> There’s plenty of dating apps out there: Tinder, Bumble, OkCupid, Boo, Hinge. We think they’re all great apps... For normies! But a terminally-online meme-enjoying degenerate like yourself needs something more. That’s why we invented Duolicious!
> Duolicious is the dating app that helps you find your Discord-lurking, Reddit-updooting, Nigerian-basketweaving-forum-posting, chronically-online soulmate. Our fun personality quiz helps you meet like-minded people, and shows you a new match for every answer you give, thanks to our fancy matching algorithm.
Their business models need more transparency. Donations from couples who have achieved milestones on all apps as a means of sustaining the business, could realistically make the world a better place.
I say this as someone that has spent the last few years wading through various dating apps, looking for a monogamous relationship. The best luck I've had with dating (after using Tinder, Hinge, Bumble, and Facebook Dating) has been finding local Facebook singles groups, and just chatting. I can be nervous and awkward, but I'm able to fake it in person, and online it's easy for me to have conversations with others about interests.
Also, instead of trying to be a "normie" (although you didn't say you were doing this, so this may not apply), lean into what makes you unique and try to find the same or something compatible in someone else. Going through apps is not fun, but I have met a ton of different people that I don't think I ever would have interacted with if I hadn't gone through dating apps or chatting with strangers.
To be clear, the language isn't "fun" for anyone that has dealt with any of the things they mention!
If an open-source piece of tech is working as advertised, why would its devs continue working on a finished product?
i.e., software is never finished
> lean into what makes you unique and try to find the same or something compatible in someone else.
This part is cultural though, and the fact is most people (regardless of gender) are not looking for "unique". Quite the contrary. I suppose that is a bit of why the "normie" nomenclature is not as far off as you first think.
Or maybe dating apps per se will fade away and dating functionality will just get folded into more general purpose apps and sites.
Actually, I think "charging users to connect" is the only way to make an ethical dating app. The key thing is, everyone pays the same amount, and gets the same abilities within the platform. No freemium, no free riders. Everyone helps keep the platform sustainable.
You do still have to deal with the perverse incentive to keep people on the platform, but I have an even crazier idea for that: one-time single payment. Now the platform is incentivized to get people off the platform while still being satisfied enough to recommend it to incoming users. I suspect that could go badly in different ways, and might not be necessary if it's generally acting in the users' favor (possibly because of my craziest idea, having it be user-owned). I'm still thinking about it.
That or someone needs to run it as a charity. I'm not sure if that's more or less crazyb than the previous ideas.
The burning cars and ferals weren't for everyone: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yH_RWBSQ9ic
But what a childish company to advertise on 4chan and market itself as being for that audience, to then sit there using condescending and derogatory slurs about them.
Nice of them to open source everything so you can go make your own Duolicious with blackjack and hookers I guess.
Lol. It's just bants, no-one in that community minds. On the contrary, a company that tried to appeal to the 4chan audience without insulting them would be an obvious astroturfer/poser.
We thought for a while to use it to start our own dating up. But it is so hard to get off the ground...
The Know Your Meme article, linked from the post page, is the best anti-review for this app.
Not the 4chan screenshots used as testimonials on the app's own web site?
Helping ill-suited users self-select out before they download your product is rare and wonderful.
> Right now the ratio of active men to women is 7.32:1. The ratio can change a lot, depending on which online communities have been talking about Duolicious lately; The ratio’s previously been as high as about 20:1.
Admitting this was brave.
Seriously? Am I misreading this?
I know I rambled, but my point was that charging women or men different fees is going to create even more confusion or outright lying to save a dollar. Things are already in a pretty grey area on dating apps as they already are.
Realistically, it's not a perfect solution, because things being what they are, even the women who themselves are:
> Duolicious is the dating app that helps you find your Discord-lurking, Reddit-updooting, Nigerian-basketweaving-forum-posting, chronically-online soulmate. Our fun personality quiz helps you meet like-minded people, and shows you a new match for every answer you give, thanks to our fancy matching algorithm.
