Dating Services

Have you ever swiped right on a Tinder match only to discover her profile isn’t real? Since the famous dating app partnered with mobile identity company TeleSign, it claims spam is down as much as 90%.

Spam has been a growing problem for Tinder– prostitutes masquerading as potential love matches eager to sell their services, hackers using the dating app to obtain valuable user information, and even companies like The Gap aiming to capitalize on the 18-25 market with clever marketing campaigns. (Last month they set up their campaign ads as Tinder user profiles without explicit permission from the company – and were asked to take them down.) Also, there was the incident of a hacker tinkering with their API to match straight men with other straight men, which ended up confusing and embarrassing a lot of users.

Even though Tinder verifies people through their Facebook accounts, many people have become adept at creating fake social media accounts, too. So Tinder’s new deal with Telesign seems to be alleviating the problem.

Telesign works by analyzing massive amounts of real-time and historical data on phone numbers, including associated contact information, phone types, geographies, and carriers. Their technology uses PhoneID verification to determine how potentially risky a phone number is, and whether the number really belongs to the person creating the account. If the score is high (meaning high risk), the user is blocked. Telesign also recommended that Tinder implement rate limits. This means that Tinder can set a limit for the number of accounts created using the same phone number. The companies did not say whether the analyzed information from Tinder users is kept private, or how it could be used by TeleSign or Tinder.

Ryan Ogle, Tinder’s CTO said in a statement: “Once we had TeleSign in place, we were able to block fraudulent accounts in a much more sophisticated way. It’s been 100 percent accurate and we’ve seen about a 90 percent reduction in spam traffic as a result, from day one.”

Tinder has taken other steps to cut back on spammers, including limiting the amount of swipes people can do in a 24-hour period with the free service. If they want to swipe indefinitely (as spam bots often do), they will have to pay for Tinder Plus.

This is another big step for the company, which seems to be making significant changes in recent months. IAC, the parent company of Tinder, has brought in a new CEO, and in March, Tinder rolled out its first paid service, Tinder Plus.

Check out our review of Tinder for more information on this popular dating app.

A recent article in The Daily Beast brought up a question that has floated around the online dating community for a while – that is, how do you handle seeing someone you know on an online dating site or app?

For example, have you ever been matched with a co-worker on OkCupid? Or with an ex boyfriend on Hinge? Or with your engaged friend on Grindr? Or even your sister on Tinder? (Yes, this has happened to a few daters.)

Many people have experienced this strange mingling of their real lives and their online dating personas, but have different emotional reactions. While some might be mortified to be matched with a client or co-worker, others take it in stride as part of the online dating experience. Chances are, you are eventually going to run into someone you know if you swipe long enough. So the question becomes: how do you handle it?

In the case of being matched in a potentially awkward situation (say, with your co-worker), would you swipe right out of acknowledgment that you know each other (and the other person has probably already seen your profile on the dating app)? Does this send a confusing signal since you aren't interested? Or would you swipe left and hope that neither one of you brings it up at the next staff meeting?

While online dating might seem like meeting endless random strangers, it really is a lot closer to your existing circles than you might suppose. In the case of co-workers, it might be a good idea to decide what makes you more comfortable – having a good laugh about matching with each other at the next staff meeting, or swiping left and pretending you never saw each other on Tinder in the first place.

Dating apps are making it easier to reject potential matches without the other person knowing if you’ve even seen their profile. If you swipe left, the other person isn’t alerted – they just won’t be able to view your profile. The potentially awkward situation results from that person swiping right before you have had a chance to swipe left.

Some dating apps are addressing this problem by allowing users to filter out people they know in advance of being matched. OkCupid is rolling out some new features by the summer, one of which allows users to hide their profile by default, only to be seen by someone they actively “like” or message. OkCupid users will also have the option of using a Facebook account to block any of their friends that are also on OkCupid.

But does the real problem lie in potentially being matched with a client or your ex, or is it that people you know can see that you are single and looking for someone online? As far as we’ve come with accepting online dating, people can’t seem to get past its stigma. Maybe it’s time we all agree that our world is getting smaller with technology, and now is the time to accept our connectedness. After all, maybe your co-worker is a good match.

Read our Tinder review for more information on this popular dating app.

