PR WEB – Dec 30 – Movie ratings are the key to predicting romantic
compatibility according to a new dating site Cinekin.com. With movie
ratings alone Cinekin matches people with their ideal mate without the
lengthy questionnaires. In a study of approximately 3,000 people
conducted by Dr. Pascal Wallisch, who received his Ph.D. in Psychology
from the University of Chicago, couples in happy relationships shared
similar movie tastes three times as often as people in unhappy
relationships. FULL ARTICLE @ PR WEB
Matchmaking by Cinekin says:
“1) Movies Are More Than They Seem
Every movie has lots of stuff in it – images, sounds, plots, values, and personalities. Ultimately, every movie represents some aspect of the human condition.
2)Your Ratings are an Insight into Your Personality
A lot of you goes into your movie ratings. You reduce a two-hour experience into a number that represents how much that movie resonates with you personally.
……………
…… We here at Cinekin have been working on our matchmaking system for over years. Before we began development on our company, our patents, or our website, we conducted a good deal of research to find out if taste-based compatibility was actually effective in people-matching.
In a study of close to 3,000 individuals, we found that most people have a small positive correlation across their overall movie ratings.
On a scale from -1 to 1, we found that number to be around 0.22. That means if you ask a complete stranger for advice on what movies to see, they’ll recommend something you’ll like a bit more often than something you won’t.
Here’s the nifty part: of the people in our study who were in happy, contented relationships, the correlation between their overall movie ratings was a whopping 0.60 – almost 300% higher than the average person-to-person correlation.
The first thought that crossed our minds was ‘gee, what if they just watch the same things together as a couple, and that leads to the high correlation?’
Well, we were quite relieved by our next discovery: people in unhappy, disagreeable relationships had an average movie-taste correlation of only 0.17 – less than that of two random strangers!
In all cases of couples we tested, the taste-based correlation was a sure indicator of happiness and long-term stability. Matchmaking by Cinekin. Revolutionizing the way people date online.”
A whopping 0.60 is almost 200% higher than the average person-to-person correlation around 0.22.
and NOT almost 300% higher than the average person-to-person correlation.
1) As usual, I created a dummy (fake) pofile.
2) I had rated 125 movies/films I had seen in the past.
3) I received 14 “compatible matches”, all of them with 2full 1half 2empty stars
saintscribble 31yo (rated 304 Movies)
Santineao 29yo (rated 192 Movies)
pianogrrl 33yo (rated 161 Movies)
maribee 29yo (rated 79 Movies)
Anonymous 31yo (rated 62 Movies)
…….
and 9 more
Matchmaking by Cinekin express compatibility as a graphic system with 5 full/half/empty stars. From 5 empty stars to 5 full stars, you have 11 different possible indications.
Matchmaking by Cinekin is another hoax. It is only a recommendation engine in the range of 3 to 4 persons as highly compatible for dating purposes per 1,000 persons screened in exactly the same range of searching on one’s own, mutual filtering methods or actual compatibility matching algorithms.
The only way to revolutionize the Online Dating Industry.
– is using the 16PF5 normative personality test, available in different languages to assess personality of members, or a proprietary test with exactly the same traits of the 16PF5. WorldWide, there are over 5,000 -five thousand- online dating sites, but no one is using the 16PF5
– and expressing compatibility with eight decimals, like:
The pattern 6.7.6.8.9.6.7.7.8.7.2.5.8.7.3.4 is 92.55033557% +/- 0.00000001% similar to the pattern 7.7.6.8.8.7.6.5.8.7.4.5.7.7.3.4
Using a quantized pattern comparison method (part of pattern recognition by cross-correlation) to calculate similarity between prospective mates.
100 times better than Compatibility Matching Algorithms used by actual online dating sites!
Regards,
Fernando Ardenghi.
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
ardenghifer@gmail.com
Matchmaking by Cinekin says:
“1) Movies Are More Than They Seem
Every movie has lots of stuff in it – images, sounds, plots, values, and personalities. Ultimately, every movie represents some aspect of the human condition.
