It’s kind of scary that you don’t realize that your credibility is trashed in the dating industry. Your OCD-style repetition of the EXACT SAME statistics for years on end means one thing: you get off on hyping vaporware and have nothing to contribute except annoying everyone with your repetitive ranting.

You need to seriously look at IntroAnalytics. They may be selling snake oil to you, but they have customers, who pay them money. They have a website. They go to conferences, they pick up the phone and tell me what they’re up to. They do not sound crazy.

If you leave another ranting long comment I’m going to ban you. You have been warned. Keep it short and to the point or you’re gone.

I’m not interested in anything confidential about your method. I could care less how it works. My point is simply that you cannot claim *anything* about your system with *any substance at all* because you have no proof. You only have statistically insignificant results based on you yourself creating random profiles on different dating sites. That’s totally and completely unscientific.

Until you have proof that your system is effective, you need to stop making claims about it. That was my point. And, I am sure i speak for numerous other dating executives out there when I say that.

What you really want to see is confidential information, part of a commercial secret, the basis of LIFEPROJECT METHOD. As is the law in most countries, commercial secret protection depends largely on the owner keeping the secret confidential. So I cannot disclose here or in any blog / forum / or by email.

Anyway eHarmony, True, Meetic, Chemistry, PerfectMatch, Be2, Parship, MyType, RewardingLove, PlentyOfFishChemistryPredictor and others ARE THE ONES who should prove they can match persons better than chance, better than searching on one’s own and better than mutual filtering techniques.

There are also other kind of proofs.
* Implicit
* Explicit
* Externals

* Implicit:

- eHarmony 2 billion served
http://www.pinoy.ca/eharmony/1880
Shows its matching method is like a machine gun shooting flowers, good for nothing.

- Helen Fisher publised the book “Why Him? Why Her?: Finding Real Love By Understanding Your Personality Type” for marketing purposes but she never published a paper for public scrutiny of her findings.

* Explicit:

- Markus Frind is his blog post “New Research Study raises questions about the scientific validity of some matchmaking sites.”, he had written “…markus Says: July 27, 2009 at 5:11 pm my test is only 20% better than chance. But its not validated and niether is any other sites test. …..”
http://plentyoffish.wordpress.com/2009/07/15/new-research-study-raises-questions-about-the-scientific-validity-of-some-matchmaking-sites/

- Although it is a clause to avoid being sued by dissatisfied customers, it is an explicit proof

“You understand that eHarmony makes no guarantees, either express or implied, regarding your ultimate compatibility with individuals you meet through the Singles Service or as to the conduct of such individuals.”
http://www.eharmony.com/about/terms

The same in Chemistry “prior to using the Service. You understand that Match.com makes no guarantees, either express or implied, regarding your ultimate compatibility with individuals you meet through the Service. ”
http://www.chemistry.com/help/terms.aspx

- Complaints from dissatisfied customers in differents blogs / forums you can find using Google.

* Externals:

- paper “Do Online Matchmaking Tests Work? An Assessment of Preliminary Evidence for a Publicized Predictive Model of Marital Success” North American Journal of Psychology, 2004, Vol. 6, pp. 507-526, that says at page#15 “….development and validation of online compatibility testing; and disclosing those findings for public and academic scrutiny without divulging proprietary information…. ”
Year 2010, still waiting for eHarmony, PerfectMatch, Chemistry, Meetic, Be2, Parship, and others.

- article “Researchers Skeptical of Claims by Online Dating Sites”
http://www.physorg.com/news164292891.html

- The comic “Zack Hill’s mom joins eHarmony”
Lois: Are you telling me that out of all these guys, you didn’t like one?
Jan: I did not.
Lois: This is like the phone directory for a small town!
Jan: The town of LoserVille.

http://www.pinoy.ca/eharmony/1810

- The report from Catalyst Group
http://www.pinoy.ca/eharmony/1881

Regards,

Fernando Ardenghi.
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
ardenghifer@gmail.com

An engineer you may be, but a statistician you are not. Until you have an actual dating site of your own or partner with one, either being of a *statistically significant size*, you can’t claim *anything at all*.

Why not have an expert in the subject, e.g. Dr. James Houran, weigh in on this and prove me right?

I am betting, however, that you’ll ignore what I (and anyone else) am saying and continue making nonsensical comments.

Have you seen that eHarmony, True, Meetic, Chemistry, PerfectMatch, Be2, Parship, MyType, RewardingLove, PlentyOfFishChemistryPredictor, no one has published any credible peer reviewed Scientific Paper about the effectiveness/efficiency of their matching algorithms?

Please see my online dating project in detail at http://vator.tv/c/13a5
where you can find a more detailed explanation

This “discovery” you claim (“I am the person who discovered “the online dating sound barrier” for Compatibility Matching Algorithms.”) – what proof (if any) do you have that it works?

- you don’t have a dating site
- you don’t have a partnership with any dating site

Consequently, you have ZERO evidence that it works.

As so many of us have been asking, provided us all with PROOF, not ramblings about theories and discoveries. The need for a mate is a biological imperative, so the idea that ” the entire Online Dating Industry will fall under its own weight” is a ridiculous and unfounded claim.

As you should well know, I am the person who discovered “the online dating sound barrier” for Compatibility Matching Algorithms.

I had understood FIRST and BETTER than anybody how to solve than problem:
The only way is:
- using the 16PF5 normative personality test, available in different languages to assess personality of members, or a proprietary test with exactly the same traits of the 16PF5.

- expressing compatibility with eight decimals, like The pattern 6.7.6.8.9.6.7.7.8.7.2.5.8.7.3.4 is 92.55033557% +/- 0.00000001% similar to the pattern 7.7.6.8.8.7.6.5.8.7.4.5.7.7.3.4
Using a quantized pattern comparison method (part of pattern recognition by cross-correlation) to calculate similarity between prospective mates.

The success rate* of Chemistry is less than 6%**.
The success rate* of eHarmony is less than 10%**.
*success rate == percentage of persons who leave the site because they found someone compatible.
**estimated by Fernando Ardenghi using reverse engineering.
The majority, over 90% of their members are not going to achieve a long term relationship with commitment (or marriage) using those sites.

eHarmony, True, PerfectMatch, Chemistry and others like them should had proved their matching algorithms can match prospective partners who will have more stable and satisfying relationships and low divorce rates than couples matched by chance, astrological destiny, personal preferences, searching on one’s own, or other technique as the control group in a peer_reviewed Scientific Paper. But they could not proved nothing because they are only fueled by big marketing budgets and their executives are more worried in attracting, converting and retaining subscribers, than offering a good compatibility matching method; and of course scamming paying members with marketing and credit card billing trickery.

The entire Online Dating Industry for serious daters in 1st World Countries is a HOAX, performing as a Big Online Casino, with low successful rates.

“You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.”

Sooner or later, the entire Online Dating Industry will fall under its own weight.

Regards,

Fernando Ardenghi.
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
ardenghifer@gmail.com