There's a new internet site out there called Chatroulette. Basically, it lets you chat with random strangers and then hit next and move on whenever you get bored with that person. It's a harmless diversion! It's the kind of thing you know everyone you know is going to do once. Like sex in a turnpike dunkin donuts bathroom. It's not the kind of thing anyone would think twice about except for the fact that it's on the...internet! It's not a craze - the Macarana was a craze! This is an internet site that will very quickly become a repository of 5% curiosity-seekers and 95% free-floating dongs.

http://watch.thecomedynetwork.ca/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart/headlines/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart---march-2010/clip273960#clip273960

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Right smack on The Association for Psychological Science's front page is an excerpt from 50 Great Myths of Popular Psychology: #27 - In Romance, Opposites Attract. It's a very curious little piece -- considering the authors are taking such a, well, arrogant stand, one would expect they'd be right in there with significant scientific data to back them up. I mean, this is a scientific site. I assume.

Anyways, it takes almost a third of the piece to even get to the argument - but you have to work for it. After wading through a three-paragraph play-by-play of a generic "opposites attract" film storyline which illustrates for us that Hollywood, When Harry Met Sally and Maid In Manhattan are at the root of all popular culture confusion as to how we could possibly be so misled as to the ways of love - the authors finally quote a study from 1991 with data proving...the opposite of their argument. Yes, haha. Psychologist Lynn McCutcheon apparently found that 77% of undergraduates agreed that opposites attract in relationships. Um, okay - next?  Harville Hendrix from dating site Soulmatch (Soulmatch? really? Out of all the sites in all the world?) is quoted, and really, he sounds like an inexplicably obscure source until you google him and find out that he was on Oprah -- makes yet another great point opposite (haha again) to the author's argument: "The great myth in our culture [...] is that compatibility is the grounds for a relationship—actually, compatibility is grounds for boredom." So. 2 for opposites actually do attract. 0 (plus a weird, badly written screenplay treatment) for Myth #27.

Okay. So here we are, halfway into the article - and now the authors get out the big guns:  "dozens of studies demonstrate that people with similar personality traits are more likely to be attracted to each other than people with dissimilar personality traits." Great! Which ones? The authors cite two: the research of Donn Byrne and a study by biologists Peter Buston and Stephen Emlen. Byrne's research is summed up without getting into any real detail - we're told he "demonstrates that the more similar someone's attitudes (for example, political views) are to ours, the more we tend to like that person. Interestingly, statistical analysis shows proportionally more similarity in attitudes leads to proportionally more liking." Hold the presses -  that sounds like a ground-breaking scientific discovery! I'm going to like someone more...if they like the same things as me? Did anyone alert Obama??

You might like to know that the study was published in 1961 - something the authors didn't think was relevant. Another little tidbit they leave out? According to PsychWiki's article Interpersonal Attraction, Byrne's "finding is often criticized for its failure to satisfy external validity, since there was no actual human interaction."  Right. But hey, you say potato, I say potato...what's a little human interaction when it comes to evaluating attraction?

The Buston and Emlen study seems valid enough - 1,000 participants were asked to rank characteristics they look for in a mate - but the authors immediately discredit them by adding "we shouldn't take the Buston and Emlen findings too far, since they're based entirely on self-report." Huh. Take a look at PsychWiki's article - gee, they've managed to find a whole bunch of sources on this subject. Why on earth would you choose one that you'd have to add a disclaimer for...but hide the full truth on the other one? It's just sloppy.

The authors come to the ultimate conclusion that they like their point of view even though their evidence isn't conslusive - so it's probably much safer for all the nerds with messy hair to keep dating nerds with messy hair. And what they're really saying is: don't upset the status quo. Don't step out of your comfort zone. Cheerleaders should date the quarterback, smart people should only consider singles with qualifying IQs and if you just moved to the Big Apple from a farm in Wisconsin, holy christ don't even think of trying to meet a woman who works on wall street - even if all you've wondered about for the last five years, sitting in the barn milking Bob (your cow) and watching HBO, was the day you might get the chance to be a stay-at-home dad for a hot, super-agressive woman who complements your quiet, soothing way. But you'll never get to meet your wall street Nancy Botwin. Because opposites don't attract. Or didn't you hear? Total myth.

