Slashdot Mirror
Dating Website eHarmony's Ad Banned For Claiming Service Is 'Scientifically Proven' (bbc.com)
A dating website's claim that it used a "scientifically proven matching system" to pair up those looking for love, has been banned. From a report: An advert for eHarmony on the London Underground in July read: "It's time science had a go at love." The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) called the claim "misleading." The online matchmaker said while it "respectfully disagrees" with the ruling, it will make its advertising "as clear as possible." The website was unable to offer the ASA any evidence that customers had a greater chance of finding love, despite claiming that its "scientifically proven matching system decodes the mystery of compatibility and chemistry." "Imagine being able to stack the odds of finding lasting love entirely in your favour," the advert read.
I have never tried eHarmony. But I did meet my girlfriend of the past 6 years on OK cupid.
I am planning to ask her to marry me in the spring.
But I would hardly call online dating websites scientific. I would say it comes down more to luck, and both of us being honest with what we wanted.
First law of people: People are generally stupid.
They are real women, but here's the catch.
If you "Start Communication" with them (eHarmony term), they can't respond unless they have a paid subscription. So there's no way for you to know if she is ignoring you or just doesn't feel like paying for an account. I feel the service should let you know who has a paid account and who doesn't.
And yes, they only add 4 or 5 matches to your inbox every day.
I met my wife on eHarmony. AMA.
scientifically proven matching system decodes the mystery of compatibility and chemistry
Of course eHarmony couldn't provide scientific evidence to back up it's claims.
That's simple. Just put add a disclaimer:
"Scientifically proven(1) matching system decodes the mystery of compatibility and chemistry."
(1) by social scientists, not real scientists.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
How about not excusing puffery. It doesn't make the world any better.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
And others have the situation firmly in hands.
#DeleteFacebook
The problem with Dating in general, it is up to the guy to initiate the meeting. So the ladies often complain about too much traffic, while the guys complain about lack of responses.
So the guy that respects women will rarely get a response as they will sound boring, because they will be polite and respectful. While the jerk will lie and do whatever it takes to get noticed. So the women notices the Jerk.
If society approved the Woman and Men equally initiating the meeting, then chances are there will be a bit more equal chance of finding each other.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Eons ago, during a period where I was on the market, I tried making an eHarmony account. They rejected/banned me right off the bat without explaining why. Something about the answers I gave during the lengthy profile creation process caused them to give up on me with no explanation, and no recourse. Just basically, "we can't help you, go away".
Match.com was useless since both parties had to be paying members in order to send/receive messages. A rather broken and pointless model as it leads to an EXTREMELY limited pool. So I didn't bother.
OKCupid was and remains free. Met my current partner there and we've been together 5+ years now.
Global Warming
That's hot!
Isn't this what they meant by the Paris accord?
Have gnu, will travel.
I think most people understood that this was their attempt at trying to make it work, and only vaguely scientific. Basically they are trying to say they have a better algorithm. However, the commercials really do amp up how they break down the answers and questions and results, and match on all sorts of data points, etc etc so I can understand that the regulators would say 'hey, take it down a notch'.
I will shred my adversaries. Pull their eyes out just enough to turn them towards their mewing, mutilated faces. Illyria
I have tried it as well. So far, dating services have matched me up with:
Someone who was still married and was looking to toss her hubby, but lied about being single.
Someone who was asking people to help with bail money for her "brother". After a quick NCIS look, her "brother" was her husband locked up for agg assault.
Someone who talked my ear off for hours about the mean things she did to her ex.
Someone who started slashing the tires of a car they thought was mine. (I took the subway for good reason.)
Sorry, if someone isn't married by 30, they are defective goods and single for a reason.
I tried several web sites, and went to lunch with dozens of women. eHarmony was the worst of the bunch, in my experience. Mate1 was my favorite.
eHarmony always wanted to match me with women a thousand miles away.
I went out with a lot of women because I was looking for a very special lady, a one-in-a-million. I did end up finding the love of my life, on mate1.
The claims are so over the top that it would be expected no reasonable person would believe they actually had scientists applying scientific methods to the match-making algorithm. This should have been a clear and obvious case of mere puffery.
It didn't need to be.
eHarmony could have said. At eHarmony, we apply the scientific method. By paying for this service, you accept the possibility that you may be part of our double-blind control group, where we assign candidates semi-randomly. By semi-randomly, we mean we'll still try to find someone who fulfills your most basic criteria and who lives near your area, but some of those criteria will be chosen by a random algorithm instead of using our match-making algorithms. This is so that we're able to improve the success rate of our match-making algorithms over time.
The issue here is an interesting one: Is secret science still science?
If I follow the scientific process, do an experiment, validate my results, etc., but don't publish the results, an I say I've done something scientifically? Or is public scrutiny an intrinsic part of science?
What is science? Baby don't hurt me, don't hurt me, no more.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
Should have called it AI dating, with blockchained dating histories. Stock prices would have quadrupled at least.
Where the hell are the 99.8% jokes at?!
30% off web hosting. Coupon code "SLASHDOT".
I read at -1. I don't click your links.
You have never been asked out by a woman? That was how my first serious relationship started.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
"Imagine being able to stack the odds of finding lasting love entirely in your favour," the advert read."
May the odds be ever in your favor! Wait... where have I heard that before?
