Now I review Dopasowani. It uses the Enneagram of Personality model (another ipsative test, a HOAX)
You can see these screenshots:
Monday, October 31, 2011
Dopasowani
I had reviewed over 55 compatibility matching engines intended for serious dating since 2003, when I had discovered "the online dating sound barrier" problem.
Now I review Dopasowani. It uses the Enneagram of Personality model (another ipsative test, a HOAX)
You can see these screenshots:
Now I review Dopasowani. It uses the Enneagram of Personality model (another ipsative test, a HOAX)
You can see these screenshots:
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Teller Ulam design and LIFEPROJECT METHOD.
The Tunguska event was an enormously powerful explosion that occurred in what is now Krasnoyarsk Krai, Russia, at about 0:14 UT on June 30 1908. The explosion is believed to have been caused by the air burst of a large meteoroid or comet fragment at an altitude of 5–10 kilometres (3–6 mi) above the Earth's surface.
The energy of the blast was nearly 15 megatons of TNT roughly equal to the United States' Castle Bravo thermonuclear bomb tested on March 1, 1954; about 1,000 times more powerful than the nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshima, Japan (codenamed Little Boy).
The idea of a thermonuclear fusion bomb ignited by a smaller fission bomb was first proposed by Enrico Fermi to his colleague Edward Teller in 1941 at the start of what would become the Manhattan Project.
Other prominent scientists openly recommended building nuclear bombs more powerful than the standard pure-fission model. Their assumption was that critical mass considerations would limit the potential size of fission explosions, but that a fusion explosion could be as large as its supply of fuel, which has no critical mass limit.
In January 1951, Edward Teller and Stanislaw Ulam invented radiation-powered ablation-drive implosion.
The Teller–Ulam design is the nuclear weapon design concept used in most of the world's multi-megaton-range thermonuclear weapons; a 1,000 times more powerful than Hiroshima's Little Boy.
Its essential features, officially remained secret for nearly three decades.
LIFEPROJECT METHOD is like the "Teller Ulam design" for the Online Dating Industry.
In this case 100 times more powerful than actual matching algorithms.
Breaking "the online dating sound barrier" is to achieve at least:
3 most compatible persons in a 100,000 persons database.
12 most compatible persons in a 1,000,000 persons database.
48 most compatible persons in a 10,000,000 persons database.
100 times better than Compatibility Matching Algorithms used by actual online dating sites!
The only way to achieve that is:
- using the 16PF5 normative personality test, available in different languages to assess personality of members, or a proprietary test with exactly the same traits of the 16PF5. The ensemble of the 16PF5 is: 10E16, big number as All World Population is nearly 7.0 * 10E9 (estimated OCT 2011)
- expressing compatibility with eight decimals, like The pattern 6.7.6.8.9.6.7.7.8.7.2.5.8.7.3.4 is 92.55033557% +/- 0.00000001% similar to the pattern 7.7.6.8.8.7.6.5.8.7.4.5.7.7.3.4
Using a quantized pattern comparison method (part of pattern recognition by cross-correlation) to calculate similarity between prospective mates.
That is the only way to revolutionize the Online Dating Industry.
All other proposals are .............. NOISE
The energy of the blast was nearly 15 megatons of TNT roughly equal to the United States' Castle Bravo thermonuclear bomb tested on March 1, 1954; about 1,000 times more powerful than the nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshima, Japan (codenamed Little Boy).
The idea of a thermonuclear fusion bomb ignited by a smaller fission bomb was first proposed by Enrico Fermi to his colleague Edward Teller in 1941 at the start of what would become the Manhattan Project.
Other prominent scientists openly recommended building nuclear bombs more powerful than the standard pure-fission model. Their assumption was that critical mass considerations would limit the potential size of fission explosions, but that a fusion explosion could be as large as its supply of fuel, which has no critical mass limit.
In January 1951, Edward Teller and Stanislaw Ulam invented radiation-powered ablation-drive implosion.
The Teller–Ulam design is the nuclear weapon design concept used in most of the world's multi-megaton-range thermonuclear weapons; a 1,000 times more powerful than Hiroshima's Little Boy.
Its essential features, officially remained secret for nearly three decades.
LIFEPROJECT METHOD is like the "Teller Ulam design" for the Online Dating Industry.
In this case 100 times more powerful than actual matching algorithms.
Breaking "the online dating sound barrier" is to achieve at least:
3 most compatible persons in a 100,000 persons database.
12 most compatible persons in a 1,000,000 persons database.