2)Your Ratings are an Insight into Your Personality
A lot of you goes into your movie ratings. You reduce a two-hour experience into a number that represents how much that movie resonates with you personally.
……………
…… We here at Cinekin have been working on our matchmaking system for over years. Before we began development on our company, our patents, or our website, we conducted a good deal of research to find out if taste-based compatibility was actually effective in people-matching.
In a study of close to 3,000 individuals, we found that most people have a small positive correlation across their overall movie ratings.
On a scale from -1 to 1, we found that number to be around 0.22. That means if you ask a complete stranger for advice on what movies to see, they’ll recommend something you’ll like a bit more often than something you won’t.
Here’s the nifty part: of the people in our study who were in happy, contented relationships, the correlation between their overall movie ratings was a whopping 0.60 – almost 300% higher than the average person-to-person correlation.
The first thought that crossed our minds was ‘gee, what if they just watch the same things together as a couple, and that leads to the high correlation?’
Well, we were quite relieved by our next discovery: people in unhappy, disagreeable relationships had an average movie-taste correlation of only 0.17 – less than that of two random strangers!
In all cases of couples we tested, the taste-based correlation was a sure indicator of happiness and long-term stability. Matchmaking by Cinekin. Revolutionizing the way people date online.”
A whopping 0.60 is almost 200% higher than the average person-to-person correlation around 0.22.
and NOT almost 300% higher than the average person-to-person correlation.
1) As usual, I created a dummy (fake) pofile.
2) I had rated 125 movies/films I had seen in the past.
3) I received 14 “compatible matches”, all of them with 2full 1half 2empty stars
saintscribble 31yo (rated 304 Movies)
Santineao 29yo (rated 192 Movies)
pianogrrl 33yo (rated 161 Movies)
maribee 29yo (rated 79 Movies)
Anonymous 31yo (rated 62 Movies)
…….
and 9 more
Matchmaking by Cinekin express compatibility as a graphic system with 5 full/half/empty stars. From 5 empty stars to 5 full stars, you have 11 different possible indications.
Matchmaking by Cinekin is another hoax. It is only a recommendation engine in the range of 3 to 4 persons as highly compatible for dating purposes per 1,000 persons screened in exactly the same range of searching on one’s own, mutual filtering methods or actual compatibility matching algorithms.
The only way to revolutionize the Online Dating Industry.
– is using the 16PF5 normative personality test, available in different languages to assess personality of members, or a proprietary test with exactly the same traits of the 16PF5. WorldWide, there are over 5,000 -five thousand- online dating sites, but no one is using the 16PF5
– and expressing compatibility with eight decimals, like:
The pattern 6.7.6.8.9.6.7.7.8.7.2.5.8.7.3.4 is 92.55033557% +/- 0.00000001% similar to the pattern 7.7.6.8.8.7.6.5.8.7.4.5.7.7.3.4
Using a quantized pattern comparison method (part of pattern recognition by cross-correlation) to calculate similarity between prospective mates.
100 times better than Compatibility Matching Algorithms used by actual online dating sites!
Regards,
Fernando Ardenghi.
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
ardenghifer@gmail.com
Hi Fernando,
You bring up some great points. I’d first like to thank you for checking out Matchmaking by Cinekin, and also address the issues you brought up. This response is a bit lengthy, and I ask you to please bear with me as I explain why taste-based personal matching as employed by Matchmaking by Cinekin is a profound method of matching that will shape the global course of online dating in the years to come.
Your First point:
****
A whopping 0.60 is almost 200% higher than the average person-to-person correlation around 0.22.
and NOT almost 300% higher than the average person-to-person correlation.
****
You are correct. 6 is almost 3 times greater, or 300% OF .22 – we misused the word ‘higher’, and for that I apologize on behalf of the Cinekin Team. However, as correlations are a nonlinear function, the amount of information represented by a correlation coefficient of .6 is about seven times that of a correlation coefficient of .22. And, on the matter of statistics, the emergent trend of folks in happy relationships having so profoundly higher an interpersonal correlation on movie ratings than 2 randomly picked individuals across a 3,000 person pool is highly statistically significant.