For an opposite view on attraction research, check out these (much more) recent studies:

Opposites Attract: How Genetics Influences Humans To Choose Their Mates - Science Daily (May 2009)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090525105435.htm

Opposites attract: Compatibility's in the genes - MSNBC/LiveScience (Feb 2007)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17048922/ns/health-livescience/

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Why should you help? Well, I'm a creative writing grad, and let's face it - I'm never going to cure cancer. Building a dating site is really a soul-killing venture of its own: this is a billion-dollar industry everyone wants a piece of without (as a far as I can tell) any genuine interest in helping the daters themselves. And yet, the irony is that the system can actually work. I mean - anyone who meets online successfully now is running just ridiculous odds. A fluke. Have I mentioned that Mr. Rogers is still around? Hmm...only took signing up on 26 sites, ditching Canada and driving three hours to another city - but who's counting? Online dating doesn't have to be this random or well, long-distance. The whole point should be about making your life less stressful - more streamlined. Ease of use. Back to the never curing cancer thing - maybe I can't make a difference in the nobel-peace-prize realm, but I can develop OPD as a platform that sets out to change the industry standards for online dating.

So how about helping us with a little market research - which could eventually help your single friends be as happy as you are? This will involve a bit of badgering on your part. As in tracking down said single friends ("single friends" meaning "male," "employed/professional,"  and hope upon hope somewhere within the 30-40-ish age range) and telling them what fun our teeny 16-question survey is to fill out! By multiple choice! Five minutes tops. I will personally call to thank each one by skype! And sing Oh Canada! Okay, maybe not. Oh, what the hell, sure. Actually - I'll sing it in French! ha ha.

Seriously - I know women. You know, being one. But more than that, women are much more forthcoming when it comes to feelings and relationships. Men are the great mystery. What do you want? We want to know. If you share, we might actually try to do something about it. Just saying.

OPD Survey Link for the magical unicorns known as single men with careers:

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/OPDm

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Happy New Year! Yep, I'm back - just needed a mini-break from stranger-dating and shopping my life all over the internet! I know, I know, hard to imagine. Keep your eyes on this space- we're starting design work on the new site at the end of the week, excitingness is rolling full steam ahead! And of course more dating...um, fun. ha! Well, that is if there are any more dates to be nailed down in Vancouver...ok, dates I can convince myself to go on. I'm three days off my 30 days deadline but have no fear, I'll keep plugging along. I'm dedicated like that. In the meantime, I thought I'd leave you with a little gem from SeekingArrangement:

So what's my little gem? I signed up without a picture and received this wonderful little profile - it had a message attached, but you can't read them unless you submit a pic (damn!). I've since canceled my account and yet I have full access to the profile.  Forever. Oh Seattle Santa, leg and ass man, since you're so proud of yourself, I thought it only fair to make your offering available to everyone. Hey! Maybe a sugar baby will get in touch through FindMeDateMe! It's like kismet.

Seattle Santa Leg And Ass Man's Profile

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

...but damn I wish I was!

I refuse to admit that OkCupid deserves praise for introducing us though. If I had been using the site for non-research purposes I would have dismissed Mr. Rogers based on his checking off of the religious beliefs box as "Christianity and somewhat serious about it".  Not that there's anything wrong with having religious beliefs! But if you make a point of noting it on your profile, usually it's because you're a crackpot zealot. But being that Mr. Rogers had everything else going in his favor - and good god, the pickings were slim - I thought I'd go with it and hope he wasn't, you know, a nut.

As it happens, after hanging out with Mr. Rogers for the better part of the afternoon yesterday, I'm pretty sure he's not a nut. And I'd also tell him to get new pictures except then everyone else would figure out how adorable he really is and well, even though I live way up here on the other side of the border I'd just as soon not help other women to date him. Um, yet.  (You know how on POF women on a guy's favorites list can leave a note about how great he is, telling you to totally give him a chance? Right. There's a reason he's being thrown back into the sea. If they actually cared they'd shut up. Or blog about him under a different name.)

Anyways, Mr. Rogers is also very frustrated with online dating. While I've found OkCupid to be at least less freaky than other sites, Mr. Rogers says he finds that women tend to put up only one pic - usually a headshot - as a trick to avoid showing what they really look like. And then either avoid ever meeting in person - or when they do, look nothing like he expected. And not in a good way. He also tried out Match and said he came away after three months without a single date. (I've also found Match to be a wasteland for trying to connect with people - but then, now that I think about it I only had one pic up...) He countered my stories of creepy guy pics in basements and laundry rooms with emails from women who clearly looked like crack addicts. Fun times all this profile and pic dating!

I did say you'd get an loV-blog but as it turns out, it's a neighborly day in this beautywood and I'm signing off until the New Year!

Happy 2010!

