Author |
Message |
Mocha
Member
08-12-2001
| Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 11:29 am
Lol I remember him Kar!
|
Mocha
Member
08-12-2001
| Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 11:32 am
Oh I've also seen on the Planet that there are alot of married men looking just for the physical thing. It's very odd and they're not even trying to hide it.
|
Eeyoreslament
Member
07-20-2003
| Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 11:51 am
Spygirl - That is interesting that you talk about the psychological matching behind eHarmony. What matching do they do? Are they using attachment styles? Do they put people together that will *complement* each other's traits, or are they putting people together that are the same? I ask this because my bf is very quiet and passive, and I (as you know) tend to be outspoken and more dominant. It's seems to work well. Other times I have dated other outgoing people and it has never lasted very long. Like a battle of wills, I guess. Sorry if this takes the discussion in a different trajectory. Feel free to answer in my folder if you want. I was just curious about the methodology that you alluded to. :-) ======================================================= I personally have never looked online for dating. I meet a lot of people in my life, as I am fairly active with school, and work, and tend to meet lots of people going out with friends. I guess it helps that I am not hideous too, and I am smiley and outgoing in RL. My best friend OTOH just hates talking to people in strange situations. She's the type that will covet the donut counter guy for years, but never say anything to him. She's used Lavalife, and has met a few really great people. I personally think her relationships end because of her own personal issues, but the Lavalife service has treated her well. She's 30, and refuses to put up a picture, and states a big long-winded, witty reason in her profile. It works too. She's very pretty, and anyone who invests the time getting to know her, are rewarded when they do set their eyes on her. I would imagine it's easier to find "matches" on the more populated dating services, as there are more to choose from.
|
Bobbie_552001
Member
03-26-2003
| Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 12:01 pm
I've used Match in the past. I met some really great guys on there, and then there was the time.... I also used UDate. Its a dating service that will also let you chat. Mocha....just remember you get what you pay for. 
|
Costacat
Member
07-15-2000
| Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 12:02 pm
An anecdotal story for you all... When online dating was not even a glimmer in anyone's brain, I worked for a match company. They did computerized matches, but they had a real process for it. 1. People would telemarket prospective new "clients" and set up an appointment. 2. The company would then send out a sales person to complete a questionnaire and "close" the deal. 3. They were quite sexist in that 90% of the appointments I had (I was a "closer") were with men. 4. There were a lot of really pathetic men interested in making matches. Of all the men I "met" (none of whom I could date since I worked for this company), only a couple of them would've been someone I'd be interested in meeting/dating. This company was pretty conscientious about making matches though. They did both complementary and oppositional matches, depending on what the characteristic or personality trait was. I know they had successful matches. And I recall that they were quite expensive. There are also other personalized match services. Not online ones. These services are quite expensive, but they seem to have good results, too. If I was ever gonna consider a dating service again, I'd pay the bucks for one of these. I kinda like how they do all the work first (so you don't end up with exaggerated traits, such as a man saying he's 6'0" when he's clearly 5'8"!). These services really do a good job screening potential candidates, and they do a good job of culling out the "weird" ones! 
|
Mocha
Member
08-12-2001
| Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 12:15 pm
The tv show Love Inc is about a dating service, it's on UPN. Lol Bobbie, I hear ya.
|
Max
Moderator
08-12-2000
| Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 12:55 pm
I know a couple of people who tried eHarmony and after completing all the questionnaires got polite messages that they weren't suited for the service. LOL I'm not sure if that means they're unique in a good way or a bad way! The tests that eHarmony gives are psychological evaluations that I think are a mixture of kind of a Meyers-Briggs thing and some home-grown principles of the founder. They are all based in psychology and therefore have some validity in helping match you to compatible prospects. The service is designed to bring folks together who want a long-term relationship leading to marriage. Seems to me I've read that it's also geared towards Christian matches. So, if you're not looking for an LTR or if you are out of the norm in your belief system (for example, if you're Wikka or something, I suppose), then you might get the "Thanks but no thanks" response. However, if you make it through their testing and are accepted as a member and then don't get any matches. . . well, I guess it's partly a function of how narrow or broad you've made your criteria (as was mentioned, 30-mile versus 90-mile radius) and/or how lucky you are at the moment that they've got someone who's suitable for you. 
|
Vacanick
Member
07-12-2004
| Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 1:03 pm
I agree with you Max ... I believe it's about how lucky you are at the moment. It's about timing!
|
Costacat
Member
07-15-2000
| Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 1:10 pm
Wikka? Wiki? Wiccan? 
|
Max
Moderator
08-12-2000
| Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 1:17 pm
wikky wakky! LOL 
|
Mocha
Member
08-12-2001
| Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 1:27 pm
Yeah I had that thanks but we have no matches for you. It was like the soup natzi all over again. No Soup For You, Next!
