Ideas on an open-source dating app

[BurnedOut]

Shoot.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Bang. App name right there.

 

[Hadoblado]

There's a thread somewhere about this. I think it was about search engines too? Might be worth looking at.

Cog's idea in your other thread was interesting.

I think stuff like limiting number of bots, catfishing etc. is a priority.

I would perhaps tune down the thirst, hybridise it as social media and dating app sort of like linked in is for occupations.

Build in some sort of feedback system to make chances transparent. Maybe reward users algorithmically for giving useful feedback on why they swiped.

 

[BurnedOut]

1. 3:2 ratio - men : women. Since they are 'choosy', a scarcity of males is a good trade-off

2. Texting/matching is not necessary. On every profile there's a counter that records the freq of users and it is up to them to take initiative.

3. The algorithm will be public. Also, I'll share the code with government who can fork the code and make their required changes.

4. Servers and maintenance lies with the gov. My goal is to make a state-run dating programme that will be one of the care packages available as social security.

5. Since 1:1 correspondence is available, there is a direct 50% chance of matching without any algorithm bias.

6. Based on the time duration preference, users will be staggered after they find their first match. If 1:1 correspondence is not there, the user will be queued. If users' match turns out to be incompatible/fake/etc, they will be placed at the top of the queue after new waiting users. However with enough state funding, the app will move closer to achieving a real 1:1 correspondence.

7. Users can like/check out all the cards for infinite number of times. They can choose to temporarily block visitors if they perceive them to be too intruding.

8. Account will be on the basis of a SSN/Aadhar/etc and not simple signup via an email.

9. There will be a committee elected by the users to examine the algorithm from time to time and propose new features just like RFCs.

10. Users can use filters and once they exhaust the list, they will be temporarily suspended and their account will be handed to somebody in the queue.

11. No bullshit akin to superlike, superswipe. No preferential treatment.

12. After sufficient uptime, the gov can auto-open accounts for every new person which will be activated when they are 16. Users will be deleted if they die or they can donate an account to someone in the queue if they are not interested.

13. Users will be required to post something at least once in a week to prevent catfishing. No selfies allowed and no pictures of somebody else.

14. Dressing norms is up to the gov but semi-nudity will result in a temp ban and a fine.

15. A proportion of users will be handed moderation duties - examining new pictures, etc. It will be similar to jury service. Failure to do so will result in a long temp ban.

 

[Puffy]

I work in user experience for digital applications so this is how I'd approach it based on my experience from that.

Firstly, I think you need to do some qual & quant research to understand the problems people are experiencing with current dating apps (not just men, also women, LGBT, etc) and what their key needs are that are currently not being met. Then you can think about potential solution ideas and if an open-source dating app is even the best way of meeting them.

I wouldn't build something just because you've experienced a problem with dating apps or off of anecdotal experience. I've worked with many CEOs who do this and it almost always doesn't go well. You need to take the problem you've identified as a potential opportunity to falsify with research to ensure you're making something that's actually needed.

Personally, I think dating apps is a difficult area to innovate in. If this is about improving the hetero male's experience of dating apps, a fundamental part of the problem is that apps are over-saturated with a high men: women ration. So naturally the less confident men are not going to do very well. Building another app won't solve this problem.

So I'd probably approach the research with a view to trying to understand why people are not succeeding on dating apps. Is it lack of experience? Low self-confidence? etc etc. As it might be from that that you identify potential solutions or business ideas you weren't even expecting. Maybe what they actually need isn't another dating app, but relationship coaching or sex education, etc. That's how I'd try to think about this anyway.

 

[BurnedOut]

So I'd probably approach the research with a view to trying to understand why people are not succeeding on dating apps. Is it lack of experience? Low self-confidence? etc etc. As it might be from that that you identify potential solutions or business ideas you weren't even expecting. Maybe what they actually need isn't another dating app, but relationship coaching or sex education, etc. That's how I'd try to think about this anyway.

Why don't you tell me which points you disagree with? Why not an open-source app? My goal is to provide a real shot to everybody and the problems are too stupid to not solve by simply making it a public affair.

The internet has already turned people into whiny lousy bastards who wimp and balk at anything that requires out
of the comfort zone. Best example? The whole concept of 'introverts'. Today's 'introverts' are so damn lazy they won't their arse even for the simplest social events.

Why do you want to mollycoddle people for things they are responsible for?