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

What - did you think I'd given up? Never! Haven't you heard that the
ratio of (eligible awesome) men to women in Vancouver is 1/8? May not
be a proven ratio, but I'm starting to believe it - although I don't
think it's just Vancouver. I think it's men 30-40. Anyways - I have a
date with a seemingly eligible friendly elementary school teacher from
OkCupid  - from a suburb of Seattle - and I'll be damned if he's the
first teacher I've come across on a dating site. So across the border
I go to meet MR. ROGERS! (Tomorrow at noon - you'll have to hang on a
day for the re-cap, but yes, a new lov-blog you'll get!)

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Here's what it comes down to: someone decided long ago that the concept of dating online would mean forgoing all the things we normally get to do when we date in the real world. Like being allowed to discover personal details - or have them revealed to you based on trust. In online dating world you check off a box if you want to date or have a relationship - or get married. In online dating world you let everyone know right up front whether or not you intend to have children. You tell the entire world whether you drink, smoke or do drugs. Or you lie about it. But it's right there on your profile. Sometimes you even have to answer questions about how you feel about one night stands, how important you feel sex is in a relationship, and how sexual a person you are - before you're even allowed to complete your profile.

Seriously? I mean - seriously??

These are personal questions people! If a guy asks me how I feel about marriage and kids on the first - let alone third date - and yes, it does happen, women aren't the only ones with ticking clocks - I'd be looking for an exit route. But online dating has the system completely screwed up. After all, why not discuss marriage and kids with a complete stranger? You know everything about their preferences; background-color: all neatly checked off on their profile! And on the flip side - why bother even considering a dater who doesn't check off the box for "want kids" if you do? Heck, why bother getting to know anyone. Clearly you can tell everything from their picture and profile. What's left for the date?

There are so many people out there genuinely trying to connect - it's mind-boggling. And yet every site I sign up on has a new gimmick - on top of more grocery-list profiles to shop. Is this really what you want? It's not what I want. I want a solution. Oh, wait - I'm working on one.

In the meantime, if you do want to meet peeps online, here's a late xmas/holiday/hannukah gift: you can use FINDMEDATEME to contact members you've searched from paid sites...and not pay. Woop. (I have nothing to do with the service - there's just nothing worth paying for on the paid sites. If they want to make their profiles public, searchable and hackable for however FMDM does it? Pfft. Go nuts.)

If you test FMDM out, swing by and share!

*Feb 17th, 2010 - I just checked the link and FMDM seems to be gone! If you're still curious, here's the link to the home page which was cached on Google January 20th:

Google's cache of http://www.findmedateme.com/

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Just in case you needed a quick break from all the turkey, here's the quick and dirty lowdown on all the dating insanity! Brief notes on a few sites below and I'll be back tomorrow to pontificate on the meaning of it all...Happy Christmas!

ON THE CHOPPING BLOCK: Singlesnet, Be2, Match, Chemistry, Jdate, Nerve/Fastcupid, Eharmony, Yahoo! Personals, TrulyMadlyDating, BeautifulPeople

BEEN THERE, DONE THAT: Lavalife, PlentyofTweeps, PlentyofFish, DatingBetter

BRAND SPANKING NEW: Flirtbox, Kizmeet, OkCupid, Millionairematch, Friendfinder, SeekingArrangement, BadOnlineDates, Spark, Omnidate

Millionairematch: what? I have to try them all! Yes, it's as hokey as it sounds. Signed up on this one for Vancouver - very few in metro Van and I'd be very, very surprised if any of these men actually had any money. Really guys? Really? I'd imagine any self-respecting millionaire wouldn't want a public, searchable profile - but hey, that's just me.

Seekingarrangment - Ha! ....and I’m pretty sure if you’re signed up on this one, you’re a guaranteed douchebag! Oops, did I say that out loud? I’m so glad that Seekingarrangement runs this warning as you sign your rights away: “Please take note that we prohibit anyone from promoting illegal activities (such as prostitution)… If you are an ESCORT, please do not join this website.” – ooo, I’m sure that works wonders! I had to sign up as a "sugar baby" and specify the monthly budget of support I was looking for (I went with "open/negotiable") and yes, I did throw up in my mouth, just a little. Ok, a lot. But they offered a lifetime membership to Lindsay Lohan after she got dumped by Samantha Ronson last spring (or hadn’t you heard?) – I mean, how could I not investigate such an amazing opportunity for a young, screwed up woman to post her entire life in a public, searchable space so that she can sort through profiles of um….I dunno. Dirtbags with gobs of money? Or dirtbags pretending to have gobs of money? Gee, I wonder if Lindsay turned them down! Totally classy Sugar Baby pic (#1) is below.