48 most compatible persons in a 10,000,000 persons database.
100 times better than Compatibility Matching Algorithms used by actual online dating sites!
The only way to achieve that is:
- using the 16PF5 normative personality test, available in different languages to assess personality of members, or a proprietary test with exactly the same traits of the 16PF5. The ensemble of the 16PF5 is: 10E16, big number as All World Population is nearly 7.0 * 10E9 (estimated OCT 2011)
- expressing compatibility with eight decimals, like The pattern 6.7.6.8.9.6.7.7.8.7.2.5.8.7.3.4 is 92.55033557% +/- 0.00000001% similar to the pattern 7.7.6.8.8.7.6.5.8.7.4.5.7.7.3.4
Using a quantized pattern comparison method (part of pattern recognition by cross-correlation) to calculate similarity between prospective mates.
That is the only way to revolutionize the Online Dating Industry.
All other proposals are .............. NOISE
Mobile Social Media
Mobile Social Media Networking, Dating & Virtual Goods 2011-2016
Please see the Latin American Market. Latin Americans are not fond of acquiring virtual goods.
and the mobile concept is evolving.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
eHarmony Labs / free personality quiz
eHarmony Labs had begun to offer a free personality quiz.
That personality test is powered by DatStat, and it is more powerful than the one used at eHarmony.
It has over 110 questions and it seems to be a normative personality test in English for the United States.
The Results are 5 written feedbacks, as if it was an adapted Big 5 model, but it does not show any numerical scales.
The 16PF5 normative personality test is more powerful and better than that Personality Quiz powered by DatStat.
I suspect eHarmony is going to launch a new online dating site based solely on strict personality similarity, and they are testing that Personality Quiz.
That personality test is powered by DatStat, and it is more powerful than the one used at eHarmony.
It has over 110 questions and it seems to be a normative personality test in English for the United States.
The Results are 5 written feedbacks, as if it was an adapted Big 5 model, but it does not show any numerical scales.
The 16PF5 normative personality test is more powerful and better than that Personality Quiz powered by DatStat.
I suspect eHarmony is going to launch a new online dating site based solely on strict personality similarity, and they are testing that Personality Quiz.
Saturday, October 22, 2011
The ineffectiveness of
The ineffectiveness of speed dating and why you should not pay for a dating service
I had reviewed over 55 compatibility matching engines intended for serious dating since 2003, when I had discovered "the online dating sound barrier" problem.
ONLY ONE ROAD TO ACHIEVE INNOVATIONS
Online Dating for serious daters does not need to be more social, it needs to be more effective/efficient. It needs to reduce the false positives problem.
WorldWide, there are over 5,000 online dating sites
but no one is using the 16PF5 (or similar test) to assess personality of its members.
Without offering the NORMATIVE16PF5 (or similar test measuring exactly the 16 personality factors) for serious dating, it will be impossible to innovate and revolutionize the Online Dating Industry
I had reviewed over 55 compatibility matching engines intended for serious dating since 2003, when I had discovered "the online dating sound barrier" problem.
ONLY ONE ROAD TO ACHIEVE INNOVATIONS
Online Dating for serious daters does not need to be more social, it needs to be more effective/efficient. It needs to reduce the false positives problem.
WorldWide, there are over 5,000 online dating sites
but no one is using the 16PF5 (or similar test) to assess personality of its members.
Without offering the NORMATIVE16PF5 (or similar test measuring exactly the 16 personality factors) for serious dating, it will be impossible to innovate and revolutionize the Online Dating Industry
Friday, October 21, 2011
What comes after Social Networking?
What comes after Social Networking?
My bet:
The Next Big Investment Opportunity on the Internet will be .... Personalization!
Personality Based Recommender Systems and Strict Personality Based Compatibility Matching Engines for serious Online Dating with the normative 16PF5 personality test.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
INTERNET TRENDS 2011
INTERNET TRENDS – Web 2.0 Summit San Francisco, CA
Mary Meeker – October 18, 2011
Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Uruguay, Peru, Venezuela, Colombia are South American countries but ...
South America is an unserved / unexploited market for the Online Dating Industry.
Argentina's debt is not listed at page 62. It was reduced since 2002. Please see the article "Argentine debt restructuring"
Mary Meeker – October 18, 2011
Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Uruguay, Peru, Venezuela, Colombia are South American countries but ...
South America is an unserved / unexploited market for the Online Dating Industry.
Argentina's debt is not listed at page 62. It was reduced since 2002. Please see the article "Argentine debt restructuring"
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Facebook to open offices in Argentina.
