Looking for sex without commitment?

Find Hot People Blogs

February 8, 2012

iWould Promises Rejection-Free Romance

Filed under: dating, facebook, friends, iwould, people — Tags: , , , , — admin @ 6:25 am

By Katherine Bindley

Facebook has long been a tool for testing the romantic waters, with the cycle going something like: You send a friend request, you gain access to a profile and then, you stalk.

Flat out asking someone if they’re interested isn’t all that necessary when you can glean so much through the site’s natural constructs. You can view your crush’s relationship status, overanalyze body language in their pictures for evidence of a significant other, and then send a seemingly effortless message that actually took two hours to compose.

Adding to the veritable toe-dips of Facebook dating is a new app called iWould, a crush wish-list of sorts launched last month by Columbia University MBA graduates Jon Budish, 28, and Tariq Chaudhri, 27.

The app allows you to go through your friend list and select anywhere from one to ten people you’d be interested in romantically. The application cross-references your list with those of your friends also using the app. If someone you selected put you on their list, you’ll both get a notice of the match.

“We’re trying to help people connect with someone they’re having a hard time connecting with, someone in your life,” Mr. Budish said. He argued, rather ironically, that starting a relationship with someone can be hard if you kind of already know them, “Sometimes that’s the most difficult part of dating.”

The app aims to rule out the potential for rejection with its provision that if the interest isn’t mutual, your crush will never know: Lists are kept private to the users. Downloading or “liking” the app is public though, so your friends will know you’re using iWould.

Though the app is open to anyone on Facebook, its team is currently targeting marketing efforts to eight colleges and universities, including Cornell, Duke and Columbia. Mr. Budish, who once worked at Facebook, said a slow rollout is part of his strategy. Currently, the app has more than 3,000 monthly users and it has been responsible for 163 matches. The company recently received a valuation of $750,000 from a private investor.

Dating-based applications have taken on countless iterations across social media platforms recently and they’ve proved quite popular. In February, a break-up app notifying users of changes in a crush’s relationship status gained 3.6 million users in less than a week before being shut down because a Facebook automated screening system allegedly deemed it spamlike.

The dating website Zoosk started out as a Facebook app and saw 5 million unique visitors last December, according to ComScore. And Luv@FirstTweet, launched in January, matches users based on information people provide in answers to questions on Twitter.

iWould hopes to distinguish itself from the others by making matches happen only with those on your friend list. Online dating industry consultant David Evans said the app does seem to offer a new angle.

“It’s an interesting take; I like the double-blind situation,” he said.

Still, Mr. Evans predicted that iWould will face the same challenges as other dating apps, including the costs of advertising if the app doesn’t spread to enough people on its own, and the one-hit- wonder pitfall.

“You use it once or twice and then you never go back to it again,” he said. “What are they going to do to sustain engagement?”

For iWould to be useful in the first place, the idea has to catch on with your friends. If they aren’t using it, there’s no chance of a match. On the other hand, if your friends were to use it and keep rotating people through their lists to figure out every person who is interested in them, they’d be eliminating part of the app’s appeal.

Mr. Budish said there are delays in place to prevent beating the system (that’s also why lists are limited to ten people).

“We wanted to make a match mean something,” he said, adding that otherwise, “I could make a list of 500 girls. I obviously am not interested in all 500.”

December 21, 2011

Like Me Date Me

Filed under: date, dating, facebook, online, profile, service, site, users — Tags: , , , , , , , — admin @ 6:32 am

By Adam DuVander

Like Me Date Me is a new dating site built on top of the Facebook Graph API, which provides search-able access to user profile information. The service displays a photo and limited profile information of whichever gender you want to see. As the name of the site implies, users can “like” others, which can then lead to more interaction. The ratings approach, encouraging snap judgments, is similar to HotOrNot, which also added an option to meet the people you rate.

The service launched today to capitalize on the Valentine-less. To use it, you must sign into Facebook and give it access to your own profile information. Then, apparently using factors such as interests, age and location, it finds you potential matches. If you’re interested, you click the ubiquitous “like” button. Otherwise, click “next.”

Like Me Date Me claims to be the first to use Facebook’s Like button for online matchmaking, which seems hard to believe. And while it’s also difficult to envision winning many users with the slogan “welcome to the meat market,” it’s certainly a novel use of Facebook’s API. If this functionality it not already integrated into dating sites, I would expect it to be soon.

October 18, 2011

How is Google+ for Dating?

Filed under: dating, facebook, google, network, online, people, social — Tags: , , , , , , — admin @ 10:28 am

By Erik Sass

If you have been among the fortunate and happy few to receive a Google+ invite, you may have noticed a pronounced gender imbalance on Google’s not-a-social-network, with many more men than women. And it wasn’t just your imagination: it turns out that 88% of Google+ members are men, according to Google Analytics, compared to 10% for women and 2% for “other.”

