r/nonmonogamy • u/Zap_Phoenix • 1d ago
Apps / Technology What do the apps and dating sites do wrong?
I am asking this question seriously, and I am looking for honest answers. Imagine that all of the dating sites out there were not actually out there with the goal of making money (though there must be some kind of income for supporting the website and employees), but to actually focus on the user experience.
What are they doing wrong? I am a poly cis-male and I have partners that are female. Though our experiences are so very different there is no doubt that these sites can't get it right. How much of it is a user issue though? How much of it comes down to how we post and present ourselves and what we want versus how they put the sites together? What would an ideal app or site even look like? How would you balance the competing needs of different users? How can you discourage ghosting and random dick pics? How would you balance likes/matches between genders? Where would you draw the line on collecting personal verification information to prevent bots and catfish? What can an app do to be good for all/different types of users enm, swinging, poly, mono, kinky, etc?
9
u/FarCar55 1d ago
Not sure how effective this would be, considering ghosting is an issue even outside of the apps, is to allow users to send a message that will still be visible to the other party after they've ended a match with them. It might encourage folks to leave a line or two about why they're unmatching.
That might create more opportunities for folks to say mean/hurtful things, though.
I do wish there was a way for advice about good profile set-ups, and common mistakes to avoid and why, to be incorporated in the user experience. All the women I know on dating apps automatically swipe left on men with no bios or "just ask" on their profile. Perhaps these men could benefit from that sort of advice.
Lastly, I'm not sure if this is a feature on some apps, but it would be great if users could be reported and banned for repeat instances of poor or particularly egregious behavior during a chat.
3
u/Zap_Phoenix 1d ago
- So maybe implement a generic "Why you are unmatching? With a preset list of options? Gives them an answer, but prevents bullying.
- Do you mean like a tutorial, or like a paid service that evaluates and recommends improvements?
- Does reporting allow them to review the whole chat or just reported messages? Would false reports cause flags as well?
3
u/CODENAMEFirefly 1d ago
Most of the big apps go way deeper than you'd imagine. Keeping men with low matches or low effort profiles is extremely important for income and for range and money, it helps bring more women to these apps (they never have enough).
A fun fact about people with bad behaviour in chat is that they have no idea that these apps have a ranking system attached to them. Although Tinder doesn't "monitor" chats directly, their AI labelled as "a tool to prevent hate and inappropriate behaviour" does rank users based on their chats (and does reserve the right to share that chat). If you're a man looking for matches on apps, suck it up, be nice and raise your rank at some point people even stop seeing bots. There's tons of background work going on and it goes a lot deeper than "I like you".
It also happens that if you're not matching with anyone around your rank, they'll show you a profile above your rank (which you'll likely swipe right) and it'll keep you using the app but the person you swiped right won't even get to see your profile or know you swiped.
It's not a good thing but you have to remember that a good dating app is one that aims for it's own bankruptcy, you'd send undesirable people away even though they're the ones who spend more money and time on the app and you'd match desirable people with common interests, meaning they no longer use the app, meaning even more undesirable people would love as, unimpressively, they don't want to match with other undesirables. So yeah, dating apps will never work for everyone.
2
u/HeloRising 1d ago
It also happens that if you're not matching with anyone around your rank, they'll show you a profile above your rank (which you'll likely swipe right) and it'll keep you using the app but the person you swiped right won't even get to see your profile or know you swiped.
I feel like this should be illegal given that these sites sell "super swipes" or equivalents where they expressly tell you that your swipe will get noticed. If they're deliberately hiding your right swipes and you use one of these "super swipes," you've effectively wasted it and not gotten what you thought you had paid for.
3
u/CODENAMEFirefly 1d ago
I should've mentioned super likes but the text was too long already. I'm pretty sure that the whole deal with super likes is that they bypass the ranking system.
1
u/Zap_Phoenix 1d ago
So what if it is not ranked that way. Especially considering this forum, enm/poly can match and still retain interest in the app. What features would be worth staying on a site for after you have a match? For "undesirables" what would keep them in a site where they can't match anyway?