Facebook to open offices in Argentina.
The Simpsons, Apple, Facebook, LinkedIn, WordPress, Google, Hotmail, Yahoo, YouTube, Blogger, Wikipedia, Bing, MegaUpload, Twitter are BIG successes in Argentina.
I have the theory that if something is successful in Argentina, it could be a success in the World.
If it can NOT be a success here in Argentina, it will definitely NOT be a success in the World.
NO online dating company (for serious daters) has success here in Argentina (Match, Meetic, eHarmony, Chemistry, PerfectMatch, PlentyOfFish, OKCupid, etc) nor Brazil or other South American country.
The Simpsons, Apple, Facebook, LinkedIn, WordPress, Google, Hotmail, Yahoo, YouTube, Blogger, Wikipedia, Bing, MegaUpload, Twitter are BIG successes in Argentina.
I have the theory that if something is successful in Argentina, it could be a success in the World.
If it can NOT be a success here in Argentina, it will definitely NOT be a success in the World.
NO online dating company (for serious daters) has success here in Argentina (Match, Meetic, eHarmony, Chemistry, PerfectMatch, PlentyOfFish, OKCupid, etc) nor Brazil or other South American country.
Monday, October 17, 2011
eHarmony is melting.
For big sites, Alexa is a fruitful tool. See how it shows eHarmony is melting. That drop in traffic rank can not be explained due to a massive mobile application adoption rate.
Also see how it shows Match had "merged" with Singlesnet and the 4th July incident. (I suspect the team fell asleep and a massive hacking incident happened)
Also see how it shows Match had "merged" with Singlesnet and the 4th July incident. (I suspect the team fell asleep and a massive hacking incident happened)
Saturday, October 15, 2011
RSWEB2011: 3rd Workshop on Recommender Systems and the Social Web
October 23, 2011
"....The Social Web provides huge opportunities for recommender technology and in turn recommender technologies can play a part in fuelling the success of the Social Web phenomenon. The goal of this workshop, the third in the series, is to bring together researcher and practitioners to explore, discuss, and understand challenges and new opportunities for recommender systems and the Social Web. "
Personality Based Recommender Systems are the next generation of recommender systems because they perform FAR better than Behavioural ones (past actions and pattern of personal preferences)
That is the only way to improve recommender systems, to include the personality traits of their users.
Have you seen they need to calculate personality similarity between users?
Have you seen there are different formulas to calculate similarity?
In case you did not notice, recommender systems are morphing to .......... compatibility matching engines!!!
They mostly use the Big5 to assess personality and the Pearson correlation coefficient to calculate similarity.
Researchers in the Personality Based Recommender Systems arena are also testing different / novel formulas to calculate similarity, useless at all because they use the Big5 to assess personality of users.
Online Dating Sites like eHarmony, Parship, Be2, MeeticAffinity, PlentyOfFish Chemistry Predictor and others had been calculating personality similarity between prospective users since several years ago with low successful rates, with a low effectiveness/efficiency level of their matching algorithms (less than 10%) because they use the normative Big5 or ipsative proprietary models instead -like Chemistry or PerfectMatch- to measure personality traits.
No one is using the 16PF5 to assess personality of members.
No one calculates similarity with a quantized pattern comparison method.
No one can show Compatibility Distribution Curves to each and every of its members
See how LIFEPROJECT METHOD calculates similarity.
Similarity in personality patterns with (a proprietary) pattern recognition by correlation method. It takes into account the score and the trend to score of any pattern.
"....The Social Web provides huge opportunities for recommender technology and in turn recommender technologies can play a part in fuelling the success of the Social Web phenomenon. The goal of this workshop, the third in the series, is to bring together researcher and practitioners to explore, discuss, and understand challenges and new opportunities for recommender systems and the Social Web. "
Personality Based Recommender Systems are the next generation of recommender systems because they perform FAR better than Behavioural ones (past actions and pattern of personal preferences)
That is the only way to improve recommender systems, to include the personality traits of their users.
Have you seen they need to calculate personality similarity between users?
Have you seen there are different formulas to calculate similarity?
In case you did not notice, recommender systems are morphing to .......... compatibility matching engines!!!
They mostly use the Big5 to assess personality and the Pearson correlation coefficient to calculate similarity.
Researchers in the Personality Based Recommender Systems arena are also testing different / novel formulas to calculate similarity, useless at all because they use the Big5 to assess personality of users.
