Meetic has launched a new dating site based on psychological compatibility.
Snipped from the translated press release:
In the heart of ULTEEM, an exclusive questionnaire founded on the latest sociological and psychological discoveries on couples defines the personality, values and outlooks of each of its members to help them meet people who most share their affinities and correspond to their aspirations.
Combining the best of psychological research, customer knowledge (by observing the behaviour and expectations of the millions of people already registered with the Meetic sites) and technology, ULTEEM will be offering a second generation psychological compatibility service.
ULTEEM will soon be developed in several languages and set up on the basis of the database of subscribers already registered with the MEETIC sites and also of its European network of approximately forty partners. In this manner, AOL Germany, a major partner of meetic.de, will be offering ULTEEM to its subscribers from autumn 2005.
Marc Simoncini, President of Meetic:
ULTEEM will naturally enrich our range of services for single people by offering them an approach that complements MEETIC and will respect the same quality, efficiency and security requirements. ULTEEM required significant analysis efforts, and research development and we have called on the best specialists in psychology and psychometry to design this unique and completely innovative product.
Technorati Tags: meetic
Related posts:
{ 15 comments }
Everyone is in this stuff – time for a shake out
seems to me like we are regressing to the 70′s style computer dating. Everythign old is new again, bell bottoms still look silly, and these tests are still unproven.
There has been a shake out of sorts in this bandwagon of personality testing. At least one test HAS been proven from what I have researched — and it is NOT the one advertised to death on TV.
The test from TRUE.com has been published in a peer-reviewed journal. Looks like they clearly are ahead of the pack:
http://www.goertzel.org/dynapsyc/2005/True.htm
There’s no shakeout and no evidence that True is “clearly ahead of the pack.” Why not share the pertinent results from the survey instaed of just linking to it? Sounds like you work there.
When one company publishes the evidence for its test in a science journal while the others do not, that IS clear evidence that the company is ahead of the others re: testing. I wish the other companies would follow TRUE’s excellent example.
The link is not to any survey — it is the actual journal I found that supports the science of TRUE’s approach. All would do well to read it to see that TRUE indeed has shook up the personality testing sites. Like it or not, they won this round.
Sounds like you have some quirky personal bias against TRUE, hmm… do you work for the other companies that claim to offer science tests?!! I am a consumer, not a paid sponsor. What a hypocritical question coming from you — someone who is advertising his services to online dating sites. You have no credibility as an impartial source.
I have tried online dating — but have avoided these tests because I too thought they were crap. I started researching this issue on my own after seeing a lot of talk about the tests on eHarmony, PerfectMatch and TRUE. In this case, TRUE clearly is the only company I have seen that backs up what it is saying when it comes to testing.
For those who are interested, the results from the study on TRUE’s test (see the link above) were basically this from what I understand:
1. The test was developed by actual test and measurement experts — not just general psychologists– and therefore this test meets the rigorous testing standards established by the testing field.
2. The test takes into account similarity and dissimilarity of partners’ characteristics.
3. The test works for straight or gay matching; there is no bias in the test related to sexual orientation, age, or gender.
4. The test has high scientific reliability and validity.
5. It is based on the same sophisticated mathematics that are used in ACT, MCAT and other major tests that have real-world implications.
Pretty impressive and light years ahead of companies that simply talk about research without ponying up the evidence!
I’m definitely biased for and against many dating sites. You will never catch me saying different. Instead of throwing accusations of which you know nothing about, why no read the blog for a while and you’ll see. This blog is ad-supported and I do a lot of consulting in the online dating industry and having been involved in the space for several years. I constantly expose the shortcomings of many dating sites, because nobody else seems to want to and sometimes I’m asked to help fix what’s not working. I see nothing wrong with that.
I can tell you from years of experience that a well-written profile is a lot more useful than a personality test to to most people.
Tests are a useful tool to use when online dating, nothing more, nothing less. They provide an additional dimention to the matching process and some self-reflection about what makes us tick.
Many sites have personality testing. Quality ranges from completely bogus to PHD certified.
Match doesn’t have a test right now and they make over $100 million a year due to critical mass.
True continues to struggle and has what you personally consider the best personality testing system in the industry.
A healthy does of skeptecism is a necessity when it comes to the online dating world. Getting published in a journal is not diffficult. If you think that means they are the obvious leader, you’re entitled to your own opinion.
Your consumer-oriented point of view does not take into consideration the industry perspective of how True, and all other dating sites, for that matter, manipulate the public about their membership statistics, the usefulness of their testing systems, etc.
