Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you are a under 30 women, reasonable good looking (4+ on a scale of 1 to 10), dont have any problems (major addictions or neuroses) and are intelligent enough to understand that compatability, stability and integrety are more important than impressig your girlfriends with a wild fling with Georgio - the Italian romeo - then I predict a high success.
For such women, this site has replaced the circle of family and friends that used to be very effective in putting together compatable couples.
For everyone else, I imagine that rates of success vary from fair to almost zero.
2 of these women are about 50, the other one is 44. I personally don't know anyone under 30 that uses these sites. They really seem to be more useful for the older crowd, those that have more limits on their time and social activites.
Eharmony is a homophobic, anti-gay organization. I couldn't use it even if I wanted to.
eharmony is a lousy dating service
its not a conspiracy
how interesting a lack of interest in homosexuality is labeled mental illness. is this what they call militant gay?
eharmony is a lousy dating service
its not a conspiracy
how interesting a lack of interest in homosexuality is labeled mental illness. is this what they call militant gay?
Their service deliberately excludes gay and lesbian relationships based on faulty reasoning.
Their service deliberately excludes gay and lesbian relationships based on faulty reasoning.
considering the negative feedback i am seeing on this dating service, i dont think the gay community missed out on much they can certainly do better that what is being offered.
considering the negative feedback i am seeing on this dating service, i dont think the gay community missed out on much they can certainly do better that what is being offered.
I know, I'm just saying that as a minority group, we never had the opportunity.
They interviewed the EH founder on this topic. He had a convincing, albeit convenient, excuse for why gay and lesbians are excluded. Because their matching algorithm is supposed to be scientific and based on studying 1000s of successful marriages, they couldn't do the same for gays simply because they don't have enough data to know what makes for a successful gay partnership. If that's true, then it's a valid reason to exclude them. But it also begs the question of why they don't just start studying those couples too and figure out what it takes to make those relationships work. Chances are, it's the same ingredients that make a hereto marriage work. At least then, they won't be able to hide behind the "we have insufficient data" excuse.
As for excluding others, some of the reasons may be perfectly valid. If you've been married a bunch of times or your answers to their questions make it clear that you'd be a lousy partner, then why allow you into the pool of potential matches?
As for excluding others, some of the reasons may be perfectly valid. If you've been married a bunch of times or your answers to their questions make it clear that you'd be a lousy partner, then why allow you into the pool of potential matches?
Don't know for sure, but money is usually a REALLY good equalizer. I'd imagine if they thought they could build a decent reputation/history doing this as well, they would, as it means currently loosing out on quite a bit of money. Doesn't sound particularly religious, of course that has to be taken with a grain of salt, being they're trying to sell a product, he wants to come off sounding as neutral as possible regardless of what he actually thinks.
Don't know for sure, but money is usually a REALLY good equalizer. I'd imagine if they thought they could build a decent reputation/history doing this as well, they would, as it means currently loosing out on quite a bit of money. Doesn't sound particularly religious, of course that has to be taken with a grain of salt, being they're trying to sell a product, he wants to come off sounding as neutral as possible regardless of what he actually thinks.
EH markets itself as a place for people who are serious about finding long-term partners. In other words, it isn't just a catalog like most other sites. The downside to billing yourself as such is that you have to back it up. If you take every person who's willing to pay, then that just undercuts your argument. And if you accept everyone, it won't be long before your site is overrun by freaks, fakes and players. So while the screening process that EH uses may not always be a good one, at least they have one, unlike match or the others. Threads like this are laughable because the OP complains that online sites suck because of their members. That would be like me bashing Monster.com because I don't like the jobs listed on their site.
I always get a kick out of threads like these where someone says so-and-so service is a ripoff. When will people realize that you're not paying for matches? You're paying for one extra place to POTENTIALLY meet someone. It's no different than if you went to a bar or church or some other place. You have no idea what kind of people you'll run into and it's certainly not the fault of that particular venue if you don't meet anyone. It's not like they collect people for you. ...... The real value of sites like eharmony is that they let you meet people you might not normally meet in your everyday life. A free site is obviously more attractive than one that charges. But at least the folks behind eharmony put some thought into helping people match with people who are more compatible. I don't know how reliable their matching system is, but the fact that they developed one is probably a good thing. The big time-waster about conventional dating is that you have to take the time to get to know someone, only to discover that they're all wrong for you.
Denny, as someone (me) who had also given up on eHarmony, I understand how their system works and even exchanged emails with their staffers re. their 'match criteria' ... they DO indeed present you with 'Matches' ... the subscriber cannot conduct searches on eHarmony, you only get the chance to be in contact with the people (in my case, men) who has been matched to me on the '29 dimensions of personality compatibility' ... Well that turns out to be of very little value because that is ALL that they match. If I had understood up front that they do not have EDUCATION as a parameter (important to me, as i am intelligent and educated and want the same in a partner) or HEIGHT (important to me because I am a woman 5ft 10 inches tall and only require that my match is the same height or taller).
Oh, and age! they repeatedly offer me matches with men 5 to 7 years younger than me ... for me at age 64, I'm brave enough for about 62 and older. So to illustrate ... and I am not making this up ... one of my "special match, specially picked for me" is a man who is a retired school janitor, and 5ft 6 inches tall ........ And these are the matches i am paying $59 per month for?
My take on eHarmony is that it can produce matches for people of average height, education, and interests ... but not if one deviates from the statistical average.
With Match.com I have much better luck because I can conduct my own searches with filters they make available. It also costs significantly less to subscribe.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
eHarmony works for the Average subscriber only