Second point:
****
1) As usual, I created a dummy (fake) pofile.
2) I had rated 125 movies/films I had seen in the past.
3) I received 14 “compatible matches”, all of them with 2full 1half 2empty stars
saintscribble 31yo (rated 304 Movies)
Santineao 29yo (rated 192 Movies)
pianogrrl 33yo (rated 161 Movies)
maribee 29yo (rated 79 Movies)
Anonymous 31yo (rated 62 Movies)
…….
and 9 more
Matchmaking by Cinekin express compatibility as a graphic system with 5 full/half/empty stars. From 5 empty stars to 5 full stars, you have 11 different possible indications.
****
For ease of viewing, we have decided to display our 12 decimal calculation in rounded terms. Please rest assured knowing that while we show a meager 11-point scale, we are calculating personal compatibility values to many decimal places on the back-end before making them more visually presentable in star-form.
Third point
****
Matchmaking by Cinekin is another hoax. It is only a recommendation engine in the range of 3 to 4 persons as highly compatible for dating purposes per 1,000 persons screened in exactly the same range of searching on one’s own, mutual filtering methods or actual compatibility matching algorithms.
****
Matchmaking by Cinekin is no hoax. What is truly a shame, however, is that the majority of the online dating industry has presented so many false positives over the years, it becomes hard to tell what’s real from what’s not; what’s revolutionary from what’s the same old status quo. The novelty and the utility of the Cinekin method is twofold: our computational matching algorithm is pretty cutting edge (in the same ballpark as the Netflix prize winner), so comparing user ratings is well in hand; and secondly, the nature of our questions is much different from those asked on any current psychological inventory, and is the key to romantic compatibility.
Before I explain this out a bit more, please know I’ve checked out your site (http://www.onlinepersonalswatch.com/news/2008/07/lifeproject-met.html), and I find the math compelling. However, as they tend to say in the signal analysis business, garbage-in, garbage-out. Your matching filters seem to be on par with some of the great ones, but your source of personal information, like so many others, is unfortunately lacking.
Every text-based “personality” survey out there consists of a series of written questions designed to ‘get at the core’ of what makes a person that person – the minutia that makes an individual unique. The notion that a system of scales attached to a relatively small, finite list of questions (e.g.,’what is your favorite color’ or ‘When I find myself in a boring situation, I usually “tune out” and daydream about other things. [true/false]’), can account for all human variability is, in my mind, not only arrogant, but foolish. The cognitive and emotional engagement in all of those text-based surveys ranges from minimal to completely lacking, and the sensory engagement of such an inventory is also minimal. Moreover, there has never been a study conducted that shows that matching based on personality similarity as derived from one of these assessments has any bearing on long-term relationship happiness or stability. What my team and I surmise results from these kinds of surveys is an accurate assessment of a small, dry, intellectual component of personality – hardly the whole of what a long-term relationship needs to survive.
For a moment, let’s consider what a movie contains. From an informational perspective, it is a 100 minute bolus of streaming, multi-modal sensory information. The average movie contains emotionally engaging characters, plots, and situations. It contains compelling visual and auditory scenery. It elicits unconscious, emotional responses, intellectual engagement, character judgment, self-reflection, and categorization time and time again.
Let’s take a look at movie ratings, too. Considering that a movie is largely constant across a viewing population (that is, if you watch The Godfather, the contents of the film are largely identical to my screening of The Godfather), yet ratings of that movie vary across viewers. If we take a movie that’s not on IMDB’s top 5 best films of all time list, and look for something with higher variance in the ratings, we find some compelling information: though the same set of multi-modal, emotionally and cognitively engaging material is presented to a wide audience in the case of, say, Napoleon Dynamite, lots of people love it, and lots of people hate it. The content is THE SAME. The whole of the variability lies internally, in the viewers.