Online Dating Sites like eHarmony, Parship, Be2, MeeticAffinity, PlentyOfFish Chemistry Predictor and others had been calculating personality similarity between prospective users since several years ago with low successful rates, with a low effectiveness/efficiency level of their matching algorithms (less than 10%) because they use the normative Big5 or ipsative proprietary models instead -like Chemistry or PerfectMatch- to measure personality traits.
No one is using the 16PF5 to assess personality of members.
No one calculates similarity with a quantized pattern comparison method.
No one can show Compatibility Distribution Curves to each and every of its members
See how LIFEPROJECT METHOD calculates similarity.
Similarity in personality patterns with (a proprietary) pattern recognition by correlation method. It takes into account the score and the trend to score of any pattern.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
"Generalization in mate choice copying in humans"
The new and fresh paper "Generalization in mate choice copying in humans" is a BIG PUNCH to social online dating sites like:
Badoo, Mamboo and Yangutu where they show "popularity" of profiles
HotORNot where they show photo rankings
and even SpeedDating sites.
Please DO remember also a previous paper "From Dating to Mating and Relating: Predictors of Initial and Long-Term Outcomes of Speed-Dating in a Community Sample"
The chance for mating with a speed-dating partner was 6%, and was increased by men's short-term mating interest; the chance for relating was 4%, and was increased by women's long-term mating interest. Another way of looking at the probabilities of 6% and 4% is to convert them into time and money spent on multiple speeddating events, assuming independence of the outcomes of each event. Assuming that one has to pay 30 Euros for a speed-dating event lasting 3 hours including everything, finding a relationship partner requires investing 75 hours and 750 Euros on average.
Social online dating and SpeedDating are a complete waste of time for serious daters.
Also the paper "Generalization in mate choice copying in humans" is also a BIG PUNCH to Behavioural Recommender Systems / Recommendation Engines for Online Dating sites like IntroAnalytics, VisualDNA, the one used at PlentyOfFish "UltraMatch" or other system that learns your preferences.
The main disadvantage with (Behavioural) recommendation engines based on collaborative filtering is when users instead of providing their personal preference try to guess the global preference and they introduce bias in the recommendation algorithm.
Behavioural Recommender Systems / Recommendation Engines for Online Dating are ineffective/useless for serious daters.
In previous post I had written about PERSOC.
"Generalization in mate choice copying in humans"
Milan Kundera (1978) describes it as "one of life's great secrets: women don't look for handsome men, they look for men with beautiful women" (p.12).
"Mate-choice copying in humans has now been reproduced in several laboratories, using as many variants of method. .. (there is) evidence not only for individual-based copying, but trait-based copying as well, showing that this is specific to certain types of traits, and that the use of trait-based copying changes in early adulthood."
"... one's assessment of another's appeal is heightened upon acquiring social information indicating that person as a successful mate. This is individual-based mate-choice copying. Seeing someone succeed in winning some sexual interest of a potential mate makes that person more attractive to observing third parties. But when we acquire such information, have we learned something exclusively about the observed individual, or something more general, applicable also to other potential mates with common characteristics? The present results suggest that this kind of generalization—trait-based mate-choice copying—occurs in humans, but that it is specific to culturally malleable cues, conspicuously not facial traits."
"There is much evidence that humans, as other species, are affected by social information when making mate choice decisions. Witnessing a rival show interest in a member of the opposite sex tends to lead human observers of both sexes to thereafter rate that person as more appealing as a potential mate.
However, how this occurs is not well understood. We investigate whether this effect is specific to the individual witnessed, or will generalize to other potential mates with shared characteristics—that is, whether humans exhibit trait-based or just individual-based mate-choice copying.
We found that whereas this kind of generalization did occur with some traits, it appeared to depend on age, and conspicuously, it did not occur with (inner) facial traits. We discuss possible explanations for the age and cue-specificity in terms of informational benefits and how people attend to unfamiliar faces."
...............
"Experiments
We tested whether human observers' judgments of appeal or attractiveness of stimulus faces would be affected by perceptions of others' apparent sexual interest, mate-choice copying, and further, whether these observers would generalize this change in assessment to other people expressing shared physical traits, trait-based copying. Videos of people on real speed-dates provided naturalistic mate choice information (see Place 2010 for additional control experiments). We varied two kinds of trait that play a role in natural mating circumstances: facial characteristics, and culturally acquired characteristics, clothing and hair styles. Comparable experiments were conducted with each class of trait with female participants assessing male stimuli and male participants assessing female stimuli."