Listen, creepy guys online are a thing. A huge thing, massive. If I was lady, even though I am a terminally online type of person, I would absolutely not use a site which specifically promised to data mine the comments section for people to date.
People will want to be honest about their gender identity, because being marked as the wrong gender would get messages from the wrong gender.
I believe this is basically how seeking works
I could ramble further about how I think this happens and what to do about it, but there is one caveat: I have never — hopefully will never — used any dating apps. I rely entirely on what I've read from other people and my own limited understanding of economics and psychology.
"Worse" in the sense of providing less value to them, sure, but maybe women just don't want as much sex. And it's far from clear that having more men on the app increases its value to women (if anything it might be the opposite).
https://medium.com/@gettingfrankpodcast/kings-of-the-hill-ho...
and the problem that women often aren't attracted to men who will commit to them until it is too late, see
https://www.amazon.com/Why-Love-Hurts-Sociological-Explanati...
I think charging men could improve the experience for women, if men are denied a refund if they're banned for unwelcome behavior.
It's not a subscription fee. It's a deposit ;-)
You can't really hit that ideal 1:1 on the internet without a huge mainstream surge. Even then there's a bunch of work after that to attract women.
I've been thinking a social network ought to be more opinionated. You need a god if you want to tell true or false, but a very simple AI model can detect infectious negative emotions.
Social media sites ought to ask you "are you sure you want to post this?" when you lose your shit. If somebody is getting dogpiled the whole conversation should be suspended for some time.
BERT + RNN models can eat that problem for lunch, the hard thing is that somebody with real emoptions has to make the training set.
Anyway, here's some talk of the business model and mis-matched motivations:
> Dating apps already face allegations from users that they hide the best potential mates to keep people swiping — theories that have led to entire forums online devoted to “gaming” the apps. While these accusations are denied by dating companies, they are grounded in “the very real lack of transparency” about how matching algorithms work, says Sharabi of Arizona State University.
Look into some of the dark patterns used today compared to 2010 before making an assumption on people wanting an "ethical dating app". Especially in a community skewed on tech.
Social dynamics after these dark patterns are resolved is a whole other topic. And honestly not a topic I'm interested in talking about.
But even supposing it was zero sum, and supposing I'm a "low value" male and I deserve a "low value" female. The dating sites could fail to show us to each other, leaving a lot of people single or dissatisfied because they matched too low.
Edit: Also a lot of intellectual women tend to stay away from men seeking intellectual women cause most of the time it is a red flag, cause if you probe deeper a lot of these guys are looking for nerd girls for unhealthy reasons, like they have an unhealthy image of a "nerd girl" in their minds, other times is it just coping, they would be with the sports illustrated girl or "go with the flow" art girl if they could.
I also don't understand what the incel accusation, and then the announcement of incel-adjacent narratives add this conversation. Do you suggest people don't take rivalry into account?
And then do a clustering in n-dimensional space. Forget it, won't work. I am not looking to date a clone of myself.
But this clustering approach might work well with resumes for hiring. People hire people with similar resumes.
For example if the question was “Do you do drugs?” i can answer it with a “no” but also mark that I’m willing to meet people who marked either “no” or “only soft stuff, like weed”, and that it is a “somewhat important” question for me. But as an other example about the question “What does wherefore mean in Wherefore art thou Romeo?” I would mark that I accept all answers and care about others answer not at all. But if someone else cared about this they could still see that my answer was “why”.
Then surely an app that allows people to do the filtering they want without writing these things on their profile is a good thing?
How much? Is it an “all things considered equal i prefer someone without tattoos” or a deal breaker for you? Because that is the beauty of the system. Depending on the weight you put on the question it might not show you anyone who answered “yes I have tattoos”. Or just rank them lower. Or if you marked this question totally unimportant to you it won’t even count in the ranking.
> I dislike in dating profiles, then it is a long laundry list of what I have to be and what I don't have to be
I agree with that. But that is not what we are talking about.
Whenever you answered a question, the site would also ask how your ideal partner would've answered. (I think you could specify multiple different answers as acceptable.)
So you're free to specify that your ideal partner would answer differently than you yourself.