 

[Puffy]

So I'd probably approach the research with a view to trying to understand why people are not succeeding on dating apps. Is it lack of experience? Low self-confidence? etc etc. As it might be from that that you identify potential solutions or business ideas you weren't even expecting. Maybe what they actually need isn't another dating app, but relationship coaching or sex education, etc. That's how I'd try to think about this anyway.

Why don't you tell me which points you disagree with? Why not an open-source app? My goal is to provide a real shot to everybody and the problems are too stupid to not solve by simply making it a public affair.

The internet has already turned people into whiny lousy bastards who wimp and balk at anything that requires out
of the comfort zone. Best example? The whole concept of 'introverts'. Today's 'introverts' are so damn lazy they won't their arse even for the simplest social events.

Why do you want to mollycoddle people for things they are responsible for?

I don't know if relationship coaching or sex education is the best solution. They were examples. My point is is that it's best to approach discovery research with a mindset of being open to identifying opportunities you weren't expecting.

Of course there are the occasional Steve Job's out there who are just brilliant at identifying opportunities and designing amazing products. But for the most part, products that are designed without any research fail. If this is a pie in the sky exercise then fair enough. If it's something you actually wanted to build then I'm just saying it's something you'd want to invest in to minimise risk.

 

[Cognisant]

Dating is ideally the precursor to a healthy relationship, accordingly a dating app should ideally promote healthy relationships.

What I've come to see as the most crucial factor in whether a relationship is successful or not (aside from self-evident things like both partners being alive, consenting, of-age and not abusive) is whether there exists a positive or negative feedback loop.

For example a positive feedback loop would be if you took the initiative to do something nice for your partner, which makes them happy and being happy they're more likely to take the initiative to do something nice for you. It's not transactional, it's not tit-for-tat, not even selfless, you want them to be happy because their happiness makes you happy, their desire to make you happy is just a side benefit.

By contrast a negative feedback loop is when both partners feel dissatisfied with how their partner treats them and out of bitterness refuse to do anything for the other until they receive something first, which becomes a feedback look of ever more bitterness and spite.

To promote positive feedback loops the app should be some sort of trainer, like a dating sim or chatbot, the point is the player thinks it's a game and they're told the better the score they get the better the people they'll be matched with. So in theory once they've passed the test and are allowed into the dating site they're primed to approach someone with the right mindset and already have some idea of what to say and do.

Edit: Lol having just read the prior posts I feel so unoriginal

 

[BurnedOut]

I don't know if relationship coaching or sex education is the best solution. They were examples. My point is is that it's best to approach discovery research with a mindset of being open to identifying opportunities you weren't expecting.

Dating is as old as mankind itself. What is the difficult thing you are talking about? It is by far one of the most intuitive activities. There are no mysteries here.

 

[Puffy]

I don't know if relationship coaching or sex education is the best solution. They were examples. My point is is that it's best to approach discovery research with a mindset of being open to identifying opportunities you weren't expecting.

Dating is as old as mankind itself. What is the difficult thing you are talking about? It is by far one of the most intuitive activities. There are no mysteries here.

What's easy about it? To build a successful dating app would require that there be a lot of people on the application. As in any given area there needs to be a sufficient diversity of people on the app that people can regularly match with others that meet their preferences. It takes an awful lot of resource and effort to build an application up to that point, even if you just wanted to build it for where you currently live. It'd be a far simpler solution to work out how to optimise your chances on the current applications in honesty.

I'm guessing this thread is for fun though so apologies if I'm taking this with too much pragmatism. Feel free to ignore me if so.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

I get that it's a thought experiment and you're trying to make a feature list for an ideal app. My main question is why a dating app. Why not a general meeting app that would facilitate 1 on 1 and group meetings helping people socialize and find common interests. This will not only help tremendously with the ever-increasing isolation, but it's going to help create environments where finding good partners with aligned interests is possible.

I think dating apps are not necessarily easier to make despite being narrower in scope than general social apps. Dating is a huge industry that is a prime target for exploitation and desperation. People who can't do anything social at all try dating because they are desperate and they would first need to be passable socially. Population needs more help with that.

Do you know the percentage of the population who uses dating apps in India? It's less than 20% in here. It's just not a viable primary solution to the dating problem, it's more of a gimmick and experimental novelty. You're committing yourself to developing an ideal solution for a narrow slice of the population that's not covering the whole spectrum of the problem.