In other words, Google+ is a total sausage-fest, at least so far. That’s not terribly surprising, considering that the early invitations circulated in nerdlicious tech circles where Y chromosomes run rampant. It also resembles the adoption curve for some other tech products, which seem to exert an early fascination on a relatively small number of male early adopters before spreading to larger numbers of less-tech-savvy men and women — i.e., going mainstream.

So the real question is how the Google+ gender balance changes as time goes on: if Google+ catches on as a hot new social network, presumably the gender balance will gradually right itself before stabilizing around the roughly 51%-49% female-male proportion of the general population. If Google+ fails to catch on, I would expect both the overall number of users and the proportion of female users to remain small.

All this begs the question: how is Google+ for dating? This might sound like a trivial or flippant concern, but in my humble op-ed it is actually a major issue for any general-purpose social network. Facebook has succeeded by offering features and functionality which (it claims) are relevant to practically every major area of human life, from keeping up with relatives, to sharing pictures with friends, to professional networking, and so on. And one of the most popular uses, whether advertised or not, is meeting people for dating.

Although there are any number of committed online dating sites, Facebook recommends itself for romantic trolling for a number of reasons: it’s free; you can see endless numbers of profiles, and the pool of potential partners for both genders is huge; you can check out photos, interests and other qualities that may be important in a prospective partner (perspective on life, spelling ability); and you can trace connections through mutual friends and acquaintances, which presumably confers some kind of character recommendation, and also gives you something to talk about as an icebreaker. I think Facebook’s online dating functionality is important even for people who are in relationships or don’t think of themselves as “on the market”: Facebook is always there as a fallback if things in their current relationship turn sour, or they decide to get back into dating.

In light of the importance of online dating for social networks, how does Google+ stack up? This is a good question, especially considering that Google has deliberately positioned Google+ as a more private alternative to Facebook, suggesting there may be fewer opportunities for idly browsing the profiles of people you don’t know, and less access to content (e.g. photos) that people look for when canvassing for dates online. Basically, is Google+ any good for checking out hot strangers and getting in touch with them?

September 24, 2011

Cloud Girlfriend Launches as a Dating Site for Role Players

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , , , , , , , , — admin @ 1:29 pm

Get your head in the clouds. That’s the tagline for Cloud Girlfriend, a new dating website that wants to help you find the perfect girlfriend. Problem is, you won’t be able to go on any actual, real-life dates with that girlfriend once you find her because she’ll be fake. Not computer-generated fake, but fake in the way that your mom always worried about when she first sent you off on your own into the wilds of AOL chatrooms and message boards as a kid. These are other people, based somewhere in the real world. Other people with (presumably) day jobs and a lives who like to imagine themselves as someone else. It’s role-playing on the web.

“We allow people to define their ideal self, find their perfect girlfriend or boyfriend and connect and interact as if that person existed,” David Fuhriman, the co-founder of Cloud Girlfriend, told TechCrunch’s Alexia Tsotsis. “It can help in learning how to manage a real relationship, and they then take it into the real world,“ he added, describing his start-up as a combination of Match.com and Second Life.

It took a while for Fuhriman’s idea to be realized. It’s been in the works for a while now, first as a site that would allow users to create fake Facebook profiles and interact with others through that account. But that idea ran up against a lot of bad press as it would conflict with Facebook’s Terms of Service and force many users of the social network who are uncomfortable with anonymity on the web to rethink their profiles’ very existence. How many of your Facebook friends want to receive incessant pokes from fake user accounts?

Cloud Girlfriend, now a standalone site, will keep all role players linked together and confined to one Internet ghetto where they can flirt — and poke, or its Cloud Girlfriend equivalent — all they want without irritating others. Women can sign up easily; men need a code passed along from another user.

Fuhriman plans to monetize the site by allowing users to send virtual goods to each other: Cloud Diamonds, Cloud Flowers, even a Cloud Vacation.

While I think this site is far-fetched — I live virtually, but not anonymously — don’t dismiss it yet. Five minutes after Tsotsis joined, she writes, she had a date.

August 20, 2011

Mobile Cupids, or Modern Imps?

Filed under: dating, facebook, match, online, people, person, technology — Tags: , , , , , , — admin @ 4:34 pm

By JP Mangalindan

As a tech writer, I’m impressed by the industry and the rate at which companies innovate. Fifteen years ago streaming high-quality video content was a pipe dream squeezed by the reality of 56K modems; the power of the social graph remained largely untapped a decade ago because mainstream social networks simply didn’t exist to tap it; and as recently as five years ago, the mobile experience hosted by Palms, BlackBerries, and “candy bar” phones only hinted at the fluid, touchscreen-optimized, app-driven experience we take for granted today. Tech pushes us forward on multiple fronts, but there’s one area I’m not sure it’s helped much, and that’s romance.