Three background points on why movie ratings are a compelling choice for use in personal compatibility matching: 1) Movie ratings are internally consistent within an individual. We polled 3,000 people on movie ratings across 110 films. We then polled them again a year later, and found the correlation between an individual’s ratings from time 1 to time 2 to be around .9 – that’s about as consistent as you can get with any test-to-test interval. 2) Because movie ratings are consistent within an individual, they are as valid a metric for analysis as any other personality test with a high test-to-test correlation. 3) Because the contents of a movie are relatively vast (two hours of rich information), it becomes truly impressive that people can, consistently, weigh all of that information, and come up with a number representative of how well the total contents of that information meshes with their personal aesthetic (what they like, and what makes them tick, at their personal core).
In short, instead of pretending to know what ‘the right questions to ask’ are within a stock survey, at Matchmaking by Cinekin, our members relate to each other, and to us through the vast realm of human experience as represented by thousands of movies. Through a comprehensive analysis of ratings across many movie titles, our algorithm matches people with similar tastes – tastes based on emotional involvement, and a vast representative sample of life experience. Instead of 185 questions, as presented in the 16PF5, we essentially ask millions through the experience of watching and rating movies.
Fourth point:
****
The only way to revolutionize the Online Dating Industry.
– is using the 16PF5 normative personality test, available in different languages to assess personality of members, or a proprietary test with exactly the same traits of the 16PF5. WorldWide, there are over 5,000 -five thousand- online dating sites, but no one is using the 16PF5
****
The 16PF5 (for your readers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16PF_Questionnaire) was a breakthrough in psychological screening in the 1940s, and is still widely used as an analysis tool by many organizations. However, to not recognize its limitations as a tool for matching people is myopic. Moreover, who’s to say that people whose personalities are nearly identical are good matches? Is your idea one that will look for specific relationships between individual traits of 16PF5 test-takers? I could imagine a situation in which you get 100,000 individuals, 100,000 long-term couples, and 100,000 couples on the rocks to take the test, do a comprehensive analysis on the internal components that seem to have some correlation to relationship stability, and create an altered form of the 16PF5 that specifically addresses compatibility. Of course, at that point, you’re looking for the “answer” to human compatibility within a set of prescribed, artificial questions, rather than within the human population. At that point, you’d be doing what every one else is – effectively trying to fit people into an a priori personality scheme, rather than matching them on what appears to be the first legitimate gauge of self-invoked interpersonal romantic compatibility – comprehensive taste matching based on characteristics derived from movie ratings.
Fifth point:
****
– and expressing compatibility with eight decimals, like:
The pattern 6.7.6.8.9.6.7.7.8.7.2.5.8.7.3.4 is 92.55033557% +/- 0.00000001% similar to the pattern 7.7.6.8.8.7.6.5.8.7.4.5.7.7.3.4
Using a quantized pattern comparison method (part of pattern recognition by cross-correlation) to calculate similarity between prospective mates.
100 times better than Compatibility Matching Algorithms used by actual online dating sites!
****
The Matchmaking by Cinekin algorithm is a proprietary algorithm that uses a method of weighed correlational comparison across user ratings to determine compatibility. The math behind our system is fairly complicated, and provides very accurate results with the information it handles. This is neither to say that your analysis is better or worse than ours, simply that the math behind it is different, and we both arrive at similar mathematical conclusions. Of course, the most important thing involved here is using that math to match people based on factors that actually contribute to long term stability and happiness. At Matchmaking by Cinekin, we’ve broken away from the standard personality inventories, and actually match folks based on factors that relate to long-term happiness and stability, and with that, my friends, I would like to welcome you to the taste-based revolution.
Hi Fernando,
You bring up some great points. I’d first like to thank you for checking out Matchmaking by Cinekin, and also address the issues you brought up. This response is a bit lengthy, and I ask you to please bear with me as I explain why taste-based personal matching as employed by Matchmaking by Cinekin is a profound method of matching that will shape the global course of online dating in the years to come.
Your First point:
****
A whopping 0.60 is almost 200% higher than the average person-to-person correlation around 0.22.
and NOT almost 300% higher than the average person-to-person correlation.