1. 3:2 ratio - men : women. Since they are 'choosy', a scarcity of males is a good trade-off

2. Texting/matching is not necessary. On every profile there's a counter that records the freq of users and it is up to them to take initiative.

3. The algorithm will be public. Also, I'll share the code with government who can fork the code and make their required changes.

4. Servers and maintenance lies with the gov. My goal is to make a state-run dating programme that will be one of the care packages available as social security.

5. Since 1:1 correspondence is available, there is a direct 50% chance of matching without any algorithm bias.

6. Based on the time duration preference, users will be staggered after they find their first match. If 1:1 correspondence is not there, the user will be queued. If users' match turns out to be incompatible/fake/etc, they will be placed at the top of the queue after new waiting users. However with enough state funding, the app will move closer to achieving a real 1:1 correspondence.

7. Users can like/check out all the cards for infinite number of times. They can choose to temporarily block visitors if they perceive them to be too intruding.

8. Account will be on the basis of a SSN/Aadhar/etc and not simple signup via an email.

9. There will be a committee elected by the users to examine the algorithm from time to time and propose new features just like RFCs.

10. Users can use filters and once they exhaust the list, they will be temporarily suspended and their account will be handed to somebody in the queue.

11. No bullshit akin to superlike, superswipe. No preferential treatment.

12. After sufficient uptime, the gov can auto-open accounts for every new person which will be activated when they are 16. Users will be deleted if they die or they can donate an account to someone in the queue if they are not interested.

13. Users will be required to post something at least once in a week to prevent catfishing. No selfies allowed and no pictures of somebody else.

14. Dressing norms is up to the gov but semi-nudity will result in a temp ban and a fine.

15. A proportion of users will be handed moderation duties - examining new pictures, etc. It will be similar to jury service. Failure to do so will result in a long temp ban.

1. How are you gonna enforce that ratio? Why that ratio? How are you going to deal with fake identity and people making fake accounts?

If you're going into ID verification then you open a huge issue of safekeeping government issued ID's, credentials and sensitive information. Expect to get hacked and bear the responsibility of leaking personal details of every user. I wouldn't trust the government with yet another task like this, it's a vulnerability that's going to fail.

5. What do you mean that there's a 50% chance of matching? You mean 50% chance of finding anyone?

13. You're going to lose 70% of legitimate users just by forcing them to post. Criminals and advertiser's are going to dutifully setup fake profiles with regular updates.

Dating is as old as mankind itself. What is the difficult thing you are talking about? It is by far one of the most intuitive activities. There are no mysteries here.

If it's so simple then why some people need a dating app for it and why the existing apps are not working?

There are so many mysteries and human intuition is so terrible that at least half of the long-term heteronormative relationships end with a divorce or would end in one if said relationship wasn't entrapping for various reasons.

Dating and finding a reliable partner is probably the second most difficult human aspiration besides self-actualisation.

 

[scorpiomover]

Personally, I think dating apps is a difficult area to innovate in. If this is about improving the hetero male's experience of dating apps, a fundamental part of the problem is that apps are over-saturated with a high men: women ration.

Sounds like a poor-quality nightclub.

So naturally the less confident men are not going to do very well. Building another app won't solve this problem.

In real life, nightclubs were great for meeting new men. But the more confident men in nightclubs, could rely on their confidence to give them an advantge, which in turn meant they didn't need to try as hard. So they often resulted in either a poor relationship and poor sex.

So a lot of women didn't meet the guy of their dreams by checking out the guys in nightclubs, and would keep checking out guys in real life. 30% of people used to marry someone they met at work. Lots of people met as friends of friends.

As people have switched from socialising offline to socialising online, their dating approach has switched. They go on dating apps. If those don't work, they also look at the people they meet virtually as well, such as the forum posters that catch their eye, or the social media accounts that catch their eye.

However, the forums and social media have gone the same way as the dating apps: offering similar services also run by companies, which means they appeal to the same people who like dating apps.

Confident men respond well to opportunities. So they do well with reactive systems that you have to sign up for, and send messages on, in order to increase your chances of finding a mate.

For less confident men, you need services that are pro-active, systems that will actively seek out all men, that will identify their positive traits that they dismiss as a result of their lack of confidence, will objectively assess the value of each trait that they lower as a result of their lack of confidence, and then select appropriate mates.

Alternatively, you can train confidence. So you can train them to be confident in general.

Another option is that you can train them in dating skills, until they are competent and confident.

