from singles living a few miles away in SoHo or Brooklyn. These distinctions are incredibly important for single New Yorkers and potential compatibility is very often influenced by subtle factors that are no where to be found on Chemistry.com’s questionnaire.
Lifestyle begins and ends with the things we DO, first as singles, then as couples. That’s why AppleDates puts events at the forefront of the dating process. Since our member base glues the events they like to their profiles prospective suitors get both an idea of the first date and a clear idea on what kinds of things our members like to do. When we roll out our new question sets this fall, and they will be the largest number of questions available on any dating site, we feel we will give New Yorkers all of the tools necessary to create rich, informative profiles that include the subtle New York City characteristics that are an important part of the dating process here. I built a question and answer management system that let writers and copy editors make real-time changes to my profile question base and I feel that revolutionizes the process of adding interesting, New York City-centric, questions to the site. We are also working with New York City therapists that specialize in singles issues to develop a series of thoughtful questions and answers that highlight themes that single New Yorkers struggle with as they search for a soul mate. I’m excited about these new questions and I’m obviously excited about the potential of AppleDates to compete with companies like Match.com.
Another great post, Mark.
I believe–and the numbers that eHarmony release back me up, if you read between the lines and do the math–that matching is NOWHERE NEAR “there yet.” I know few people who’ve had any real luck with it.
I personally have gotten some really bizarre matches via eHarmony, and found the results were far less interesting to me than many of the mid-ranges I find via searching. And often, things I really care about–like pets (can’t stand ’em) seem to be the common element among all my “matches,” with whom I’m apparently being paired based on characteristics that were dubiously measured to begin with.