Datingbetter: Ever try searching your username after signing up on one of these sites? Dating.com makes your profile public and searchable to members -- and to the public. As in, my username popped up right at the top of my google search and then gave me complete access to the profile and pic while I was logged out of my account. (Plenty of Tweeps does the same thing). Datingbetter is another classy one using pics of hooker-women in their designs. Which is fine if that’s what you’re selling – but they say it’s not. Make up your own mind: Pic #2

See the full gallery on Posterous

Singlesnet: Seriously, not a collection of men who inspire confidence and 2/3 of “local” Vancouver choices are in Washington. If only pics were taken by someone who could explain to these guys that a sunny day and a smile do wonders for first impressions...also that bare lightbulbs and your bleak basement/laundry room clearly visible in pic make you look like the unabomber. Just saying.

OmniDate: Virtual dating! Award winner for creepiest dating site I’ve signed up on to date - let alone creepiest collection of male pics. If there was anything to pay attention to in their profiles I didn't notice because I was too baffled by the rest of it. Why, why, why would I want to use an Avatar that looks like a hooker to represent me during an online date with men who look like guys I'd cross the street to avoid?

OkCupid: Described as “free, fun & smart” – and so far, does seem to be. Profiles are very well written – I have to admit I did actually go back to re-write mine because I felt like an underachiever after reading some of the interesting ones. No Vancouver presence unfortunately, so I signed up for Seattle - and even then I'm getting contacted by guys in Portland. Overall I wish that there was less going on with the site – and that they’d stop badgering me to play the match games. But generally this one seems like a big plus.I mean, considering the alternatives.

PlentyofTweeps: Sent emails and “likes” to three guys on Plenty of Tweeps – asked if they’d like to meet for coffee. Received one response after a few days:

Subject: Re: hi

What are your qualifications?

Have we met?

Ummm….right. Elected not to respond. The Vancouver-based pool of 30 – 40 year olds remained unchanged in the 2 1/2 odd weeks since I signed up: including one co-founder twice (who, from his twitter feed, appears to be attached), his business partner, another member I’ve been advised has a girlfriend and is only there for research purposes, and qualifications guy who doesn’t seem to understand the concept of a dating site. After finding out that POT profiles are searchable on google (as noted above), decided to delete my account. Except go figure, there’s nowhere to do it! Clever. And extremely annoying. So I deleted the twitter account I created for the site. Which still, even more frustrating, leaves my photo up on the site as a recent visitor and dead link. Apparently I have to deal with my profile footprints surviving on POT until site traffic eventually tramples out my path. Ugh.

Badonlinedates: “This dating and social network has been created to turn negative dating experiences into positive ones” – ok, fair enough. The site is indeed a bit quirky, there's some kind of a web series I couldn't be bothered to watch, if you care, you can upload video content and you do get to add a little blurb about your worst date, which is fun. But the site doesn't actually do anything about changing the dating process. Same old profile sign-ups, same old gallery search and shopping. And zero West Coast presence: 2 men within 100 miles of Seattle . 79 within 100 miles of a Beverly Hills zip code.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

*At the time of this posting not a single one of the 7 matches I initiated communication with - now going on 13 days from the first - have responded, and it's been two days since Chemistry has sent any new matches. The last one they sent? Based in Washington. So helpful. My email was also not regarding "communication times" - I specifically addressed the validity of Chemistry's memberships. Do you see them confirming that all matches sent are of course active, subscribed members of their community anywhere in this email? I don't. You'd think that would have been an easy one to confirm. If it was true.

Entered on 12/18/2009 at 09:15:13 by Ysauly C:

Dear Member,

Thanks for your question about response times during the guided communication process. We hope that this email gives you the information you need.

Why hasn't your match responded? It's hard to say. There are a number of possible explanations: they may be out of town, busy with work, or they simply may not check the site very often.

You have two options. You can choose to continue waiting for this match to respond, or you can go ahead and close this match by transferring their profile to your Archives. It's up to you.

Want to close this match? Click Chemistry to go to your Active Matches. Click on Not Interested next to their name to move their profile to your Archives.

Please take a moment to fill out this survey to let us know how we are performing.
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=a5oX1Z_2f14rEov_2bj7JCb1kw_3d_3d

Best of luck,

Chemistry.com
Customer Care Representative
Ysauly C.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

argh...Perfect Match canceled today (not his fault since I had to cancel at the last minute yesterday) but he can't reschedule until next week. I need to step it up with the date-scheduling or I'll be halfway through the month with only two dates under my belt! Problem I'm finding is that the guys on Match are really hard to pin down to an actual in-person date: I've been emailing with a few - some have even been oddly rude - why respond if you're not going to be nice?? Chemistry is still an absolute mystery as to how to connect beyond the guided steps and am now wondering whether these profiles are active members considering there's SO little movement. Haven't communicated with a single member directly yet.