****
You are correct. 6 is almost 3 times greater, or 300% OF .22 – we misused the word ‘higher’, and for that I apologize on behalf of the Cinekin Team. However, as correlations are a nonlinear function, the amount of information represented by a correlation coefficient of .6 is about seven times that of a correlation coefficient of .22. And, on the matter of statistics, the emergent trend of folks in happy relationships having so profoundly higher an interpersonal correlation on movie ratings than 2 randomly picked individuals across a 3,000 person pool is highly statistically significant.
Second point:
****
1) As usual, I created a dummy (fake) pofile.
2) I had rated 125 movies/films I had seen in the past.
3) I received 14 “compatible matches”, all of them with 2full 1half 2empty stars
saintscribble 31yo (rated 304 Movies)
Santineao 29yo (rated 192 Movies)
pianogrrl 33yo (rated 161 Movies)
maribee 29yo (rated 79 Movies)
Anonymous 31yo (rated 62 Movies)
…….
and 9 more
Matchmaking by Cinekin express compatibility as a graphic system with 5 full/half/empty stars. From 5 empty stars to 5 full stars, you have 11 different possible indications.
****
For ease of viewing, we have decided to display our 12 decimal calculation in rounded terms. Please rest assured knowing that while we show a meager 11-point scale, we are calculating personal compatibility values to many decimal places on the back-end before making them more visually presentable in star-form.
Third point
****
Matchmaking by Cinekin is another hoax. It is only a recommendation engine in the range of 3 to 4 persons as highly compatible for dating purposes per 1,000 persons screened in exactly the same range of searching on one’s own, mutual filtering methods or actual compatibility matching algorithms.
****
Matchmaking by Cinekin is no hoax. What is truly a shame, however, is that the majority of the online dating industry has presented so many false positives over the years, it becomes hard to tell what’s real from what’s not; what’s revolutionary from what’s the same old status quo. The novelty and the utility of the Cinekin method is twofold: our computational matching algorithm is pretty cutting edge (in the same ballpark as the Netflix prize winner), so comparing user ratings is well in hand; and secondly, the nature of our questions is much different from those asked on any current psychological inventory, and is the key to romantic compatibility.
Before I explain this out a bit more, please know I’ve checked out your site (http://www.onlinepersonalswatch.com/news/2008/07/lifeproject-met.html), and I find the math compelling. However, as they tend to say in the signal analysis business, garbage-in, garbage-out. Your matching filters seem to be on par with some of the great ones, but your source of personal information, like so many others, is unfortunately lacking.
Every text-based “personality” survey out there consists of a series of written questions designed to ‘get at the core’ of what makes a person that person – the minutia that makes an individual unique. The notion that a system of scales attached to a relatively small, finite list of questions (e.g.,’what is your favorite color’ or ‘When I find myself in a boring situation, I usually “tune out” and daydream about other things. [true/false]’), can account for all human variability is, in my mind, not only arrogant, but foolish. The cognitive and emotional engagement in all of those text-based surveys ranges from minimal to completely lacking, and the sensory engagement of such an inventory is also minimal. Moreover, there has never been a study conducted that shows that matching based on personality similarity as derived from one of these assessments has any bearing on long-term relationship happiness or stability. What my team and I surmise results from these kinds of surveys is an accurate assessment of a small, dry, intellectual component of personality – hardly the whole of what a long-term relationship needs to survive.
For a moment, let’s consider what a movie contains. From an informational perspective, it is a 100 minute bolus of streaming, multi-modal sensory information. The average movie contains emotionally engaging characters, plots, and situations. It contains compelling visual and auditory scenery. It elicits unconscious, emotional responses, intellectual engagement, character judgment, self-reflection, and categorization time and time again.
