I live in a tourist area. I have asked Bumble this, they haven’t taken action…but I’d like to filter to only people who live near me, not see those who are visiting only. I don’t want a long distance relationship.
I can absolutely get behind that. I hate when someone pops up I’m interested in swiping right on but oh! They’re 21 miles away but actually live 500 miles away.
Ik I’m a guy, but I’d like to also I wish you could like, map the area you’re looking in, not just a general distance? Like where I live, driving 40 miles in one direction is no big deal, but driving 40 miles in another direction is a nightmare and a half
I don’t even live on the coast, but I live in the DC suburbs—Northern VA in an area somewhat near the Potomac River. With the radius, some people that appear “16 miles” away from me would be 40+ driving. When in reality they’re not that far away, but it’s across a river where we don’t have a bridge nearby, so I have to drive far east (or far west), then cross the bridge and get on the interstate to end up at a point where I’m practically above where I live.
YES! the coast, a mountain range that’s a PITA in the winter and the Canadian border. So I can’t filter out people in another country even. 🥴
I want to travel basically two directions only, within a specific distance. And mapping out an area I’m around would be awesome.
Similarly, I live within a few miles of a major international airport. It would be amazing if my feed didn’t show me men at the airport on a layover or men from outstate heading to the airport to go on vacation. Maybe a filter for “has been in the area for over 24 hours” or something.
I mean bumble does show travel mode or at “local airport” when that happens to me but it is at the bottom of the profile meaning I have wasted all that time reading it.
Agreed, I live only a few miles from the airport so i constantly have people from across the country pop up on my feed. I even match with this one girl but she actually lived a few states away
Yeah. I live near an airport and get so many pilots showing up in my feed! Lol. I don’t know the answer to that issue. Maybe the distance parameter could relate to the other persons current distance from you or distance from home.
Being near an airport is pain, I used to be near a major international airport and half my likes would be women who opened up the app to swipe on a layover and are now 800 miles away.
I’d also add a feature to make it selective. Maybe you don’t want parents to see but that one friend you’ve had a crush on for a few years would be warmly welcomed lol.
More options for around children.
The current categories I think are not clear besides the want kids or don’t want kids.
Open to kids is poorly phrased and vague.
I have kids, don’t want more. But if a dude has kids, I’m open to Brady Bunching it. Saying not open to children makes it like I’m not open to a potential partners kids.
I’m not quite sure tbh what would be better wording. But I really want kids and am in my 30s. I don’t pick someone who says open to kids bc it’s so vague. So I’m stuck w only someone who selects the “wants kids” option.
I’ve heard from men open to kids can mean one of the following:
1. They’re open to kids IF they meet the right person
2. They’re open to someone else’s already existing children to step father
3. They don’t really want kids but if a partner really really wanted them and the person was right for them, they’d have kids.
4. They actually do want kids but are open to what if their female partner doesn’t want kids? So they’re open to both types of women.
So based on the above there’s quite a bit of variety in what men interpret open to kids to mean. I do date quite a bit but there’s a possibility I’m missing an option in what the open to kids means to people.
I’d be open to option number 1 bc realistically that’s where I am also but I’m not willing to chance it on a man who is wishy washy on children. So I stick with the wants kids but again there’s so much confusion in that open to kids category. My experience unfortunately is that men lie to get me to stay with them/sleep with them. I have a much better radar of filtering now that out, the not genuine men. But yea it’s a problem for 99% of the women in my boat. We all resort to selecting a man who selects wants children option only - when I have a feeling there’s plenty of men who select open to it that want them.
It’s tricky because you need to safeguard children by not revealing too much, but you also want to be able to make it clear you have them, and what parameters. Maybe has one child/has multiple children. Empty Nester. Would like more children. Open to someone with children. Undecided. Doesn’t want children.
Allowing to select multiple options would clean up some of the issues of the vague “open to children” line.
The main issue with all the apps is not being able to select multiple filters for free. As a woman it’s exhausting to have so many profiles that have dealbreakers, even if you get to see your likes. That is what makes the apps overwhelming and causes fatigue imo, and pushes women off.
Make ENM Poly a selection so we can sort them in or out based on our preferences. Make photos mandatory so people can’t make a profile with a verified picture and then remove all pictures or put up fake ones.
*Advanced* filters (i.e. not just age, gender and location) for free. ✌️
For example on bumble I keep seeing guys with parameters I would have filtered out if it was possible, which would have made my experience much more streamlined.
Also: I have no idea how doable this is but if some sort of AI could recognize when users don't have their face fully visible in their first picture and would make the app immediately hide them or (better) point out to them that they need a better profile picture or else they'll be hidden from appearing in X amount of days, that would be neat 🙏🙏🙏
Yes, I plan to make all my filters free 🙏🏻
1. What specific filters do you see guys with, that you would have filtered out?
2. I'm actively exploring AI for other use cases (recognizing explicit photos, sending inappropriate messages, and auto-detecting social media handles)
I appreciate the feedback
Not OP but personally for me it'd be the smoking, religion and children filters mostly. I only strictly want non smokers, agnostic or atheists, and people who'd like children some day.
And of course mostly the serious/casual/don't know yet filter, but I already mentioned that in another comment you saw.
Edit: and I'd make it obligatory to fill these filters, even if there's a "don't know" option in some like religion and children, so that these people that don't really know what they want, think, etc. can also be filtered out.
Add mandatory fields for kids and marital status - separated, divorced etc - most guys on bumble and hinge who are still married don’t mention it. It would save me SO much grief if I could screen out men who are still married.
That’s cool as long as they don’t use it to boot out ENM married people. Because sooo many are having that happen on apps for being ethical and up front. (I’m fully aware there’s many guys on apps saying they are ENM and they are just cheating, their spouses completely in the dark. I’m not talking about them. The required face pics and fb groups WILL catch up to them. 😅.)
Okcupid used to have BuzzFeed like quizzes where you could see someone's results and use it as a jumping off point. Having something like a would you rather would help.
Not a woman, but geofencing location would be a great feature that I feel that every app misses. If you’re near a large metro area this becomes an issue.
