EHARMONY BLOG – Nov 30 – eHarmony is launching a
new TV advertising campaign. They are continuing to feature real
eHarmony couples. Thousands of success couples express interest in
wanting to be in eHarmony’s commercials, and there is an extensive
casting process that couples go through to be featured on TV. Part of
that process is a web cam interview. FULL ARTICLE @ OFFICIAL EHARMONY BLOG
“They are continuing to feature real eHarmony couples”
That is the same to promote a Lottery or a Casino showing its winners.
The majority of persons who bet, are going to fail!
eHarmony is only supported by a big marketing budget and not by serious scientific evidence.
If eHarmony has 20,000,000 active members
and
suppose eHarmony is responsible of 300,000 marriages since 2001
and 700,000 dyads in long-term relationships.
eHarmony’s Success Rate is only 2,000,000 persons / 20,000,000 == 0.1
eHarmony’s Success Rate == 10%
90% of eHarmony’s members are going to fail in finding someone highly compatible!
The entire Online Dating Industry for serious daters in 1st World Countries, is a big hoax.
Success Rates of eHarmony, True, Chemistry, PerfectMatch, Be2, Meetic, PlentyOfFish Chemistry Predictor, Parship, RewardingLove, MyType, etc. are less than 10%. The majority of their members are not going to achieve a long term relationship with commitment (or marriage).
Regards.
Fernando Ardenghi.
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
ardenghifer@gmail.com
“They are continuing to feature real eHarmony couples”
That is the same to promote a Lottery or a Casino showing its winners.
The majority of persons who bet, are going to fail!
eHarmony is only supported by a big marketing budget and not by serious scientific evidence.
If eHarmony has 20,000,000 active members
and
suppose eHarmony is responsible of 300,000 marriages since 2001
and 700,000 dyads in long-term relationships.
eHarmony’s Success Rate is only 2,000,000 persons / 20,000,000 == 0.1
eHarmony’s Success Rate == 10%
90% of eHarmony’s members are going to fail in finding someone highly compatible!
The entire Online Dating Industry for serious daters in 1st World Countries, is a big hoax.
Success Rates of eHarmony, True, Chemistry, PerfectMatch, Be2, Meetic, PlentyOfFish Chemistry Predictor, Parship, RewardingLove, MyType, etc. are less than 10%. The majority of their members are not going to achieve a long term relationship with commitment (or marriage).
Regards.
Fernando Ardenghi.
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
ardenghifer@gmail.com
Fernando, never underestimate the monetary value of failing to live up to expectations. Consumer expectations for online dating are so low that 10% would be considered extremely generous.
Fernando, never underestimate the monetary value of failing to live up to expectations. Consumer expectations for online dating are so low that 10% would be considered extremely generous.
But, what are the odds of any couple meeting (offline or online)? If you sat down with couples at random and worked out all that had to happen for them to connect, the mathematical odds would be astounding.
Take me, for example. I was born in Northern Ireland. My wife was born in Brazil. My family immigrated to Canada and I was raised here.
My wife decided to go to Canada (as an adult) to perfect her English, but her first choice was Australia. She couldn’t afford to go that far. Europe was too expensive. So, she came here. I met her ESL teacher via another personals service, prior to starting ChristianCafe.com. A year later, I re-connected with her teacher, as I had one space left for a contract I had (unrelated to dating) to raise start-up cash. She couldn’t go, but had a student who could. That student became my chief marketer, as she had a background in business and knew the Internet (uncommon back then). We didn’t hit it off for a long time. It them became a “Harry met Sally” thing. Eventually it worked out:-)
Now, take the odds of us meeting, based on what I have said so far. What would they be? 1 in a million? 1 in 10 million? 1 in 50 million?
Now, take your average American couple who met off-line. Go through how they met (“I just happened to be at this event that I normally wouldn’t have gone to, because of…He had a friend who dragged him along…It turned out we knew the same person back in high school….”) etc. What are the odds of them meeting? 1 in 10,000?
