Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Businesses The Almighty Buck

Dating Website eHarmony's Ad Banned For Claiming Service Is 'Scientifically Proven' (bbc.com) 160

A dating website's claim that it used a "scientifically proven matching system" to pair up those looking for love, has been banned. From a report: An advert for eHarmony on the London Underground in July read: "It's time science had a go at love." The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) called the claim "misleading." The online matchmaker said while it "respectfully disagrees" with the ruling, it will make its advertising "as clear as possible." The website was unable to offer the ASA any evidence that customers had a greater chance of finding love, despite claiming that its "scientifically proven matching system decodes the mystery of compatibility and chemistry." "Imagine being able to stack the odds of finding lasting love entirely in your favour," the advert read.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Dating Website eHarmony's Ad Banned For Claiming Service Is 'Scientifically Proven'

Comments Filter:
  • scientifically proven matching system decodes the mystery of compatibility and chemistry

    Of course eHarmony couldn't provide scientific evidence to back up it's claims. The claims are so over the top that it would be expected no reasonable person would believe they actually had scientists applying scientific methods to the match-making algorithm. This should have been a clear and obvious case of mere puffery.

    Of course, people can be pretty stupid so maybe eHarmony had been defrauding a significant percentage of the British population. God help us all.

    • scientifically proven matching system decodes the mystery of compatibility and chemistry

      Of course eHarmony couldn't provide scientific evidence to back up it's claims.

      That's simple. Just put add a disclaimer:
      "Scientifically proven(1) matching system decodes the mystery of compatibility and chemistry."
      (1) by social scientists, not real scientists.

    • How about not excusing puffery. It doesn't make the world any better.

    • by stephanruby ( 542433 ) on Wednesday January 03, 2018 @04:12PM (#55858169)

      The claims are so over the top that it would be expected no reasonable person would believe they actually had scientists applying scientific methods to the match-making algorithm. This should have been a clear and obvious case of mere puffery.

      It didn't need to be.

      eHarmony could have said. At eHarmony, we apply the scientific method. By paying for this service, you accept the possibility that you may be part of our double-blind control group, where we assign candidates semi-randomly. By semi-randomly, we mean we'll still try to find someone who fulfills your most basic criteria and who lives near your area, but some of those criteria will be chosen by a random algorithm instead of using our match-making algorithms. This is so that we're able to improve the success rate of our match-making algorithms over time.

      • by rtb61 ( 674572 )

        Forget the scientific method, for eHarmony to claim that would mean they were being wildly extremely privacy invasive, they would have to know you better than you know yourself and ensure no lies were thought let alone told.

    • scientifically proven matching system decodes the mystery of compatibility and chemistry

      Of course eHarmony couldn't provide scientific evidence to back up it's claims. The claims are so over the top that it would be expected no reasonable person would believe they actually had scientists applying scientific methods to the match-making algorithm. This should have been a clear and obvious case of mere puffery.

      Of course, people can be pretty stupid so maybe eHarmony had been defrauding a significant percentage of the British population. God help us all.

      Unless you are clearly making a joke (e.g. Red Bull gives you wings) you simply aren't allowed to flat out lie in UK adverts.

      Many beauty products use the "scientifically proven" line but they have to have at least some Noddy form of survey to back it up.

  • by Major_Disorder ( 5019363 ) on Wednesday January 03, 2018 @03:20PM (#55857811)
    I have never tried eHarmony. But I did meet my girlfriend of the past 6 years on OK cupid.
    I am planning to ask her to marry me in the spring.
    But I would hardly call online dating websites scientific. I would say it comes down more to luck, and both of us being honest with what we wanted.
    • by Tempest_2084 ( 605915 ) on Wednesday January 03, 2018 @03:47PM (#55858015)
      I did eHarmony back when it was newish. While I did get a lot of dates out of it, I never really met anyone I wanted to 'take it to the next level' with. New friends maybe, but not wife material. IIRC the questions they asked you were interesting (although they still sounded a lot like something you'd get asked on a 70's dating show) and probably filtered out the 'really wrong for you' people, but they really didn't help as much as they seem to imply. I still met plenty of people I knew weren't going to work within 5 min of meeting them. Later on I went with a smaller site and met the woman of my dreams almost instantly. We've been married for 8 years now and we couldn't be happier.

      Honestly, if you can find a smaller 'themed' dating site that suits your interests then you'll probably have better luck on those even if they have a smaller pool of people. It helps to have a common starting point that you both feel very strongly about (religion in my case). These larger sites may have more people, but those extra people are probably not going to be what you want anyway.
    • I have never tried eHarmony. But I did meet my girlfriend of the past 6 years on OK cupid. But I would hardly call online dating websites scientific. I would say it comes down more to luck

      Of couse it comes down to luck. It is luck if you find someone you hit it off with whether you meet them through a dating agency or elsewhere. The point is whether there is a better chance of good luck with the agency. But luck can be analysed scientifically - for example science tells us that the chance of getting a six on a dice throw is 1 in 6, whether by analysis of the cube or by statistical counting. eHarmony could bring science into it by doing statistical analysis, but maybe the problem here is tha

      • While it may be difficult to analyse, to me it seems bleedin' obvious that you are more likely to hit off with someone you meet through an agency than in a singles bar or public dance, say. At least you are more likely to know some basic facts about the agency date, for example the city where they live, interests, education etc, and you have already seen enough about each other that in agreeing to meet both of you already "agree" that things have potential. They can tell lies of course, but so can someone you meet in a singles bar.

