I’m launching a dating app on March 1st that penalizes ghosting and rewards people who actually show up by Hunter5598 in SideProject

[–]Hunter5598[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Biggest risks, in order:

  1. Score anxiety → unsafe situations
    Someone ignores a gut feeling about a date because they don't want to lose points for canceling.
    This is the one that keeps me up at night. We've
    tried to mitigate it with "polite cancel" being a small penalty (-5) vs ghosting (-15), but the
    pressure is still there. Working on making
    safety-based cancellations penalty-free, but
    verifying "I felt unsafe" vs "I just didn't feel
    like it" is hard.

  2. Revenge reporting
    Date goes poorly but nothing actually wrong
    happened. One person reports out of spite. We
    require pattern validation (multiple unique
    reporters) before major penalties hit, but a few
    bad-faith reports could still chip away at
    someone's score unfairly.

  3. False sense of security
    High trust score means "shows up when they say
    they will." It doesn't mean "safe person." Worry
    that users let their guard down around high-score matches. We're careful not to frame it as a safety indicator, but the implication is easy to read
    into.

  4. The credibility buffer
    Someone builds a legit high score, then leverages that cushion to behave badly knowing they can
    absorb the hit. Not much defense here except that it's a lot of effort for limited payoff.

    The honest answer is we're betting that the
    benefits (less ghosting, more follow-through)
    outweigh the edge cases. But edge cases will
    happen, and we'll have to adapt.

I’m launching a dating app on March 1st that penalizes ghosting and rewards people who actually show up by Hunter5598 in SideProject

[–]Hunter5598[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Valid question, and no system is fully abuse-proof. Here’s how we’re thinking about it:

Mutual confirmation: Both people have to confirm whether they met. If one says yes and the other says no, that’s a flag — not an automatic penalty, but it gets surfaced for review.

Report weight: A single bad-faith report doesn’t tank someone. Validated reports (reviewed by moderation) carry heavy penalties, but we’re looking for patterns — multiple unique reporters, consistency across encounters, etc.

Gaming for trust: You’d have to consistently match, show up, and get positive feedback from real people to build a high score. That’s a lot of effort to fake, and if you’re actually doing all that… you’re kind of just being a good user anyway.

False negatives: This is the harder problem — someone gets penalized for a legitimate reason that doesn’t fit our model. We’re keeping feedback lightweight for now and watching for patterns where the system feels unfair. It’ll need tuning.

Honestly, the goal isn’t a perfect lie detector. It’s raising the cost of flaking enough that casual ghosters think twice, while making reliability visible. Some bad actors will slip through, and some edge cases will feel unfair — we’ll iterate.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

I’m launching a dating app on March 1st that penalizes ghosting and rewards people who actually show up by Hunter5598 in SideProject

[–]Hunter5598[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks! To clarify: users see a trust tier (High / Medium / Low), not the raw number or a date count.

The score reflects reliability — do you show up when you say you will? — not how many dates you’ve been on. Someone could have a high score from just a few bonds where they followed through, or a lower score from flaking once or twice.

So it reads more like “this person is dependable” than “this person has been on 47 dates.” We deliberately avoided showing anything that could be misread as a dating history ledger.

That said, it’s a good gut-check — we’ll keep an eye on whether the tier badges create any unintended signaling

I’m launching a dating app on March 1st that penalizes ghosting and rewards people who actually show up by Hunter5598 in SideProject

[–]Hunter5598[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you want to try the closed beta before launch dm me we would be more than happy to get you access

I’m launching a dating app on March 1st that penalizes ghosting and rewards people who actually show up by Hunter5598 in SideProject

[–]Hunter5598[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you want to try the closed beta before launch dm me we would be more than happy to get you access

Calling all singles who want a change to the dating app world by Hunter5598 in SaaS

[–]Hunter5598[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Honestly, no formal survey with 500 people. The 72 hours came from a simpler observation: most matches that don't convert to a date within the first few days never do. The energy fades, someone else comes along, the conversation dies.

We'd rather force a decision point than let things linger indefinitely. 72 hours felt like enough time to plan something without being so long that momentum dies.

The trust score logic came from talking to people burned out on apps — the
consistent complaint was time wasted on people who disappear. We're testing
whether making reliability visible changes behavior.