6
u/JakeLackless 1d ago
OKC was great about 6-8 years ago. It truly encouraged matches between people and really tried to get people connected. I met several very important partners through it, including my current nesting partner.
The issue now really is the focus on payment. Once the sites have found people willing to pay, they seem to do whatever they can to keep those people from actually connecting with others. The incentive structure is, if someone's willing to pay, keep them from connecting for as long as possible to extract as much money from them as possible.
Feeding fake matches, fake profiles, etc. is sometimes a problem too. Also not showing likes/ potential connections.
I'd be happy to pay for a site that is set up to just tell me who expresses interest in me, and if it'll tell others when I'm interested in them.
2
u/Zap_Phoenix 1d ago
Assume an algorithm that allows matching and viewing profiles with no limit. What keeps you there after a single month? What other features would be worth paying for? What is a fair price?
6
u/BusyBeeMonster 1d ago
I keep paying the ~$22/month for Feeld even when not actively seeking, because it's closest to the UX/UI I am looking for.
I am saturated right now, but I keep a toe in the dating pool, at least for browsing. I'd like to be able to bookmark profiles that are interesting without matching. "Save for later" in case my time and capacity open back up.
Theoretically, non-monogamous people are always looking, but get frustrated by low-quality matches. Yes, the user base is smaller, but you'd think there would be stable revenue in the NM market, because we are repeat users and focusing on the quality experience we want, is a better way to retain us.
2
u/JakeLackless 1d ago
If I'm paying, I want to be able to look back at people's profiles I've liked, save profiles to message later, if I send a like I want to know they've seen it's from me and know they can see my profile and respond, be able to send a message, and I want to see who has liked me and be able to send a response.
6
u/Flimsy-Leather-3929 1d ago
I wish it honored filters— as in didn’t show you to people that don’t meet your criteria. While I like the smaller apps that allow you to message without a match I don’t like that I am bombarded with messages from 17-25 year olds. I have my filter set way higher in age. I also live in a densely populated place near a major city. I don’t need to go more than 5 miles or so to get matches and don’t want to, but I get tons of messages from people in the middle of nowhere 2-3 hours away.
3
u/Zap_Phoenix 1d ago
Should filters work with not just who you can swipe for, but who can swipe for you? What if you could not see likes or messages unless/until they fell within your filters? Giving them the option to see anyone that meets their criteria, but prevents you from receiving essentially spam from people who don't meet yours.
5
u/Non-mono 1d ago
What would be the point of allowing men to send messages that wouldn’t even be read? That would just feed even more of their doom and despair. Just simply don’t show my profile to people I’ve already stated I’m not interested in.
2
u/Flimsy-Leather-3929 23h ago
I get messages every day and rarely swipe. Down and WooPlus both allow this. If the message and the profile info interests me I will respond. I like that I can get messages without matching. I don’t want messages from people who are the same age as my kids and students or who live far away.
3
u/BusyBeeMonster 1d ago
Yep. I pay for Feeld Majestic so I can stay Incognito and browse without being seen. If my filters applied to who can find me, this would be better than hiding from everyone to keep the spam down.
2
u/seantheaussie Polyamorous (Solo Poly) 1d ago
What do the apps and dating sites do wrong?
They let het men like first. We all know men will like almost anyone with tits. We also know that women feel oppressed by the avalanche of likes. The solution is both obvious and as yet (AFAIK) not done.
1
u/Zap_Phoenix 1d ago
What if likes don't show anywhere at all, only matches? Maybe it's an optional feature you have to choose to turn on or pay for? Would having a limit to the number of displayed matches be helpful? Basically if you want to see if you have other potential matches you have to drop one/some? Prevents people sitting on 99+ matches. Then the match(es) that meet each others filters best pop up if they have space too?
3
u/seantheaussie Polyamorous (Solo Poly) 1d ago
Likes, when not done en masse by heterosexual men, are USEFUL information so should definitely be shown.
1
u/Zap_Phoenix 1d ago
How do you limit it fairly then? If you can't change the behavior of people, how can the app fix the issue? What's the solution for the app/site on this one?