Please also read:
Predictability of Personality Traits is Dismal. Never, but never ask daters to describe themselves!!!
Stability and change of personality across the life course:
Personality traits are highly stable in persons over 25 years old to 45 years old (the group of persons who could be most interested in serious online dating) They have only minor changes in personality (less than 1 interval in a normative test) and the 16PF5 test will not "see" them because the output of the 16PF5 test are 16 variables STens (Standard Tens) taking integer values from 1 to 10. STens divide the score scale into ten units. STens have the advantage that they enable results to be thought of in terms of bands of scores, rather than absolute raw scores. These bands are narrow enough to distinguish statistically significant differences between candidates, but wide enough not to over emphasize minor differences between candidates.
ONLY ONE ROAD TO ACHIEVE INNOVATIONS
Online Dating for serious daters does not need to be more social, it needs to be more effective/efficient. It needs to reduce the false positives problem.
The entire Online Dating Industry for serious daters in 1st World Countries is a HOAX, performing as a Big Online Casino, with low successful rates.
Innovations are not adding more bells and whistles to actual online dating sites.
The Online Dating Industry needs Innovations, but the innovations the Online Dating Industry needs will come from only one source: the latest discoveries in theories of romantic relationships development with commitment. Only 3 major discoveries can help to revolutionize the online dating industry.
I) Several studies showing contraceptive pills users make different mate choices, on average, compared to non-users. "Only short-term but not long-term partner preferences tend to vary with the menstrual cycle"
II) People often report partner preferences that are not compatible with their choices in real life. (FORGET Behavioural recommender systems or other system that learns your preferences)
III) What is important in attracting people to one another may not be important in making couples happy. Compatibility is all about a high level on personality similarity between prospective mates for long term mating with commitment.
In compatibility matching methods there are 2 steps:
(1) to objectively measure personality traits or other human variables.
WorldWide, there are over 5,000 online dating sites but no one is using the 16PF5 (or similar test like 15FQ+) to assess personality of its members.
Without offering the 16PF5 (or similar test measuring exactly the 16 personality factors, the complete inventory as established by Dr. Raymond Cattell during 1949) for serious dating, it will be impossible to innovate and revolutionize the Online Dating Industry.
(2) to calculate compatibility between prospective mates.
Badoo, Mamboo and Yangutu where they show "popularity" of profiles
HotORNot where they show photo rankings
and even SpeedDating sites.
Please DO remember also a previous paper "From Dating to Mating and Relating: Predictors of Initial and Long-Term Outcomes of Speed-Dating in a Community Sample"
The chance for mating with a speed-dating partner was 6%, and was increased by men's short-term mating interest; the chance for relating was 4%, and was increased by women's long-term mating interest. Another way of looking at the probabilities of 6% and 4% is to convert them into time and money spent on multiple speeddating events, assuming independence of the outcomes of each event. Assuming that one has to pay 30 Euros for a speed-dating event lasting 3 hours including everything, finding a relationship partner requires investing 75 hours and 750 Euros on average.
Social online dating and SpeedDating are a complete waste of time for serious daters.
Also the paper "Generalization in mate choice copying in humans" is also a BIG PUNCH to Behavioural Recommender Systems / Recommendation Engines for Online Dating sites like IntroAnalytics, VisualDNA, the one used at PlentyOfFish "UltraMatch" or other system that learns your preferences.
The main disadvantage with (Behavioural) recommendation engines based on collaborative filtering is when users instead of providing their personal preference try to guess the global preference and they introduce bias in the recommendation algorithm.
Behavioural Recommender Systems / Recommendation Engines for Online Dating are ineffective/useless for serious daters.
In previous post I had written about PERSOC.
"Generalization in mate choice copying in humans"
Milan Kundera (1978) describes it as "one of life's great secrets: women don't look for handsome men, they look for men with beautiful women" (p.12).
"Mate-choice copying in humans has now been reproduced in several laboratories, using as many variants of method. .. (there is) evidence not only for individual-based copying, but trait-based copying as well, showing that this is specific to certain types of traits, and that the use of trait-based copying changes in early adulthood."
"... one's assessment of another's appeal is heightened upon acquiring social information indicating that person as a successful mate. This is individual-based mate-choice copying. Seeing someone succeed in winning some sexual interest of a potential mate makes that person more attractive to observing third parties. But when we acquire such information, have we learned something exclusively about the observed individual, or something more general, applicable also to other potential mates with common characteristics? The present results suggest that this kind of generalization—trait-based mate-choice copying—occurs in humans, but that it is specific to culturally malleable cues, conspicuously not facial traits."
