why is there no propper dating site?

[nanook]

proper as in FREE, and you can message people, they can reply, no messages are censored....

i mean for fucks sake. (literally, if you want).

how old is the internet???

why don't we have a proper non centralised social network, where a profile can be set up to serve any need the user wishes, from being a blog like thing, to a friends-network, to a sex-dating thing, to a professional portofolio, where everyone can host several profiles for different purposes, profiles that connect automatically with profiles of equal purpose and with compatible attributes (interests, personality types, locations etc), of course you can add friendships on top of automatic connections....

and international!

i can't believe this is taking so long.

it's as if people love to be isolated, trapped in superficial dishonest random relationships where they are too paranoid to show anything but a mask (facebook), instead of being well connected in a meaning full way.

[Hawkeye]

Why don't you start one up?

You'll no doubt find that it takes a lot of time and effort and would probably want paying for the awesome thing you have given the world. ^^

[nanook]

what a perfect american "if it's not real, let's not think about it, somebody else make it real first, or i don't even want to hear about it" answer. somebody needs to get his N refreshed.

the non-exitance of such a network is certainly not explained by a lack of time and effort and paying or technical intelligence because all of those things are happening in every single endeavor out there, what's missing miraculously is intelligent design. people are doing it all, but they are doing it wrong, giving effort and intelligence to the wrong projects. on purpose i suspect. are people evil and stupid, are their souls sold to the devil before they do anything at all?

if so, i can hardly change that. if i was one of those thousands of guys who have the skills and guts and patience and ambition to create something big, and i did the right thing, and i did it RIGHT, the world would reject it, wouldn't it? if it didn't, surely we would have it RIGHT already, somebody would have created it? if the conditions are right, manifestation occurs. so what's wrong with the conditions? why can't we have nice things? why doesn't the world want to be connected in a meaningful way? is it, because most people are ethnocentric pricks who enjoy their masks and their imprisonment?

[skip]

Isn't that called Facebook?

[nanook]

facebook intentionally limits it possibilities. for instance, it's not even possible to seek out people who share your interest, unless they are already in a group you are in (doesn't even work for all groups) and you have to guess the interests, can't explore the interests that are out there. it's not possible to explore people in your town in intelligent manner, you just get a random sample.

[Hawkeye]

Firstly, I am not American.

Secondly, the precise reason it does not exist is because you are relying on others to create it. Not having the the guts or skill to execute something are not really good enough excuses to use when moaning about the none existence of ones "realistic" ideals.

The idiom "if you want something done right, do it yourself" comes to mind.

[edit]

grr... editing posts FTL

Facebook has changed a hell of a lot since it first started. Initially, current limitations were not there and have been added in for either public safety or legal reasons. There are some that have been added in for more seedy reasons too but... meh

[nanook]

imagine you wanted to buy some DMT, and with a mouse click you can see all people (anonymous profiles) of people in your town who digg DMT. that would be a social network. i wonder if there are hard laws, secret agency interests or the like who make sure, that a true social network can't happen ...

[nanook]

Secondly, the precise reason it does not exist is because you are relying on others to create it.

lmao, i can't believe you try to tell me that nonsense for a second time.

really, fucking listen to yourself. "listen everyone, it's nanooks fault, that this network doesn't exist, if you don't like it, let's all just hate nanook, collectively"

lmao

i shall psycho analyse you, it might bring me closer to understanding why people are against such a network. clearly you are against it, because you like to avoid inquiring into the true reasons of why it's not happening and invent some bogus myth instead, about how it's all nanooks fault.

[Hawkeye]

Originally Posted by nanook

imagine you wanted to buy some DMT, and with a mouse click you can see all people (anonymous profiles) of people in your town who digg DMT. that would be a social network. i wonder if there are hard laws, secret agency interests or the like who make sure, that a true social network can't happen ...

There are, which is why there was that big alert about privacy settings being altered a couple of years back.

[Hawkeye]

Originally Posted by nanook

lmao, i can't believe you try to tell me that nonsense for a second time.

really, fucking listen to yourself. "listen everyone, it's nanooks fault, that this network doesn't exist, if you don't like it, let's all just hate nanook, collectively"

lmao

i shall psycho analyse you, it might bring me closer to understanding why people are against such a network. clearly you are against it, because you like to avoid inquiring into the true reasons of why it's not happening and invent some bogus myth instead, about how it's all nanooks fault.

Imagine for a second that loads of people think what you are thinking. Who would be left to create it?

the idiom still stands as you said, it appears to be lacking something you desire.

To say what I am saying is nonsense is rather silly as it's perfectly logical. Just because you lack the skill to do it does not mean it is impossible.