You get the picture. You can’t use mathematical odds for this. Sure, people connect generally via the same social/academic/lifestyle circles. But, this happens online as well as off.
It’s destiny, baby – it ain’t math!
But, what are the odds of any couple meeting (offline or online)? If you sat down with couples at random and worked out all that had to happen for them to connect, the mathematical odds would be astounding.
Take me, for example. I was born in Northern Ireland. My wife was born in Brazil. My family immigrated to Canada and I was raised here.
My wife decided to go to Canada (as an adult) to perfect her English, but her first choice was Australia. She couldn’t afford to go that far. Europe was too expensive. So, she came here. I met her ESL teacher via another personals service, prior to starting ChristianCafe.com. A year later, I re-connected with her teacher, as I had one space left for a contract I had (unrelated to dating) to raise start-up cash. She couldn’t go, but had a student who could. That student became my chief marketer, as she had a background in business and knew the Internet (uncommon back then). We didn’t hit it off for a long time. It them became a “Harry met Sally” thing. Eventually it worked out:-)
Now, take the odds of us meeting, based on what I have said so far. What would they be? 1 in a million? 1 in 10 million? 1 in 50 million?
Now, take your average American couple who met off-line. Go through how they met (“I just happened to be at this event that I normally wouldn’t have gone to, because of…He had a friend who dragged him along…It turned out we knew the same person back in high school….”) etc. What are the odds of them meeting? 1 in 10,000?
You get the picture. You can’t use mathematical odds for this. Sure, people connect generally via the same social/academic/lifestyle circles. But, this happens online as well as off.
It’s destiny, baby – it ain’t math!
“Success Rates of eHarmony, True, Chemistry, PerfectMatch, Be2, Meetic, PlentyOfFish Chemistry Predictor, Parship, RewardingLove, MyType, etc. are less than 10%. The majority of their members are not going to achieve a long term relationship with commitment (or marriage).”
Where does Fernando’s success rate of “10%” come from and what does it really mean? 10% of people meet and find someone they love, 10% of people get married, 10% of people stay married more than five years, 10% of people stay happily married more than five years?
Even people who use “serious” dating sites have different agendas, so people have different definitions of “relationship success.” Maybe the majority of people fail to achieve a long-term relationship because that is not their real goal.
And even if a happily married couple met on a dating site, who is to say the credit should go to the matching system per se. Compatibility tests (legitimate ones anyway) only set the stage. They are not totally responsible for the success or failure of any relationship — that responsibility falls to the couple and how well they nurture and sustain the relationship. Research clearly shows that people with highly similar characteristics can succeed or fail, and people with dissimilar characteristics can succeed or fail. There is no fool-proof, generic magic formula for two people when it comes to matching.
Thanks,
James Houran,Ph.D.
http://www.OnlineDatingMagazine.com
“Success Rates of eHarmony, True, Chemistry, PerfectMatch, Be2, Meetic, PlentyOfFish Chemistry Predictor, Parship, RewardingLove, MyType, etc. are less than 10%. The majority of their members are not going to achieve a long term relationship with commitment (or marriage).”
Where does Fernando’s success rate of “10%” come from and what does it really mean? 10% of people meet and find someone they love, 10% of people get married, 10% of people stay married more than five years, 10% of people stay happily married more than five years?
Even people who use “serious” dating sites have different agendas, so people have different definitions of “relationship success.” Maybe the majority of people fail to achieve a long-term relationship because that is not their real goal.
And even if a happily married couple met on a dating site, who is to say the credit should go to the matching system per se. Compatibility tests (legitimate ones anyway) only set the stage. They are not totally responsible for the success or failure of any relationship — that responsibility falls to the couple and how well they nurture and sustain the relationship. Research clearly shows that people with highly similar characteristics can succeed or fail, and people with dissimilar characteristics can succeed or fail. There is no fool-proof, generic magic formula for two people when it comes to matching.
Thanks,
James Houran,Ph.D.
http://www.OnlineDatingMagazine.com
Hi Dr. Houran:
Very pleased to contact you once again. It is always wonderful hearing from you because you are like a genius who cannot be beat.
