Talk:Comparison of online dating services/Archive 1

Archive 1

POF Removal

I'm not sure why POF.com is continually removed. It is just as notable and reviewed as the other big name ones, yet is free. It is a reviewed site unlike the other spamming sites. I'm fine with removing the external link to the site, but bias should not affect the placement of this site. Although I don't own the page or Wikipedia, I authored this page with the intent of including sites such as POF. Shields020 (talk) 04:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The reason for removal is that the article was deleted. Since the article has now been restored, I restored the link. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

PlentyofFish should not have been deleted or marked for speedy deletion in the first place. The article fits WP:Notability and WP:Reliability. Shields020 (talk) 01:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, then it is good that it was so easy to undelete the article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Globalize

Sine it onlt lists US website the list is in bad need of some globalization. I'll see what I can do. // Liftarn (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

PlentyofFish is a Canadian site. And beyond that, the place to start is to create articles on the global sites first, rather than adding non-notable sites to this list. The non-notable sites, and the tag, need to be removed. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You certainly live up to your user name. // Liftarn (talk) 22:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Why did you add two "globalized" sites, and then readd the globalization tag? Wouldn't adding international sites warrant the removal of the tag? JazzMan 23:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Not counting Antactice, how many continents have we covered? // Liftarn (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Only by looking in the WP articles we can find the following countries: US, Australia, Canada, UK (eHarmony); France, Japan, China, Germany, Sweden, Spain (Match.com). That's at least 10 countries over 3 continents, and that's not including OkCupid, which sets no physical limitations that I can see, or Yahoo! Personals, which appears to be available in whatever language Yahoo is available. Is that enough yet, or do we need to find articles about African dating sites? (Do they exist?) JazzMan 19:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

That it's not limited is not the same thing as they have an active presence or indeed being based in the country (or even available in the local language). I have seen at least one "global" site that required you to use a US zip code (I checked and Yahoo Personals do require a US zip code). South America? Africa? Asia? There are probably lots of them to add. // Liftarn (talk) 11:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

And what if no such sites exist? Internet usage isn't exactly very high in Africa (even Yahoo! doesn't have a version anywhere on the African continent). Should the tag stay there until someone invents SouthAfricaDate? What if that never happens; should the tag stay on the article forever?

You've moved the goalposts now, as well. Can you show me that the sites I listed do not have an active presence in the countries listed? Why would Match.com have an office in London, Paris, Tokyo, Beijing, Munich, Stockholm and Madrid if it does not have a presence in those countries? (Match.com claims presense in 37 different contries, only 7 of which are specifically mentioned in the article; do you know, and can you show me, that these sites do not cover all of the continents?) Instead of complaining about a lack of globalism for globalism's sake, you could try and find these mystery sites, or at least show that they exist. JazzMan 04:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC) PS: It's quite possible this site that required a US zipcode has a different address for different countries. It seems if I ran a global dating site I wouldn't want every country to be using the same main page or user interface or language. To use your own example, I found this through Yahoo.jp; it seems to be the Japanese version of Yahoo! Personals. Here is Yahoo! Personals in Argentina.

A quick googling resulted in http://www.afrikadating.com/ and http://www.southafricancupid.com/ so African dating sites exists. There are probebly lots of Asian dating sites as well. // Liftarn (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but how many of them meet the notability guideline of WP:WEB? Remember, Wikipedia is not a directory of websites. Non-notable sites should not be on this list. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

So Liftarn once you create pages for those sites, I think that gives us every continent but Antarctica. Can we take the tag off now? JazzMan 05:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

When it's properly globalizes it can be taken off. // Liftarn (talk)

I agree that plentyoffish.com and other really free dating sites should be included. There are less than 5 actually free dating sites I have found and I think listing the 100% FREE dating sites is important. Another 100% Free Dating website I found that also has a nationally syndicated TV series on the major networks. That site is http://www.FreeTVDating.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blakewildman (talk • contribs) 15:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

We think we have something new

We think we have something new and should be included here: WinkedAt is a social networking /dating site that offers total privacy: only people who have your code can connect to you and then you are still able to choose what you want to reveal. As I am connected to WinkedAt I would like others to check and give their opinion and of course I would like them to add the site and the idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.111.229.246 (talk) 05:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Seemingly Arbitrary Limitations