Let’s take a look at movie ratings, too. Considering that a movie is largely constant across a viewing population (that is, if you watch The Godfather, the contents of the film are largely identical to my screening of The Godfather), yet ratings of that movie vary across viewers. If we take a movie that’s not on IMDB’s top 5 best films of all time list, and look for something with higher variance in the ratings, we find some compelling information: though the same set of multi-modal, emotionally and cognitively engaging material is presented to a wide audience in the case of, say, Napoleon Dynamite, lots of people love it, and lots of people hate it. The content is THE SAME. The whole of the variability lies internally, in the viewers.
Three background points on why movie ratings are a compelling choice for use in personal compatibility matching: 1) Movie ratings are internally consistent within an individual. We polled 3,000 people on movie ratings across 110 films. We then polled them again a year later, and found the correlation between an individual’s ratings from time 1 to time 2 to be around .9 – that’s about as consistent as you can get with any test-to-test interval. 2) Because movie ratings are consistent within an individual, they are as valid a metric for analysis as any other personality test with a high test-to-test correlation. 3) Because the contents of a movie are relatively vast (two hours of rich information), it becomes truly impressive that people can, consistently, weigh all of that information, and come up with a number representative of how well the total contents of that information meshes with their personal aesthetic (what they like, and what makes them tick, at their personal core).
In short, instead of pretending to know what ‘the right questions to ask’ are within a stock survey, at Matchmaking by Cinekin, our members relate to each other, and to us through the vast realm of human experience as represented by thousands of movies. Through a comprehensive analysis of ratings across many movie titles, our algorithm matches people with similar tastes – tastes based on emotional involvement, and a vast representative sample of life experience. Instead of 185 questions, as presented in the 16PF5, we essentially ask millions through the experience of watching and rating movies.
Fourth point:
****
The only way to revolutionize the Online Dating Industry.
– is using the 16PF5 normative personality test, available in different languages to assess personality of members, or a proprietary test with exactly the same traits of the 16PF5. WorldWide, there are over 5,000 -five thousand- online dating sites, but no one is using the 16PF5
****
The 16PF5 (for your readers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16PF_Questionnaire) was a breakthrough in psychological screening in the 1940s, and is still widely used as an analysis tool by many organizations. However, to not recognize its limitations as a tool for matching people is myopic. Moreover, who’s to say that people whose personalities are nearly identical are good matches? Is your idea one that will look for specific relationships between individual traits of 16PF5 test-takers? I could imagine a situation in which you get 100,000 individuals, 100,000 long-term couples, and 100,000 couples on the rocks to take the test, do a comprehensive analysis on the internal components that seem to have some correlation to relationship stability, and create an altered form of the 16PF5 that specifically addresses compatibility. Of course, at that point, you’re looking for the “answer” to human compatibility within a set of prescribed, artificial questions, rather than within the human population. At that point, you’d be doing what every one else is – effectively trying to fit people into an a priori personality scheme, rather than matching them on what appears to be the first legitimate gauge of self-invoked interpersonal romantic compatibility – comprehensive taste matching based on characteristics derived from movie ratings.
Fifth point:
****
– and expressing compatibility with eight decimals, like:
The pattern 6.7.6.8.9.6.7.7.8.7.2.5.8.7.3.4 is 92.55033557% +/- 0.00000001% similar to the pattern 7.7.6.8.8.7.6.5.8.7.4.5.7.7.3.4
Using a quantized pattern comparison method (part of pattern recognition by cross-correlation) to calculate similarity between prospective mates.
100 times better than Compatibility Matching Algorithms used by actual online dating sites!
****
The Matchmaking by Cinekin algorithm is a proprietary algorithm that uses a method of weighed correlational comparison across user ratings to determine compatibility. The math behind our system is fairly complicated, and provides very accurate results with the information it handles. This is neither to say that your analysis is better or worse than ours, simply that the math behind it is different, and we both arrive at similar mathematical conclusions. Of course, the most important thing involved here is using that math to match people based on factors that actually contribute to long term stability and happiness. At Matchmaking by Cinekin, we’ve broken away from the standard personality inventories, and actually match folks based on factors that relate to long-term happiness and stability, and with that, my friends, I would like to welcome you to the taste-based revolution.