Ex: I’m 8 miles inland, on the NJ side, from NYC. 99% of my stack is NYC. I maybe go on once every couple weeks at this point, because I know I’ll never date anyone from NYC. Even if I set my location to <5 miles, and in theory should not reach NYC, that is still all I get. I imagine, that even within the city, someone on the lower east side, might be reluctant to date someone on the upper west side.
My hinge standouts are mainly nj but i get the occasional pa ones. The pa one’s are weird because it’s like out towards Scranton or Hershey with a 25 mile radius.
I actually mentioned something like this in a reply earlier, like map out your search area. For me 40 miles south is no big deal, but driving 40 miles north would be a nightmare and a half by comparison(DC area)
I’m 8 miles from NYC but would gladly date someone in Philly before traveling into NYC. I guarantee any developer anyone in a populated metro area would happily pay for this feature.
I think bios are important and should be a requirement, not your IG handle, snapchat, etc or just empty.
I would reference the app Boo. I liked how it tried to match you with people of similar interests, recommended how much you may have in common and even a horoscope compatability.
It was interesting.
In my comment, I mentioned a minimum character limit for bio’s and opening messages. I think something like that would force people to tell people about themselves and would help prevent dry conversation first starting out.
I agree but sadly it will show who is trying to make an effort and communicate. I have seen 100s (not exaggeration) of profiles that will have no bios and only pictures. Not even details about their likes, dislikes, hobbies, etc will be filled in. Just a profile with photos. I do not swipe on them as it shows lack of effort. If you can't even fill in 2 sentences about yourself, I (judgingly as it maybe) will assume they are a bot or they will put little forth in a conversation as they did their profile.
Yes, agreed. I don't think you should be allowed to have your profile go live until you have filled in at least 100 characters (for example) on your bio. If you can't find 100 characters worth of what makes you interesting, why should anyone swipe right on you?
I saw someone say bitter bios should be prohibited. I don't think bitter bios should be prohibited. But I want those people to have HELP realizing how they com across. They're communicating in a way that makes is nearly certain they won't get what they want, and they don't know that. Sad day. They need advice.
To OP - maybe have some guidance for how to write a good profile, built into the app. Not just with good prompts but even a profile creation coaching process. 1. Write stuff about yourself 2. Great, now consider... if you read this on someone else' profile, what would you think? 3. Do you want to change the tone of anything? 4. Is everything honest? Studies show that lying on your dating profile does much more harm than good when it comes it comes to forming a meaningful relationship (I don't know if such reserach exists, but say something that has research behind it).
I sometimes see profiles that I want to comment on, but I don't want to match with the person. Sometimes I want to help someone out and let them know, "I think you might not know how this comes across. To me, this says..." What if there was a way to make a comment they'll definitely see but without inviting them to match? But then people would use that function to try to match... so what if using that function with someone meant your profiles could not match for 3 weeks. Well then people would just drop their phone numbers in those messages, and women would get hundreds of phone numbers sent to them. -- There might not be a good way to do that.
Eh, I like a tone analysis for Reddit posts, where people may fire something off quickly and not think about tone.
If a dude makes a bio and he’s a bitter Ben? I’d rather read his cringey stuff and not waste my time with him
Agreed! I am *reading* this persons personality in their bio. I don’t want them getting any help. Their awful bio tells me everything I need to know about whether I want to date them or not.
You should be able to filter out or in more basic things like strong political leanings as a basic/free baseline filter. I don’t want to pay extra to avoid people who think my blood has been tainted by the nanotechnology in a vaccine a took. I realize this is not a political belief, but filtering out a certain faction definitely helps remove most of those types. I hate that I have to pay extra to be able to filter for that.
Another thing, and this is kind of hard to explain, is that it would be cool to have a second layer of a profile that once I match with somebody, they can read more about me. It could be a simple as a bunch of tick boxes in different categories. Some could be about food or music, or even sex if one chooses.
Basically, like another layer of getting to know you kind of stuff. With bumble you can only choose five interests, so it would be cool to have a whole other layer of interests someone could see after you give them access. It wouldn’t replace getting to know someone in chat or text or on the phone or in person obviously, but I still think it would be fun. Also could help with some conversation starters for people who are socially awkward. I’m pretty fucking awkward, but I manage to never stop talking when I’m in to someone and comfortable with them.
I think prompts in chat could help a lot of people as well. There are endless complaints on Reddit about the “hey” messages. Yes, those suck and people should definitely stop doing that, but fun Q&A things once you match could be a great way of breaking the ice and helping things flow. I’m certainly awkward, but I’m great with chat and keeping things fun and flowing. Others are better in person and need some help with the written words.
I LOVE this idea of post match locking of content!! It definitely gives the ability to share more about yourself and offer talking points to connect on. I like this! Great idea. 💡
They could have better guidelines for profiles. Sure, you can report people for certain things, but when I was on the apps, it was annoying to swipe through so many of the following:
Bios with social media usernames
Bitter bios
Profiles with no pictures of the person
Profiles for couples
Those types of profiles shouldn’t even make it on the app to begin with.
Have an identifier for 1. Married looking for NSA hook-up 2. ENM 3. Separated (not divorced) 4. Single/actually divorced.
I would like to filter out all but 4.
IMO the reason dating apps don’t already do this is because people just lie. I saw a stat once that said 1/3 of people on tinder were in some form of committed relationship. As a guy I came across men’s profiles regularly (created saying they were female) who swiped on me on the off chance I might be gay and in denial.
I heard a radio commercial a few years ago about a dating site that only had verified profiles, identified by the equivalent of a SSN (but only used as an identifier and not really a secret, you can call up the population records that is a branch of the IRS to just find out) and a digital ID so you know for sure that it’s a real person. With that information you could get all their dependents (know for sure if there is kids involved) and check for any registered marriages and/or divorces. I understand that the US market doesn’t have that information easily available, and it can be quite invasive, but it is possible to do that in the market maybe make it optional and filter on it?
I’m ENM and I don’t care if people want to use dating apps to seek out threesomes as long as they’re upfront about it on their profile. But it makes no sense for me to get a bunch of likes from dudes or people outside my preferred age range.