Isn't this listing kind of small? I mean, the point of a list is to LIST, not give an extremely brief mention to a subject or cherry-pick. People keep arguing on here about Notability and what-not, but that's only really relevant concerning articles, not single items on a list, and there are MUCH larger lists of items on Wikipedia of MUCH lesser importance. And to the individuals deleting any entry on this list that doesn't have its own Wikipedia article: There's absolutely no justification for that. That's completely arbitrary. Wikipedia has no rule that I'm aware of stating that nothing can be mentioned that doesn't already have its own article, especially concerning external links. If this list is only about 10 items long, it could be argued that the entire article lacks usefulness, because it isn't doing its job. 24.210.40.231 (talk) 00:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists for the relevant guideline. - MrOllie (talk) 01:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Alexa ratings

I added Alexa ratings so readers can get some idea how popular different sites are.

"Registered users" is not available for most sites, and it's a meaningless idea anyway, especially on paid sites where you cannot get any functionality unless you paid that month, and yet you're still counted as "registered".

I can imagine that www.spraydate.se's is seriously underrated if Alexa underrates Swedish sites. No idea if it's true. Taw (talk) 01:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing for this Page

I am a little confused. The warning says no external links, but all the sources are external links. I found a credible site that has the missing statistics, and added the user base for chemistry.com, which comes straight from their data to this affiliate site. I would source it but I read the warning above the page. Exactly what is common practice here. Right now it looks like an un-cited piece of information.

Would love guidance here. Thanks Shirarae (talk) 11:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

That just means that all list entries should be links to Wikipedia articles. A great many users come here seeking to promote their nonnotable dating site by adding a link to it. Links to references are fine. - MrOllie (talk) 15:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

eCRUSH

Does this site fit under List of online dating websites or is it better under List of social networking websites --real_decimic 06:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

pingmeomline.com

Just returned for a mo to consult this page and looked at new link to pingmeonline.com and judge it a dodgy site - any opinions ? DaiSaw (talk) 23:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I removed it, the entry had no article so it does not belong on the list. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 23:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

OkCupid member number update

In an attempt to find numbers more recent than 2007, I came across this article in Inc., from May 2009, which quotes OkCupid's founder saying that (after a marketing strategy described in the article) the number of active daters on the site has nearly doubled, to about one million. Does this constitute a source other than the dating site itself (which at the very bottom of their blog mentions having >3 million members), or is it still not a valid reference? Rwald (talk) 08:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Their blog (same link as before) now claims "1.2M active members." Can that be included in their entry? Rwald (talk) 07:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Possible source

I just removed this source from List of social software and it may be useful here. It was citing the inclusion of eHarmony.com, Match.com, and Yahoo! Personals.

Teten, David; Allen, Scott (2005). The virtual handshake: opening doors and closing deals online. AMACOM Div American Mgmt Assn. ISBN 0814472869.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

--Pnm (talk) 19:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Easyflirt ?

In this matrix, i didn't see easyflirt.com! Alexa rank: 25192. This website is the 2nd dating website in Europe... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.229.199.86 (talk) 00:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

xhamster, collarme and fetlife

I think there should be a listing of those three dating websites as they are notable, because they are the only such services. xhamster is the only free adult (sex) dating website. collarme and fetlife are free / or at least freemium websites for bdsm and fetish related dating.

--helohe (talk) 19:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Friends Match Me should be added here too

Friends Match Me is now the largest totally free dating site/app. Friends Match Me free dating site/facebook app should be added here. It is the only dating site where members can find out if they have mutual friends or similar Facebook Likes with other members. It is increasing rapidly in popularity and should not be removed from this list, especially as it is the only totally free app here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Designw (talk • contribs) 19:42, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Meetic

At present Meetic is listed as free. This is not true. Meetic does require payment. It is not even "partially free", which would imply you can use it without paying but get a better service if you subscribe. That is the case with OKCupid, which works fine free but sells you a membership with extra options. But with Meetic, you cannot contact other users, nor answer when they contact you, without taking the upgrade. It is therefore not possible to arrange a date unless both parties are paid-up members. The ability to browse profiles free is just the bait. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.80.186 (talk) 06:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Requirements

