Discuss Match.com Review (Summary: Not worth the money) at the Online Game and IMs within the The Attraction Forums. Dating Advice.; Match.com Review (Summary: Not worth the money)
After hearing so much about how paid dating ...
Match.com Review (Summary: Not worth the money)
After hearing so much about how paid dating sites are so much better than free ones, I decided to give Match.com a try.
However, right off the bat, I ran into some problems. You see, the thing that Match.com does is that when you submit your photos and your profile, they apparently have someone look over your photos/profile and manually approve it. Which is annoying, but it would be fine if the turnaround time were reasonable (~a day or two).
Unfortunately, it wasn't. Sure, the initial version of my profile was approved pretty much instantly. But after I saw it, I decided I didn't like it at all, so I decided to edit it. And after a few days, nothing happened. So I re-submitted. And after a week, still nothing. It wasn't until I finally contacted their support line that they finally approved my updated profile. Not a very good first impression for Match.com.
(Some people might argue that Match.com will give more attention to paying customers. But I'm not gonna pay them money just for the ability to post a profile. And treating potential customers like crap before they even pay a penny is a damn good way to make sure you don't ever get their money.)
At this point, I would have just quit Match.com right there and then. But I decided to be open-minded and give it a try. So I paid for a 1-month subscription and began contacting women.
The one good thing about Match.com is that their search is very powerful. You can find even the most obscure things, like red-heads with blue eyes between the ages of 21 and 24 within 25 miles of you. You can sort on Join Date, Last Activity Date, and other less useful metrics.
The UI does have some flaws, though. Match.com doesn't keep track of which girls you've messaged already and which girls you have not (which is a feature even a free site like OkCupid has), which means that you have to manually keep track of girls you've contacted yourself or run the risk of wasting time and effort when you message the same girl twice in a row and she just totally ignores your second message.
Match.com also fails to keep track of your conversation history, so when a girl sends you a message, you have to dig through your saved messages to figure out what the context of the message is. (Or you can just improvise like the sly dog you are, but it simply won't do if the girl says something like "lol what's up?" and you have NO IDEA what the hell is going on.)
Of course, lack of conversation history isn't that big of a problem, since very few girls will actually respond to you at all. As a percentage of total contacts, I had about 3 to 5 times more responses on OkCupid and PlentyOfFish than I did on Match.com. And of the ones that did respond to me on Match.com, none of them responded to a 2nd message. And I'm using the same photos and openers and lines as I am on OkCupid and PlentyOfFish.
So in conclusion, compared to OkCupid and PlentyOfFish, Match.com has a worse customer experience, worse UI, worse user base, and a worse success rate. And OkCupid and PlentyOfFish are both free. So why would anyone ever pay for an inferior dating site? (Well, okay, maybe they want something obscure like a blue-eyed redhead.) If Match.com were free, I'd totally use it, but as it stands, it's a complete waste of time and money. After my month was up, I cancelled my account, deleted my profile, and never looked back.
(A few points of consideration: My usual profile is something to the effect that I'm not really looking for a girlfriend, just cool people to hang out with. I wasn't sure if that works on a paid dating site, so I swapped it out for an older profile which may or may not have been less effective. Combined with the fact that girls on Match.com prolly actually read profiles, this may have made the difference. Additionally, it may be the case that online game on a paid site is dramatically different from online game on a free site.
But unless someone is able to confirm that Match.com when done correctly is orders of magnitude better than free sites, I still say it's a waste of time and money.)
I've had similar experiences with Match. Okcupid and PoF always give me far better results
the site that gives me almost as much success as POF is myyearbook, that site totally rocks. okcupid is still king
The thing I dislike most about Match is that it doesn't show you which members are paid up ones and which are on there with a free profile.
Seeing as you need to pay up to reply to people this is pretty annoying as you can waste time messaging women who can't even reply.
Plus they charge you if you want to know if a message has been read or not.
I agree that it's very poor value for money, and the general standard of women was very poor too.
I agree with everything the OP said.
It almost seemed like some of the girls were fake on their also. I have a 95%+ second email response rate on POF and okCupid, but about a 20% on match. Leads me to believe they have "hired guns" on that site.
okCupid/POF #closes: too many to count
match.com #closes: zero.
Stick with the free sites.
strange...my success rate on pof is terrible...i've had zero closes...i had pretty good success with true tho
My biggest problem with Match is when they reject your profile, they don't tell you which bit they're rejecting. It's frustrating to keep resubmitting by trial and error. My sub is up in a few days, I won't be renewing...
if you have bad pictures no online site will work. my roommate has met a ton of chicks from match.com - and he never even did any real work. He just sent winks. Imagine if he actually put work into it and sent good opening messages.
On plentyoffish I have a blank profile and it says im 100 years old with a PhD, but I get a good amount of messages sent to me, and I get about a 60 - 70% response rate. The only thing I can attribute this to is having nice pictures.
If you don't trust me, make up a fake profile with a good looking guy + social proof, and leave the profile blank. Message some chicks with gay questions about her profile and you'll see a crazy response rate.
ZeroFear, it's not the photos. I use the EXACT SAME photos on OkCupid, PlentyOfFish, and Match.com, and I have orders of magnitude more success on OkCupid and PlentyOfFish.
Okay, that's not completely accurate. Match.com auto-cropped one of my photos and completely rejected another. So technically the photos on my Match.com profile are different. But if anything, it's another strike against Match.com, because now you have even less control over your photos.
By Cydonia in forum Online Game and IMs
Last Post: 11-06-2008, 09:26 AM
By Da Proof in forum Newbie Discussion Forum
Last Post: 06-06-2008, 01:37 AM
By ADZ in forum General Discussion
Last Post: 05-10-2008, 02:42 AM
By Artless|Artful in forum General Discussion
Last Post: 10-15-2006, 06:32 PM