Since the beginning of 2003, I had been testing online dating sites -intended for serious daters- by creating dummy (fake) Male/Female profiles and using them as test points for reverse engineering purposes.
My definition of Success Rate [for Online Dating Sites offering Matching based on Self-Reported Data – Bidirectional Recommendation Engines or Compatibility Matching Algorithms] is:
people leaving the Online Dating Site because they think they found someone to seriously date with, to build a relationship with commitment.
divided by
the people in the entire database.
If eHarmony has 20,000,000 active members
and
suppose eHarmony is responsible of 300,000 marriages since 2001
and 700,000 dyads in long-term relationships.
eHarmony’s Success Rate is only 2,000,000 persons / 20,000,000 == 0.1
eHarmony’s Success Rate == 10%
90% of eHarmony’s members are going to fail in finding someone highly compatible!
As you are definitely the Researcher the Online Dating Industry needs, which definition of Success Rate you suggest?
Why don’t you call Dr. Gian Gonzaga from eHarmony and ask him about a Success Rate of eHarmony?
Why don’t you call Dr. Helen Fisher from Chemistry and ask her about a Success Rate of Chemisty?
Why don’t you call Dr. Pepper Schwartz from PerfectMatch and ask her about a Success Rate of PerfectMatch?
Which is the Success Rate of the PlentyOfFish Chemistry Predictor?
Are you going to publish a paper?
I respectfully and strongly recommend you to apply some reverse engineering methods over Match, PerfectMatch, eHarmony, Chemistry, Parship, Meetic, Be2 and others. It is quite easy although a bit time consuming and boring.
You can create at least 24 dummy (fake) profiles, 12 for Male and 12 for Female, each profile slightly different for the rest, as test points.
MATCH:
If you check Match or any other BIG site performing as a Powerful Searching Engine, you will see [on average] a person (mostly men) will strongly like 3 or 4 persons per 100 (one hundred) persons or 30 to 40 persons per 1,000 (one thousand) persons screened, then that person will send messages to them an only [on average] 10% will strongly like (mostly women) and reply to the person who initiated the contact.
Searching on one’s own is in the range [on average] of 3 or 4 persons who search and select to each other per 1,000 persons screened.
PERFECTMATCH:
If you check PerfectMatch or any other BIG site performing mostly as Matching based on Self-Reported Data / Bidirectional Recommendation Engine (personal preferences, likes and dislikes, ipsative personality tests: MBTI, DISC) you will see [on average] a person receives 3 or 4 persons as recommended for dating purposes per 1,000 (one thousand) persons screened in exactly the same range of searching on one’s own.
EHARMONY:
If you check eHarmony or any other BIG site like Parship, Be2, Meetic, etc performing mostly as a Compatibility Matching Algorithm (those sites are mostly using different versions of the Big5 normative personality test as its core) you will see [on average] a person receives 3 or 4 persons as highly compatible for dating purposes per 1,000 (one thousand) persons screened in exactly the same range of searching on one’s own and mutual filtering methods.
If you carefully complete all that homework, You will re-discover what I had discovered some years ago, “the online dating sound barrier” for Compatibility Matching Algorithms.
Breaking “the online dating sound barrier” is to achieve far better precision than searching on one’s own or mutual filtering.
Breaking “the online dating sound barrier” is to achieve at least:
3 most compatible persons in a 100,000 persons database.
12 most compatible persons in a 1,000,000 persons database.
48 most compatible persons in a 10,000,000 persons database.
100 times better than Compatibility Matching Algorithms used by actual online dating sites!
The only way to achieve that 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. The ensemble of the 16PF5 is: 10E16, big number as All World Population is nearly 6.7 * 10E9
(WorldWide, there are over 5,000 -five thousand- online dating sites, but no one is using the 16PF5)
– 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.
That is the only way to revolutionize the Online Dating Industry.
I am awfully tired of saying the same and the same since years!!!
Regards,
Fernando Ardenghi.