Online dating is hard. Dating is hard, period. What could be weirder than two total strangers trying to become not-total strangers? Let's just say the potential for comedic (and not so) mishaps is high.

With all that weirdness waiting to be unleashed at any second, it's no surprise we're desperate for any tip, trick, or nugget of wisdom that might stave it off. We've studied some seriously strange things in the name of cracking the online dating code, and although some are as weird as the weirdness they're trying to prevent, they're always interesting.

Check out a few unusual online dating facts below. You're bound to be surprised by at least one.

1. Men aren't into receiving short messages. Forget all the stereotypes about men hating it when women talk too much. A message from a woman to a man is 40% more likely to get a response if it's longer than a tweet (140 characters).
2. Men are, however, into women who make the first move. Women are 73% more likely to get a response if they mention “dinner,” “drinks,” or “lunch.” Speaking of stereotypes, maybe the one about “the quickest way to a man's heart” is true.
3. Online dating has a seasonal peak. The busiest time for online dating is between Christmas and Valentine's Day. According to Zoosk, the single most popular day is January 5, when 54% more people sign up.
4. There's an art to using smileys. Put aside emojis for a second and go back to the good old days of the classic smiley. If you send one with a nose :-), you're 13% more likely to get a response. If your smiley is lacking that key facial feature :), it's 66% less likely to get a message back.
5. Being active is attractive. Ok, maybe this one isn't so surprising, but it's still interesting. Wired made an infographic showing 380 of the 1,000 most commonly used words in profiles. Active, outdoorsy words like “surfing,” “skiing,” and “yoga” topped the list.
6. People actually prefer selfies. Joke about selfies all you want, but they're shockingly effective if you're looking for a date. A Zoosk study found that 84% of people favor selfies over formal profile pictures.
7. Too much online chit-chat can ruin a good thing. Because safety is a consideration when meeting a stranger over the Internet, you may think it's best to prolong the convo for as long as possible before meeting up in person. However, a 2013 study in the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication suggests that too much communication could be problematic. The more you talk before a first date, the more time you have to idealize the person and the greater the risk of a letdown when you finally meet face-to-face.

Real talk about Tinder: it can be a frustrating, maybe even scary, place to be a woman sometimes.

In fact, any online dating site fits that description. The entire Internet fits that description. Give people an anonymous username to hind behind, and suddenly all their worst behavior is on full display. I'm not saying it's everyone, but it's enough people to make it a serious problem.

Normally serious problems require serious solutions, but a California-based programmer decided to take a more humorous approach.

According to The Verge, the unnamed programmer tweaked Tinder's API, turning it into “a catfish machine that fools men into thinking they’re talking to women – when in fact they’re talking with each other.” He began by creating bait profiles, one using the image of a popular vlogger and the other using the image of a friend who gave her consent.

He then developed a program to identify men who indicate interest in one of the bait profiles. Once it finds two, the program matches them to each other and lets them begin the awkward, hilarious process of striking up a conversation. Within minutes of activation, the program was hard at work.

The programmer – who The Verge calls “Patrick” – estimates he witnessed 40 conversations within the first 12 hours. He developed a code to scramble phone numbers and stepped in if a real world meeting was in the cards, but says he feels torn about the ethics of his prank.

"They ignore all the signs, they ignore all the weird things," he told The Verge. "When someone is so quick to meet up without any detail or know anything about the person at all — maybe it’s deserved."

Patrick's prank was inspired by his female friends who often complained about their interactions on Tinder. His first plan was to build a Twitter bot that tweeted every first message received by a female friend, but after looking into Tinder's API, he discovered it had few protections and his vision grew.

"Tinder makes it surprisingly easy to bot their system,” he says. “As long as you have a Facebook authentication token, you can behave as a robot as if you were a person."

Patrick is far from the first to reveal the weakness of Tinder's API, but he's certainly the funniest and most socially relevant. Other hacks can be and have been used for morally ambiguous, or even dangerous, purposes. This one is good for a few laughs and makes a valid, important point about the way we treat each other online.

To read some of the priceless exchanges, check out the original post on The Verge. Check out our review of Tinder for more about the dating app.