|
Merrysea
Member
08-13-2004
| Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 2:04 pm
I tried eHarmony, but didn't have any success. I was contacted by one guy who said that I should post a picture. I purposely didn't because I thought the premise was on being compatible inside, not outside.
|
Schoolmarm
Member
02-18-2001
| Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 2:37 pm
I got some really great matches from eHarmony, but they were all from guys who lived in Missouri, Tennessee, Arkansas, Texas, Indiana, etc. etc. I don't live in any of these states. They really looked like great guys. I only paid for a month since they didn't seem to have anyone within a 100 miles radius. Go figure. Match.com doesn't really screen their applicants. There are some great people there, but lots are married and just looking for action. I met one guy who was really nice on that site. I was also stalked at my office from someone who figured out who I was from my profile. AmericanSingles.com sends me some interesting matches. Again a wide variety of locations. I will never put a picture up on these sites. I have lots of students who used the sites. It is kind of strange to see their profiles. Probably freaks them out if they figure out mine. Since the stalking, I don't disclose many details. What was that site where the ex or sister or mother of the guy wrote up his profile and acted as a matchmaker? If you had a single friend, you could recommend them. It was fun. Ok...I just found it: GreatBoyfriends.com Took a tool around. Too bad I don't live in Chicago.
|
Spygirl
Board Administrator
04-23-2001
| Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 3:09 pm
Eeyore, Max answered your question quite well. The only thing I would add about how eH works is that it really looks at your likes and dislikes - in other words - what you find acceptable and what you don't. It isn't so much about compatibility like "sameness", but more about what kinds of "differences" are typically do-able and which ones are not. As we all know, there are a bazillion exceptions because we are complicated humans with our own quirks, but the match process works off of "typical". When you factor in the "things I cannot ever tolerate in a partner" and you have some tangible match potential. It takes about 90-120 minutes to complete the profile (I did it twice - the second time to update my profile after 2 years) and I took it quite seriously. Both times took a month before there were any matches for me. The first time I know it was because I lived in a pretty remote part of Louisiana and eH was brand new at the time. In fact, that was long before he started his commercials. And to answer your question, Julie, I was dating two men at the same time that shared the same first name, so I referenced them on here as #1 and #2. I married #2 
|
Eeyoreslament
Member
07-20-2003
| Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 3:13 pm
I almost forgot, a lot of my friends at school (younger people in their 20s) use those sites like Hi5 and Friendster and MySpace. One guy I know met his gf on there, and seriously, I can't believe what a great match they are. Those sites are based on the fact that you know common people. It's good in the sense that you don't have to worry about going too far out of your personal realm.
|
Pamy
Member
01-02-2002
| Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 6:01 pm
I met Bill at Love@aol.com..dont even know if that's still around
|
Tabbyking
Member
03-11-2002
| Friday, January 27, 2006 - 6:27 pm
my niece met her first husband on cupid or something. he was a disaster: never held a job, lived with mom, wore my niece's panties, etc. so after she divorced him, she went to eharmony. and got a very nasty message from the guy they hooked her up with as a 'great match'. it was her ex-husband! she is now engaged to a very nice man who runs the bingo sessions at the indian casino near me. she did meet him online, too, though. after getting hooked up with the same guy twice, i wouldn't have gone online again! worked for her, though, i guess. some day, i'll have you all laughing about the guy i met through a personal ad in the late 70's...once the nightmares pass LOL
|
Tabbyking
Member
03-11-2002
| Friday, January 27, 2006 - 6:28 pm
pamy, you and sir bill are the best example of a truly great love match!! so yes, it does work for some, but not most. you two really got lucky!
|
Pamy
Member
01-02-2002
| Friday, January 27, 2006 - 6:52 pm
well, Bill got lucky
|
Tabbyking
Member
03-11-2002
| Friday, January 27, 2006 - 7:31 pm
i totally agree!!
|
Abby7
Member
07-17-2002
| Friday, January 27, 2006 - 7:41 pm
oh please, pamy! you are saying you didn't get lucky too??? pfft!!!!!!!! lol
|
Pamy
Member
01-02-2002
| Friday, January 27, 2006 - 8:38 pm
I was talking about our first date
|
Mocha
Member
08-12-2001
| Saturday, January 28, 2006 - 9:24 am
Aack!
|
Seamonkey
Moderator
09-07-2000
| Saturday, January 28, 2006 - 3:46 pm

|
Tabbyking
Member
03-11-2002
| Saturday, January 28, 2006 - 7:00 pm
perhaps that's TMI, pamy!!! although i did laugh out loud. aha, lucky bill, indeed. and you lucked out, too, right? first date, hehehehehhe! tabby wipes tears of mirth, and possibly envy, out of eyes.
|
|