Truly Madly isn't local enough (I have a rather eager suitor in the UK - don't care how cute he is, I'm not flying to the UK to date a stranger!), and I haven't seen any movement on Plenty of Tweeps...but to be fair I didn't approach anyone because I thought the law of averages (like on POF) had to work out that at least ONE guy would say hi. Although it seemed to be mostly tech guys, so maybe law of averages didn't apply. Oh who knows. Screw it. Time to be aggressive! Which unfortunately means dropping more money on memberships so I don't have to wait around like a wilting flower to get some random guy's email...eventually.

You know - this is a very different online dating landscape. Used to be that as a girl - you could join a site and know that you'd never need to pay because the guys well,  would. And there would be generally interesting guys somewhere in the midst of the haystack. SOMEWHERE. And once these haystack men made contact, you could then email back without having to pay yourself. I can't quite figure out why, but this is no longer the case. Partially it's the change in how memberships are set up - but partially it's how men are using the sites. Or maybe who. I'm not really sure I understand who the men are - but apparently they vastly outnumber the women by hundreds of thousands. Okay, I'm making that number up. I have no idea.

Anyways - I'm on it! Even if I have to set 5 dates a day, I'll do it! Just, you know, don't expect me to keep them straight. Or to not whine about it.

p.s. This doesn't count, but I have "yay it's friday" drinks with Russian Roulette on Friday. He said he's "warming up to the idea of "Russian Roulette Episode 2: French Connection". Ha! I think I forgot to mention he's French. That's not like "Episode 2: Guys who like Role Playing" - get your minds out of the gutter! Anyways, he knows that hanging out with me before the end of 30 Sites means anything is fair game for the blog - but then, he knows where to come back to read about it and technically has every right to blow my cover if I trash him. So fair game both ways.  woo!

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Einstein was very helpful in shedding light on how EHarmony's matching system actually works. Basically, he told me to stop pussyfooting around what I want. I thought the whole point of grinding my teeth through the psychological profiling was so they'd find people who matched me based on those characteristics. Apparently not. Einstein said he wasn't even sure what any of that ended up being used for: the system really only takes what you ask for into consideration in the section where you specify what you'd like in a partner. Which is the part where I usually go...well, as long as he's over 6 feet I'm good. And ignore the rest. Except that it seems that within EHarmony's system, anything checked off at a level less than “utmost importance” will make the system disregard.  So based on the fact that I pretty much have no choices listed for what I want in a partner - including height (I think I chose "would be nice") - EHarmony is, indeed, sending me every single guy in Vancouver. Fantastic.

Can we all please take a moment here and think about what this means? Maybe this won't feel like quite the pie in the face that it is until until you've filled out 10 of these profiles (yes, 10 - new sites!) in less than a week - and, more to the point, paid (for almost all of) them - but EHarmony and Chemistry in particular, are promising lonely singles a chance at happiness based on having access to a highly touted psychological matching system which in the end plays little or no part in how the companies execute the process itself. Which they don't explain in the slightest. But why would they, right? This is an industry built on the misery of others - and their level of success is measured on keeping you just unhappy enough that you'll keep paying, keep thinking that love will be right around the corner if you just hang on. Because they know what they're doing. They have the system. It's still all Shamwow though, right? With classier editing and a better timeslot.

It's vaguely worth noting here that I have absolutely no first-hand knowledge of the ACTUAL inner workings of the algorithms EHarmony and Chemistry match by. Just my first-hand annoyance. And Einstein's theory of relative ignorance. Ha Ha.

New dates!

Thursday: Perfect Match! Ha! Match thinks this guy is 86% perfect for me - and so did Chemistry, except he says he's never even subscribed. ooo the intrigue!

Sunday: Lawyer from POF...well, they're only 15 min. dates - I can be curious for round 2! Did I tell you about the lonely firefighter yet? I met a lonely firefighter. Um, somewhere. I forget.

Site Re-Cap:

CLOSED PROFILES

Lavalife - uuuugh (see previous entries). Also not a peep other than the "we'll get back to you in 24 hours!" auto-response. stellar.

Plenty of Fish - received 26 emails from guys I'd never want to talk to. Mostly felt creepy. The guys I contacted myself turned out much better obviously, clearly if you're willing to sift through the huge, huge haystack it's fine for what it is....(Russian Roulette got back in touch to apologize for how our coffee ended and I think we're going to hang out when this whole thing is over...so that I don't have to write about him again!) but not excited to contact others and just generally feel uncomfortable having my photo and profile up - even under a different name. Clicking on the guys who have viewed my profile was not fun either.

NEW -

Nerve.com - dating site is actually through fastcupid.com. Same as usual although very few in Vancouver and it wouldn't let me switch to Seattle once my profile was up.