Dating website Plenty of Fish (POF) has been making headlines recently for its longevity and user milestones, as well as its recent disclosure of financial information about the company. But thanks to the new anti-spam law in Canada, POF now has an unwanted headline that they have to deal with - the popular dating website has been ordered to pay $48,000 in fines for its email practices.

Canadians complained of Plenty of Fish’s marketing tactics, which launched an investigation by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) and the Competition Bureau into the company’s practices. Specifically, the agencies examined how the company handles commercial emails to subscribers.

According to the disgruntled users, POF sent them commercial messages without a noticeable “opt out” or “unsubscribe” feature. One of the key requirements in the law is that each commercial email contain an unsubscribe mechanism to allow recipients to opt-out at any time. Also, according to the wording of the law, the unsubscribe feature has to be prominently displayed and “readily performed.”

Plenty of Fish agreed to paying a $48,000 penalty and developing a new compliance program to address its problematic email practices. The compliance program will include training and education for staff, as well as corporate policies and procedures regarding email marketing.

The new anti-spam law has been in effect since last year, but the Canadian agencies have had their challenges in enforcing it because of how vast and pervasive the problem of spamming seems to be. Millions of spam emails are sent every day by spammers from all over the world. Experts argued that the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) and the Competition Bureau were not equipped to handle such a pervasive issue.

The agencies however, are proving the critics wrong. The Competition Bureau recently alleged that rental car companies Budget and Avis engaged in false and misleading advertising when they failed to disclose numerous additional fees as part of their car rental promotions, including their email promotions. The Bureau is seeking $30 million in fines and reimbursement to customers. And the CRTC discovered that Compu-Finder, a Quebec-based corporate training company, sent commercial emails without consent and like POF, without proper unsubscribe mechanisms. The company was hit with a $1.1 million penalty.

CRTC notes in a press release that POF did not argue with the fine or the accusation, and hopes that by example, other companies will be inspired to change their own email spamming tactics. As for POF, the company continues to grow its subscriber base despite its setbacks, recently announcing its user base has grown to 100 million worldwide.

For most people, Tinder is, at best, a chance to find a date and, at worst, an amusing diversion when standing in line or when there's nothing good on Netflix. But for artist and hacker Matthew Rothenberg, Tinder is an opportunity for an art project.

The project is called Swipe Left, and in it he inserts imagery of drone strikes and drone strike victims into the dating app. “For most of my career I've explored how real people and communities interact with technology,” Rothenberg writes on his website, “and all the messy things that happen when they do.”

That's exactly what this project does, although “messy” is a strong understatement. Rothenberg drew a complex connection between Tinder use and drone strikes. “The interface of Tinder is consciously reductionist,” he writes on Medium. “You get a name, age, and (sometimes) a very brief bio. The decision tree is binary: yes or no (or in Tinder UI, swipe right or left). No winks, nudges, or ratings. No bookmarking to come back later for decision. You have to make a decision in order to move on.”

Every decision made on Tinder is final. Accidentally swipe left on the love of your life, and they're gone for good. But, Tinder reminds you, there's a new potential love waiting just on the other side of that swipe. They're available immediately. There's no time for regret, remorse, reflection – the cycle continues instantly, and users are left feeling fine about the fact that they just reduced an incredibly complex thing – love – to a painfully simple activity.

And then there's drone strikes. Part of the reason they are so controversial is “the sense of dehumanized technology,” Rothenberg says. The kill list looks remarkably similar to something else: a list of members who meet a series of criteria, a photo, their age, a brief bio. In the end it's a simple binary decision. Yes or no. Swipe right or swipe left.

In both cases, the computer mediated user interface provides a distancing barrier between the viewer and an action. The barrier creates a sense of separation and encourages quick action. So what happens when New Yorkers find “drone strikes images interspersed with their continuous yes-and-no swiping to Tinder matches of shirtless-ab-photos and Instagram-filtered-art-selfies taken in the MoMA rain room?”

Well, the “what” isn't actually important, according to Rothenberg. He is uninterested in which way people swipe, merely the fact that they have to swipe. “How viewers choose to react is far less interesting to me than the fact that they’ve been forced into this situation to begin with,” he says. Any reaction at all is a valid and interesting data point for the Swipe Left project.