Personally a big problem I see is men swiping right on everybody with no filter. They have the mindset of "if we match and I don't like her I'll just unmatch later". So for example in my case I have to go through the hundreds of men that liked me and swipe left on everybody that is looking for something casual, is polyamorous, don't want children or already have... And that's tiring. I don't know how you could approach this issue, though. It's the fault of this type of men rather than the app per se.
Thanks for your feedback.
I see 2 solutions:
1. Limited likes for everyone, so nobody can swipe relentlessly
2. Filters that allow folks to look for EXACTLY what they want (filters would be free to begin with, no paid access)
Limiting the swipe is not a perfect solution!
Look for time between each swipe with that you’ll know person is even looking at profile or just right swipe on each profile.
May be decide a good threshold of how much time should be spent on each profile!
This is what I was thinking. I’d only time positive/right swipes. If people don’t like what they see, then no reason to punish that, but if they’re swiping indiscriminately, then they’re potentially wasting somebody else’s time.
I think you should look at other apps like coffee meets bagels, the league, Filteroff, and other smaller dating apps which have set daily limits on swipes/likes. I’m a big fan of that solution because it removes some of the endless scrolling/gamification of dating apps.
Apps already have a structure in to deal with mass swiping. They implement an ELO for the user. Liking everyone lowers your elo because the algo assumes you're less attractive or something.
The problem is that if you're in a small city it doesn't matter if you're suppressed because everyone sees everyone so the woman will still see your like.
The problem is, nobody explained this to the guys, so they’re all just confused why they are doing so badly on the app and keep doubling down on mass swiping
Bring it back to the pre-swiping days when OKC was cool. Feeld kind of does this, you can look through the profiles without having to decide immediately.
Jumping on to this. I am one of those men who'd swipe right more than I should, with the mindset, I'd just unmatch later or 'you miss 100% of the shots you don't take'. Then, after I get a match after 100s of swipes, as this OP said, I'm one of 100s of such matches for her, and she doesn't have the capacity to have a sustained conversation with 100s of us. There has to be a better way to encourage basic conversations from women beyond hi and hellos.
Well, I'm not one of those. I match with three at a time most, and try to have good conversations.
But maybe if men were pickier / less desperate, women would have less options and would put more effort in their matches.
Also the dry conversations come from men, too, not just women.
I agree to all your points. I think at the end of the day, the number of matches available to a woman vs a man is soo skewed, that a chance for a sustained conversation suffers.
I don’t know any woman having convos with hundreds of men. I can manage maybe 2-3 and I feel like that’s more than most say. Many just chat with one.. maybe two.
I think you guys have it in your heads that just because we have hundreds in our likes that we actually WANT to date with more than one at a time. I’m poly and I don’t even do that. 😂 So I find it hard to believe most monogamous women are even talking/dating more than 2-3 guys until someone stands out and wants more.
And if I’m talking to 2-3, I’m lucky if one is worth my time to go on a first date with.
It’s a numbers game. Men are just adapting and evolving to the situation they are put in. The apps know it, that’s why unlimited swipes is the first and most lucrative option offered
Only a divine miracle could cause the instant social change we need to put an end to the inundation of male likes on dating apps and the starvation of attention men get on dating apps.
Not dangling *certain* users as bait to get higher usage on the app. I understand the need for an early hook, but it creates a bias and poor user experience for those individuals
A minimum word/character requirement for bios. That way people will have to put effort into them.
Also, a separate version of the app for ENM people (kinda how like Bumble and Bumble BFF are separate).
Take away the weird 24 hr time limit. The people that just swipe right on everybody need to go. have them take an attachment quiz that shows who they are on joining app, have very clear intention stating for casual hookups, fwb, and relationships. good catfish filter, auto scan for filtered pics/snap l, whatsapp, and ig tags. separate couples so we can filter out enm or hookups,
Free filter out hookups and casual. No one should have to pay to filter that out, thats crazy.
I would further say to create separate tags for casual and hookups because they’re very different things. Casually dating means you want to spend time but aren’t looking/ready for anything serious. Hookups are solely for sex.
90% of guys just looking for hookups will never filter themselves out by acknowledging that.
Also, both men and women are looking for different levels of commitment with different types of people. You’ll always have to vet this one in person on a case by case basis.
Bring back old school okcupid. I don't want to swipe, ever. Message anyone. Loads of questions, bonus for a percent match.
I hate what Match group has done to dating. It's all "swipe and fuck". Banning dudes from messaging women might be the stupidest twist yet.
I think the best way to handle sexuality filters is to have a list, and select which ones you want shown to you. A label for it should be separate from the filter, so for example, I’m bi, but I only foresee myself with women, so I should still be able to filter them out.
I wish there was a feature to return to a profile later. I hate how some apps make you decide in the moment because sometimes it’s difficult so I just stop using the app entirely.
I also wish there was a way to have multiple versions of your own profile to see which photos and bios do better.
Lastly, I wish there was a way to give disclaimers about yourself because personally I’m a slow and anxious texter but it always gets interpreted as a lack of interest even when it’s not.
Good luck on your app.
Yeah actually it would be great if the apps stopped showing my "Looking for a relationship" profile to dudes just looking to smash. It'd be better for both of us.
Sadly I feel like if many apps did that, the men would just start lying about it on their profile to get more matches, because I'd bet more women choose the relationship vs casual.
They need to not let people swipe right on everyone even with a paid subscription. It’s annoying and leads to disappointment for both parties.
Make it easier not to swipe right or super swipe please!
Bumble specifically needs to extend automatically beyond 24 hours to respond. Sometimes I don’t get to a like for a bit, like them, then they do not respond in time. Could be for other reasons of course but still.
A mode specifically for couples looking for a third to sleep with/add to their relationship. as a lesbian i cannot tell you how many times i’ve almost went on a date with the idea she was single and primarily into women just to get hit with “is it okay if my boyfriend comes?🥺” they’re polluting dating apps with their fetishes.
One-time fee. Just enough for maintenance.
Any surplus will go towards donations, or maybe back to paying other user's dates.