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
ardenghifer@gmail.com
Hi Dr. Houran:
Very pleased to contact you once again. It is always wonderful hearing from you because you are like a genius who cannot be beat.
Since the beginning of 2003, I had been testing online dating sites -intended for serious daters- by creating dummy (fake) Male/Female profiles and using them as test points for reverse engineering purposes.
My definition of Success Rate [for Online Dating Sites offering Matching based on Self-Reported Data – Bidirectional Recommendation Engines or Compatibility Matching Algorithms] is:
people leaving the Online Dating Site because they think they found someone to seriously date with, to build a relationship with commitment.
divided by
the people in the entire database.
If eHarmony has 20,000,000 active members
and
suppose eHarmony is responsible of 300,000 marriages since 2001
and 700,000 dyads in long-term relationships.
eHarmony’s Success Rate is only 2,000,000 persons / 20,000,000 == 0.1
eHarmony’s Success Rate == 10%
90% of eHarmony’s members are going to fail in finding someone highly compatible!
As you are definitely the Researcher the Online Dating Industry needs, which definition of Success Rate you suggest?
Why don’t you call Dr. Gian Gonzaga from eHarmony and ask him about a Success Rate of eHarmony?
Why don’t you call Dr. Helen Fisher from Chemistry and ask her about a Success Rate of Chemisty?
Why don’t you call Dr. Pepper Schwartz from PerfectMatch and ask her about a Success Rate of PerfectMatch?
Which is the Success Rate of the PlentyOfFish Chemistry Predictor?
Are you going to publish a paper?
I respectfully and strongly recommend you to apply some reverse engineering methods over Match, PerfectMatch, eHarmony, Chemistry, Parship, Meetic, Be2 and others. It is quite easy although a bit time consuming and boring.
You can create at least 24 dummy (fake) profiles, 12 for Male and 12 for Female, each profile slightly different for the rest, as test points.
MATCH:
If you check Match or any other BIG site performing as a Powerful Searching Engine, you will see [on average] a person (mostly men) will strongly like 3 or 4 persons per 100 (one hundred) persons or 30 to 40 persons per 1,000 (one thousand) persons screened, then that person will send messages to them an only [on average] 10% will strongly like (mostly women) and reply to the person who initiated the contact.
Searching on one’s own is in the range [on average] of 3 or 4 persons who search and select to each other per 1,000 persons screened.
PERFECTMATCH:
If you check PerfectMatch or any other BIG site performing mostly as Matching based on Self-Reported Data / Bidirectional Recommendation Engine (personal preferences, likes and dislikes, ipsative personality tests: MBTI, DISC) you will see [on average] a person receives 3 or 4 persons as recommended for dating purposes per 1,000 (one thousand) persons screened in exactly the same range of searching on one’s own.
EHARMONY:
If you check eHarmony or any other BIG site like Parship, Be2, Meetic, etc performing mostly as a Compatibility Matching Algorithm (those sites are mostly using different versions of the Big5 normative personality test as its core) you will see [on average] a person receives 3 or 4 persons as highly compatible for dating purposes per 1,000 (one thousand) persons screened in exactly the same range of searching on one’s own and mutual filtering methods.
If you carefully complete all that homework, You will re-discover what I had discovered some years ago, “the online dating sound barrier” for Compatibility Matching Algorithms.
Breaking “the online dating sound barrier” is to achieve far better precision than searching on one’s own or mutual filtering.
Breaking “the online dating sound barrier” is to achieve at least:
3 most compatible persons in a 100,000 persons database.
12 most compatible persons in a 1,000,000 persons database.
48 most compatible persons in a 10,000,000 persons database.
100 times better than Compatibility Matching Algorithms used by actual online dating sites!
The only way to achieve that 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. The ensemble of the 16PF5 is: 10E16, big number as All World Population is nearly 6.7 * 10E9
(WorldWide, there are over 5,000 -five thousand- online dating sites, but no one is using the 16PF5)
– 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.
That is the only way to revolutionize the Online Dating Industry.
I am awfully tired of saying the same and the same since years!!!