A good friend — let’s call her “Kathleen” — suggested I check out a TV spot for the 2011 Chevy Cruze that highlights the compact car’s delivery of “real-time updates” to the driver. In the commercial, the car’s owner had instant access to his date’s Facebook Newsfeed, so when she updated her status (“Best first date ever!”), he knew within minutes. Kathleen argued the commercial was heart-sinkingly awful — not because of its premise but the notion that technology, in this case hyper-connectivity, was eroding an element that matters to many of us — the mystery and serendipity that often goes with dating.

While the Cruze ad was schmaltzy, it got me thinking about how big a role technology now plays even in this, um, corporeal aspect of our lives. A good chunk of people still meet significant others the old-fashioned way, but many of us now turn online for help. A recent study conducted by the University of Oxford reports that nearly one in three Internet users have visited an online dating site, while one of the leading online dating services, Match.com, which claims nearly 1.6 million subscribers and raked in $400 million in revenues last year, claims that online dating now accounts for at least one in six marriages and one in five committed relationships.

Wreaking havoc on the discovery process

In some ways Match makes it incredibly easy for users to be choosy — not a bad thing in and of itself — but people are presented like they’re stock photos in a yearbook, with pages upon pages of faces that make it incredibly easy for daters to treat them less like human beings and more like easy commodities. Many – myself included – may need the opportunity to highlight our personalities beyond a small pic and one or two initially viewable sentences. In the case of dating and finding a match, a photo simply does not and can not say it all.

This nouveau romantic discovery process encourages those of us with the Seinfeldian ability to fixate on the smallest physical “flaw” to write someone off even quicker. Receding hairline? Meh. Slightly crooked teeth? Pass. When it comes to the personal information people do put down, dating sites rarely encourage any sort of creativity, beyond listing likes and dislikes. Loves Joni Mitchell, cat embroidery designs and kittens named Lady Chatterley? No, thanks.

And while I know I’m not alone in thinking along these lines, I wonder whether I end up overlooking people I’d have in-person chemistry with simply because someone hotter, smarter and funnier might be on the next Web page. Because I’m pretty sure if online dating had existed back in the 1980s, my parents — who validate the old adage “opposites attract” to a tee — would never had met.

Tech offers people a layer of distance and anonymity in dating they can’t find elsewhere, which in turn affects etiquette. Even if our photos are up there, our contact information isn’t. We don’t have to worry about the consequences of hurting someone’s feelings the same way we would if we were picking up someone up at a bar. The lack of actual in-person interaction, at least initially, emboldens online daters to be ruthlessly honest. On OKCupid, one person I was interested in sweetly replied, “EW, GOD. NEVER,” which was enough to send me to the local 7-Eleven for a pint of Haagen Daaz to nurse my bruised ego.

People are also increasingly doing their research with Google search. Sure, we want to check that we’re not about to spend our evening with a black widow or Jack the Ripper, but sheer curiosity also means we’ll research the heck out of these dates, to the point where it’s essentially a background search, sapping serendipity out of the discovery process. Meanwhile, more and more people Facebook Friend their dates right after or even before meeting them — which seems a tad premature given things may not work out.

Dumping 2.0

Dumping has quite simply never been easier, thanks to the proliferation of communication channels and devices. I’ve seen friends stood up via text five minutes before the date was supposed to start, observed college break-ups via Facebook message followed by ugly Wall-to-Wall conversations — the 21st century equivalent of public blowout at a restaurant — and I’ve taken friends out for conciliatory drinks after they’ve received fanciful texts like, “sory 2 do this but its not werking out. ur great tho. good luck.”

People clearly hide behind technology to avoid doing the deed face-to-face. I know this, having been on the receiving end, and having spinelessly done it once or twice myself with emails like: “You’re a brilliant, kind person, but I didn’t feel the chemistry you and I both know are required to make a relationship great. … No doubt, you will make someone very happy.” (Not my proudest moment.)

The dating site Chemistry.com offers what amounts to a dumping feature for “First Meetings,” or first dates arranged through the service. Say you’re just not that into them: fill out some feedback online, and once your date does the same, they get a standard cookie-cutter message telling them to move on. Better than never getting back to them at all, but not by much. The feature is sort of the modern-day equivalent of giving someone you were talking to in a bar the number from the dry-cleaner awning across the street — the wrong number does the dirty work for you.

Of course, all these services and devices aren’t solely to blame for our modern-day misadventures. Match, Facebook, and that nifty smartphone are just tools — means to ends — intended to make life easier. As many couples will attest, they have: success stories abound, crediting technology in one way or another as their 21st century Cupid. (They don’t lie. One of my friends found her soul mate on MySpace.)

But the responsibility still falls on us to act decently, online and in person, even when it’s now become possible to write someone off based on a thumbnail photo or quirky hobby; to dump someone in 50 characters or less; or to stalk a person from the comfort of our snazzy new Chevrolet.

Older Posts »

The wildest live webcams
Real sex just a click away
Hook up with the hottest men!
Languages: English | Español | Français | Deutsch | Italiano