Yahoo Personals - large dating population in Vancouver. Was surprised to find out this is a paid site - had understood it was free. Is technically free to sign up and make profile searchable - not sure how long I can coast along as free if I want to get in touch with others though. Will leave it until profile is approved in 24 hours in any case. They have a nice feature that I haven't seen else where: you can choose to withhold your profile as private and only display to people you contact - also make a big deal about registering with a first name instead of a "username".

Singlesnet.com - Same old but quick and painless sign up. Another one of these US sites that I think I'll need to switch my location to Seattle for...but I'll give it a couple days (there was a big "lots of Canadian singles!" ad on the front page but when I signed up the quick matches were all in the US and...Chilliwack. yay.)

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Eager, friendly non-creepy men with smart profiles, sweet pics and a sense of humor? Can it be? We shall see! Philosopher is tonight (there's something a little odd about his job vs. his training, but whatever - he's letting me time the date! woo hoo!) and I'm trying to maneuver Muppet Man right before. Because it's much more fun when I'm frazzled of course. Ooo - I was so entertained by his profile and pics that I didn't even check to see how tall he is, imagine that. Although it could have been because I was trying to escape this one guy who keeps stalking me on IM. Do not love the IM function on any of the sites. You'd think if you ignore someone once they'd get that you're not interested...but noooo.

Note to online dating men: stalking = bad. More on that tomorrow! If I can coerce my friend into helping out on her lunch break I will attempt: street-dating! oh I am so not kidding. Unsuspecting pedestrians of downtown Vancouver, brace yourselves! (Although maybe on Saturday. Not sure I can harass AND shoot one-handed video. I am woman, but not sure I am that much of woman.) Either way - new loV-blog tomorrow!

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

I signed up on your site just under a week ago - today is the first day I had the chance to check in. I couldn't understand why I was looking at my little mailbox - with smile/winky things in all three sections: dating, relationship and intimate. I knew I had only set up one profile for the relationship section - and I was pretty sure no one can see or contact you unless you're both in the same section. So imagine my shock when I found my way to SETTINGS and saw that my profile and picture were in all THREE sections. Let me repeat the key part just in case you missed it: my photo and profile have been public in your INTIMATE section since Thursday. Without my knowledge or consent.

I have used Lava on and off for years. I am well aware of how the site works and that if I ever wanted my profile in a particular section it had to be added each time. I remember this specifically because it was always a bit tedious to repeat. But it was definitely a choice - without question for the intimate side! Which isn't just "intimate" - it's hardcore, an extremely personal and specific choice to make, not to mention a horrendous place to find out that your very recognizable photo has been posted for the last four days! I'm absolutely furious and I just don't understand. I went through your extensive legal disclaimers: code of ethics, terms of use and privacy statement - there isn't a single word of warning to users explaining that profiles will immediately be posted in all three sections unless preferences are changed. Nothing even to release you from this kind of liability - which I have to say is well, surprising considering you've covered all other bases. This is clearly a new change - since what, the new membership fee structure from this summer? From where I'm standing this looks like a deliberately sneaky and underhanded omission.

I actually came back to the site today intending to pay a membership fee. Now I feel sick.

Of course I can't argue that other sneaky clause - oh I'm sure you know the one - the new spiffy one buried in the Terms of Use, which is linked all teeny right at sign-up? Juust so we won't have the foggiest that we're actually agreeing to hand over our pics for your advertising pleasure across whatever random sites with whatever content you like! Well, not until we realize we're signed up for porn dating, freak and find that handy little settings tab...where all sorts of nifty secrets from your people are revealed! Like a checkbox we had no idea we checked off! (That would be because your Terms of Use? Doesn't give us the option to check one off. Right. Seeing as we'd say no and all.)

So. I would like a legitimate explanation as to how my profile ended up in the intimate -slash-porn-dating section of your site. Might as well include another for how I ended up with the dating profile too - I mean, it's not like I had naughty fairies logging in to post and wink for me.

And while you ignore this email, I'll start looking into how many other members you've pulled this on. Great. (Maybe it's just me, right?)

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

(sent Dec 17th @ 5:45 pm via the internal Chemistry Customer Service "Contact Us!" box)

I was matched with Txxxx here on Chemistry - it had been over a week, hadn't heard anything - and then curiously enough I was matched with him (as an 86% match) on Match.com! So I thought, ok, maybe he's not ignoring me, I might as well send an email..and he got back to me right away! To my surprise he said he remembered filling something out for Chemistry, but that he had never joined the service. So - here I am 9 days into my Chemistry membership and as you'll see in my account, not one of the men I contacted has returned my initial contact. Which I'm starting to seriously wonder about - because even on Match, where I'm finding the guys to be rather rude, I get at least some kind of response. Are these actually active profiles from members of Chemistry? As of today I was also told by the system that there are no more profiles for me. At this point I would like a refund because it's impossible for me to contact members directly by email, I have no proof you actually have active members in your system - basically there's no way for me to actually connect and ask to meet anyone!