[nanook]

imagine for a second that loads of people think what you are thinking. Who would be left to create it?

you mean, if they would think that it would be rejected or outlawed and therefore not even try. but i'm not actually "thinking" that, in the sense of such a thought being a part of my motivations. i am merely hypothesizing about how other people might think. my motivations (and thus actions) exist around my skills (and are limited by those) and my own subjective visions, very introverted. if i had the skills, as unlikely as it sounds, i would simply do it, because i tend to do things in a trial and error manner and find out why they are impossible on the way. so, if people would go about thinks the way i do, and given that they do have the skills, which they do, they would not abandon the possibility, before they had tried it. but they seem to have abandoned it. so either they have different goals (they don't appreciate the trial and error approach) - which is why i must assume, that they don't really want to see a change, really hard, hard enough to just risk what needs to be risked, which is essentially giving up the known world and discovering a whole new world ... or plenty of them have tried, to some degree, maybe just played it through in their mind, and found out why it doesn't work or came to the conclusion it wouldn't (for reasons i don't know), well then tell me ...

[Hawkeye]

Originally Posted by nanook

you mean, if they would think that it would be rejected or outlawed and therefore not even try. but i'm not actually "thinking" that, in the sense of such a thought being a part of my motivations. i am merely hypothesizing about how other people might think. my motivations (and thus actions) exist around my skills (and are limited by those) and my own subjective visions, very introverted. if i had the skills, as unlikely as it sounds, i would simply do it, because i tend to do things in a trial and error manner and find out why they are impossible on the way. so, if people would actually think like me, and given that they do have the skills, they would not abandon the possibility, before they had tried it. but they seem to have abandoned it. so either they think differently (don't appreciate the trial and error approach) - which is why i must assume, that they don't really want to see a change, really hard, hard enough to just risk needs to be risked, essentially giving up the known world and discovering a whole new world ... or plenty of them have tried and found out why it doesn't work, well then tell me ...

Facebook started off as an academic exclusive site. It offered similar things to what you talk about albeit in a very limited manner. As its popularity grew, new things were added and all was fine and dandy.

When they dropped the academic members only and allowed public access internationally, many problems arose. In certain countries, the site actually breached governmental law and had to be adjusted to accommodate them. This brought in limitations into what could and couldn't be revealed to other users.

Then you had issues with paedophiles and false accounts that breached the trust of other members. You also had politically motivated riots organised like the one in the UK last year.

One of the main issues with these websites is that it allows for false accounts to be created. This is because the Internet is the anonymous user's domain. Everything can be fabricated and many (not all) can fall for it just like a lot did with XIII on this forum.

You don't for example actually know what I look like, where I am from, what age or sex I am other than what I have advertised. You won't know some of them until you actually meet me.

What you ask for brakes down this anonymous barrier that many hold dear to the Internet. It could only truly be achieved in this day and age by the use of some intrusive policing system. Something that the majority do not want.

[NinjaSurfer]

www.plentyoffish.com ???

[AureliaSeverina]

Yeah, everyone who isn't as subjective and introverted as you is crazy or evil.
You're the only one who's complaining, so why should anyone else do something about this problem?

Originally Posted by Hawkeye

The idiom "if you want something done right, do it yourself" comes to mind.

I'll second that.

Go on and add me to the list of all those who hate nanook. And psychoanalyze me as well, please, I can always use a good laugh.

[Hawkeye]

One thing I would like to know is how does the fact that it is free qualify it to be proper?

[AureliaSeverina]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye

One thing I would like to know is how does the fact that it is free qualify it to be proper?

Hum.... because people should work for free for the betterment of humanity. Obviously we'd all be better off if everyone could find a 'proper date' on a 'proper' dating site, because we wouldn't have to listen to people complaining?

Anyway, what I'd like to know is why a site that offers business connections, a friend finder tool, dating adds, blogs and the opportunity to find out who's looking for what drug* ......... why it should be called a 'dating' site?

*unless DMT refers to Dublin Mean Time, which was abolished in 1916. So if you were to use Dublin Mean Time to fix a date with Mr Proper (the German name of Mr Clean), there might be confusion. [/tangent]

[intpz]

I remember taking a test on okcupid.com, I think it's a free dating site.

[Hawkeye]

Originally Posted by intpz

I remember taking a test on okcupid.com, I think it's a free dating site.

The best question I saw on there was something like "if your partner asks you to act out a sexual rape scene with them, would you?"

It then asked how important your opinion was on the matter, along with theirs...

[intpz]

So just look through the girls in your neighborhood and see who's descriptions you like and who's not. That's what I would do anyway.

[Cognisant]

why don't we have a proper non centralised social network, where a profile can be set up to serve any need the user wishes, from being a blog like thing, to a friends-network, to a sex-dating thing, to a professional portofolio, where everyone can host several profiles for different purposes, profiles that connect automatically with profiles of equal purpose and with compatible attributes (interests, personality types, locations etc), of course you can add friendships on top of automatic connections....