Regards,
Fernando Ardenghi.
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
ardenghifer@gmail.com
Hi Fernando!
Yes, it’s always fun and productive to talk shop with you. Thanks for your added clarifications.
You said, “My definition of Success Rate [for Online Dating Sites offering Matching based on Self-Reported Data – Bidirectional Recommendation Engines or Compatibility Matching Algorithms] is: people leaving the Online Dating Site because they think they found someone to seriously date with, to build a relationship with commitment divided by the people in the entire database.”
Given your definition, I pose two follow-up questions to you:
1. “Should a couple make a decision about an offline relationship based ONLY on the results of a compatibility test?”
2. “Does a well-matched couple mean that the resulting relationship requires NO work on their part to nurture and sustain the bond, or does your similarity thesis imply that strong similarity automatically means happily ever after with no effort?”
I look forward to the continued exchange.
Thanks!
James Houran,Ph.D.
http://www.OnlineDatingMagazine.com
Hi Fernando!
Yes, it’s always fun and productive to talk shop with you. Thanks for your added clarifications.
You said, “My definition of Success Rate [for Online Dating Sites offering Matching based on Self-Reported Data – Bidirectional Recommendation Engines or Compatibility Matching Algorithms] is: people leaving the Online Dating Site because they think they found someone to seriously date with, to build a relationship with commitment divided by the people in the entire database.”
Given your definition, I pose two follow-up questions to you:
1. “Should a couple make a decision about an offline relationship based ONLY on the results of a compatibility test?”
2. “Does a well-matched couple mean that the resulting relationship requires NO work on their part to nurture and sustain the bond, or does your similarity thesis imply that strong similarity automatically means happily ever after with no effort?”
I look forward to the continued exchange.
Thanks!
James Houran,Ph.D.
http://www.OnlineDatingMagazine.com
Hi again Dr. Houran:
The writer, columnist and journalist Lori Gottlieb (2006) had noted about the growing number of Internet dating sites that are using the science of attraction to match singles: “their efforts mark the early days of a social experiment of unprecedented proportions, involving millions of couples and possibly extending over the course of generations”
As you know, the words compatibility, personality and similarity mean different things for different persons.
What does exactly compatibility mean? It depends on how mathematically is defined.
What does exactly personality mean? It depends on how it is measured.
What does exactly similarity mean? It depends on how it is calculated.
As you know, there is a plethora of NEW and FRESH papers published after year 2006 mostly written by Psychologists suggesting the positive correlation between personality* similarity* and dyadic success: stability and satisfaction.
*personality: It depends on how it is measured.
*similarity: It depends on how it is calculated.
Although those researchers on Theories of Romantic Relationships Development / Mate Choice are fully intoxicated with different versions of the FFI five factor inventory / Big5
Online Dating sites are also fully intoxicated with different versions of the FFI five factor inventory / Big5 or other proprietary models instead (like Chemistry or PerfectMatch), to measure personality traits, and all of those tests are more simplified versions than the 16PF5 or similar.
I want to acquire the license of the 16PF5 normative personality test, available in different languages to assess personality of daters, or hire a Psychologist to develop a propietary test with exactly the same traits of the 16PF5, to construct a copycat version of the 16PF5 (one per language and norm), but improving it using Item Response Theory / Rasch Scaling (the Gold Standard for Modern Test Theory) with different questionnaires for men and women and all the questions rearranged in a Rasch hierarchy. It will be used as the personality test for a new dating site intended for serious daters, offering solely strict personality* similarity*.
*personality: measured with the 16PF5 or similar normative test.
*similarity: calculated using the high precision quantized pattern comparison method I had invented, named LIFEPROJECT method (part of pattern recognition by cross-correlation).
The daters, men and women, normal_persons* over 26 years old.
*normal_persons: persons with 23 pairs of chromosomes and without psycho-patologies.
Men should take the test at least 3 times and also synchronize with biorhythms (for future Research purposes).
Women not taking contraceptive pills should take the test at least 3 times: 7 days before, in their real periods and 7 days after, and also synchronize with biorhythms (for future Research purposes).