"He took a duck in the face at 250 knots." -- William Gibson, Pattern Recognition
The question is, are there women there who want love but not money?
And this makes women unique? Everyone wants money. Love's nice too. One of those I can live without.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
What the hell was your wife doing on a dating site to begin with!
Dating? I hear it's popular. Never had much of a knack for it.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
...if someone isn't married by 30, they are defective goods and single for a reason.
I must be double-plus special! I'm only 40 and I've already completed 2 entire marriages!
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
When asked for proof, starting a sentence with "Imagine..." is when healthy people get Tourettes seizures.
Generally speaking, when men evaluate dating prospects, how much money the woman has isn't a criterion. Whereas when women size up a man, his apparent net worth is criterion #1, even if she already has plenty of money of her own.
Men don't seek women to enhance their financial situation, whereas women do seek men for exactly that reason.
Many women say "I don't do that, I have my own money," but the stats reveal the truth. Women still insist on marrying up.
If society approved the Woman and Men equally initiating the meeting, then chances are there will be a bit more equal chance of finding each other.
That's stupid - society doesn't give a fuck, men don't give a fuck, but women do.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
Why would a dragon take a load of spotty gits and store them in a cave?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
scientifically proven matching system decodes the mystery of compatibility and chemistry
Of course eHarmony couldn't provide scientific evidence to back up it's claims. The claims are so over the top that it would be expected no reasonable person would believe they actually had scientists applying scientific methods to the match-making algorithm. This should have been a clear and obvious case of mere puffery.
Of course, people can be pretty stupid so maybe eHarmony had been defrauding a significant percentage of the British population. God help us all.
Unless you are clearly making a joke (e.g. Red Bull gives you wings) you simply aren't allowed to flat out lie in UK adverts.
Many beauty products use the "scientifically proven" line but they have to have at least some Noddy form of survey to back it up.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Forget the scientific method, for eHarmony to claim that would mean they were being wildly extremely privacy invasive, they would have to know you better than you know yourself and ensure no lies were thought let alone told.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
The ASA, however, was aware of all this -- but science is not just about inputs and process, it's about replicable outcomes. And there's no studies showing that eHarmony marriages have MTBF that's materially better than other marriages.
I met my wife through online dating. We had a lot of fun talking about our horrible online dating experiences on our first few dates. It's clear that some women get a lot more "interest" from men than men get from women, the bigger problem is that 90% of the people on dating sites (men or women) are basically lunatics, and not in a good way.
I had the woman who thought it was hilarious to joke about how her dog would eat my cat. I had the one who after chatting for a good while finally came out to say she was married but was looking to introduce polyamory into their arrangement. My wife had the guy who proposed to her after a few dates, the compulsive liar who then ironically went on to contact one of my wife's friends online with more lies, even though they had already met in real life.... goldfish memory, too many lies to keep them straight. And generally just a whole bunch of guys who put zero effort into contacting her, just a basic "hi" in the hopes of getting a response.
However, the whole "jerks" vs "good guys" thing is baloney. You can be a good guy and be interesting, those two are not mutually exclusive at all. If you can't find a single way to make yourself interesting then change your life habits to be more interesting. Take up a different hobby. Read more. Work out. Be funny. Put some effort into it. And for everyone's sake guys, look further than their physical appearance in a few well-chosen and doctored website shots.
Well being most men are doing the serious dating thing in their late teens and 20's. For the most part they are very clumsy at it, and so are the women who feel like they they need to respond to such behaviors.
You can be all of it, however it usually requires a little more maturity, and less hormones.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Or after 6 years no need to ruin a good thing. Let it be.
Alternatively they will continue to use statistics to prove almost anything they want, and then try to convince the public that science proves two that people are right for each other. That statistical correlation they offer to the "honest" answers to metaphysical questions, plus an advanced degree in alchemy, will guarantee you live happily ever after.
Yea, right. I bow in the presence of the deity of statistics. Anyone have a bridge for sale? Its "scientifically proven", by statistical correlation, that the more high dollar things I own the richer I will be.
Whereas when women size up a man, his apparent net worth is criterion #1, even if she already has plenty of money of her own.
Bullshit.
BO is probably the #1 criterion. If she can't get near you without retching, everything else will take a back seat. So pro tip: have a shower and use some deoderant and stop blaming women for not picking you because you're not rich enough.
Men don't seek women to enhance their financial situation,
Yeah bullshit. I literally know a guy who is doing this.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Why would a dragon take a load of spotty gits and store them in a cave?
To have a WoW clan to play with at a moment's notice.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
They "respectfully disagree" with the ASA's claim that the ad is misleading in its claim of being a "scientifically proven matching system" (it actually uses that phrase on the ad), but they're unable to show any documentation that their claim is truthful? So they're respectfully disagreeing to being called out for lying when they're outright lying?
"I've already completed 2 entire marriages!"... for some reason I translated that into a video game experience and saw the old xbox Achievement Unlocked popup come up in my mind lol!
Will she be legal then? (kidding)
It seems to me that after 6 years together there is no good reason to wait.
I am a rather traditional, so the proposal will be down on one knee, with a beautiful engagement ring that I designed just for her, incorporating both of our birthstones framing a central diamond. (Yes, I know diamonds are virtually worthless.) Obviously this ring will be rather expensive. As neither of us believes in going into debt, I am currently saving up for the ring.
First law of people: People are generally stupid.