So a mass media consolidated network profile?

That's not a bad idea...

I think Google's trying to do that, if they wanted to take all my money and tell everyone who knows me that I'm dead, via a reputable source, they could do it

[intpz]

I find social networks like Facebook and Google+ funny in a way: some people are debating if they should add their boss.

[PhoenixRising]

My degree was in web design, they actually covered this topic. The reason social networking and dating sites are segregated is because social networking sites have a lot of 13-17 year olds on them, and most (if not all) dating sites make you confirm that you are 18+ to sign up. Not to say that there couldn't be a networking site that includes dating and business, but it would have to exclude people under 18. Truth be told, most people consider social networking to be a teenager-dominated hobby, so networking sites aim to be as all-inclusive as possible.

[Fukyo]

Originally Posted by nanook

why don't we have a proper non centralised social network, where a profile can be set up to serve any need the user wishes, from being a blog like thing, to a friends-network, to a sex-dating thing, to a professional portofolio, where everyone can host several profiles for different purposes, profiles that connect automatically with profiles of equal purpose and with compatible attributes (interests, personality types, locations etc), of course you can add friendships on top of automatic connections....

It's only a matter of time before such a merger happens.

Just look at the state of consumer technology, the definitions of computer, camera, phone, etc and getting blurrier and blurrier by the day as we see the advent of smarter and smarter smartphones, Nikon releases a camera running Android, Microsoft's next OS being tailored for tablets.


That said, there are other reasons why such a merger isn't happening, as usual monetary interests are a strong factor, but so is the fact legislature on internet privacy is trailing behind the cloud. It's incriminating to have your professional portfolio linked to your social networking account, not to mention for your dating profile to be exposed to potential employers. It's even a matter of how clean and saintly you are, it's about how entitled the companies are to choose.

[Kuu]

How about this

[H1N1]

Originally Posted by nanook

proper as in FREE, and you can message people, they can reply, no messages are censored....

i mean for fucks sake. (literally, if you want).

how old is the internet???

why don't we have a proper non centralised social network, where a profile can be set up to serve any need the user wishes, from being a blog like thing, to a friends-network, to a sex-dating thing, to a professional portofolio, where everyone can host several profiles for different purposes, profiles that connect automatically with profiles of equal purpose and with compatible attributes (interests, personality types, locations etc), of course you can add friendships on top of automatic connections....

and international!

i can't believe this is taking so long.

it's as if people love to be isolated, trapped in superficial dishonest random relationships where they are too paranoid to show anything but a mask (facebook), instead of being well connected in a meaning full way.

Your last paragraph really got me. Really got me. The real irony is the fact that you're contradicting your own statements. Isolated, trapped in a relationship, etc.. . Perhaps it is because I cannot relate to your anger on this matter, but I don't quite understand your issue. You don't want to have to pay to meet someone with similar interests? Have you never heard of internet forums
(clearly you've ) or perhaps meetup.com. Just a couple of suggestions. Most all forums are free and I can assure you that meetup.com is as well. The real problem is that you don't want to have to do the work of "finding" someone that you connect with. You want some logarithm to do it for you, or at least to make the wading pool that is dating a little smaller. Another suggestion: try going out and meeting someone. Most relationships are more meaningful when they're not based around some cyber site.

Of course my perceptions are my own and not that of yours, so what to you is being connected in a meaningful way? You've got my curiosity all piqued!

[prometheuswinked]

Have you heard of www.projectevolove.com? It's a new dating site.

I have been obsessed with this site ever since I discovered it 3 days ago. It's still in beta version. The INTP section on that site is clearly written by an INTP. Props.

[EyeSeeCold]

Originally Posted by prometheuswinked

Have you heard of www.projectevolove.com? It's a new dating site.

I have been obsessed with this site ever since I discovered it 3 days ago. It's still in beta version. The INTP section on that site is clearly written by an INTP. Props.

It has a great concept, though I don't think MBTI, or maybe even Enneagram should be applied like that. They're marketing assumptions basically.

Also forcing people to choose an instinct stacking and MBTI type upon joining makes no sense. It's just perpetuating the problem of personality and pop-psyche quick reads.

[prometheuswinked]

It is prone to being misused, but I believe this site is actually pretty accurate in its descriptions. I have spent some time analyzing the validity of using Enneagrams instincts to determine interpersonal compatibility after I stumbled upon the site. I looked at my past girlfriends instincts stackings (yes, I am an INTP with a dating history) and I read about how the interaction is supposed to play out according to the site. It seems like this is the closest matchmaking algorithm that is available online. I'm not saying this is sacred science, rather just the closest approximation thus far.