Hi Josh,
Please email me a copy of your research/validation study. I’m very curious to see the details. Also, are the results being submitted for academic publication?
Thanks,
James Houran, Ph.D.
http://www.OnlineDatingMagazine.com
Hi Josh,
Please email me a copy of your research/validation study. I’m very curious to see the details. Also, are the results being submitted for academic publication?
Thanks,
James Houran, Ph.D.
http://www.OnlineDatingMagazine.com
Hi Josh:
You revealed that “Through a comprehensive analysis of ratings across many movie titles, our algorithm matches people with similar tastes – tastes based on emotional involvement, and a vast representative sample of life experience. ”
BUT
Latest Research in Theories of Romantic Relationships Development outlines: compatibility is all about a high level on personality similarity between prospective mates for long term mating with commitment.
There is a plethora of papers showing personality similarity as the key for compatibility matching!!!
Moreover Matchmaking by Cinekin could be severely biased because persons rating movies/films/videos instead of providing their personal preference could try to guess the global preference. This reduces the usefulness of ratings provided.
You can see this interesting paper: “Recommender System for Online Dating Service” Lukas Brozovsky & Vaclav Petricek (2007)
Also Profiling by music preferences, video preferences, color preferences, bookmarks preferences, handwriting analysis and more: Terrible lack of precision by distortion!!!
The WHOLE precision is LESS than any person could achieve searching by his/her own!!!
Please see “Color and Personality: Strong’s Interest Inventory and Cattell’s 16PF”
Those indirect methods used to assess personality always ADDS DISTORTION to the measurement.
To avoid distortion you need to use directly a normative personality test.
————————–
In other words,
Matchmaking by Cinekin is ANOTHER HOAX:
1) BIASED because persons rating movies/films instead of providing their personal preference could try to guess the global preference.
2) ADDS DISTORTION when measuring indirectly personality traits.
Serious daters (men) will want to receive an email like this:
Over 1,000,000 million women database, here is the list of the 12 more compatible with you. Notice that woman#1 is the most compatible but she could be more compatible with other men right now.
woman#01 is 95.58476277% compatible
woman#02 is 95.56224356% compatible
woman#03 is 95.52998273% compatible
woman#04 is 94.18354278% compatible
woman#05 is 93.00453871% compatible
woman#06 is 93.00007524% compatible
woman#07 is 92.99738452% compatible
woman#08 is 92.37945551% compatible
woman#09 is 92.29779173% compatible
woman#10 is 92.27114287% compatible
woman#11 is 92.19515551% compatible
woman#12 is 92.12249558% compatible
Regards,
Fernando Ardenghi.
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
ardenghifer@gmail.com
Hi Josh:
You revealed that “Through a comprehensive analysis of ratings across many movie titles, our algorithm matches people with similar tastes – tastes based on emotional involvement, and a vast representative sample of life experience. ”
BUT
Latest Research in Theories of Romantic Relationships Development outlines: compatibility is all about a high level on personality similarity between prospective mates for long term mating with commitment.
There is a plethora of papers showing personality similarity as the key for compatibility matching!!!
Moreover Matchmaking by Cinekin could be severely biased because persons rating movies/films/videos instead of providing their personal preference could try to guess the global preference. This reduces the usefulness of ratings provided.
You can see this interesting paper: “Recommender System for Online Dating Service” Lukas Brozovsky & Vaclav Petricek (2007)
Also Profiling by music preferences, video preferences, color preferences, bookmarks preferences, handwriting analysis and more: Terrible lack of precision by distortion!!!
The WHOLE precision is LESS than any person could achieve searching by his/her own!!!
Please see “Color and Personality: Strong’s Interest Inventory and Cattell’s 16PF”
Those indirect methods used to assess personality always ADDS DISTORTION to the measurement.
To avoid distortion you need to use directly a normative personality test.
————————–
In other words,
Matchmaking by Cinekin is ANOTHER HOAX:
1) BIASED because persons rating movies/films instead of providing their personal preference could try to guess the global preference.