 

[Puffy]

Personally, I think dating apps is a difficult area to innovate in. If this is about improving the hetero male's experience of dating apps, a fundamental part of the problem is that apps are over-saturated with a high men: women ration.

Sounds like a poor-quality nightclub.

So naturally the less confident men are not going to do very well. Building another app won't solve this problem.

In real life, nightclubs were great for meeting new men. But the more confident men in nightclubs, could rely on their confidence to give them an advantge, which in turn meant they didn't need to try as hard. So they often resulted in either a poor relationship and poor sex.

So a lot of women didn't meet the guy of their dreams by checking out the guys in nightclubs, and would keep checking out guys in real life. 30% of people used to marry someone they met at work. Lots of people met as friends of friends.

As people have switched from socialising offline to socialising online, their dating approach has switched. They go on dating apps. If those don't work, they also look at the people they meet virtually as well, such as the forum posters that catch their eye, or the social media accounts that catch their eye.

However, the forums and social media have gone the same way as the dating apps: offering similar services also run by companies, which means they appeal to the same people who like dating apps.

Confident men respond well to opportunities. So they do well with reactive systems that you have to sign up for, and send messages on, in order to increase your chances of finding a mate.

For less confident men, you need services that are pro-active, systems that will actively seek out all men, that will identify their positive traits that they dismiss as a result of their lack of confidence, will objectively assess the value of each trait that they lower as a result of their lack of confidence, and then select appropriate mates.

Alternatively, you can train confidence. So you can train them to be confident in general.

Another option is that you can train them in dating skills, until they are competent and confident.

Thanks scorpiomover, I agree and this is along the lines of what I wanted to say.

For a lot of the people struggling on the apps I'm unsure if the problem can be solved by making another dating app with a fairer algorithm, etc. In which case it's throwing a lot of time into building an application, for what? If we got to know the pain-points more intimately my hypothesis is that the area to innovate in would be self-development as you say.

 

[scorpiomover]

For a lot of the people struggling on the apps I'm unsure if the problem can be solved by making another dating app with a fairer algorithm, etc. In which case it's throwing a lot of time into building an application, for what? If we got to know the pain-points more intimately my hypothesis is that the area to innovate in would be self-development as you say.

In real life, there are certain additional factors:

1) Online, you can message almost anyone in the world, as long as they've signed up to the app. IRL, you can't just ring up strangers from the phone book, even if you've both signed up to the same dating club. They'd think you're a stalker.

Online, you can say hello to people on the street, or you get talking with friends of friends, or you bump into someone while waiting at the bar and talk to them to pass the time, or you may see someone at work every day where you both like each other.

But there's only a few people you can communicate with at any one time in real life, and they're usually changing, as people get on with where they need to go and so do you.

So random opportunities occur often, but for a short time, which puts pressure on people to grab the moment while it occurs. So even if you're not that confident, women will get to talk to you in those chance meetings, and some of them will find you attractive and make it clear they are interested.

2) IRL, people can see who you're talking to. You can't chat up 3 different women at once, or they'll get offended and walk off.

To give apps those facilities, you have to shift tech back to chat-room style arrangements, where you can join a room, or leave a room, but where you can only talk to who is in the room, and everyone in the room can see who you're chatting up, and what you're saying.

If you want to mimic being able to whisper IRL, you can add a facility to both request a private conversation in a private room. But equally, if you both request a private chat, then other people in the room need to see that as well.

3) Another issue, is that women want to talk for ages online, because they can message using their phone almost anywhere. IRL, you can only chat for 5-10 minutes before deciding to hand out your number, because the physical meeting precludes you from doing other things.

You can address this with a speed dating feature. After 10 minutes of chat, you have to mark if you'd like to continue and how.

4) If you want, you can add speed dating. You can speed date with 10 random women who sign up for the same event. You each get 10 minutes to chat before you're bumped to the next person. You mark who you are interested with, at the end of the date, after you've spoken to them all.

In reality, speed dating is the same as swiping, except that you only get to see what they look like.

So really, swiping is really only if your priorities are "looks first, personality after". If most people's priorities were really like that, they'd all be married to bimbos who they can't have a conversation with.

It would be better if swiping was based on things they wrote, like random posts, or random things they wrote on their profile. Some people would write generic things. But most people are usually drawn in by their feelings that they resonate with something the other person said, that most people don't usually say.