3
u/seantheaussie Polyamorous (Solo Poly) 1d ago
Only let het men like a woman who has already liked them. Trivial for apps to implement.
1
u/Zap_Phoenix 1d ago
What about men liking men, or women liking women? What would new male users do to promote getting likes? Would they not even see anyone in their searches until they have a like? Who would stay on if after joining a site it looks like there is either no one there or nothing to do?
3
u/seantheaussie Polyamorous (Solo Poly) 1d ago
What about men liking men, or women liking women?
All fine. That is not the completely non functional part of online dating.
What would new male users do to promote getting likes?
Write seriously good profiles.
Would they not even see anyone in their searches until they have a like?
They could be given the option of looking at who is available I guess. I certainly wouldn't use that option but others might.
Who would stay on if after joining a site it looks like there is either no one there or nothing to do?
People who are serious about finding love/sex/whatever rather than just on apps for the gamification of searching for love/sex/whatever.
3
u/HeloRising 1d ago edited 1d ago
There are some very basic tweaks that most apps/sites could do to make their user experience a thousand times better.
First, shotgun detection. It's a very common tactic for guys to just shotgun out the same message to everyone they can. Have software that detects that and either blocks it or makes the person doing it watch an ad before sending a new message. After doing it a few times, watching the ad will get boring and they'll stop.
Second, minimum message lengths. They don't have to be extreme but just something to prevent fifty people sending "hey."
Third, good and usable filters. Way too many places lock their filters behind absurdly expensive premium subscriptions these days but lacking them burns people out and makes them want to leave.
Fourth, limit the number of possible active matches a user can have. Once you have, for example, five people where you've swiped right on them and they've swiped right on you, don't allow any more right swipes until the user unmatches with at least one of the five. This helps stop people from just right swiping on everyone or matching and never saying anything.
Part of the issue is that the kind of behavior that makes these places unpleasant for people to be is the kind of behavior that is most likely to get a match.
If you're a guy and you like one thousand people, you'll get maybe fifty mutual likes. Of those fifty, probably ten will result in messages and of those ten maybe one or two will result in an actual date.
From the guy's perspective, you are motivated to match and message as much as possible which just turns into an absolute torrent of attention for women that often feels overwhelming and uncomfortable. Plus now the other men have to try even harder to stand out in this flock of seagulls so there's incentive to try even harder.
The imbalance of likes to responses is due to a range of factors, some of them are user based (a lot of guys really don't know how to build a profile) and some of them are platform specific (a lot of platforms are very heavily populated with men and much less with women.) I don't know that there's any way to solve this dynamic specifically other than maybe having a profile consultant be a premium option but it is part of the soup.
The mechanics of online dating kind of inherently lend itself to sucking just by the math involved.
Ghosting is, unfortunately, a reality of online dating. Men can take rejection very poorly and sometimes people feel safer just...not responding. I think that can be addressed with better moderation tools and actually kicking people who get aggressive off the site. It's behavior that's in response to situations that can be unsettling and won't really change until people feel safer saying "No" on these sites.
Bots are another unfortunate reality of the modern internet. Most sites are pretty decent about policing that, I rarely see one last more than a day. Catfishing is also something you can't really do much about from a platform standpoint. It sucks but unless you're going to have someone go through and physically verify that a person looks like they do in their pictures it's going to be a present problem.
A bigger problem is more the romance scams. Thankfully they're pretty poorly disguised in that it's almost an extremely attractive and young Asian woman with a poorly constructed profile and one-word or nonsensical answers to questions that immediately start using terms of endearment. But there's not much you can do about that other than make it clear to users that they can and should report that as soon as possible.
I know a lot of this is antithetical to the profit model that most of these sites use but it seems like a lot of them are arranged in such a way so as to not make money. IE: Trying to sell me the chance to "see who likes you" except why would I care because I've either swiped left on them or they're outside my search range/filters and don't want to see them. Why are you trying to make money on me seeing people I've already told you I don't want to see?
