total failure of OLD user interface changes

[nospam99]

Just another rant about OLD ....

No need to review this topic, dear readers, I'll just repeat in summary that OKC and PoF are currently useless to me because of the changes.

I'm still on Match as a non-subscriber. The way that works at the moment is that THEY pick some women FOR ME and send me the profiles of those women as 'Top Picks' or 'recommendations'. This is basically the same broken selection model as eharmony and elite where the user has no control. Even as a non-subscriber, I am allowed to send messages to these selected women for free.

The annoying thing is that among my Top Picks and recommendations, I keep getting profiles of wonderful women who I would NEVER pick out on my own. They are attractive and compatible ... BUT geographically and socioeconomically undesirable. I've written before how I live in the deep (two hours travel), 'hick' suburbs of NYC. These mismatched women live on or near the Connecticut Gold Coast, way farther away than women who respond to my contact with ''you seem to be a nice guy but distance is a dealbreaker''. The area they live in is also densely populated with what I can easily assume (I have family living in the area) are decent, desirable guys who are way closer and way richer than me.

Mea culpa though. Being a glutton for punishment, I still read those profiles and, sighing, wish that those women lived in my neighborhood. The results may suk, but the OLD sites still know how to dangle the bait.

Edited June 10, 2020 by nospam99

[QuietRiot]

27 minutes ago, nospam99 said:

Just another rant about OLD ....

No need to review this topic, dear readers, I'll just repeat in summary that OKC and PoF are currently useless to me because of the changes.

I'm still on Match as a non-subscriber. The way that works at the moment is that THEY pick some women FOR ME and send me the profiles of those women as 'Top Picks' or 'recommendations'. This is basically the same broken selection model as eharmony and elite where the user has no control. Even as a non-subscriber, I am allowed to send messages to these selected women for free.

The annoying thing is that among my Top Picks and recommendations, I keep getting profiles of wonderful women who I would NEVER pick out on my own. They are attractive and compatible ... BUT geographically and socioeconomically undesirable. I've written before how I live in the deep (two hours travel), 'hick' suburbs of NYC. These mismatched women live on or near the Connecticut Gold Coast, way farther away than women who respond to my contact with ''you seem to be a nice guy but distance is a dealbreaker''. The area they live in is also densely populated with what I can easily assume (I have family living in the area) are decent, desirable guys who are way closer and way richer than me.

Mea culpa though. Being a glutton for punishment, I still read those profiles and, sighing, wish that those women lived in my neighborhood. The results may suk, but the OLD sites still know how to dangle the bait.

yeah, i've given up on those platforms, too. POF seems to yield the same faces of the same women that are perpetually single, looking for that unicorn. 

 I've succumbed  to just making unsolicited messages on Facebook that I see via the "people you may know" list if we share some mutual friends.

[Weezy1973]

One of the many sites I used was eHarmony, and they did send you matches as opposed to being able to browse and pick. That being said their matches were based on the many many questions you had to fill out upon joining, so generally they were in the ballpark. One of the questions was even about how important looks are to you.

They also sent you matches that were outside your parameters (age range, location etc.) but classifies those as “what ifs”. I found it to be pretty good.

[nospam99]

I'm sorry if I'm boring people. This is just another report of further deterioration of an OLD UI.

PoF this time.

My favorite tool on PoF was what they call Ultra Match. I used to be able to configure UltraMatch by age range and distance and get a list of 70 women sorted by compatibility, or at least what PoF claimed was compatibility. When I started this topic in April, those parameter settings had just disappeared, the list was reduced to 15, and I had no clue why those women were my 'ultra matches' because they were all pretty much too far away to date.

I also had an 'upgraded' profile at the time, which cost a few bucks on what had historically been a free OLD service. Since the value of the service dropped, I let my upgrade expire. Two weeks after that expiration (now), more function stopped working. I can't say for sure because it's been so long, but I believe you used to be able to see who viewed your profile. No more. For sure, being able to see who viewed you is NOT on the list of extra features you unlock when paying for an upgrade. Coincidentally (or not), not being able to see who viewed you unless you pay is also the way Match works.

So not only has PoF gotten less valuable, they don't even provide a reliable marketing list of the 'extras' you get for paying. With UltraMatch broken, I can't effectively search for women. I can't imagine how a woman could effectively search for me. Messaging is still free (I guess - can't say for sure because I can't find a woman I'd want to send a message to). I guess the only value left to the place is the off chance that some woman who I'd be interested in sends an unsolicited message to me. I'm not holding my breath ;) nor paying them.