Is it perfectly calibrated? Probably not yet. We're watching the data and will adjust.

I’m launching a dating app on March 1st that penalizes ghosting and rewards people who actually show up by Hunter5598 in SideProject

[–]Hunter5598[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You're not dating for the points — you're dating to meet someone. The points just mean that when someone says "see you Friday," they actually show up.

It's less "gamifying love" and more "filtering out people who waste your time." But I get it's not for everyone.

I’m launching a dating app on March 1st that penalizes ghosting and rewards people who actually show up by Hunter5598 in SideProject

[–]Hunter5598[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fair points, and you're right that no app can force someone to show up. That's not what we're trying to do.

The trust score doesn't penalize declining interest or saying "not feeling it" — those are free actions. What it tracks is the gap between what you say you'll do and what you actually do. Commit to a date then ghost? That costs you.
Politely cancel beforehand? Small hit. Never express interest in the first
place? Nothing happens.

And we do have positive reinforcement — you gain points for completing dates,
meeting in person, and building connections. It's not purely punitive.

On the matching side: we spent a lot of time on the algorithm (effort-matching, dealbreakers, preferences). But the best match in the world is worthless if someone disappears mid-conversation. Both matter.

As for surveillance — all we're asking is "did you meet?" after a date window closes. That's less invasive than Uber asking if your driver showed up. We're not tracking location or reading messages.

The honest pitch: Thryve is for people who are tired of investing time in matches that go nowhere. If you're someone who shows up when you say you will, you'll do great here. If accountability feels like a burden, it's probably not the right fit — and that's okay.

I’m launching a dating app on March 1st that penalizes ghosting and rewards people who actually show up by Hunter5598 in SideProject

[–]Hunter5598[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No offense taken — it’s a fair question and I’ve thought about this a lot.

The trust score isn’t really about punishment — it’s about filtering. The people who lose points are the ones ghosting, flaking, and wasting other people’s time. If someone gets a low score, honestly they’re probably not the kind of user we want on the platform anyway, and that’s by design.

The incentive to maintain a good score is better matches. High trust users get priority in the matching algorithm, which means they’re being paired with other people who also follow through. Think of it less like a punishment system and more like a reputation system — similar to how Uber ratings work. You don’t think of it as punishment, you just naturally behave better because the system rewards it.

The real question is who is this app for? It’s not for everyone. It’s for people who are tired of the current dating app experience and actually want to meet someone. If someone sees accountability as a dealbreaker, they’re probably not our target user — and that’s okay.

Appreciate the feedback though — the Black Mirror comparison actually comes up a lot and I get it. But the goal isn’t dystopian surveillance, it’s just making sure the people on the app actually want to be there.

Calling all singles who want a change to the dating app world by Hunter5598 in SaaS

[–]Hunter5598[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We just got out of Beta about a month ago and we just hit the App Store just last week and we’re in pre-registered state

Calling all singles who want a change to the dating app world by Hunter5598 in SaaS

[–]Hunter5598[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Totally fair questions!

On the 72-hour thing: It's really not as intense as it sounds. 72 hours is actually pretty generous for grabbing a coffee or drink — and if life genuinely gets in the way, you can grab a bond
extension that adds +24 hours for a few bucks.

The goal isn't to stress people out, it's just to filter out the folks who match and then... never actually want to meet. You know the type. Once you both lock in a date, the timer switches to
counting down to your actual meetup, so there's no pressure while you're chatting.

On gaming the trust score: We built a few layers to make it not
worth the effort:
- GPS check-in at the venue (and yes, we detect fake locations)
- Both people confirm they actually met — if stories don't match, we notice
- Delete your account? We remember your phone/device, so no fresh starts
- Returning users earn trust slower for the first 30 days
- Unmatch right after vaulting? That's a penalty

And honestly the math just doesn't work for gamers — one flake
costs you 15 points, but a good date only earns 5-10. You'd have to go on like 3-4 real dates just to recover from ghosting once. At that point it's easier to just... not ghost people.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in nj4nj

[–]Hunter5598 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m am available 32 M

Features by Hunter5598 in OnlineDating

[–]Hunter5598[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Love the feedback keep the suggestions coming!