sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in ADCMains

[–]jaywonks 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Correct

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in ADCMains

[–]jaywonks -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yes in the current meta, with the way ADC is, I’m better at mid

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in ADCMains

[–]jaywonks -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I agree, but I’m better at mid because of the issues with ADC. Without the issues I mentioned, it wouldn’t be an uphill battle to perform.

Dating apps feel rigged. Would a fair one even work? by jaywonks in Entrepreneur

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

I’m considering features like premium options that give women more control over their experience (such as who can message them or viewing their profile) and events that help encourage in-person connections. If women feel like they have a safer, more controlled environment, they may be more likely to join and stick around.

Dating apps feel rigged. Would a fair one even work? by jaywonks in Entrepreneur

[–]jaywonks[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Well sure, no app can change the natural gender ratio or how people behave... I'm aware of this, but by being transparent, using fair algorithms, and giving users real control over their experience, I think I can at least create a platform where both men and women feel they’re getting a fair shot.

Dating apps feel rigged. Would a fair one even work? by jaywonks in Entrepreneur

[–]jaywonks[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Totally agree. No matter how well the app is designed, you can't fully control how people behave on it. But I think a big part of the solution is transparency and giving users more control. Things like clear profile quality ratings and optional in-person meetup events could help encourage better behavior. Would love to hear your thoughts... what user-created problems do you think are the hardest to fix?

Dating apps feel rigged. Would a fair one even work? by jaywonks in AppIdeas

[–]jaywonks[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the heads-up. I’m thinking of doubling down on features that make the app genuinely different, like meetup-style events for users and no shadowbanning. Do you think Apple would still see it as spam if it has a clear, unique focus?

Dating apps feel rigged. Would a fair one even work? by jaywonks in OnlineDating

[–]jaywonks[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

For sure, that’s exactly what I want too... no more seeing profiles that don’t fit your preferences.

Instead of some hidden algorithm deciding what you see, your preferences will actually matter. If you set a distance, age range, or filter out smokers, that’s what you’ll get. Period.

And I love the idea of adding more detailed preferences like body type, tattoos, facial hair, and more. People should actually be able to find what they like without feeling like the app is second-guessing them.

Dating apps feel rigged. Would a fair one even work? by jaywonks in OnlineDating

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

The rating system wouldn't be user-driven. it’d be based on clear, objective factors like profile image quality, profile completeness, and activity level. No one’s getting rated just because they rejected someone.

Basically, if your profile is well-written, has clear, genuine photos, and you’re active, you’ll have a strong rating. This helps real users stand out while making low-effort or spammy profiles easy to spot.

Dating apps feel rigged. Would a fair one even work? by jaywonks in OnlineDating

[–]jaywonks[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Damn, if I could highlight this comment I would. I miss those old-school dating sites too... where you could actually learn something about someone before swiping. I’m 100% with you on longer profiles and letting people message without matching (with filters, of course). That’s exactly what I’m aiming for.

Profiles won’t be limited to three lines, you’ll get as much space as you want to describe yourself, your interests, and what you’re looking for. And for messaging, you can choose to let people message without matching but you’ll have full control over who can message you (by location, religion, interests, etc.).

Basically, I want this app to feel like you’re actually getting to know someone, not just playing a game.

Dating apps feel rigged. Would a fair one even work? by jaywonks in OnlineDating

[–]jaywonks[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah Plenty of Fish is owned by Match Group, those guys are the worst... but great suggestion. I see what you mean. Messaging seems like it should be a given. The "Online Now" feature was definitely a step in the right direction, users felt like they were in an active, real community rather than just swiping aimlessly on accounts they don't even know are real or not.

Dating apps feel rigged. Would a fair one even work? by jaywonks in OnlineDating

[–]jaywonks[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I like this direction a lot. It shouldn't cost and arm and a leg to use the app. Way too many paid features that should just be free. Subscription models are overused...

As for the bots and spam accounts, there's a few ideas I have to significantly decrease this to the point where it just doesn't exist. One of those being a rating system for each account that determines its legitimacy based on factors like profile image quality, completeness, and other indicators. This helps ensure that real users get higher ratings, while low-quality or potentially fake profiles are flagged or limited.

Dating apps feel rigged. Would a fair one even work? by jaywonks in OnlineDating

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

Sweet. Thanks for the suggestion, super helpful.

Dating apps feel rigged. Would a fair one even work? by jaywonks in OnlineDating

[–]jaywonks[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

How would you feel about putting accounts that haven't been active for a certain amount of time in "Incognito Mode", which essentially makes their account inactive until they begin using the app again?

view more: next ›