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.
I've only used match. I heard bad things about some of the free sites. I think in general people who are willing to pay are more serious about finding someone. Don't be fooled, there are still creeps, but in general I think your chances are better on a paid site.
I prefer texting to calling. Everyone is different. I like to call more often after I'm in a relationship with someone than at the very beginning. I try to be thoughtful to the other person. If someone likes talking over texting I'm willing to meet them halfway.
I've been on both the free dating sites and the paid ones. I didn't see much of a difference, in fact, I met my last boyfriend on POF which is a free site.
I'm not a phone person (I get anxiety), so I prefer text messages, but when I am in the beginning stages of dating I do prefer that the guy ask me out formally via phone call. A text is just too impersonal to set up a date.
I met my husband on a free dating site (POF) and I am sure I am one of the few exceptions given I was already past age 30 (I think I was 31 when he saw my profile) but I also used Match.com, eHarmony and maybe a few other sites that were popular back in 2005-2007 (Lava Life, OK Cupid, even Craigslist).
By far though, my biggest disappointment was eHarmony. I actually paid for a 6 month subscription and only had ONE real date out of the entire process (and it was a major disappointment as he was much more religious than me and reminded me of shorter version of Ben Stiller (goofy) - alas we did talk after our date but there was absolutely zero physical chemistry and we both agreed it was best to move on.
There was definitely a lot more "riff-raff" on the free sites - usually guys just looking for random hookups, or a casual dating relationship (mostly from guys who worked long hours and just wanted a GF to see a movie w/ a few times a month). I had 2 long term relationships from guys I met from Match, one I still talk to today (and still trolls Match). I had only been on POF for about 3 weeks when my husband's email hit my Inbox. I screened all the guys by pics (height/weight/attractiveness), education and location/age/interests and would exchange messages for maybe 1 week before deciding to talk to them over the phone. After 1-3 phone calls, I could determine whether this was someone I wanted to meet in real life.
Its amazing how easy it becomes to whiddle down an email inbox of about 30 messages into at least 8 men who are worthy of meeting IRL. My husband made the final cut of about 4 men who I decided to meet at Starbucks one day after work for coffee. After that, I had a good feeling we were clicking and the rest, as they say, is history.
The problem with online dating is that (both men and women) look at profiles and think they can always "do better". They talk to 1 person and after a brief 20 min conversation, decide "oh forget it, this person said XYZ and thats not going to cut it for me". They may never even get to the phone call stage because people start texting (a mistake IMHO) or flake out with face to face contact. Then there are people who spill out their entire lives on their profile, making it almost moot to meet them because you already know so much about them that the first date conversation results in ackward silences. Or people who spend months messaging each other not realizing that the face to face contact experience is completely different.
But online dating works. 90% of my friends met their spouses or partners on dating sites like Match, JDate, eHarmony, POF, etc. In the past 2 years, I went to 3 weddings where the couple met online - one of my best friends met her husband in an an AOL chat room (this was circa 2001 though). Anything is possible!
Wow, well your post definitely gives me hope. I have known quit a few people that have met or married after meeting online as well. I guess initially i thought it was going pretty good since I was getting responses and now I don't know.
I agree. I don't understand the point of talking for months or even weeks without meeting. Exchange a few e-mails, maybe a short chat on the phone, and meet. I've found guys I text with before meeting I lose interest in... even though normally I really like texting. I think everyone just has to find the approach that works for them. One of my best friends met her husband on match, and 2 other friends just got boyfriends they met online, so I know it CAN work. Even though it hasn't worked for me yet!
Exactly, that's what I don't understand. I was nervous about meeting my first online date, but I think that's normal. I don't see the point if you never want to meet.
I have noticed on OKC some people put maybe under whether they would meet someone. *sigh*
This is just my perception on free sites v. paid sites — I do believe that where you live factors into your success with both.
I looked at a couple of free sites and initially signed up with one of them (prefer not to say which). Seemed like the men on this site were more into "alternative lifestyle" situations, e.g., FWBs, polygamy, swinging, etc. A lot of far lefties, liberal thinkers, atheists and people into weird religions. It also seemed to me that the men on these sites were either in an artistic field or very blue collar; a lot were underemployed or unemployed, which probably explains why they were using the unpaid sites. I went out with a couple of guys from this unpaid site. Dutch. Well, OK. Except that they asked me out to dinner. I would have liked to know that I was going to be paying my share of the tab. (Gah.)
Match.com was very different compared to the unpaid site. It felt more mainstream — most of the guys I met were the kind I'd meet at my workplace. White collar, mid-management, employed for a steady length of time, etc. White picket fence seekers for the most part — and I don't say this to be derogatory. A lot of people really want that, so Match fulfills its purpose.
I think that if I were still at university, the free site would have appealed to me more, because back then, I didn't care too much about a man's future aspirations, and the free-thinking 'artiste' was a big turn-on. Now, I'm a different person. I stopped using the free site after about a month and stuck with the paid site.
This is just my perception on free sites v. paid sites — I do believe that where you live factors into your success with both.
I looked at a couple of free sites and initially signed up with one of them (prefer not to say which). Seemed like the men on this site were more into "alternative lifestyle" situations, e.g., FWBs, polygamy, swinging, etc. A lot of far lefties, liberal thinkers, atheists and people into weird religions. It also seemed to me that the men on these sites were either in an artistic field or very blue collar; a lot were underemployed or unemployed, which probably explains why they were using the unpaid sites. I went out with a couple of guys from this unpaid site. Dutch. Well, OK. Except that they asked me out to dinner. I would have liked to know that I was going to be paying my share of the tab. (Gah.)
Match.com was very different compared to the unpaid site. It felt more mainstream — most of the guys I met were the kind I'd meet at my workplace. White collar, mid-management, employed for a steady length of time, etc. White picket fence seekers for the most part — and I don't say this to be derogatory. A lot of people really want that, so Match fulfills its purpose.
I think that if I were still at university, the free site would have appealed to me more, because back then, I didn't care too much about a man's future aspirations, and the free-thinking 'artiste' was a big turn-on. Now, I'm a different person. I stopped using the free site after about a month and stuck with the paid site.
I have noticed definitely some of of the types you are describing over the past month. I'm okay with some of that you described, but what I am not I have noticed a lot.
A few people have mentioned Match, so I am definitely going to look more into it.
I've also had the experience of the paid sites being nearly identical to the free sites. I started the other way - subscribed to Match.com and eHarmony - then tried pof.com and okcupid.com. Actually, eHarmony was a total bust because they only seemed to be able to find matches living 2+ hours from my home. When I limited the matching system to 50 miles or less they stopped sending me matches altogether.
Actually, eHarmony was a total bust because they only seemed to be able to find matches living 2+ hours from my home. When I limited the matching system to 50 miles or less they stopped sending me matches altogether.
Even though friends of mine met through it in town, almost everybody says that about eHarmony, so it must be true more often than not.
As far as paid vs. unpaid sites, just like I've said many times before, at least here about 80+% of the people overlap.
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.
). 
even though normally I really like texting. I think everyone just has to find the approach that works for them. One of my best friends met her husband on match, and 2 other friends just got boyfriends they met online, so I know it CAN work. Even though it hasn't worked for me yet!
