But the responses from the more active group suggest they’re highly frustrated.They gave online dating sites the lowest satisfaction scores Consumer Reports has ever seen for services rendered—lower even than for tech-support providers, notoriously poor performers in our ratings. Well, finding a mate can be arduous and exhausting.And we found that the free sites generally did marginally better than the paid ones, presumably because they offer a better value.
Perhaps that’s why, among those who said they had used multiple dating sites, 28 percent had tried four or more.
But our research also found that online dating, however painful and time-consuming, often does produce the intended result if you use it well—and persevere.
Many dating sites rely on matchmaking algorithms the same way that Netflix uses them to recommend movies.
So if you live in the Denver area, you’re a single heterosexual man in his 50s who loves to travel, and you don’t believe in astrology, your matches may reflect women who have similar interests.
Our survey included many people who at some point had used a dating website or an app, as well as a subset of 9,600 respondents who used them in the past two years.
The more recently active group rated specific sites. On the one hand, the numbers indicate that these sites are helping people find mates.D., a junior fellow in economics at Harvard University.In other words, there’s no incentive for them to make the experience speedy.Online dating is different from shopping for, say, a sweater, he explains: “Once you decide on the sweater you want, you can get it.But with dating, the sweater has to agree, too.”Another reason for the low satisfaction scores may be that “most dating sites have some misalignment between profit model and user experience because they are financed through subscription fees or advertising,” says Scott Kominers, Ph.She signed up for JDate, an online dating site for Jewish singles.