What are the requirements for adding a site to this list? I use www.simplidate.com which has quite a few members and wondered if it qualified? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.105.6 (talk) 00:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Color contrasts

in the first column, the blue link text is almost unreadable against the purple background of the blocks. Was there a reason for choosing this color combination? DocKrin (talk) 15:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The colour choice is inherited from the {{rh2}} template where the colour was recently changed. I undid the change. Let's see if there's a huge outcry from my rollback. -- Whpq (talk) 13:13, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Ownership of Individual Matchmaking Sites

I do find this list quite helpful; and I think it would be even more helpful if it included a column that lists which companies/businesses own each matchmaking site. I'm aware that some companies own multiple matchmaking sites, and I would prefer to try a new service that is under different ownership. The ownership info is also interesting from the standpoint of learning whether or not recurring customer issues/frustrations arise with sites that are owned by the same company. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talestory (talk • contribs) 17:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a new dating website not listed.

http://idontneedyoubutiwantyou.com/

I am new here and do not want to make a mistake, this is a trial so please feel free to suggest. Candylane (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

←

Oh cool. Have not heard of that one. Synergee (talk) 05:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Same Sex to be modified to include for bisexuality

A number of dating websites do not account for bisexuals, while a limited number do. If the same sex column was modified from a simple Yes/No to having the yes changed to a "Yes and bisexuals" or "Yes, but not bisexuals" or similar wording. This would better reflect the state of affairs on dating websites and be more inclusive of bisexuals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by U dakka (talk • contribs) 17:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I would replace the yes no column by a sexual orientation column listing the orientation each site accept.64.86.141.133 (talk) 22:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Why deleted?

How come when I add a site name here it is deleted?

I deleted it. Read the history. Basically, you can only add new item if the article exists. Dekisugi (talk) 10:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not apparent why the existence of an article is a good basis to include or exclude. What about the sites that have a specific focus, and therefore are not terribly large -- but are highly relevant to those within that focus? Why limit this list to only sites that have a PR budget to maintain a Wikipedia page? Is this really a useful basis for filtering? Is there any empirical support for that? Almost all of the remaining entries on this Talk page are nominations of pretty reasonable candidates for inclusion on the list -- and existence of a Wikipedia article seems really counter to making this list genuinely useful, as opposed to a plaything for JohannVanbeek to revert. Should existence of an article continue to be the threshold for inclusion/exclusion?

If that is true, then CREATE the wiki page for the site that you like yourself. Submit that separate page, get it approved by editors as relevant and NOTABLE (read WP:Note for reasoning), and then include it in the Online Dating Website wiki page. Simple. You don't need a PR department or budget. If it is truly notable someone else probably already created the page. JVB (talk) 11:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Free/Libre

I added an edit to a 'free' field of the Plenty of Fish entry because I felt strongly that, while things might be 'free as in beer', they can still have costs, such as to liberty or inclusivity. --OO (talk) 06:41, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Please add No Longer Lonely

No Longer Lonely is a dating website for people who are mentally ill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.122.107.172 (talk) 07:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

A page written by a seo company

This page was written from a seo company, that got paid for creating wikipedia links to certain dating sites. For this reasons many other dating sites get removed. The biggest dating sites are pof.com and twoo.com. But also medium sized dating sites that exist for over 10 years such as www.flirtbox.co.uk etc...are not listed, for no apparent reason. I could list a lot of popular dating site missing here and the majority of links listed here are not noteworthy enough to be listed here. Either there is a complete, growing list / regularly updated list - or only the most important one are listed (in this case it needs to be transparent which factors qualify a site to be listed). A random list of dating sites - and "bride order sites" from Eastern Europe do not belong here, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.171.190.228 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

The principle is quite transparent. Sites listed in the table need to have a Wikipedia article (and the article must exist before the site is added to the table). Websites without Wikipedia articles may not be added to the list, and websites with a Wikipedia article should not be randomly removed based on any individual editor's notion of what is and is not popular. Websites need to meet the notability requirement descibed here in order to be suitable for a Wikipedia article. --bonadea contributions talk 19:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Identity verification