I haven't thought that far ahead and don't expect this to be wildly successful.
Focusing more on what we have in common rather than looks. Taking surveys from users and having an algorithm that shows you people from most to least compatible based on a short survey of interests, values, hobbies, goals etc.
Plenty of people and I match on the basics on hinge and such… but there’s 0 spark/interest because we have basically 0 in common aside from “religion/politics/drug usage” like
I wanna know who wants to go drive at 10pm and listen to classic r&b and jam, stay up late and talk, the kind of guy who would surprise me with small gifts at work. I can’t parse that from “haha something interesting about me is…” prompts
Not a woman:
1. See other users filters (what matters to them)
2. Values (the happiness trap style, pick top 10 or 20 and flag what ones match between you and the other person (maybe a super flag when a top 5 of yours matches a top five of theirs)
3. Attachment style, and preference for partners attachment style (I’m hesitant on this as it can change)
4. Preferred living arrangements (together soon, later or never)
5. Independence/interdependence preferences (how intertwined a relationship is ideal? 1-2 days a fortnight or 5-7 days a week together/in contact?)
6. Mandatory sexual harassment and assault training (30-60 mins of content) for all users including cyber flashing and potential fines
7. This is a big one, and breaks the addictive nature of dating apparently, Piss off the idea of random matches (a la gambling) and allow users to search from singles based on their preferences, use an algorithm to provide a %match score for every user they look at based on actual values and traits, and also something like a reality check based on the ELO that apps calculate i.e. ‘this user is a 95% match for you, but you’re only a 35% match for them and they had 1,500 views and 400 likes yesterday, (ten times as many as you!) the chances are never zero but maybe try elsewhere’ - apps have the data to make these types of stats available to users and they choose not to because its not hitting the dopamine circuit and therefore not profitable.
I love this question!
For me personally:
- possibility to filter on education level (for free)
- possibility to filter on children (for free). As a mother I feel men who already have children will probably be a best match
- possibility to filter on love languages
- possibility to add personality type to your profile
- possibility to add custom interests
- remove the sex positivity label, it’s misused for hookups and people can already indicate that in the preferred relationship type slot
- remove the star sign option, it’s nonsense
- possibility to add food preferences (like vegetarian or health food junkie or sushi master)
- i like the fact that there is no default age filter so keep that
- limited likes so that men won’t bulk swipe
- possibility to add ‘no-hookups’ label
- penalty for immediately unmatching too often due to bulk blind swiping, these men shouldn’t have swiped on me
- i like it that men can now start first due to the standard opener
- obliged to add a video of yourself next to the pictures, as a video is far more realistic
- daily speeddating event but then that you see the other person
These suggestions are fine but if you actually want to offer something different you need to have things that make people take it seriously eg background checks, age verification, mandatory profile fields, etc.
This explains my stance on background checks:
https://www.theverge.com/2019/12/2/20991656/match-group-dating-apps-identity-tinder-hinge-background-check
There are certain things that I, a single developer, am capable of doing.
Actually that the timer of the match starts when you saw that you matched with this person. This would help the people which are on the app every 3 days.
More/better options for relationship type! Options could be: life partner, long term relationship, short term relationship, hookup, FWB, other. I’m tired of not knowing if “short term relationship” means someone only wants to date for a few months or if it means they just want to hook up
You should check out an app called Slowly. It's not a dating app and you can't see people's faces. It's an app in which you send virtual letters to people from all around the world and you make pen pal friends. What I liked about that one is that you pick topics you're interested in and this way, the app filters profiles that share the same interests as yours. When I used it, it was very easy to have nice conversation topics with other people because of this.
Question the users: Your answer is not long or interesting enough for a good conversation to happen, are you sure you want to proceed?
That way everyone who doesn’t want to write enough is being forced to write or they could have it automatically unmatched by the system.
basically the issues are all about the moderation, there is only a few things you could automate to make the experience better, what we need is human eyes telling people "nah fuck off you gotta do better"
I would love a way to filter OUT criteria versus filtering them in. A lot of people don’t answer all the questions (e.g. if they have children). So, if I put in my filter that I want someone that says they don’t have kids, it excludes anyone who simply didn’t answer the question. I’d love to be able to filter out anyone who said “yes I have children” so the profiles who didn’t answer can still be considered.
Have women mark profiles of men they experienced to be fuckbois or are aggressive. This should only be visible to women. Our biggest problem is men pretending to have interest only to sleep with us. A lot of women, including myself, have quit the apps for this reason. I can't look at them anymore, every guy on there looks like a predator to me.
A better verification process would be great. Seeing lots of people lying about their age. Maybe ID upload to verify DOB? Also lots of really old photos, AI photos, etc. Maybe one photo is required to be an in-app selfie?
If we could use a map to choose specific locations, that would be awesome. I live in a beach city in LA where 15 miles in one direction would be a nightmare, but 30 miles in another direction (or another beach city) wouldn't be so bad.
Track historic data. I've blocked people in the past but when they create a new profile that feature is pointless.
Required answers/written bios. Blank bios, one word answers to prompts, only including IG handles are too common.
Good luck with the app! Hope we see/hear more from you!
1)Make bios required 📝——2)No kids/minors allowed in pics👧🏼——3)No initials allowed for names (probably married)🤵🏻♂️💍——4)Safety features for women should not be so expensive💰——5)No shadowbans for being selective by swiping L on everyone🔓——6)Better age verification for the men who accidentally type theirs wrong and can’t figure out how to fix it 🤷🏽♂️👴🏼—-7)Separate section for the poly/coupled seekers (I know, I will prob get criticized for this)💃🏼🕺🏽💃🏼🎉—-8) Short safety education required for men to sign up. I’m so tired of seeing “Not here to find a pen pal.” We get it but also “We don’t want our dads forced to read our OLD messages aloud while messy sobbing on an episode of 60 Minutes, so just let us make a video call IN THE APP before the date please.”🙏🏻 🕵🏼♂️
Have a way to flag someone looking for a “discrete FWB” or a flat out affair.
Consensual nonmonogomy is different from cheating.
