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.
Re:first (Score:5, Funny)
And others have the situation firmly in hands.
Re: (Score:1)
Thank goodness we have the EU to save Europeans from there own apparently severe naivety
Re:first (Score:4, Funny)
What is science? Baby don't hurt me, don't hurt me, no more.
Re: (Score:2)
The question is, are there women there who want love but not money?
And this makes women unique? Everyone wants money. Love's nice too. One of those I can live without.
Re: (Score:1)
Generally speaking, when men evaluate dating prospects, how much money the woman has isn't a criterion. Whereas when women size up a man, his apparent net worth is criterion #1, even if she already has plenty of money of her own.
Men don't seek women to enhance their financial situation, whereas women do seek men for exactly that reason.
Many women say "I don't do that, I have my own money," but the stats reveal the truth. Women still insist on marrying up.
Re: (Score:2)
Whereas when women size up a man, his apparent net worth is criterion #1, even if she already has plenty of money of her own.
Bullshit.
BO is probably the #1 criterion. If she can't get near you without retching, everything else will take a back seat. So pro tip: have a shower and use some deoderant and stop blaming women for not picking you because you're not rich enough.
Men don't seek women to enhance their financial situation,
Yeah bullshit. I literally know a guy who is doing this.
Re: (Score:1)
They are real women, but here's the catch.
If you "Start Communication" with them (eHarmony term), they can't respond unless they have a paid subscription. So there's no way for you to know if she is ignoring you or just doesn't feel like paying for an account. I feel the service should let you know who has a paid account and who doesn't.
And yes, they only add 4 or 5 matches to your inbox every day.
I met my wife on eHarmony. AMA.
Re: (Score:2)
What the hell was your wife doing on a dating site to begin with!
Dating? I hear it's popular. Never had much of a knack for it.
Re:Nope, I've tried it (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with Dating in general, it is up to the guy to initiate the meeting. So the ladies often complain about too much traffic, while the guys complain about lack of responses.
So the guy that respects women will rarely get a response as they will sound boring, because they will be polite and respectful. While the jerk will lie and do whatever it takes to get noticed. So the women notices the Jerk.
If society approved the Woman and Men equally initiating the meeting, then chances are there will be a bit more equal chance of finding each other.
Re: (Score:1)
I have tried it as well. So far, dating services have matched me up with:
Someone who was still married and was looking to toss her hubby, but lied about being single.
Someone who was asking people to help with bail money for her "brother". After a quick NCIS look, her "brother" was her husband locked up for agg assault.
Someone who talked my ear off for hours about the mean things she did to her ex.
Someone who started slashing the tires of a car they thought was mine. (I took the subway for good reason.)
So
Re:Nope, I've tried it (Score:5, Funny)
...if someone isn't married by 30, they are defective goods and single for a reason.
I must be double-plus special! I'm only 40 and I've already completed 2 entire marriages!
Achievement Unlocked! (Score:2)
"I've already completed 2 entire marriages!"... for some reason I translated that into a video game experience and saw the old xbox Achievement Unlocked popup come up in my mind lol!
Re: (Score:2)
You have never been asked out by a woman? That was how my first serious relationship started.
Re:Nope, I've tried it (Score:4, Interesting)
If society approved the Woman and Men equally initiating the meeting, then chances are there will be a bit more equal chance of finding each other.
That's stupid - society doesn't give a fuck, men don't give a fuck, but women do.
Re: (Score:1)
I had the woman who thought it was hilarious to joke about how her dog would eat my cat. I had the one who after chatting for a good while finally came out to say s
Re: (Score:2)
Well being most men are doing the serious dating thing in their late teens and 20's. For the most part they are very clumsy at it, and so are the women who feel like they they need to respond to such behaviors.
You can be all of it, however it usually requires a little more maturity, and less hormones.
eHarmony was the worst of the sites I tried (Score:2)
I tried several web sites, and went to lunch with dozens of women. eHarmony was the worst of the bunch, in my experience. Mate1 was my favorite.
eHarmony always wanted to match me with women a thousand miles away.
I went out with a lot of women because I was looking for a very special lady, a one-in-a-million. I did end up finding the love of my life, on mate1.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would a dragon take a load of spotty gits and store them in a cave?
Re: (Score:2)
Why would a dragon take a load of spotty gits and store them in a cave?
To have a WoW clan to play with at a moment's notice.
Mere puffery (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
How about not excusing puffery. It doesn't make the world any better.
Re:Mere puffery (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Dating websites can work. (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:Dating websites can work. (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:1)
Or after 6 years no need to ruin a good thing. Let it be.
Re: (Score:2)
Will she be legal then? (kidding)
It seems to me that after 6 years together there is no good reason to wait.
I am a rather traditional, so the proposal will be down on one knee, with a beautiful engagement ring that I designed just for her, incorporating both of our birthstones framing a central diamond. (Yes, I know diamonds are virtually worthless.) Obviously this ring will be rather expensive. As neither of us believes in going into debt, I am currently saving up for the ring.
Re:Dating websites can work. (Score:4)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Dating websites can work. (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Visitors no longer exists. They were phasing it out right around the time I met someone on it. Claimed it was "a distraction".
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Global Warming
That's hot! [quickmeme.com]
Isn't this what they meant by the Paris accord?
Banned from eHarmony (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
ProTip: Don't answer any eHarmony question with the phrase "Cowboy Neal."
Re: (Score:2)
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.
"Scientific" (Score:2)
Secret Science (Score:1)
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)
Should have called it AI dating, with blockchained dating histories. Stock prices would have quadrupled at least.
Black Mirror (Score:2)
Imagine! (Score:2)
Scientifically proven... (Score:2)
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
Let Me Get This Right (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I read at -1. I don't click your links.
Re: (Score:2)
"Imagine being able to stack the odds of finding lasting love entirely in your favour," the advert read."
May the odds be ever in your favor! Wait... where have I heard that before?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
The ASA, however, was aware of all this -- but science is not just about inputs and process, it's about replicable outcomes. And there's no studies showing that eHarmony marriages have MTBF that's materially better than other marriages.