2) ADDS DISTORTION when measuring indirectly personality traits.
Serious daters (men) will want to receive an email like this:
Over 1,000,000 million women database, here is the list of the 12 more compatible with you. Notice that woman#1 is the most compatible but she could be more compatible with other men right now.
woman#01 is 95.58476277% compatible
woman#02 is 95.56224356% compatible
woman#03 is 95.52998273% compatible
woman#04 is 94.18354278% compatible
woman#05 is 93.00453871% compatible
woman#06 is 93.00007524% compatible
woman#07 is 92.99738452% compatible
woman#08 is 92.37945551% compatible
woman#09 is 92.29779173% compatible
woman#10 is 92.27114287% compatible
woman#11 is 92.19515551% compatible
woman#12 is 92.12249558% compatible
Regards,
Fernando Ardenghi.
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
ardenghifer@gmail.com
Hi Josh,
Please email me a copy of your research/validation study. Mark Brooks can put you in touch with me.
I’m very curious to see the details. Also, are the results being submitted for academic publication?
Thanks,
James Houran, Ph.D.
http://www.OnlineDatingMagazine.com
Hi Josh,
Please email me a copy of your research/validation study. Mark Brooks can put you in touch with me.
I’m very curious to see the details. Also, are the results being submitted for academic publication?
Thanks,
James Houran, Ph.D.
http://www.OnlineDatingMagazine.com
Hi James,
I’ll be in touch shortly. Thanks for your interest in Matchmaking by Cinekin, and thanks again for your comments, Fernando.
Cheers,
Josh Berg
http://www.cinekin.com
Hi James,
I’ll be in touch shortly. Thanks for your interest in Matchmaking by Cinekin, and thanks again for your comments, Fernando.
Cheers,
Josh Berg
http://www.cinekin.com
Josh great overview of how you operate. The more you make it public the better you will fare because the dating industry doesn’t like tests, or new innovation, and everyone thinks they have the perfect solution. Moreover, no tests of any kind of significantly added squat to the effectiveness of a dating site.
If you don’t spend a lot marketing your site it’s going to fail, plain and simple. I don’t care how good your systems may be.
“In short, instead of pretending to know what ‘the right questions to ask’ are within a stock survey, at Matchmaking by Cinekin, our members relate to each other, and to us through the vast realm of human experience as represented by thousands of movies.”
This is why cinekin is a feature and not great idea for a dating site. You would be better off licensing the IP than spending millions marketing your site. Call it my first 2010 prediction.
Josh great overview of how you operate. The more you make it public the better you will fare because the dating industry doesn’t like tests, or new innovation, and everyone thinks they have the perfect solution. Moreover, no tests of any kind of significantly added squat to the effectiveness of a dating site.
If you don’t spend a lot marketing your site it’s going to fail, plain and simple. I don’t care how good your systems may be.
“In short, instead of pretending to know what ‘the right questions to ask’ are within a stock survey, at Matchmaking by Cinekin, our members relate to each other, and to us through the vast realm of human experience as represented by thousands of movies.”
This is why cinekin is a feature and not great idea for a dating site. You would be better off licensing the IP than spending millions marketing your site. Call it my first 2010 prediction.
Thanks for reaching out, Josh.
I understand from you that your research is under review for academic publication, so you are hesitant to share the specifics of the study. I eagerly await a copy in due course. At that time I can prepare a review of the science for Online Personals Watch.
Until then, I am curious to know how that study defined and measured “happy” versus “unhappy” couples. Please elaborate.
Thanks,
James Houran, Ph.D.
http://www.OnlineDatingMagazine.com
Thanks for reaching out, Josh.
I understand from you that your research is under review for academic publication, so you are hesitant to share the specifics of the study. I eagerly await a copy in due course. At that time I can prepare a review of the science for Online Personals Watch.
Until then, I am curious to know how that study defined and measured “happy” versus “unhappy” couples. Please elaborate.
Thanks,
James Houran, Ph.D.
http://www.OnlineDatingMagazine.com