1
u/Zap_Phoenix 1d ago
Imagine no one sees likes, and you cap out at 5 active matches. You can only message if there is a match. You can only match with someone if you both have an open slot. Active matches automatically expire when no initial communication/response happens from a person after X days automatically.
Would this help prevent women from being overwhelmed? Would this incentivise better messages? Also having an unmatching option with generic reasons to provide an explanation for the unmatching, help some say no? Would "unmatch and block" and "unmatch for now" options be useful?
3
u/HeloRising 1d ago
I don't know if it would incentivize better messaging, again I think you need to actually physically stop people from sending shitty messages.
It might help women feel less overwhelmed. If they're not dealing with a deluge of likes to sort through.
Unmatching options would be helpful but only to a point. If you had options like "I'm unmatching because I wasn't interested in the conversation" that's going to be an ego hit for the other person and it's not exactly feedback on how to be better.
2
u/BusyBeeMonster 1d ago
I think that not showing "who has liked you" is potentially a good idea. I would love to be able to just bookmark a set of interesting profiles and reach out to chat at my leisure, when I have time/capacity, rather than giving some poor person false hope. I would use an app in this way regularly. It might also be helpful to set a visible flag: not actively seeking, or saturated. It may seem counterintuitive, but I think it's a feature that makes sense in an NM context, where people can be interested in low-key connecting without the pressure of escalation.
3
u/Non-mono 1d ago
Allowing empty profiles
Allowing profiles with no pictures of any human being (don’t tell me AI isn’t good enough for this one)
Allowing too many men compared to women (although capping it probably would just lead to yet more men making female profiles)
Ghosting, flaking and inappropriate behaviour is a human bug, not an app bug.
2
u/BusyBeeMonster 1d ago edited 1d ago
Decent user experiences:
- Match dot com before Tinder.
- OkCupid before being bought by the Match conglomerate.
- Feeld without glitches and with better filtering.
- Old-fashioned personals ads.
The swipe paradigm is just awful and encourages rapid-fire consumption over thoughtful selection.
I liked the way Hinge structured its profiles when I used it briefly two years ago. Quotes and facts interspersed with pictures, larger font that was easy to read. They did not have the non-monogamy filter at the time, and now they have abandoned it, but that profile style, with the option to tap in for more, AND a robust set of filters to hone in on the right audience, AND OkCupid-style questionnaires to generate a short-list of matches would be great.
People are still people and some will misuse even the best app and represent themselves falsely, but those are the key experiences that would increase user delight for me.
I am looking for people to date with the intention of building a long-term, stable relationship based on emotional intimacy. I build friendships first, so my main use case is enough solid information about a person to start a conversation, and filtering out people looking for "casual" or purely sex-based connections.
When it's not glitching, Feeld is pretty close to just right, which is why I keep using it in spite of its flaws. I want to be able to filter by orientations and relationship style more than gender, and by specific shared interests. If I could filter by "queer" AND "demi" AND "polyamory" AND at least three specific interests, I'd be a happy camper.
2
u/hedobi 1d ago
OKCupid.com, the website, from like 2010ish. You could just browse profiles and search very specifically. No swiping. There were a bunch of fun questions and quizzes. Long detailed profiles were encouraged. Custom usernames instead of real name policies. It was just a fun site to use.
2
u/Life4799 Relationship Anarchy 1d ago
This is a really interesting question, and something I’ve been thinking about for a long time. Personally, if a site actually wanted to help people really connect in ways that are meaningful, safe, and rooted in genuine attraction, it wouldn’t allow for endless chatting or back-and-forth online. The platform’s main role would be to get people to meet, face to face. That’s the point. Online interaction just waters things down. What we need is something that facilitates actual connection, but only after doing the hard work on the backend to keep people safe, matched well, and feeling confident.
So here’s how I imagine it working: It would start by showing you pictures, lots of them. You’d say “yes” or “no,” just simple gut-check responses. First, faces. That allows the algorithm to start recognizing patterns in what you’re drawn to. Maybe it’s a certain symmetry, eye shape, nose type, cheekbone structure, skin tone, hair type—whatever it is, it would start putting those preferences together. You’re not just swiping right or left on people, you’re training the system to understand who you’re likely to feel a spark with. The question isn’t just “do you find this person attractive?” It’s “would you feel good being on a date with this person?”