Please let me know your thoughts because I whole-heartedly tried out your system: I submitted to your never-ending profiling, tried your matching requirements two different ways, and I'm still getting nowhere! If I'm doing something wrong, please let me know. Otherwise, please refund my membership and terminate my account.

Thank you.

*For those of you who don't know, Chemistry is the fancy-pants service launched by Match to compete with EHarmony.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

p.s. for the record I make a fuss about the friend thing because we hung out for 5 hours! And I was honest about what I was doing! dammit.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

It’s getting fun people! Day 5 and I’m getting asked out on dates…but I can't remember who they are! Oh my god, I’m a guy. Ok, so I’m kidding, sort of – but I’m definitely getting very sweet emails asking for dates...by names that don’t ring a bell. Which is all E-Harmony’s fault. Their user interface is not user friendly by any means – names aren’t associated with pictures when you go down the list, so there’s no quick way to remember who the heck you like. Yes, I suppose I could have paid attention to something like their names if I wanted to be all personal about it – but at this stage? I was just trying to slog through the glut of profiles.

Oh, yes, that. I am now convinced that E-harmony doesn’t do the slightest in terms of special matching. They’ve been overloading me with “meet your new match!” notices just about every hour, and not one profile I've reviewed shows anything to suggest that these men would be a better match for me than for my landlord. E-Harmony has this aura and pedigree surrounding the company because of their supposedly amazing knack for psychological profiling – everyone I spoke to who knew of E-Harmony but had never actually tried the site was even under the impression that it took months to find you the perfect match because of their whole complicated system.

Well, hello everyone, let me be the first to spill the paint on E-Harmony's pristine image: I was asked the exact same psychological profiling questions as on the other sites - just extended and ad nauseum - except they did include a number of questions about my sexual compatibility which I found intrusive and inappropriate (but I answered in the spirit of participation). Matches were produced immediately. Slowly at first, now non-stop. I don’t know for sure, but I'm quite sure I’m being matched with daters simply based on generic preferences like drinking, smoking, location, whether I like to dance or watch movies, want children - you get the point. Which would be fine – except they’re promising something much more in-depth – AND wasted over an hour of my time with their inane psychological profiling. Only to now be sending me basically any guy in Vancouver. Oh, and Blaine, WA. I thought the point of paying was quality over quantity. Seriously? I’m doing better playing Russian roulette with Plenty of Fish. More on that later.

So – back to not knowing who my dates are – E-harmony sent me so many profiles (and remember they have this 50-step “guided communication process”) that the only way I was going to get a date by next week was to cut to the chase: I sent a cut & pasted “hi! Your pic and profile seem sweet – but I can’t deal with this system – here’s my email address if you’d like to chat” email to the top seven. Yes, yes I did. I know, bad me. What else is a girl trying to sincerely date on 30 sites to do? So...there has been a little confusion in the gmail account...along with the Plenty of Fish and Match date scheduling. Sigh. Better than an ordinary life, right?

(And you, if you happen to find me here and were one of my seven of course I meant it and I’m sorry I couldn’t be witty seven different times. Please send your hate mail to E-Harmony)

First dates on Sunday! Video blogs start sunday too! woo hoo!

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

So we’re on Day 3 – sorry, I skipped a day thanks to an earache - and I am still slogging my way through the “guided communicaton steps” with possible daters on Chemistry a nd E-Harmony (how do you ever meet anyone in person this way???) and Match only JUST approved my profile (not exactly sure, but I think they objected to my use of William Shatner’s name – he’s a cousin twice-removed…too personal!). The guided communication steps are possibly the most frustrating thing I’ve ever encountered in regards to a system supposedly set up to encourage you to connect with another human being (well of course it is – they want to slow down the process, right?) - but is the general idea that if you’re dating online you have absolutely no social skills whatsoever? Have now discovered that E-Harmony does give you the option to “fast-track” – skip all the steps and go straight to email – but they give you this huge long disclaimer and personal letter from some doctor about how you should avoid rushing and are you sure this is what you want to do…I clicked yes! And told my hottie pilot he should come find me on MSN. Oh thank god, no more guided communication on E-Harmony at least!

