Welcome!
Online Dating Insider delivers cutting-edge insight and commentary on all aspects of the online dating industry. Topics include industry news, site reviews, emerging trends, analysis of dating site features, discussion about safety safety, finance and other issues important to the online dating market. Don't miss our Tools & Services directory, useful to anyone running dating or social networking sites. Subscribe to the RSS feed (you can subscribe via email as well). Your comments and suggestions for stories are welcomed.
Vladimir Savchenko at Compatti.com makes some good points about the reliability of personality assesment tools.
Compatti.com’s compatibility assessment tool, which is based on biorhythms and astrology, is nearly 100%. It includes 3 simple questions: your date, place and time of birth.
I don’t buy the nearly 100% statement, but that aside, astrology is a generally useful meter for compatibility. Why don’t more sites take it seriously?
There was an article in the New Yorker last month? that discussed the reliability of Myers-Briggs type indicators. It’s generally understood that your MBTI type is only somewhat useful when it comes to personality analysis. As with all dating site matching systems, several different tests and questions should be used to get a complete picture of yourself and the people you might be most compatible with. Relying on WeAttract’s tests or eHarmony’s 436 questions is the tip of the iceberg. Better tests are just around the corner.
Category:Dating Sites, Weekly Tags: Dating-Site - WeeklyBlog reactions
3 responses so far ↓
1
Chris (Check me out!)
// Jan 3, 2005 at 12:39 pm
The better assessments “around the corner” are found at RelateNetworx.com.
2
James Houran, Ph.D. (Check me out!)
// Jan 8, 2005 at 2:56 pm
Astrology is not the answer, as it has no scientific basis from all evidence I have seen. However, the question of the reliability of these online personality and compatibility tests has been made repeatedly by me in public and professional forums for some time now! TRUE posts the evidence that its test meets professional testing standards (jointly set by the AERA, APA, and NCME), and in this respect TRUE is the only scientifically validated test available. RelateNetworx.com curiously does not seem to offer any validity data for its methods — much less evidence that they adhere to modern methods of test construction. They are not alone.. see my recently published acadmeic article debunking eHarmony’s testing system and challenging PerfectMatch and Match.com — among others (North American Journal of Psychology, Vol. 6, pp. 507-526).
3
Dave Evans (Check me out!)
// Jan 10, 2005 at 10:15 am
Why does a matching system have to be based on science? I think it’s unwise to ignore a body of work several thousand years in the making, although I agree it’s not the optimum solution, it may well be part of the answer.
Match is not successful because they use WeAttract’s matching system. They’re successful because they caught the popularity wave at the right time. Yahoo! is successful because they have the #1 portal and brand driving traffic to the site, not because they copied Match and licensed the same system from WeAttract.
A certain percentage of online daters will utilize what they learn through various scientific matching systems to assist them in their search for a partner. It’s a tool they use, just like they also tell their friends they’re looking to meet new people, or go out to places where singles gather. To the majority, online dating sites remain more like introduction facilitators.
Jim, how about providing a copy of the article in PDF form? I’d be happy to post it here and we can all read the article for ourselves?