        The point about meeting someone in a bar is that you at least know whether you find them attractive. Your internet date might leave you cold, even if they look like their photo.

        Obviously there is much more to a relationship than physical attraction, but physical attraction isn't really something that you can work on, it's either there or it isn't.

        It often seems to me that meeting people online makes more sense if you're looking for friends, as things like shared interests are more than sufficient for f

    • by blind biker ( 1066130 ) on Wednesday January 03, 2018 @06:16PM (#55858991) Journal

      OK Cupid is among the only dating websites that works. Why? Because it's free (or it used to, anyway). For-pay websites don't work, because their goal is not to find a match - that would be bad for business.

      I was trying to meet a woman on Match.com, but after about a year I gave up on it. Then I joined OK Cupid and found the woman that became my current wife, in three months. This was 10 years ago.

      • Nice! A large part of it is still free. You just pay for certain upgrades like being able to see who has viewed you and the like.
        • by blind biker ( 1066130 ) on Thursday January 04, 2018 @04:05AM (#55861045) Journal

          Well OK then.

          I just want people to realize that for-pay dating sites like eharmony and match.com do NOT work for the users because there is no incentive for these sites to actually find a working match. Their business incentive is all about dragging out the process as long as possible.

          Also, they have an interest in an unsuccessful outcome, even if the user leaves the site. Because successfully married/coupled people are automatically removed from their pool of customers.

        • Visitors no longer exists. They were phasing it out right around the time I met someone on it. Claimed it was "a distraction".

    • I have never tried eHarmony. But I did meet my girlfriend of the past 6 years on OK cupid. I am planning to ask her to marry me in the spring. But I would hardly call online dating websites scientific. I would say it comes down more to luck, and both of us being honest with what we wanted.

      It's simply another way of meeting someone. It is no better or worse than going to a social or a bar or even a connect through a friend.

      • It's simply another way of meeting someone. It is no better or worse than going to a social or a bar or even a connect through a friend.

        I never had any friends who were so overloaded with girls that they wanted to hand any out to other guys :-( I'mnot sure what you mean by a "social" either - did you mean family funerals which were the only "socials" I was ever invited to.

  • Banned from eHarmony (Score:5, Informative)

    by sremick ( 91371 ) on Wednesday January 03, 2018 @03:48PM (#55858019)

    Eons ago, during a period where I was on the market, I tried making an eHarmony account. They rejected/banned me right off the bat without explaining why. Something about the answers I gave during the lengthy profile creation process caused them to give up on me with no explanation, and no recourse. Just basically, "we can't help you, go away".

    Match.com was useless since both parties had to be paying members in order to send/receive messages. A rather broken and pointless model as it leads to an EXTREMELY limited pool. So I didn't bother.

    OKCupid was and remains free. Met my current partner there and we've been together 5+ years now.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      ProTip: Don't answer any eHarmony question with the phrase "Cowboy Neal."

    • Eons ago, during a period where I was on the market, I tried making an eHarmony account. They rejected/banned me right off the bat without explaining why. Something about the answers I gave during the lengthy profile creation process caused them to give up on me with no explanation, and no recourse.

      I was told once that if you are a godless heathen then they will refuse to create your profile.
      I am not saying that is why they rejected you, but it might be.
      For the record, I personally identify as a recovering Catholic, and a godless heathen.

  • I think most people understood that this was their attempt at trying to make it work, and only vaguely scientific. Basically they are trying to say they have a better algorithm. However, the commercials really do amp up how they break down the answers and questions and results, and match on all sorts of data points, etc etc so I can understand that the regulators would say 'hey, take it down a notch'.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    The issue here is an interesting one: Is secret science still science?

    If I follow the scientific process, do an experiment, validate my results, etc., but don't publish the results, an I say I've done something scientifically? Or is public scrutiny an intrinsic part of science?

  • AI Dating (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 03, 2018 @04:28PM (#55858295)

    Should have called it AI dating, with blockchained dating histories. Stock prices would have quadrupled at least.

  • Where the hell are the 99.8% jokes at?!
  • When asked for proof, starting a sentence with "Imagine..." is when healthy people get Tourettes seizures.
  • Its "scientifically proven" that more people will click on your profile, if you actually have one. That's about it.

    Alternatively they will continue to use statistics to prove almost anything they want, and then try to convince the public that science proves two that people are right for each other. That statistical correlation they offer to the "honest" answers to metaphysical questions, plus an advanced degree in alchemy, will guarantee you live happily ever after.

    Yea, right. I bow in the presence of

  • They "respectfully disagree" with the ASA's claim that the ad is misleading in its claim of being a "scientifically proven matching system" (it actually uses that phrase on the ad), but they're unable to show any documentation that their claim is truthful? So they're respectfully disagreeing to being called out for lying when they're outright lying?

There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about. -- John von Neumann

Working...