"There is much evidence that humans, as other species, are affected by social information when making mate choice decisions. Witnessing a rival show interest in a member of the opposite sex tends to lead human observers of both sexes to thereafter rate that person as more appealing as a potential mate.
However, how this occurs is not well understood. We investigate whether this effect is specific to the individual witnessed, or will generalize to other potential mates with shared characteristics—that is, whether humans exhibit trait-based or just individual-based mate-choice copying.
We found that whereas this kind of generalization did occur with some traits, it appeared to depend on age, and conspicuously, it did not occur with (inner) facial traits. We discuss possible explanations for the age and cue-specificity in terms of informational benefits and how people attend to unfamiliar faces."
...............
"Experiments
We tested whether human observers' judgments of appeal or attractiveness of stimulus faces would be affected by perceptions of others' apparent sexual interest, mate-choice copying, and further, whether these observers would generalize this change in assessment to other people expressing shared physical traits, trait-based copying. Videos of people on real speed-dates provided naturalistic mate choice information (see Place 2010 for additional control experiments). We varied two kinds of trait that play a role in natural mating circumstances: facial characteristics, and culturally acquired characteristics, clothing and hair styles. Comparable experiments were conducted with each class of trait with female participants assessing male stimuli and male participants assessing female stimuli."
Please also read:
Predictability of Personality Traits is Dismal. Never, but never ask daters to describe themselves!!!
Stability and change of personality across the life course:
Personality traits are highly stable in persons over 25 years old to 45 years old (the group of persons who could be most interested in serious online dating) They have only minor changes in personality (less than 1 interval in a normative test) and the 16PF5 test will not "see" them because the output of the 16PF5 test are 16 variables STens (Standard Tens) taking integer values from 1 to 10. STens divide the score scale into ten units. STens have the advantage that they enable results to be thought of in terms of bands of scores, rather than absolute raw scores. These bands are narrow enough to distinguish statistically significant differences between candidates, but wide enough not to over emphasize minor differences between candidates.
ONLY ONE ROAD TO ACHIEVE INNOVATIONS
Online Dating for serious daters does not need to be more social, it needs to be more effective/efficient. It needs to reduce the false positives problem.
The entire Online Dating Industry for serious daters in 1st World Countries is a HOAX, performing as a Big Online Casino, with low successful rates.
Innovations are not adding more bells and whistles to actual online dating sites.
The Online Dating Industry needs Innovations, but the innovations the Online Dating Industry needs will come from only one source: the latest discoveries in theories of romantic relationships development with commitment. Only 3 major discoveries can help to revolutionize the online dating industry.
I) Several studies showing contraceptive pills users make different mate choices, on average, compared to non-users. "Only short-term but not long-term partner preferences tend to vary with the menstrual cycle"
II) People often report partner preferences that are not compatible with their choices in real life. (FORGET Behavioural recommender systems or other system that learns your preferences)
III) What is important in attracting people to one another may not be important in making couples happy. Compatibility is all about a high level on personality similarity between prospective mates for long term mating with commitment.
In compatibility matching methods there are 2 steps:
(1) to objectively measure personality traits or other human variables.
WorldWide, there are over 5,000 online dating sites but no one is using the 16PF5 (or similar test like 15FQ+) to assess personality of its members.
Without offering the 16PF5 (or similar test measuring exactly the 16 personality factors, the complete inventory as established by Dr. Raymond Cattell during 1949) for serious dating, it will be impossible to innovate and revolutionize the Online Dating Industry.
(2) to calculate compatibility between prospective mates.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
IntroAnalytics
Mark Brooks from OnlinePersonalsWatch had interviewed the CEO of IntroAnalytics.
Their core product is a Behavioural Recommender System.
"What does Intro Analytics do?
It’s a data intelligence matching company designed for dating sites and social media. We look at the behavior people have online and we match them based on that."
Behavioural Matching recommends people based on the type of person you have sent emails to, replied to, clicked on in search results and gone on dates with, but .... persons/people often report/select partner preferences that are not compatible with their choices in real life, that is why Behavioural Recommender Systems / Recommendation Engines perform so bad.
Some time ago I posted about punches to Behavioural Recommender Systems / Recommendation Engines for Online Dating sites like IntroAnalytics, VisualDNA, the one used at PlentyOfFish or other system that learns your preferences:
NEW and FRESH paper, punch to Behavioural Recommenders.
a big punch to Behavioural Recommender Systems.