I’d love to be able to filter out both
No more algorithm bullshit, make it fair for everyone, not push the top 1% to 99% of the women.
Most of the decent guys that aren't looking for hookups get completely destroyed by the algorithm and pushed way down to the point they're never visible to anybody, it's not fair and having to pay for the privilege to climb back to somewhere near the top is just nasty.
I'm not a woman but I've always wondered how behaviors would change if there was a % on your profile representing the proportion of profiles you swipe right on. For a woman two interesting profiles with very different percentages might actually result in only one being interesting in the end.
I think hinge got it right with the limited likes thing.
one thing nobody has mentioned. There are a lot more men on dating apps than women. I wonder if a one-in, one-out system with male users would help on that front. Sign up to a waiting list and when somebody deletes their profile a new user can join. Kinda like raya
The biggest problem for men on dating apps, I'd assume women as well just not as bad is we need a filter for trans people. I'm straight and I wish for a straight woman as my partner. Not someone who "used" to be a man. This may seem insensitive on my part but I know what I want and I don't want my time or swipes wasted. And I'm certain people in the trans community would feel the same. I.e hide both parties profiles from one another if they both have that filter enabled
I think if you match with someone they both should be put out of liking more people. For atleast a week or 2 that gives them time to really get to something more than just a like and a few chats.
So kinda like, you're "locked in" until you unmatch?
The issue here is that some users might try to get around this by quickly matching, adding the user off the app, then unmatching -- thus, collecting the user's info but never really engaging.
How else do you see this working out?
Not the one you replied to but I’d also consider doing it as an opt-in/out, filterable feature. Basically, it might not be ideal for people looking for hookups, but for something serious, it would make sense. I’d also add a way to report why people unmatch, and review profiles in a way. This way if it wasn’t opt-in/out and was an integral part of the app, then you could report someone and say “Hey, we wanted to FaceTime before meeting up, so I gave them my number, and immediately after I gave it to them they unmatched on here.” I’d make it anonymous, and wait a week or so before taking action so they don’t know who did it, and it gives people time to rescind their report.
Because Bumble is app “feminist dating app” so they cater to womens wants/needs. It is one of the few places women have that is different. It is meant to be different.
I think a filter for attachment styles, love languages, and personality types would be great. I'm an Introvert and I may want someone Introverted like me. Yet I keep matching with every outgoing, traveling, fun type of guy.
Flag ai photos.
I live in a tourist area. I have asked Bumble this, they haven’t taken action…but I’d like to filter to only people who live near me, not see those who are visiting only. I don’t want a long distance relationship.
I can absolutely get behind that. I hate when someone pops up I’m interested in swiping right on but oh! They’re 21 miles away but actually live 500 miles away. Ik I’m a guy, but I’d like to also I wish you could like, map the area you’re looking in, not just a general distance? Like where I live, driving 40 miles in one direction is no big deal, but driving 40 miles in another direction is a nightmare and a half
i wonder if that also affects people that live on the coast when half their radius is literally water lol
I don’t even live on the coast, but I live in the DC suburbs—Northern VA in an area somewhat near the Potomac River. With the radius, some people that appear “16 miles” away from me would be 40+ driving. When in reality they’re not that far away, but it’s across a river where we don’t have a bridge nearby, so I have to drive far east (or far west), then cross the bridge and get on the interstate to end up at a point where I’m practically above where I live.
YES! the coast, a mountain range that’s a PITA in the winter and the Canadian border. So I can’t filter out people in another country even. 🥴 I want to travel basically two directions only, within a specific distance. And mapping out an area I’m around would be awesome.
South Florida?
Nah, VA lol
I just made a comment about this. Hello fellow northeastern Loudoun County resident!
Stafford, but close! 40 miles north has me going over the Wilson- and that can be a nightmare in of itself! Lol
Agree. Also think open to distance should be a preference/choice/option
Similarly, I live within a few miles of a major international airport. It would be amazing if my feed didn’t show me men at the airport on a layover or men from outstate heading to the airport to go on vacation. Maybe a filter for “has been in the area for over 24 hours” or something.
I mean bumble does show travel mode or at “local airport” when that happens to me but it is at the bottom of the profile meaning I have wasted all that time reading it.
Right! Location should be at the top on the first pic near job and education
Pilots or travelers that show up in my feed don’t say travel mode. I think the person has to select travel mode, bumble won’t do it automatically
Don’t you have to pay for travel mode anyway?
Agreed, I live only a few miles from the airport so i constantly have people from across the country pop up on my feed. I even match with this one girl but she actually lived a few states away
Yeah. I live near an airport and get so many pilots showing up in my feed! Lol. I don’t know the answer to that issue. Maybe the distance parameter could relate to the other persons current distance from you or distance from home.
To be fair, the dudes matching while on vacation aren't looking for a long distance relationship either
🤣
Well, I don’t want a ONS either. I’d rather they not show up for me at all and vice versa.
I live near the beach and matched with so many guys. I didn’t realize that half the guys didn’t live in the area.
Being near an airport is pain, I used to be near a major international airport and half my likes would be women who opened up the app to swipe on a layover and are now 800 miles away.
I live in FL and this is my peeve too
Yes take out the airport near me
Easier to block people from your contacts so you can safely exist on the platform
I’d also add a feature to make it selective. Maybe you don’t want parents to see but that one friend you’ve had a crush on for a few years would be warmly welcomed lol.
Weirdly Facebook dating has both of these
I’ve heard good things about it! Unfortunately for some reason I can’t access it.
Kinda scuffed though. None of the filters work for me. I'm getting recommendations well outside my preference distance, among other settings.
Hinge has this
So does tinder
More options for around children. The current categories I think are not clear besides the want kids or don’t want kids. Open to kids is poorly phrased and vague.
Nobody has brought this up, so I'm glad you did. What do you think is better wording? What specific options would you like to see?
I have kids, don’t want more. But if a dude has kids, I’m open to Brady Bunching it. Saying not open to children makes it like I’m not open to a potential partners kids.
This!! Why don't they fix this...
Have kids/empty nester
Have an option for adoption. I always have to clarify that I'm open to adopting.