[MsAnthropy_Indefatigably]

OK Cupid!!! That's a completely free site set up by Match.com but allows you to say and write whatever you please (if they haven't changed it). You can contact people right away if they are willing to give you that info. It also has thousands of questions you will either find fun to answer or incessant--depending on your particular brand of narcissism. i LOVE answering questions. And the more questions you answer the more they process info to find you a match based on your answers and the info you provide. I found my current boyfriend there. We've been dating 6 months (and i love him, which is weird for me, lol) and i've even gotten someone else i know to try the site and he found someone he really liked too!

i'm not a fix-her-upper....lol but I like sharing things that work. Ok Cupid seems to.

[CronusEtzel]

POf.Com and OkCupid.Com are im my opinion the best free dating sites. They both offer great features (especially okcupid that matches you with others based on test based answers). I've tried them both myself, there's a few others they mentioned in the article http://lonerwolf.com/dating-an-introvert/ which could be useful to try.

[logical-lover]

I agree completely with Nanook's point! That is why I started my own Myers-Briggs based social networking website called, MBFriends com. I started it about six weeks ago and its currently up to 200 members. So, I hope this site can help out MBTI community because we need something other than Facebook to converse on.

[xomtrosv]

thank all pro....!

[prometheuswinked]

POF is far too ghetto for my taste. Seriously, check out www.projectevolove.com, it's not popular yet but its concept is the best of them all.

[rattymat]

Despite what a couple people have said here, don't even bother with evoloveproject.com. I made that mistake and it is seriously underwhelming to an upsetting degree. It has terribly basic and arbitrary distinctions between "social" "sexual" and "secure," combined with MBTI and NO bisexual options (or asexual for that matter). A 50-250 mile search range only. And absolutely no questions to create a more complex matching algorithm. Enough said.

[prometheuswinked]

I've been using Project EvoLove for a while now since my last post...Don't listen to what the above user said. If something is truth, then it should be simple and intuitive. Ultimately, truth is derived from basic principles that can be extrapolated to further manifestations. The secure, sexual, and social instincts do just that. It looks at people from inside out (from the metaphysical to the physical), rather than outside in (by making generalizations based on observations).

I've correlated my past dating experiences with the psychology, and it is astoundingly accurate. I suggest you test it in the world before you dismiss it.

[joal0503]

wait a second...there are services and people out there dedicating their careers to exploit and profit off of the insecurities of human relationships?!?! no way!

[rrgjl]

It's funny, I was actually debating this same thing with my dad last night.
I have some experience with web development, and I find it hard to imagine that a website that allows you to create a profile with some text, add some pictures, and then have a search functionality to search through these same variables is that complicated or time consuming to create. Especially once it's done there's just some maintenance, and still they charge these preposterous amounts. I do think it's really exploiting and profiting off of the loneliness of others And one could probably also be quite succesful with a cheaper alternative. Although I must say OKCupid is a good platform, or a good start at least. It wouldn't even have to be free to me, as long as the amount is reasonable.

[Jennywocky]

Originally Posted by prometheuswinked

I've been using Project EvoLove for a while now since my last post...Don't listen to what the above user said. If something is truth, then it should be simple and intuitive. Ultimately, truth is derived from basic principles that can be extrapolated to further manifestations. The secure, sexual, and social instincts do just that. It looks at people from inside out (from the metaphysical to the physical), rather than outside in (by making generalizations based on observations).

I've correlated my past dating experiences with the psychology, and it is astoundingly accurate. I suggest you test it in the world before you dismiss it.

So basically it just mixes your enneagram variant instinct(s) + your MBTI type. it seems to be assuming that I attract other people with the same variant lead, and/or someone with my instinctual variants reversed. So far, it's not really rocket science.

I'm looking over the site. One of my problems in using variants is that not only are the pairings kind of limited (there's only three variants, and six possible combos of two variants), but since it is self-reporting, we're going to see a lot of false reads. For one, the Sexual variant is always glamorous to people who don't understand it. This site has no way to objectively quiz people to "test" their self-selections and triangulate a type.

I thought this line under Sexual-Secures was amusing:

Their ideal partners are the , , and. Further information can be found under the “In Relationships” tab. Sexual-Secures often have the Personality Types of INFJ, INTP, INTJ, INFP, INTP, and ENFJ.

Yes, INTPs are SO likely to be Sexual-Secures that we are listed twice.

[prometheuswinked]

It is funny that you say the Sexual variant is "glamorizing". I would guess that you either have a primary or secondary sexual instinct, because some people say the sexual instinct is stigmatizing.

All the INTPs I know are Sexual-socials or sexual-secures. The sexual instinct for INTPs tend to be channeled into intellectual pursuits rather than physical (eg. sex) pursuits.

[travelnjones]

what is the money part of it is actually key to dating. An Auction based dating site would probably do better at connecting meaningful relationship lol.