To be honest, eHarmony is entirely an April Fools’ Day for its customers every day.
The Big Five normative test used by eHarmony, had been proven/revealed as an incomplete and incorrect model to assess/measure personality of persons.
eHarmony is a 16+ years old obsolete site and a big fraud. The success rate of eHarmony is less than 10%. (via reverse engineering by Fernando Ardenghi)
eHarmony is only supported by a big marketing budget and not by serious scientific evidence.
Someone named John wrote and deleted a comment there:
Fernando - is your response due to the fact that you have tried to launch your own dating platform since 2001 and have continuously failed to raise any investment or in fact launch your site....despite telling everyone repeatedly that your are the best in the world?
9:42 a.m., Friday March 31 | Other comments by John
Here is what I had said to John:
I am NOT the best in the world.
I have only invented a high precision matching algorithm that I think it deserves the opportunity to innovate and revolutionize the Online Dating Industry.
What comes after the Social Networking wave?
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.
WorldWide, there are over 5,000 -five thousand- online dating sites
but no one is using the 16PF5 (or similar) to assess personality of its members!
but no one calculates similarity with a quantized pattern comparison method!
but no one can show Compatibility Distribution Curves to each and every of its members!!!
but no one is scientifically proven! No actual online dating site is "scientifically proven" because no one can prove its matching algorithm can match prospective partners who will have more stable and satisfying relationships -and very low divorce rates- than couples matched by chance, astrological destiny, personal preferences, searching on one's own, or other technique as the control group in a peer reviewed Scientific Paper for the majority (over 90%) of its members.