To me, OLD is, or was, a 'treasure hunt'. But the 'map', which was reasonably useful as recently as four months ago, has been obscured to the point where I can barely read it. I will probably never find out, but I wonder why these changes have happened. The circumstance that my 'most useful' sites, match.com, OKCupid, and PoF, are all owned by the Match Group may be a clue.

[Miss Spider]

POF is a collection of half baked ideas. I shudder to think what the code looks like.

Edited June 12, 2020 by Cookiesandough

[Weezy1973]

@nospam99 could it be that you’ve exhausted the options in your location parameters? I know with eHarmony, once my matches had been exhausted, the system started giving my “what ifs” - I.e. people that didn’t fit all my criteria, but I might give a chance anyways. 

[nospam99]

Just another Match rant. Read at your discretion. And before I get started, I'll report that at the moment there is ONE woman who I winnowed out of the haystack and we've reached the exchange of phone numbers state. That she is communicating implies that I pass her superficial filters.

On to the rant. Folks who have previously advised me to give up on OLD need not repeat their advice. At this point, I mostly just look at profiles for entertainment and daydreaming (if only so-and-so lived across the street or even across town). Most days the haystack is so large that I don't even reach the bottom.

About that haystack.

Match's Search tool reports same old, same old. Currently 37 hits based on my age and location setting. Of those, only 20 are active. Of those, I've already contacted the four who have common interests and gotten no response (my response rate on Match is still holding above 20%).

I get dozens of profiles every day sent to me by Match's Discover tool. It's a waste of my time to have to scroll through dozens of bad match profiles. I recognize lots of them as 'repeaters' from previous days. Match gives me no information about what they are looking for to allow me to guess whether they'd be interested in me. Many of them are NOT age or location appropriate to me. Quick consecutive sample of ages: 55, 50, 52, 50, 51. All except the 55 are BELOW my age filter and the 55 is an outlier for whom I 'really should' dial my age filter higher. All are easily assumed to have me, at 66, above their age filters. Quick sample of locations: all five beyond the range limit in my profile.

I've got enough experience with OLD to assume with confidence that women are filtering me primarily based on age, location, and height, and secondarily based on body type, education, religion, and interests. Match (or any OLD site) has access to 'what women say they want' and could easily filter those Discover lists to save me the wasted time of left swiping dozens of profiles.

Also FWIW, I'm currently a 'non-subscriber' i.e. non paying user on Match. Because of that, my number of right swipes per day is limited. The limit hasn't made a difference because, with the user interface changes, I can't guess if a woman would be interested and consequently most days I don't use all my right swipes.

[Happy Lemming]

Here is a half baked idea...  And I think you have the skill set to make it happen.

Build your own web-site... Build your own match.com/dating site for your area (start small) include all the features you'd like. 

I'm not sure how you would advertise it, perhaps someone else on LS could help with that aspect, maybe even Paul could chime in with some ideas on that subject.

Build a better mousetrap!!  Your own!!

[max3732]

Have you tried Bumble, Coffee Meets Bagel, or Hinge?

[nospam99]

@HL. I'm confident I could build a better mousetrap. Aside from the effort and whether it would be of sufficient benefit (money or women) to me, I'd be most worried about legal entanglements .... what to do if a user claims they were raped and I get sued. I assume the commercial sites deal with the issue and have some kind of a legal safety net. But lawyers cost money and I have to wonder what the critical mass of a dating site is to pay the lawyers and still have enough revenue stream 'left over' to at least run the place.

@max3732. I tried Bumble. No responses. Like Bumble, Coffee and Hinge are phone apps. My phone (a Blackberry) does not run current apps (I bought a burner phone to try Bumble). I'm not willing at this time to activate an iOS or Android phone just to try another dating app.

BTW, my one Match lady flaked on me. Not the first time. Very likely not the last.

[SumGuy]

40 minutes ago, nospam99 said:

@HL. I'm confident I could build a better mousetrap. Aside from the effort and whether it would be of sufficient benefit (money or women) to me, I'd be most worried about legal entanglements .... what to do if a user claims they were raped and I get sued. I assume the commercial sites deal with the issue and have some kind of a legal safety net. But lawyers cost money and I have to wonder what the critical mass of a dating site is to pay the lawyers and still have enough revenue stream 'left over' to at least run the place.
..

They do but you could likely consult for free with one for an hour to an idea of the cost involved.  I seriously doubt the apps out there assume any liability and probably rely on pretty stock approaches.  Nevertheless you are likely looking at thousands up front, not sure how much of a running expense you would incur.  You also need to consider data privacy, among other things a good internet business lawyer could point out for you.  If you charge, maybe your biggest headache is the tax law.  You sit in state x user pays you from state y, what is the tax you owe to state x and state y?   I suspect there are apps and services for this stuff, know several folks with one person shops and internet based business, retail things, and they are not bogged down in legal bills.