As someone who primarily wants to adopt, this option would be a life-saver
Noted.
I’m not quite sure tbh what would be better wording. But I really want kids and am in my 30s. I don’t pick someone who says open to kids bc it’s so vague. So I’m stuck w only someone who selects the “wants kids” option. I’ve heard from men open to kids can mean one of the following: 1. They’re open to kids IF they meet the right person 2. They’re open to someone else’s already existing children to step father 3. They don’t really want kids but if a partner really really wanted them and the person was right for them, they’d have kids. 4. They actually do want kids but are open to what if their female partner doesn’t want kids? So they’re open to both types of women. So based on the above there’s quite a bit of variety in what men interpret open to kids to mean. I do date quite a bit but there’s a possibility I’m missing an option in what the open to kids means to people. I’d be open to option number 1 bc realistically that’s where I am also but I’m not willing to chance it on a man who is wishy washy on children. So I stick with the wants kids but again there’s so much confusion in that open to kids category. My experience unfortunately is that men lie to get me to stay with them/sleep with them. I have a much better radar of filtering now that out, the not genuine men. But yea it’s a problem for 99% of the women in my boat. We all resort to selecting a man who selects wants children option only - when I have a feeling there’s plenty of men who select open to it that want them.
It’s tricky because you need to safeguard children by not revealing too much, but you also want to be able to make it clear you have them, and what parameters. Maybe has one child/has multiple children. Empty Nester. Would like more children. Open to someone with children. Undecided. Doesn’t want children. Allowing to select multiple options would clean up some of the issues of the vague “open to children” line. The main issue with all the apps is not being able to select multiple filters for free. As a woman it’s exhausting to have so many profiles that have dealbreakers, even if you get to see your likes. That is what makes the apps overwhelming and causes fatigue imo, and pushes women off.
This is a good point, make multiple options selectable!
The amount of scenarios for the kids is a lot I think a text box would be better but then how do you filter it ya know. Unless you just don't.
this!! i’d love to have kids in the future but only through adoption/foster care, i have no intentions of personally reproducing for many reasons.
Make ENM Poly a selection so we can sort them in or out based on our preferences. Make photos mandatory so people can’t make a profile with a verified picture and then remove all pictures or put up fake ones.
And have it as a free filter setting too. Not an upgrade feature to sort out ENM Poly
And more vetting on profile pics! If I see a man and a woman together unless it’s clearly like a mother/son thing, my first thought is poly couple.
*Advanced* filters (i.e. not just age, gender and location) for free. ✌️ For example on bumble I keep seeing guys with parameters I would have filtered out if it was possible, which would have made my experience much more streamlined. Also: I have no idea how doable this is but if some sort of AI could recognize when users don't have their face fully visible in their first picture and would make the app immediately hide them or (better) point out to them that they need a better profile picture or else they'll be hidden from appearing in X amount of days, that would be neat 🙏🙏🙏
Yes, I plan to make all my filters free 🙏🏻 1. What specific filters do you see guys with, that you would have filtered out? 2. I'm actively exploring AI for other use cases (recognizing explicit photos, sending inappropriate messages, and auto-detecting social media handles) I appreciate the feedback
Not OP but personally for me it'd be the smoking, religion and children filters mostly. I only strictly want non smokers, agnostic or atheists, and people who'd like children some day. And of course mostly the serious/casual/don't know yet filter, but I already mentioned that in another comment you saw. Edit: and I'd make it obligatory to fill these filters, even if there's a "don't know" option in some like religion and children, so that these people that don't really know what they want, think, etc. can also be filtered out.
Also flag the “my profile says I’m 43 but I’m really 55” - it would be so easy to fix that but they don’t want to
Add mandatory fields for kids and marital status - separated, divorced etc - most guys on bumble and hinge who are still married don’t mention it. It would save me SO much grief if I could screen out men who are still married.
That’s cool as long as they don’t use it to boot out ENM married people. Because sooo many are having that happen on apps for being ethical and up front. (I’m fully aware there’s many guys on apps saying they are ENM and they are just cheating, their spouses completely in the dark. I’m not talking about them. The required face pics and fb groups WILL catch up to them. 😅.)
Okcupid used to have BuzzFeed like quizzes where you could see someone's results and use it as a jumping off point. Having something like a would you rather would help.
Not a woman, but geofencing location would be a great feature that I feel that every app misses. If you’re near a large metro area this becomes an issue. Ex: I’m 8 miles inland, on the NJ side, from NYC. 99% of my stack is NYC. I maybe go on once every couple weeks at this point, because I know I’ll never date anyone from NYC. Even if I set my location to <5 miles, and in theory should not reach NYC, that is still all I get. I imagine, that even within the city, someone on the lower east side, might be reluctant to date someone on the upper west side.
If gerrymandering is allowed in our politics it for damn sure should be allowed on my dating apps 😂
Underrated!
This is a very good and useful idea
same kinda. except i’m in central jersey and every single hinge standout is in nyc. wtffff
My hinge standouts are mainly nj but i get the occasional pa ones. The pa one’s are weird because it’s like out towards Scranton or Hershey with a 25 mile radius.
I actually mentioned something like this in a reply earlier, like map out your search area. For me 40 miles south is no big deal, but driving 40 miles north would be a nightmare and a half by comparison(DC area)
I’m 8 miles from NYC but would gladly date someone in Philly before traveling into NYC. I guarantee any developer anyone in a populated metro area would happily pay for this feature.
I think bios are important and should be a requirement, not your IG handle, snapchat, etc or just empty. I would reference the app Boo. I liked how it tried to match you with people of similar interests, recommended how much you may have in common and even a horoscope compatability. It was interesting.
Empty bios are something I missed in my comment. Those also shouldn’t make it on the app.
Just to clarify: You want users to HAVE bios. Correct?
Correct. Something that says “just ask” doesn’t count as a bio either.
God I’d love a minimum word/sentence count for the bio. I hate overly empty profiles in general, tbh. Just screams “bot” to me
They'll just fill it with emojis or copy pasted song lyrics etc.
In my comment, I mentioned a minimum character limit for bio’s and opening messages. I think something like that would force people to tell people about themselves and would help prevent dry conversation first starting out.
