As I’ve been saying all along, there’s little hard proof that sites that match you based on compatibility will deliver better results than other online dating sites. This NY Times article says that further research is being conducted to determine just how effective sites like eHarmony and Chemistry.com really are.
One thing that did not get discussed is the balance between men and women on these sites. It probably never will be either because why would these companies want to admit to the imbalance between the sexes. My personal viewpoint is that men don’t care about personality tests the same way women do (especially dating over 40) that means (granted from my perspective) that men will not want to fill out 258 questions on a site like eHarmony.
In addition, these “matching” sites can only guarantee matches, but not that those men will contact you. So is it really better than Match.com or the free site Plentyoffish.com for that matter. Picking your own prospects may work just as well as if not better!
The article entitled “Blinded by Science in the Online Dating Game” is very well named. So far there is absolutely no proof at all that paying more for personality tests truly makes a difference.
Some women who are dating over 40 feel that the men willing to invest time in filling out the questionnaire is a pre-sorting method in itself. That might hold some validity, yet it narrows the offerings. I recommend not relying on just one method any way – instead using a variety of methods to meet prospective men.
Online dating is great. But don’t forget singles dances, speed dating, singles groups, and blind dates. These methods also produce results and the combination helps you meet a wide variety of men. Since dating is a numbers game, that ‘s the bottom line. You need to meet lots of men to find the one who is right for you.
When picking an online dating site, be sure to first browse to see if there are enough men in your geographic area before signing up. And if the site doesn’t permit browsing – DON’T SIGN UP!
photo credit – Katie Durault