Edited June 19, 2020 by SumGuy

[nospam99]

TL/DR Just observations that may help someone else decide if they want to put up with match.com

So I'm still on Match, but not as a subscriber. It sux so bad after removing the visibility of profile details that it's not worth subscribing. Even as a non-subscriber (FREE!), I still get to send messages to 2-6 women per day, depending on how many of my 'recommendations' are 'top picks'. Each day, I can send messages to all top picks and to one other recommendation. I'm at the mercy of the site to select those recommendations and top picks. They do a pretty shytty job. Almost all are below my age range, beyond my distance range, or both.

Anyway, another 'good' feature that Match retains is live chat (limited but sufficient hours) with support reps. The other sites don't have this. The reps are typical of reps everywhere, nice people who listen sympathetically to complaints, but can't do anything substantive ..... like turn the visibility of profile details back on or filter recommendations so I only get women who are interested in dating me.

To beat a dead horse, the profile details I mean are what the women are looking for, not what their characteristics are. Knowing her age, location, and height (RARELY a problem) confirms she might be a match FOR ME. But if I can't see the age, location, and height that SHE is Looking For, any guess on my part if I am a match FOR HER is a shot in the dark.

[Tamfana]

On 6/10/2020 at 4:03 AM, nospam99 said:

Just another rant about OLD ....

No need to review this topic, dear readers, I'll just repeat in summary that OKC and PoF are currently useless to me because of the changes.

I'm still on Match as a non-subscriber. The way that works at the moment is that THEY pick some women FOR ME and send me the profiles of those women as 'Top Picks' or 'recommendations'. This is basically the same broken selection model as eharmony and elite where the user has no control. Even as a non-subscriber, I am allowed to send messages to these selected women for free.

The annoying thing is that among my Top Picks and recommendations, I keep getting profiles of wonderful women who I would NEVER pick out on my own. They are attractive and compatible ... BUT geographically and socioeconomically undesirable. I've written before how I live in the deep (two hours travel), 'hick' suburbs of NYC. These mismatched women live on or near the Connecticut Gold Coast, way farther away than women who respond to my contact with ''you seem to be a nice guy but distance is a dealbreaker''. The area they live in is also densely populated with what I can easily assume (I have family living in the area) are decent, desirable guys who are way closer and way richer than me.

Mea culpa though. Being a glutton for punishment, I still read those profiles and, sighing, wish that those women lived in my neighborhood. The results may suk, but the OLD sites still know how to dangle the bait.

NoSpam, You're either going to have to move, travel or be more flexible.  My best friend is a 65 year old man who lives in the mountains in SE Ohio.  He had to travel to meet women after they'd messaged and talked on the phone for a few months.  He found a great match in North Dakota and they've been together 2 years.  

[Weezy1973]

3 hours ago, nospam99 said:

To beat a dead horse, the profile details I mean are what the women are looking for, not what their characteristics are. Knowing her age, location, and height (RARELY a problem) confirms she might be a match FOR ME. But if I can't see the age, location, and height that SHE is Looking For, any guess on my part if I am a match FOR HER is a shot in the dark.

This seems a bit like fear of rejection, although it might be fear of wasting time.
 

Truth is you don’t know how flexible those women are in those preferences, so if there’s a woman that you’re interested in, might as well message them. I know I’ve said this before, but my wife was outside my age range when eHarmony sent me her profile as a “what if”. The rest is history. 

In other words, not having access to that info is not that big a deal. In real life you’d have no idea about any of it anyways, you’d just approach someone and hope for the best.

[Ellener]

On 6/3/2020 at 1:54 PM, Weezy1973 said:

This is different from dating people you already know, where by the time you actually get to dating, you know enough about the other person to know there’s mutual attraction and likely compatibility to move the relationship from platonic to romantic.

The only thing I've noticed about this is 1. you are getting to know each other 'in a goldfish bowl' and not everyone is comfortable and 2. it can go on and on as a pseudo-relationship/flirtation where one or both people aren't sure what they want etc. and neither actually asks the other directly. At least with the dating it's presuming dating is on the table.

[SumGuy]

4 hours ago, nospam99 said:

So I'm still on Match, but not as a subscriber. 

You get what you pay for.   You're paying nothing, so what do you expect?