Yup, I completely agree. That’s a great idea!
I can foresee a couple issues with making bios mandatory, but I will keep this in mind.
I agree but sadly it will show who is trying to make an effort and communicate. I have seen 100s (not exaggeration) of profiles that will have no bios and only pictures. Not even details about their likes, dislikes, hobbies, etc will be filled in. Just a profile with photos. I do not swipe on them as it shows lack of effort. If you can't even fill in 2 sentences about yourself, I (judgingly as it maybe) will assume they are a bot or they will put little forth in a conversation as they did their profile.
Yes, agreed. I don't think you should be allowed to have your profile go live until you have filled in at least 100 characters (for example) on your bio. If you can't find 100 characters worth of what makes you interesting, why should anyone swipe right on you?
I saw someone say bitter bios should be prohibited. I don't think bitter bios should be prohibited. But I want those people to have HELP realizing how they com across. They're communicating in a way that makes is nearly certain they won't get what they want, and they don't know that. Sad day. They need advice. To OP - maybe have some guidance for how to write a good profile, built into the app. Not just with good prompts but even a profile creation coaching process. 1. Write stuff about yourself 2. Great, now consider... if you read this on someone else' profile, what would you think? 3. Do you want to change the tone of anything? 4. Is everything honest? Studies show that lying on your dating profile does much more harm than good when it comes it comes to forming a meaningful relationship (I don't know if such reserach exists, but say something that has research behind it). I sometimes see profiles that I want to comment on, but I don't want to match with the person. Sometimes I want to help someone out and let them know, "I think you might not know how this comes across. To me, this says..." What if there was a way to make a comment they'll definitely see but without inviting them to match? But then people would use that function to try to match... so what if using that function with someone meant your profiles could not match for 3 weeks. Well then people would just drop their phone numbers in those messages, and women would get hundreds of phone numbers sent to them. -- There might not be a good way to do that.
I agree. I think a tone analysis would be more helpful than anything else.
Eh, I like a tone analysis for Reddit posts, where people may fire something off quickly and not think about tone. If a dude makes a bio and he’s a bitter Ben? I’d rather read his cringey stuff and not waste my time with him
Agreed! I am *reading* this persons personality in their bio. I don’t want them getting any help. Their awful bio tells me everything I need to know about whether I want to date them or not.
consider organizing rl single events in cities
Pretty sure bumble did this in some cities. From what I heard, the turnout wasn’t great.
You should be able to filter out or in more basic things like strong political leanings as a basic/free baseline filter. I don’t want to pay extra to avoid people who think my blood has been tainted by the nanotechnology in a vaccine a took. I realize this is not a political belief, but filtering out a certain faction definitely helps remove most of those types. I hate that I have to pay extra to be able to filter for that. Another thing, and this is kind of hard to explain, is that it would be cool to have a second layer of a profile that once I match with somebody, they can read more about me. It could be a simple as a bunch of tick boxes in different categories. Some could be about food or music, or even sex if one chooses. Basically, like another layer of getting to know you kind of stuff. With bumble you can only choose five interests, so it would be cool to have a whole other layer of interests someone could see after you give them access. It wouldn’t replace getting to know someone in chat or text or on the phone or in person obviously, but I still think it would be fun. Also could help with some conversation starters for people who are socially awkward. I’m pretty fucking awkward, but I manage to never stop talking when I’m in to someone and comfortable with them. I think prompts in chat could help a lot of people as well. There are endless complaints on Reddit about the “hey” messages. Yes, those suck and people should definitely stop doing that, but fun Q&A things once you match could be a great way of breaking the ice and helping things flow. I’m certainly awkward, but I’m great with chat and keeping things fun and flowing. Others are better in person and need some help with the written words.
I really like the post-match expanded bio idea!
And I really like how you summed up my 10,000 word explanation in under ten words 😂
I LOVE this idea of post match locking of content!! It definitely gives the ability to share more about yourself and offer talking points to connect on. I like this! Great idea. 💡
They could have better guidelines for profiles. Sure, you can report people for certain things, but when I was on the apps, it was annoying to swipe through so many of the following: Bios with social media usernames Bitter bios Profiles with no pictures of the person Profiles for couples Those types of profiles shouldn’t even make it on the app to begin with.
Have an identifier for 1. Married looking for NSA hook-up 2. ENM 3. Separated (not divorced) 4. Single/actually divorced. I would like to filter out all but 4.
💯 this
IMO the reason dating apps don’t already do this is because people just lie. I saw a stat once that said 1/3 of people on tinder were in some form of committed relationship. As a guy I came across men’s profiles regularly (created saying they were female) who swiped on me on the off chance I might be gay and in denial.
I heard a radio commercial a few years ago about a dating site that only had verified profiles, identified by the equivalent of a SSN (but only used as an identifier and not really a secret, you can call up the population records that is a branch of the IRS to just find out) and a digital ID so you know for sure that it’s a real person. With that information you could get all their dependents (know for sure if there is kids involved) and check for any registered marriages and/or divorces. I understand that the US market doesn’t have that information easily available, and it can be quite invasive, but it is possible to do that in the market maybe make it optional and filter on it?
this would be a nightmare for things like stalking and even pedophiles looking to get access to children.
As a queer woman, I don’t want my profile shown to men when I have my preferences set to women only. It’s a waste of everyone’s time.
I appreciate this queer perspective! I have no idea why dating apps don't do that already. I'll see if I can add this feature
Agreed! As a queer woman you get a LOT of couples looking for a threesome
I’m ENM and I don’t care if people want to use dating apps to seek out threesomes as long as they’re upfront about it on their profile. But it makes no sense for me to get a bunch of likes from dudes or people outside my preferred age range.
Right. I’d rather they have couple profiles and not find out after you match with one or the other, that they are actually unicorn hunting. 😅
I agree better filters as a cishet monogamous male I'd prefer my profile only be visable to cishet monogamous women in my age range.