Online dating is all about marketing, from both sides of the fence. Dating sites attempts to differentiate any way they can. Last month is was background checks, this month it’s personality testing. They will go to great lengths to get you to subscribe. On the other hand, dating sites facilitate your ability to market yourself to potential matches.
If you haven’t already, go do the WeAttract test at Yahoo, it’s really good (subjective) and the results are intgrated into the search criteria. Fun to take as well.
Easy to get published in a science journal?!!! I am very interested in what personal experience you have had in publishing anything in a peer-reviewed, science journal to back up that assertion!!! If it is so easy, there where are the articles by eHarmony, PerfectMatch, and all the others?!
The fact that a test is published is — by default — a testament to its quality by outside experts who know what they are talking about. I am not a formal academic but I do have a sociology degree and know that published research is worth something that marketing spin can’t buy.
TRUE’s test is based on real, peer-reviewed research — not mere unsubstantiated claims of research. And that was the point of my original post — to counter this bogus notion that none of these tests have been proven. On the other hand, make no mistake that “PhD certified” or “PhD endorsed” somehow means that a test is legit. A PhD in dog training does not give a person the expertise or credentials to make a compatibility test.
Yes, many sites do have so-called personality tests — but my point remains unchallenged — namely, that TRUE has the only one that is proven to be based in actual research. They have a high standard of quality by academic and business standards.
There is nothing original or innovative about Yahoo’s testing or its application. TRUE also integrates testing into search criteria if the customer chooses so (I understand you can search by compatibility scores), and EHarmony and Perfectmatch seem to show you people based only on tetsing.
Having a fun test is fine — but a fun exercise in answering silly questions alone is just another way of offering a personal profile. Science tests would seem to go deeper than such entertainment. So, when a company claims to have a scientific test it should back up that claim with evidence the test is truly scientific. No one but TRUE.com does this from what I see — and that should make them the leader of the testing pack in any educated person’s book!
Finally, I have read through your posts and follow up commentaries on past topics. It is beyond clear that you are biased against TRUE.com with respect to virtually anything they do. You may not agree with background checks and other features they tout, but your past posts combined with your view that TRUE is “struggling” (their reported numbers are very impressive for the age of their company) and that somehow TRUE is NOT setting the standard by publishing their test research (a positive step or development from any point of view) leads me to conclude that you are way out of touch and too biased for your own good.
You do not sound astute or informed about the industry, Dave. Rather you sound and act like a propaganda machine funded by other dating sites in order to publicly mudsling TRUE. From my perspective, you are in no position and have no credibility in “exposing” the “shortcomings” of TRUE or any other site. Remember the advice about throwing stones and glass houses?
I have a weblog. It’s read by all industry insiders in the online dating space. Some people value my opinions, others don’t. You obviously don’t. That’s fine. The fact that you like True’s test is obvious, we all hear you. You made your point loud and somewhat clearly.
You read the paper and believe that science has a place in matching. Ok. Where is the results-oriented review of personality testing across dating services? That’s what I want to read. Does the True test result on happier, longer-lasting relationships because its better?
You don’t have the industry perspective to understand how the online dating industry views True. It’s not just me leading a crusade by any means. The industry doesn’t like their business practices or the legislation they are attempting to push through our legal system. For the record, I think background checks are quite useful, at a dating site’s discretion.
I shake up the industry all the time, that’s what the blog is for. No I don’t get paid to slam True. If they cleaned up their act and started acting responsibly I’d let off a bit, as I have other sites in the past. Bad behaviors can change, you should know that.
We don’t get a lot of consumers on the blog, this seems to be changing recently. Perhaps I need to add a consumer section to the blog which addresses issues such as this in a more consumer-friendly format and tone.
I’m mildly curious about your motivation for going on the attack against my credibility. If we had this conversation face-to-face I think it would have gone much differently. You would see that I’m not out to get anyone, if I’m guilty of anything, it’s that I let my frustration with the mediocrity that runs rampant throughout the online dating industry show from time to time. True is an easy target, what can I say.
I know far more about True and the online dating industry than I am able to let on. Suffice to say that all is not as it seems at True, and many other dating sites. You can choose to ignore this fact, and continue on with your accusations, it’s up to you.
I’ve emailed the publishers of the journal to find out what their selection criteria is. I’ll report back on that. I can’t imagine that a journal that is web-only (and that ugly and full of broken links!) can be authoritative, I very well may be wrong.
You’re quite far off in terms of why Eharmony and PerfectMatch haven’t published anything. They don’t need to. They spend anywhere from 2-8 million dollars a month on advertising. It’s about picking the right battles.