 If you subscribe you get a lot more flexibility, can search, etc. and not at the mercy of the algorithms picks.  Sure they may have changed the what she looks for info, but as has been said, give it a try anyway...in fact it could help you as she can't get upset you ignored her height criteria, etc.   Frankly even if you meet all those criteria people pass for any number of reasons.

I also don't see it as a waste of time as wouldn't recommend putting too much time into the initial message. 

As to reading profiles...yes should do that anyway, it's never a waste.  I assume you are not just shopping here, but really looking for someone.

[nospam99]

weezy1973 said ''Truth is you don’t know how flexible those women are in those preferences ... In real life you’d have no idea about any of it anyways''

No. But I've been using OLD for more than 2 years and I have yet to have any woman younger than 58 respond. Most of the 'recommendations' are younger than 55. Ditto for the equally critical height and location parameters. When I could see the women's actual preference ranges, I did contact those who I though might be flexible: a year of two of age, an inch of height, 5 more miles of travel. IRL is apples and oranges. IRL you have body language as your cue to approach.

sumguy said ''You're paying nothing, so what do you expect? ''

The additional function is not worth paying for. As a non-subscriber, I can still search. I can see responses to messages I send. The recommendations are the same ones (often literally the same ones) as when I was a subscriber. The only differences being a subscriber:
- can see the profiles of women who 'Like' me or view MY profile - no practical value
- can see old messages that I received when I was a subscriber - no practical value
- can see unsolicited messages - no practical value because in more than two years on match I have never received an unsolicited message from an interesting woman
- I can send unlimited messages daily - no practical value because I usually use only 0 or 1 of my non-subscriber quota of 2-6

[CaliforniaGirl]

38 minutes ago, nospam99 said:

weezy1973 said ''Truth is you don’t know how flexible those women are in those preferences ... In real life you’d have no idea about any of it anyways''

No. But I've been using OLD for more than 2 years and I have yet to have any woman younger than 58 respond. Most of the 'recommendations' are younger than 55. Ditto for the equally critical height and location parameters. When I could see the women's actual preference ranges, I did contact those who I though might be flexible: a year of two of age, an inch of height, 5 more miles of travel. IRL is apples and oranges. IRL you have body language as your cue to approach.

sumguy said ''You're paying nothing, so what do you expect? ''

The additional function is not worth paying for. As a non-subscriber, I can still search. I can see responses to messages I send. The recommendations are the same ones (often literally the same ones) as when I was a subscriber. The only differences being a subscriber:
- can see the profiles of women who 'Like' me or view MY profile - no practical value
- can see old messages that I received when I was a subscriber - no practical value
- can see unsolicited messages - no practical value because in more than two years on match I have never received an unsolicited message from an interesting woman
- I can send unlimited messages daily - no practical value because I usually use only 0 or 1 of my non-subscriber quota of 2-6

How old are you? You may have said so but I don't remember. If you're in your 50s (I could be thinking of a different poster) then I can't see why your recommendations are all under 55. 

I mean...say you're 55...would you think a woman should be incensed that you were approaching her even though she was 45? Or whatever?

Just throwing that out there. Because I mean if it's just a preference for a young woman (again, correct me, some usernames are similar, I could be remembering a different poster) then you do have to be realistic. Most people want someone right around their age - there are exceptions, but even OLD studies show this. Especially women...they're looking for a companion...and that seems to tend to include age. Nothing very far out there in either direction. I believe you on the interface issues, I've heard that before, but a 50something woman wanting a 50something man wouldn't be an interface issue. And say, a 30something or even early 40s woman not prefering a man in his 50s wouldn't be weird either. In the grand scheme of things.

Just a thought.

Edited June 25, 2020 by CaliforniaGirl

[nospam99]

@CG.

I'm 66. Although I'd be willing to date a woman as 'young' as, shall we say 49, and physically keep up with her, that's just not realistic. I've had several OLD women change their minds and flake on me when they noticed my age. About the youngest women who respond to my OLD messages are 58. And back before Match changed the visibility of what women where looking for, few women below 58 had age ranges that went as high as 66. The last few women I've sent messages to are
64 seeking 55-70
65 seeking 57-65
61 seeking 53-66
59 seeking 57-64
61 seeking 58-65
63 seeking 58-70

[SumGuy]

3 hours ago, nospam99 said:

sumguy said ''You're paying nothing, so what do you expect? ''

Exactly!  If you want more there are plenty of paid sites, you can hire someone...a lot of options.   You get what you pay for is an old expression.  You paid nothing so if you get more than nothing, bonus.   Life isn't handed to you on a silver platter. 