Then, if you both swipe to indicate interest, you can have a private chat. Then after 10 minutes, your webcams will come on and you both get to see what you look like IRL.

If you're in your pyjamas and not dressed well, then you have to book a virtual date in the near future, where you'll get to see each other.

5) Failure to comply with reasonable efforts, gets you a tease point. Too many tease points, and the number of people you can meet per day, starts being reduced severely, until your behaviour becomes more reasonable and your teat point score is reduced.

 

[Hadoblado]

What I've come to see as the most crucial factor in whether a relationship is successful or not (aside from self-evident things like both partners being alive, consenting, of-age and not abusive) is whether there exists a positive or negative feedback loop.

Strong agree. Feedback loops are such a crucial predictor of relationship health.

 

[BurnedOut]

How are you gonna enforce that ratio? Why that ratio? How are you going to deal with fake identity and people making fake accounts?

Enforcing will be done by queuing users after the quota has reached. Solution? More servers and patience. There's no other way to guarantee 'one for each' maxim.

If you're going into ID verification then you open a huge issue of safekeeping government issued ID's, credentials and sensitive information.

Well, the gov already has all the essential data. Scamming is almost undoable and the risk of catfishing also goes down. It's self-regulatory. Reduces the burden of manual screening. Also what kind of privacy breach are we talking about when users share data that cannot be misused in most circumstances - innocuous pictures and not semi-nude/nude stuff and sexting. It is forbidden on the app. Users can engage in all thir by sharing numbers, etc. By limiting the risk of sensitive info posted, the damnest problems are automatically solved. Furthermore no data will be mined for commercial usage and users can opt to not store data altogether. The app will never upload the pictures, instead, it will download the pictures in the viewer's pc at a need basis. As soon either of them shut the app, data is gone.

5. What do you mean that there's a 50% chance of matching? You mean 50% chance of finding anyone?

Yes. Similar to real life. No hidden discrimination like Bumble which is sexist and racist and vain.

If it's so simple then why some people need a dating app for it and why the existing apps are not working?

The growth of specialized labour market has stymied people from socializing in person. Many people want to work on their lives and not waste time in wooing someone. What i meant was humans have an innate desire to connect but may not always have the opportunity. Existing apps are bullshit because they are entirely profit driven and are very discriminating. Eons ago, personal computers were a sign of exquisiteness. Now they are ubiquitous and essential to survival. Why cannot you imagine dating as a public activity? It is also a human right to seek love.

 

[BurnedOut]

You guys keep expressing moral outrage. Where is the actual critique?

 

[BurnedOut]

Why not a general meeting app that would facilitate 1 on 1 and group meetings helping people socialize and find common interests.

Fine, let's add this feature too. But that is for another thread.

 

[BurnedOut]

You all keep barking about confidence and charisma, don't forget that people are not fools. They genuinely lack the resources and energy. It is like blaming the poor for not earning money.

 

[BurnedOut]

13. You're going to lose 70% of legitimate users just by forcing them to post. Criminals and advertiser's are going to dutifully setup fake profiles with regular updates.

Well, if people realise that they are not being scammed for money, they will take up efforts to do all the things they had stopped doing - self-care, social engagement, initiative-taking, empathy - to build healthy relationships and improve themselves in the process.

This is an example of positive reinforcement.

If people were so darn miserable and selfish, ukranians would not have fought back. They did all the things necessary because they had hope.

Hope can change someone's behaviour for the better. It is our fault that we wanna whine at the smallest inconvenience. That is the curse of capitalism.

We have all turned into obese sodden bastards who want the littlest of the little to our preference. Our fat arses cannot comprehend the notion of public goods anymore. People want privacy online and expect to be given the license of abusing it and blame the caretaking authority for everything. Where is the public fucking discourse? Why are people sucking cocks of Musk and Pichai and Trump and Modi?

We need to decouple the influence of confidence on life outcomes. Confidence without skill is injustice. Not having confidence should not influence your life outcome to this extent. People need to stop getting conned by charisma and start analysing themselves. You cannot do this by shoving shy men into a bar. You tell them to be fake, you doom them for eternity. Please, we need less confidence not more.

Look at the contrite bastard face of mankind who is shunning responsibililty at every turn. I just added a couple of restraints and duties and lo and behold, the filthy capitalist response of 'Ma lyf, Ma rules' slapped me in the face. Well, wake up. You are not even a person because your garbage individuality is nothing but products on a shelf. (By you, I refer to mankind and you and me)