Two papers debunking speeddating for serious dating
Personality Based Recommender Systems are the next generation of recommender systems because they perform FAR better than Behavioural ones (past actions and pattern of personal preferences)
That is the only way to improve recommender systems, to include the personality traits of their users.
Have you seen they need to calculate personality similarity between users?
Have you seen there are different formulas to calculate similarity?
In case you did not notice, recommender systems are morphing to .......... compatibility matching engines!!!
They mostly use the Big5 to assess personality and the Pearson correlation coefficient to calculate similarity.
Researchers in the Personality Based Recommender Systems arena are also testing different / novel formulas to calculate similarity, useless at all because they use the Big5 to assess personality of users.
Online Dating Sites like eHarmony, Parship, Be2, MeeticAffinity, PlentyOfFish Chemistry Predictor and others had been calculating personality similarity between prospective users since several years ago with low successful rates, with a low effectiveness/efficiency level of their matching algorithms (less than 10%) because they use the normative Big5 or ipsative proprietary models instead -like Chemistry or PerfectMatch- to measure personality traits.
No one is using the 16PF5 to assess personality of members.
No one calculates similarity with a quantized pattern comparison method.
No one can show Compatibility Distribution Curves to each and every of its members.
Their core product is a Behavioural Recommender System.
"What does Intro Analytics do?
It’s a data intelligence matching company designed for dating sites and social media. We look at the behavior people have online and we match them based on that."
Behavioural Matching recommends people based on the type of person you have sent emails to, replied to, clicked on in search results and gone on dates with, but .... persons/people often report/select partner preferences that are not compatible with their choices in real life, that is why Behavioural Recommender Systems / Recommendation Engines perform so bad.
Some time ago I posted about punches to Behavioural Recommender Systems / Recommendation Engines for Online Dating sites like IntroAnalytics, VisualDNA, the one used at PlentyOfFish or other system that learns your preferences:
NEW and FRESH paper, punch to Behavioural Recommenders.
a big punch to Behavioural Recommender Systems.
Two papers debunking speeddating for serious dating
Personality Based Recommender Systems are the next generation of recommender systems because they perform FAR better than Behavioural ones (past actions and pattern of personal preferences)
That is the only way to improve recommender systems, to include the personality traits of their users.
Have you seen they need to calculate personality similarity between users?
Have you seen there are different formulas to calculate similarity?
In case you did not notice, recommender systems are morphing to .......... compatibility matching engines!!!
They mostly use the Big5 to assess personality and the Pearson correlation coefficient to calculate similarity.
Researchers in the Personality Based Recommender Systems arena are also testing different / novel formulas to calculate similarity, useless at all because they use the Big5 to assess personality of users.
Online Dating Sites like eHarmony, Parship, Be2, MeeticAffinity, PlentyOfFish Chemistry Predictor and others had been calculating personality similarity between prospective users since several years ago with low successful rates, with a low effectiveness/efficiency level of their matching algorithms (less than 10%) because they use the normative Big5 or ipsative proprietary models instead -like Chemistry or PerfectMatch- to measure personality traits.
No one is using the 16PF5 to assess personality of members.
No one calculates similarity with a quantized pattern comparison method.
No one can show Compatibility Distribution Curves to each and every of its members.
Second Love in Argentina.
Second Love in Argentina.
Second Love is not a social network, it is a casual online dating site.
Surely many Argentineans created a profile there because they are very curious, but my bet is: They are not going to pay any dollar for casual contacts.
Second Love is in its euphoria phase, initial effervescence, that in less than 3 months everything collapses.
Second Love is not as popular as the original article says. You can check the traffic rank, bounce and the time spent by its users with Alexa.
The cheaters do not want to use sites to infidels, they do not want to know other cheaters like them.
Second Love is not a social network, it is a casual online dating site.
Surely many Argentineans created a profile there because they are very curious, but my bet is: They are not going to pay any dollar for casual contacts.
Second Love is in its euphoria phase, initial effervescence, that in less than 3 months everything collapses.
Second Love is not as popular as the original article says. You can check the traffic rank, bounce and the time spent by its users with Alexa.
The cheaters do not want to use sites to infidels, they do not want to know other cheaters like them.
Monday, October 10, 2011
FAILED PROPOSAL: eVow
eVow, the paid independent site from PlentyOfFish launched 13 months ago, intended for serious daters, failed.
eVow claims "At eVow, we use an innovative compatibility matching system that we created specifically for singles who are serious about finding long-term relationships."