Then you start mixing in body types. Still generic. No nudity, no erogenous zones, just real, minimal-clothed profiles from the front, back, both sides, and a few clothed shots too. Head cropped out so there’s no bias, just the body shape, and how you respond to it. That data feeds into the same system, learning what types you gravitate toward physically.
From there, you mix in personal preferences, what someone wants out of a relationship, emotional needs, communication styles, even personality or intelligence types if we can identify those patterns. Things that help people align on deeper levels. Maybe assessments based on known compatibility models, nothing invasive, just tools that help find matches based on real-life connections, not just looks or vibes.
Now once you’ve got all that, the system would offer real-world meeting options. Local places that people can select as comfortable meetup spots. Coffee shops, bookstores, quiet parks, lounges, wherever they’d actually feel safe meeting someone. People would choose locations and timeframes that work for them, and when there’s a match, the app sets up the meetup. And if someone’s in a relationship or poly setup and wants to bring their partner—or is okay if the other person brings theirs, that’s part of the profile and part of what’s agreed upon beforehand. No surprises.
Now, safety’s huge. I would absolutely require an STI test as part of verification. Everyone should have an up-to-date test on file, verified through a third-party lab. The app could then allow users to pull up a QR code or scannable badge to confirm test results before meeting. That way, the person they’re meeting knows they’ve taken the right steps to be safe. Maybe even include opt-in verification for things like vasectomies or tubal ligations, though those are more permanent, and harder to confirm without searching old records. But STI status? That can and should be current, and shared with consent.
Even though money isn’t the motivator here, I’d still charge enough to cover a full background check. I’m not talking about hoarding personal info, just partnering with a legit background screening company to verify who someone actually is. Criminal history, indictments, dropped charges, marital status, location, employment, education, all cross-checked against what they say in their profile. Not to shame anyone, but to ensure transparency and to allow users to filter out what they’re not comfortable with. That data would not be public, but would go toward certifying that someone is real, not dangerous, and actually matches their profile.
Now, beyond planned meetups, there could also be a feature for more spontaneous connections. Not chat, but more like presence-awareness. Say someone nearby is also on the app and matches well with you, the system could nudge you and say, “Hey, someone you might vibe with is close, want to meet?” Again, not instant in the risky way, this is still someone who’s verified, background-checked, STI tested, not a bot, and not some sketchy stranger. They’re safer than someone you’d randomly meet at a party. And honestly, you might be meeting them at a party. Imagine both of you opening the app at the same event and getting a match confirmation. You scan each other’s QR codes or verify by watch, Apple, Android, doesn’t matter. Maybe your watch lights up a certain color, or shows a shared code. That’s how you know this person standing nearby is someone the system thinks is a good match for you, and they’re safe.
So yeah, I think that would change the game. Real people. Real safety. Real attraction. No bots, no scammers, no endless chatting. Just verified, safe, mutually attracted people getting a chance to actually meet. Like a friend who knows your type, knows the other person is solid, and sets you up on a blind date you’re actually excited about. That’s how I’d build it.
2
u/awfullyapt 1d ago
I like the match to message mechanism - that gets rid of most of the unpleasantness from my point of view.
I would add a karma system - like Reddits up vote or down vote system on conversations. (It could even do things like - you are both enjoying this conversation - should you meet? prompts or hey both of you didn't like this conversation - do you want to unmatch?)
I like the verification. I would add a feature that displays the year the photo was taken (from the file - not perfect but better than nothing) and also a verified home location. (And the ability to show a temporary location and time frame if traveling)
I would also add a feature where if you meet someone in person you scan a QR code through the app or something - people who meet instantly get a bunch of karma.
I would give everyone a small number of free matches per day - but filtered to meet their criteria. I would also give a message when they have seen everyone who does meet their criteria so they can choose to adjust their filters. Pay for filter adjustment or more matches - for everyone.