Perhaps we should add a column on whether identity checks are performed ? There are some dating websites that indeed do have this (see https://www.audreydating.com/story ) Perhaps that it's also possible that e-ID info could be used for this. 80.200.229.164 (talk) 13:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Update is required

To author: some site already not exist or redirect to other websites. Other sites have only 70 ppl online and more looks like a forum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.122.14.212 (talk) 04:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Could you be more specific with which you mean? Do you mean more sites should be added or that the existing information should be updated? The comparison is between those dating websites that have Wikipedia articles, rather than all dating sites that exist, btw. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Supports Opposite Sex Connections Column

Since there's a 'Supports same sex connections' and there are now quite a number of dating sites that are solely for same sex connections as well as a mix of both (which is all good!) shouldn't there be a column for 'Supports opposite sex connections'? or something of that nature? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.237.64.150 (talk) 10:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Tinder

I was surprise not to see Tinder app. Is there any reason not to mention Tinder? Or is it deleted? I added just minutes ago. Please inform me if I shouldn't add Tinder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bktrl (talk • contribs) 17:38, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Facedate

perhaps add Facedate ? Genetics4good (talk) 17:12, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Genetics4good, We only add entries here that have a Wikipedia article. If you believe the service is notable, write the article and then ask for it to be added here. ~ GB fan 11:23, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Partial messaging on OkCupid

Messaging on OkCupid is listed as partially free, but I cannot think of a single restriction for messaging for free members. If there is a reason for this being partial, then I think it should be specified why, as I think the word is very missleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.161.171.191 (talk) 01:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree, based on a comparison with Tinder, the messaging system is nearly identical - You can't see messages from people on OkCupid unless you have matched, but the exact same happens on Tinder and that is all green. In any case, OkCupid does tell you that you have a message from somebody, you have to click "like" to see it, but that isn't a premium feature. So I am going to change those with this as the reason. There are no restrictions on sending and receiving messages that paying would alter, it's that simple really Lawrie (talk) 07:07, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Support for non binary genders

I think we should probably add a column for sites supporting non-binary genders - Any objections/problems? Lawrie (talk) 07:16, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

OKComrade

Is OKComrade notable enough to merit inclusion on the list?--DrWho42 (talk) 05:08, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

• @DoctorWho42: Ha. Hadn't seen that. I started to add it, but the more I look at it the more I think it shouldn't qualify. For one, it seems to be more a parody than an actual dating service and it also isn't itself a "website" but rather a single page on FaceBook and Twitter. It looks like an official site might be in the works, though. :) --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Only if we can add seacaptaindating.com! :) Lawrie (talk) 07:22, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Inconsistency in "Premium" column

Having just spent a while editing the page, it's apparent that the "Premium" column makes very little sense and is at best very confusing to use to make comparisons especially in terms of colour coding. For instance, Bumble has a green "Yes", whereas Her has a blue "Free". Tinder has a green "Yes" with an explanation about its premium features, but OkCupid/POF/Badoo have yellow "Yes/No" columns explaining their paid add-on features. Spray date has a pink "Premium users can see larger images and have more search options" - What does any of it mean? Lawrie (talk) 07:46, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

This list has problems

1) There are no clearly-stated criteria for inclusion in this list. 2) The color scheme is inconsistent - why isn't the whole family of yes/no columns using the same scheme? 3) The number of users column and 4) the Alexa rankings column have no standard cutoff point, so the numbers in both columns are misleading and should not be presented as comparables. Shall I have a go at fixing these things, or would someone more invested in the article like to go first? Townlake (talk) 13:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• The empty Alexa ratings on non-rated sites are causing them to be at the top of the sort when the list is sorted by rating - This is the opposite of what we want. Not sure what the answer is other than maybe making them 0's if there is no rating. Lawrie (talk) 09:22, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

There is a new site www.clik4luv.com and it has a lower ranking than some sites currently on. Why are they not listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.228.154 (talk) 22:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)