I completely agree that publishing the study is a good idea, more transparency is needed to this regard.
The problem that you are missing is that it’s not the test, it’s the quality of the members. The best test in the world, applied to casual/free daters, isn’t going to stack up against a date waarehouse like Match or Yahoo Personals or a serious-daters-only high-priced/quality site.
“The problem that you are missing is that it’s not the test, it’s the quality of the members”
I think the problem is the ordering page of most dating sites SUCK. Everyone has so much experience bringing people to the site but very few have experience converting them.
Take true.com for instance you go through the signup process and at the end i’m told to pay. I get some girl from pictured 8000km away. I have to SCROLL to complete the signup process. If they added pictures of local women. If you surfed to a profile and then clicked to contact a women that image should be displayed on the signup page. A image of a creditcard somewhere near the signup button would help with impulse buying to. From past experience these kind of things increase conversions from 20% to 300%. Studies have also shown those trustee and verisign give a tiny boost to conversions, why are they below the fold? In my opinion true is doesn’t have the numbers everyone else does because they don’t get conversion.
Dave and Markus are right on! At the end of the day it’s the quality of the members that really counts.
I have a profile on a number of top sites and I must say that True.com serves up the least desirable and most irrelevant matches of all. Why did I even enter search criterea on the person I am looking for when it is completely disregarded…beginning with distance…I said 20 miles…not 300…I said fit…not the Pillsbury Dough Boy…I digress…
And, by the way Randy, you’re a little too hot under the collar in defending True. It seems to me that you work there but won’t fess up.
“Interested Floridian,” you might have had a poor experience on TRUE but I strongly doubt you speak for the majority of their members. And why are you a member if you dislike them so much?! Sounds suspicious to me.
I am not an employee (can’t you read?!), but what if I was?! That would be hardly beside the point. Dave is essentially a lobbyist for other sites, the executives and employees of other sites that post here are predictably biased and are expected to bash TRUE and other competitors, and for all anyone knows, you are paid to bash certain sites or otherwise have some motivation to say what you do.
My original point did NOT concern the overall quality of any site — rather I pointed out in response to a previous post that some personality tests are legit and that TRUE actually backs up what it says when it comes to scientific tetsing. This is positive development in the industry.
This blog and you seem a “little hot under the collar” yourselves when it comes to any opportunity to bash TRUE — seems to me you are all individuals with childish grudges against this specific company for some reason. I, for one, appreciate that their test is not fluff and that they seem to adhere to academic standards. Would be nice if ALL testing sites saying they are scientific followed suit.
You should all hear how you sound to outsiders. All of your whinings now make me think that TRUE actually is threatening to the bottom line of you all. For all the attention and bashing they get here (even when someone points out clearly a positive development they took), I suspect this is one site that other sites fear is in the process of taking over.
Randy,
You can lay your suspicions to rest, I am not now, nor have I ever been, a PAID member of True. My profile has long been removed due to being spammed to death. Besides, there wasn’t anyone on the site I even wanted to talk to, let alone pay to meet.
I have no affiliations or loyalties to any dating site(s). I am simply a consumer stating a past experience. So, as an outsider, I read your passion for True as someone with much bias.
Obviously, it’s you who is lacking in the area of reading comprehension. MY original point DID deal with the overall quality of the site. I couldn’t care less about tests…try measuring chemistry with a test.
As a consumer I am disgusted with the bickering as to who has what on their site and whose is endorsed, approved, bigger, better, blah blah blah….
Dating site neet to spend more time providing a better consumer experience and less time ‘talking the talk’ PERIOD
The publisher of the study had this to say about the True paper.
- Meets standards of empirical psychological research.
- Not an amazingly insightful piece of research, but it’s interesting enough, and seems to be quite scientifically valid.
- Lots of ways to improve their approach to assessing “degree of match” between people.
- Applaud the fact that they are formulating and validating their methodology in a scientific way
This thread was about testing — over all consumer experience is a separate issue. However, I will say as a consumer that backing up claims with science rather than unsubstantiated words does add to my consumer experience. I suspect most customers of testing sites would agree.
Anyone who carefully read my posts would see that I do not say that I have a passion for TRUE — only a deep appreciation and respect for their clearly scientific approach. It seems the publisher of TRUE’s journal article (not to mention the journal referees) agrees that TRUE is being scientific. That is more than can be said at this time for eHarmony, PerfectMatch, and other compatibility test sites.
Comments on this entry are closed.