 The additional function is not worth paying for. As a non-subscriber, I can still search. I can see responses to messages I send. The recommendations are the same ones (often literally the same ones) as when I was a subscriber.

Sound like you get a lot for free, more than some sites/apps.  That's pretty generous of them not to limit your search or treat you different re recommendations even though you don;t pay...the few free sites I tried kept saying that was not the case.

The only differences being a subscriber:

- can see the profiles of women who 'Like' me or view MY profile - no practical value

Really?  I think that would be huge value.  I never had a woman who liked me say no to meeting ever, and a good 80% who viewed me the same.    Of course I would never message or ask anyone out without reading their profile...maybe that is where you and I differ.  At least half the women who viewed me seemed interesting and at least a third who liked me.

- can see old messages that I received when I was a subscriber - no practical value

Well I find this helpful just so didn't do an oops...but not a lot of value necessarily.

- can see unsolicited messages - no practical value because in more than two years on match I have never received an unsolicited message from an interesting woman

Another place where you and my experience differ.  I'd say at least half of the unsolicited messages I got where from women I found interesting.

- I can send unlimited messages daily - no practical value because I usually use only 0 or 1 of my non-subscriber quota of 2-6

  Guess it depends on how many women you are messaging at a time or how fun and active it is.  I could never have gotten by with 2 a day.

So Match is not for you, use another, or OLD is not for you.  It certainly doesn't seem to be expanding your circle of potential, usually people choose it because it puts them in contact with dozens more people in a week than they could meet in real life, which doesn't seem to be the case for you.

[SumGuy]

4 hours ago, nospam99 said:

No. But I've been using OLD for more than 2 years and I have yet to have any woman younger than 58 respond. 

Not surprising if you are 66, in fact 58 is doing pretty good.

Yous said you can search so why rely on the recommendations if few are over 55?   I'm not getting how the recommendations matter if you search.

[nospam99]

@sumguy said ''I'm not getting how the recommendations matter if you search. ''

I kind of wonder if you've read the whole thread. On the 19th, I posted ...

''Match's Search tool reports same old, same old. Currently 37 hits based on my age and location setting. Of those, only 20 are active. Of those, I've already contacted the four who have common interests and gotten no response (my response rate on Match is still holding above 20%).''

Likes and Views on Match mean nothing. All the women get daily recommendations just like I do. And my profile is in their recommendations just like dozens of bad matches are in my recommendations every day. If they're curious enough to click on my profile, Match reports they viewed me. In order to get past a profile in a recommendation list, a user has to either click Skip or Like, essentially swiping left or right. If they just 'swipe right' on all their recommendations in the hope of 'hooking a fish', Match reports a Like. When I've been a subscriber, I've gotten LOTS of Likes without messages. Those Likes are universally old (age wise), overweight women. Women who are truly interested send messages. I've been on Match long enough to have seen women just not take that step seriously.

In any case, I didn't start this topic to complain about my success or lack thereof meeting women via OLD. It's about me reporting the mechanics of the OLD web services that I use. In the case of Match, those mechanics were very useful and well worth paying for a subscription up until February of this year, when Match made the ''What She's Looking For'' parameters invisible.

[elaine567]

5 minutes ago, nospam99 said:

Women who are truly interested send messages.

Is it not possible some are waiting for you, as the man, to send a message?

[CaliforniaGirl]

1 hour ago, nospam99 said:

@CG.

I'm 66. Although I'd be willing to date a woman as 'young' as, shall we say 49, and physically keep up with her, that's just not realistic. I've had several OLD women change their minds and flake on me when they noticed my age. About the youngest women who respond to my OLD messages are 58. And back before Match changed the visibility of what women where looking for, few women below 58 had age ranges that went as high as 66. The last few women I've sent messages to are
64 seeking 55-70
65 seeking 57-65
61 seeking 53-66
59 seeking 57-64
61 seeking 58-65
63 seeking 58-70

Oh, okay. I guess I'm not understanding why you pointed out that the youngest approaches you get on OLD are age 58 as that's still 8 years younger than you. Shouldn't that be okay? Or maybe I misunderstood something about the way it was stated.

I'm not getting how that's a glitch if you approached your specified age range as you show above. 58 as the youngest, fits right in with the above parameters. 

Again, I could be misunderstanding something.

[nospam99]

elaine567 said ''Is it not possible some are waiting for you, as the man, to send a message? ''

I doubt it. Though I'm a non-subscriber now, I was a subscriber for more than two years and could see who the views were from. The women who viewed without messaging were all either too far away for me to date them or women I had sent messages to who checked my profile and then chose not to reply.