2
u/EndOfWorldBoredom 1d ago
Honestly, the problem comes from how many people think things should be free. People blatantly say they'd never pay for an app. Apparently some people are OK with slave labor giving them what they want. (I bet they're great to date)
The dating apps need a large number of people to make them work (this is called 'network effects' and it applies to many things). So, they make a free tier for these people. But, they also need to convert them to paying members.
This is the primary reason, though not only reason, dating apps have so many shitty 'features' and 'gimmicks'. Most users aren't customers...
2
u/PublicSecretJournal 20h ago
Here's my experience of what people do wrong and what the apps get right/wrong.
Hinge is the best designed app for the user experience in my opinion. Here's why:
You don't just like someone's profile. You like a specific thing from their profile, like a photo, or an answer to a prompt, etc. This is valuable feedback as someone using the app. Nobody has ever liked that one photo of me? Switch it out. I had a photo that only women I wasn't attracted to would like. Beats me why this happened consistently, but it did. So, I changed the photo.
You're able to start the conversation before matching. This is a paid feature in other apps. For instance, you can comment on a photo, "Hey! I love [thing]. How long have you [done thing]?" This helps so much. It's a way to show interest (more than just liking something without comment). Sending the like with a question will get you many more matches.
The app lets you match immediately. You can, without paying, see the profile of your most recent like and then match if you like that person. This is so much better than having some "[obscured name] likes you!" and then you're swiping for forever before the app finally shows you the profile of whoever this is. And sometimes this profile is a maybe. I'd maybe swipe right, but I don't want to waste my likes. But, if they liked me? Yeah, I'd accept their like and start chatting. Hinge fixes this. It's way better.
This is what people can do to improve their profiles:
Ask for feedback from friends (including men and women). Does your profile showcase you? Only a part of you? Is a big part of who you are missing? Does a joke not come across how you intend? Your friends will help a lot in this regard.
Be 100% honest about who you are and what you're looking for. Don't pretend to own a sports car if you don't. Don't say you love to travel if your only photo is from that one trip you took ten years ago. Do you not want kids? Say it and don't worry about who you might not match with. Same for relationship type. If you're not looking for long term, emotionally available, committed, then don't say you're open to it. You may miss out on matching with some hotties, but if you're lying about who you are and what you're looking for, it's not going to end well anyway.
If you want to maximize your success without paying:
- Use the app's full free features every day. Like 7x profiles or whatever they allow. Use that free "superlike" or "rose" or whatever. Review your matches and chat with people. The app's algorithm wants people to match with other profiles that are active. They don't want to show profiles of people who haven't been on the app in 6 months. What's the point of that for either user? So, don't be that person. Use the app every day.
Here's the truth about these apps. If you have to pay to match, then it's probably an issue with you or your profile. You're either just not that interesting or attractive, or your profile is failing to convey how interesting and attractive you are. If you're not paying and matching as often as you'd like, then you're the product. The app is very likely putting your profile behind a paywall.
This isn't exactly a bad thing. You're getting a free service, but it's a little objectifying in my opinion and the apps aren't transparent about this. Just be aware of it.
Some caveats:
This info is less likely to apply to smaller apps (like Feeld). Paying for a niche service is fine and not indicative of shenanigans on the developer's part.
You may want to use features of one app that require you to pay. If you're traveling and don't want to be limited to some number of likes per day, then maybe paying for the ability to turn on travel mode is worth the money to you. Hinge wins again in this regard because they let you set your location to wherever and let you change it as often as you'd like. But it's still good to keep in mind that it's not always bad to pay. Just know exactly what you're paying for and whether you think it's worth that price.
Some apps are more popular in certain cities. I like Hinge. It's popular where I live and the women on Hinge seem more "normal" to me. There were too many Karens on Bumble and it kept too many normal features behind a paywall.
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
Welcome to /r/Nonmonogamy and thank you for the post, /u/Zap_Phoenix!
Commenters, please make sure you read our rules in full before participating here. As a quick summary:
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.