Women taking contraceptive pills should take the test at least 3 times: 7 days before, in their false periods and 7 days after, and also synchronize with biorhythms (for future Research purposes).
Both men and women should say if they are under other hormonal treatment.
For each persons “internal compatibility” will be calculated between #1_try and #2_try, and between #2_try and #3_try. If “internal compatibility” between #2_try and #3_try is equal or slightly higher than “internal compatibility” between #1_try and #2_try, then #3_try is the one to be added to database.
I hope I can successfully launch the method I had invented and hire your services in order to check if it matches persons who will have more stable and satisfying relationships than couples matched by chance or other typical type of compatibility test as the control group.
If not, anyway, I think lots of persons could be interested in meeting/contacting other persons sharing nearly the same personality because they will be *predictable* for them.
Regards,
Fernando Ardenghi.
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
ardenghifer@gmail.com
Hi again Dr. Houran:
The writer, columnist and journalist Lori Gottlieb (2006) had noted about the growing number of Internet dating sites that are using the science of attraction to match singles: “their efforts mark the early days of a social experiment of unprecedented proportions, involving millions of couples and possibly extending over the course of generations”
As you know, the words compatibility, personality and similarity mean different things for different persons.
What does exactly compatibility mean? It depends on how mathematically is defined.
What does exactly personality mean? It depends on how it is measured.
What does exactly similarity mean? It depends on how it is calculated.
As you know, there is a plethora of NEW and FRESH papers published after year 2006 mostly written by Psychologists suggesting the positive correlation between personality* similarity* and dyadic success: stability and satisfaction.
*personality: It depends on how it is measured.
*similarity: It depends on how it is calculated.
Although those researchers on Theories of Romantic Relationships Development / Mate Choice are fully intoxicated with different versions of the FFI five factor inventory / Big5
Online Dating sites are also fully intoxicated with different versions of the FFI five factor inventory / Big5 or other proprietary models instead (like Chemistry or PerfectMatch), to measure personality traits, and all of those tests are more simplified versions than the 16PF5 or similar.
I want to acquire the license of the 16PF5 normative personality test, available in different languages to assess personality of daters, or hire a Psychologist to develop a propietary test with exactly the same traits of the 16PF5, to construct a copycat version of the 16PF5 (one per language and norm), but improving it using Item Response Theory / Rasch Scaling (the Gold Standard for Modern Test Theory) with different questionnaires for men and women and all the questions rearranged in a Rasch hierarchy. It will be used as the personality test for a new dating site intended for serious daters, offering solely strict personality* similarity*.
*personality: measured with the 16PF5 or similar normative test.
*similarity: calculated using the high precision quantized pattern comparison method I had invented, named LIFEPROJECT method (part of pattern recognition by cross-correlation).
The daters, men and women, normal_persons* over 26 years old.
*normal_persons: persons with 23 pairs of chromosomes and without psycho-patologies.
Men should take the test at least 3 times and also synchronize with biorhythms (for future Research purposes).
Women not taking contraceptive pills should take the test at least 3 times: 7 days before, in their real periods and 7 days after, and also synchronize with biorhythms (for future Research purposes).
Women taking contraceptive pills should take the test at least 3 times: 7 days before, in their false periods and 7 days after, and also synchronize with biorhythms (for future Research purposes).
Both men and women should say if they are under other hormonal treatment.
For each persons “internal compatibility” will be calculated between #1_try and #2_try, and between #2_try and #3_try. If “internal compatibility” between #2_try and #3_try is equal or slightly higher than “internal compatibility” between #1_try and #2_try, then #3_try is the one to be added to database.
I hope I can successfully launch the method I had invented and hire your services in order to check if it matches persons who will have more stable and satisfying relationships than couples matched by chance or other typical type of compatibility test as the control group.
If not, anyway, I think lots of persons could be interested in meeting/contacting other persons sharing nearly the same personality because they will be *predictable* for them.
Regards,
Fernando Ardenghi.
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
ardenghifer@gmail.com