But guess ... that "innovative compatibility matching system" is only a HOAX.
Sunday, October 9, 2011
IvyDate, DateHarvardSQ
Nearly one year ago I saw DateHarvardSQ, who claimed:
"Founded in 2010, DateHarvardSQ is owned and operated by a team of dedicated Harvard University graduates whose goal is to help their peers find meaningful relationships with likeminded individuals. "
and I said: That site has nothing new, innovative or better than what is already available, moreover it performs like Match during ....... 2002!
Now it was rebranded as IvyDate.
As it does not have any compatibility matching engine, I seriously doubt it can get some traction.
Saturday, October 8, 2011
eHarmony Brazil ist Kaputt!
eHarmony Brazil ist Kaputt! DEAD, game over, nobody uses it, it has no traffic at all.
The spring had blossom here in South America. Birds are singing, the flowers open their petals exhaling their sweet fragrance.
In two months the summer will begin.
All is peace and harmony in South America, in another tuning with the North Hemisphere.
South America, it's like another planet to the people in the North Hemisphere.
eHarmony Brazil is the biggest failure eHarmony's team had ever made.
eHarmony Japan (iHamoni) not launched yet (one year delayed)
eHarmony USA, UK, Australia and Canada: losing traffic, decaying.
Jazzed ist Kaputt! DEAD, game over, nobody uses it, it has no traffic at all.
You cannot stay 11 years in the Online Dating Industry without innovating, saying "scientifically proven" and eHarmony does not have any proof (peer reviewed scientific paper) and scamming members with automatic rebilling.
eHarmony (eHarmonEy), old dinosaur, please, die peacefully and leave room for new opportunities!!!
Friday, October 7, 2011
5 social dating FAILED PROPOSALS
Online Dating for serious daters does not need to be more social, it does not need to "embrace" the social networking phenomenom; it needs to be more effective/efficient. It needs to reduce the false positives problem.
I remember 5 social dating companies who had failed to revolutionize the Online Dating Industry, like
Engage (then rebranded to Ignighter group dating)
Triangulate
Ge.la.to (then rebranded to Twnty)
Thread
Smartdate
LIFEPROJECT METHOD scoring algorithm
LIFEPROJECT METHOD scoring algorithm: More than 10 years ago I had invented a proprietary method to calculate similarity between quantized patterns.
To my best knowledge, nobody could do or copy something like that.
I had revealed the main matching equation for public scrutiny but not the functions [/CQ/ means Comparison Operator] nor the coefficients [ K01, K02, K03, K04, K05, K06, K07, K08, K09, K10, K11, K12, K13, K14, K15, K16] because I plan to use the algorithm in the online dating site I want to launch, or sell the algorithm or license it to online dating companies.
To my best knowledge, nobody could do or copy something like that.
I had revealed the main matching equation for public scrutiny but not the functions [/CQ/ means Comparison Operator] nor the coefficients [ K01, K02, K03, K04, K05, K06, K07, K08, K09, K10, K11, K12, K13, K14, K15, K16] because I plan to use the algorithm in the online dating site I want to launch, or sell the algorithm or license it to online dating companies.
Thursday, October 6, 2011
PlentyOfFish (POF) to Grow Through Global Buys
PlentyOfFish (POF) to Grow Through Global Buys
When an online dating company can not innovate any more, it begins to acquire.
Nearly the same daters who want to use PlentyOfFish for free, are the same who pay USD 400 million per year to Match/Meetic and USD 280 million per year to eHarmony.
In a SWOT analysis, the main Weakness at POF is the Owner&CEO.
Is PlentyOfFish going to be like Yahoo in a future? a conglomerate of business units, none of them leader? Or Legislation is going to kill "free" proposals?
Remember any company needs to comply with local Legislation in different countries where it operates. Without local partners and locals offices in different countries, will be impossible.
Even Match, Meetic, eHarmony and others had failed in Brazil.
FAILED PROPOSAL: Cupids X Factors
The era of "One could make any claim and engage in the Online Dating Industry without any credentials" should end soon.
THIS FAILURE SHOULD BE A CASE OF STUDY.
Cupids X Factors was a failed proposal of nearly 4 years ago. Never took off.
"Cupidsxfactors plans to revolutionize the online dating industry with its unique (patent pending) matchmaking process, which matches potentials based on 10 key factors in a person’s life. "
" that everyone is given a chance to fully explore this innovative website. "
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)