New site sign-ups:

TrulyMadlyDating: Free to set up profile, wander around

Usability: This one was recommended by a friend who had read about in the NY Times – they do seem to have rather impressive reviews but only two male members in Canada between the ages of 28 – 45. One in Vancouver and one in Montreal! I favorited the Vancouver guy – why not! Same old re set up and with the endless check-off profile questions – I did like the addition of this question: how truthfully have you answered these questions? I checked off “very”. (Which wasn’t the most truthful of them all..like I said…I try!)

Lavalife: Free for most things as far as I could tell. I believe if you want to know who has been checking your profile you need to pay, but sending emails is free. I’ll check back with info.

Usability: Lavalife has always been very easy re meeting guys – especially with the IM function (although guys who IM are not looking for relationships) but since Plenty of Fish turned up on the scene word on the street is that profiles are either dead or skewed very old. We’ll see once my pic gets approved in 24 hours. Just realized while writing this – I only set up one profile in the “relationship” section. Lavalife works with three sections: Dating, Relationship, and Intimate (which – if you’ve ever wandered through – is not for the faint of heart). Have to go back and set up a Dating profile too. Crap.

Plenty of Fish: Free.

Usability: Easy as pie if you like window-shopping for your dates. POF is known for having a buffet of young, hot singles to choose from – my general feeling? Doesn’t matter what anyone says on their profiles here, this is the worst kind of virtual meat market.

Yep, my profile is live. Onwards and upwards!

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Four down...26 to go! No, this is just sign-ups. what? you thought I'd be dating already? ha! um, yeah so did I. Keep reading.

Last night I sat down and started out with Plenty of Tweeps (new local baby), Match, Chemistry and Eharmony. Took me less than 6 minutes to sign up for Plenty of Tweeps (yay!) although that would be because everyone is ignoring the request to fill out the personal bio so I did too – which, in the other sign-ups turned out to be the least tedious part. Go figure. Meanwhile I was PRAYING for Chemistry’s “Helen-Fisher vetted” questionnaire to end and had to get drunk just to drag myself to through the last stage of Eharmony’s. (Which also turned out to still be another FIVE pages from the end). I swear I was trying to be as truthful as possible (my knee-jerk response to generic armchair-psychology-style questionnaires is – gasp! – inappropriate sarcasm…but I am TRYING) …and Eharmony was bugging me with their questions about sexual compatibility – which you have to answer – and which really are none of their business or (more to the point) how I would ever choose to look for someone to date by multiple choice – so by the time I got to the short answer “name three things you’re thankful for” I said: my family, Vancouver and potatoes.

Well it’s true. I love them.

So. Quick re-cap.

Plenty of Tweeps: Free.

Usability: meh. We’ll see. Had to sign up for a new twitter account aside from my work one because there’s no way I’d want work connected to the site…it’s just too public. So now Dating Me looks like Loser Me With No Friends. Which kind of works against you in POT world. I know, deep.

Match: Free if I only want to wink. I think I'll do the free winking and let the guys on this one get in touch with me. (Unless I have to pay to read mail...argh, I didn't check. Well, I guess we'll find out!)

Usability: Easy enough, seem to be a lot guys in Vancouver but to be blunt, out of about 60 (40? Quick scan, there was wine) I only saw one attractive pic. Match also in a class action suit about dead profiles – they deny. Curious. Especially since all of these clearly had a note saying active within 24 hours to 3 days. But maybe that's WHY. Ooo - intrigue!

Chemistry: $49.95/ One month – 10 matches for me which I was privvy to after the never-ending profiling, but you have to pay to get in touch. Which I did, oh joys.

Usability: Meh. 2 of the 10 seem of interest. You get 5 new a day. I’m curious if they have that many in Vancouver - this morning there were only 3 new. Where are my 5 dammit! Also the communication set-up is for toddlers – it’s too annoying to explain in full but there are still like, three more baby steps before I can even email with these guys. Shoot me now. For $49/month someone should be able to say hello without jumping hoops. We are not teenagers.

E-Harmony: $59.95/One month – same deal as Chemistry. Have to pay to get in touch and E-Harmony won’t show you pics til you pay. Only got six matches here.

Usability: Also has the fify-ways to Sunday steps before you can actually contact anyone. What does a girl have to do to get a phone number around here?? Kidding. But here’s my question – Eharm’s pricing is very clearly geared towards getting you on their 12-month plan. On the 12-month? $19.95/month (for plunking down $239.40 up front). Not exactly suggesting that their system works is it? Who the heck wants to be on here for a year? Just saying.

All the sites had profile & pic approvals, so I believe I've just been unleashed on the (few) online men of the world...(stay tuned for video blogs - starting later this week!

Permalink | Leave a comment  »