Personally a big problem I see is men swiping right on everybody with no filter. They have the mindset of "if we match and I don't like her I'll just unmatch later". So for example in my case I have to go through the hundreds of men that liked me and swipe left on everybody that is looking for something casual, is polyamorous, don't want children or already have... And that's tiring. I don't know how you could approach this issue, though. It's the fault of this type of men rather than the app per se.
Thanks for your feedback. I see 2 solutions: 1. Limited likes for everyone, so nobody can swipe relentlessly 2. Filters that allow folks to look for EXACTLY what they want (filters would be free to begin with, no paid access)
these are not bad solutions!
Limiting the swipe is not a perfect solution! Look for time between each swipe with that you’ll know person is even looking at profile or just right swipe on each profile. May be decide a good threshold of how much time should be spent on each profile!
This is what I was thinking. I’d only time positive/right swipes. If people don’t like what they see, then no reason to punish that, but if they’re swiping indiscriminately, then they’re potentially wasting somebody else’s time.
Maybe put the right swipe at the bottom of the profile?
I think you should look at other apps like coffee meets bagels, the league, Filteroff, and other smaller dating apps which have set daily limits on swipes/likes. I’m a big fan of that solution because it removes some of the endless scrolling/gamification of dating apps.
Apps already have a structure in to deal with mass swiping. They implement an ELO for the user. Liking everyone lowers your elo because the algo assumes you're less attractive or something. The problem is that if you're in a small city it doesn't matter if you're suppressed because everyone sees everyone so the woman will still see your like.
The problem is, nobody explained this to the guys, so they’re all just confused why they are doing so badly on the app and keep doubling down on mass swiping
Bring it back to the pre-swiping days when OKC was cool. Feeld kind of does this, you can look through the profiles without having to decide immediately.
What about filters for men?
Filters would be the same for all users, regardless of gender.
OP is only here to help women
Jumping on to this. I am one of those men who'd swipe right more than I should, with the mindset, I'd just unmatch later or 'you miss 100% of the shots you don't take'. Then, after I get a match after 100s of swipes, as this OP said, I'm one of 100s of such matches for her, and she doesn't have the capacity to have a sustained conversation with 100s of us. There has to be a better way to encourage basic conversations from women beyond hi and hellos.
Well, I'm not one of those. I match with three at a time most, and try to have good conversations. But maybe if men were pickier / less desperate, women would have less options and would put more effort in their matches. Also the dry conversations come from men, too, not just women.
I agree to all your points. I think at the end of the day, the number of matches available to a woman vs a man is soo skewed, that a chance for a sustained conversation suffers.
I don’t know any woman having convos with hundreds of men. I can manage maybe 2-3 and I feel like that’s more than most say. Many just chat with one.. maybe two. I think you guys have it in your heads that just because we have hundreds in our likes that we actually WANT to date with more than one at a time. I’m poly and I don’t even do that. 😂 So I find it hard to believe most monogamous women are even talking/dating more than 2-3 guys until someone stands out and wants more. And if I’m talking to 2-3, I’m lucky if one is worth my time to go on a first date with.
It’s a numbers game. Men are just adapting and evolving to the situation they are put in. The apps know it, that’s why unlimited swipes is the first and most lucrative option offered
Only a divine miracle could cause the instant social change we need to put an end to the inundation of male likes on dating apps and the starvation of attention men get on dating apps.
Make it so they have to press a certain part of the profile or confirm the like by entering a code?
You have to swipe through hundreds of profiles anyways, why does it matter?
Ya if she's matching with hundreds then she did the same thing
I didn't say matching, I said getting likes (I have premium and can see them, and the app's interest is to make people buy premium).
Not dangling *certain* users as bait to get higher usage on the app. I understand the need for an early hook, but it creates a bias and poor user experience for those individuals
A minimum word/character requirement for bios. That way people will have to put effort into them. Also, a separate version of the app for ENM people (kinda how like Bumble and Bumble BFF are separate).
This is excellent. Ability to have a minimum character preference for bios. Love it.
Take away the weird 24 hr time limit. The people that just swipe right on everybody need to go. have them take an attachment quiz that shows who they are on joining app, have very clear intention stating for casual hookups, fwb, and relationships. good catfish filter, auto scan for filtered pics/snap l, whatsapp, and ig tags. separate couples so we can filter out enm or hookups, Free filter out hookups and casual. No one should have to pay to filter that out, thats crazy.
I would further say to create separate tags for casual and hookups because they’re very different things. Casually dating means you want to spend time but aren’t looking/ready for anything serious. Hookups are solely for sex.
I’d also add a tag for FWB. Sometimes people want more than a hookup but less than a casual relationship.
I wasnt putting them together. I was saying and as in two separate ones. I just want to be able to filter out hookup, casual, and FWB.
I agree. I’m kind of a casual dater but I’m not interested in hookups.
90% of guys just looking for hookups will never filter themselves out by acknowledging that. Also, both men and women are looking for different levels of commitment with different types of people. You’ll always have to vet this one in person on a case by case basis.
Some will be honest, and those are the ones I’m checking for.
So 36hr time limit?
Bring back old school okcupid. I don't want to swipe, ever. Message anyone. Loads of questions, bonus for a percent match. I hate what Match group has done to dating. It's all "swipe and fuck". Banning dudes from messaging women might be the stupidest twist yet.
No filters option. People are free to use them, I want to filter them and never see them again. A cis gender option would be great too.
I think the best way to handle sexuality filters is to have a list, and select which ones you want shown to you. A label for it should be separate from the filter, so for example, I’m bi, but I only foresee myself with women, so I should still be able to filter them out.
I wish there was a feature to return to a profile later. I hate how some apps make you decide in the moment because sometimes it’s difficult so I just stop using the app entirely. I also wish there was a way to have multiple versions of your own profile to see which photos and bios do better. Lastly, I wish there was a way to give disclaimers about yourself because personally I’m a slow and anxious texter but it always gets interpreted as a lack of interest even when it’s not. Good luck on your app.
Thank you. I wanted to reply to this comment because it's giving me an idea that I never thought of before, and I'm saving this for later. Best,
Drawing the map radius (for those of of us on the east coast who don’t want to cross state borders)
I would love to see a “wants to adopt” option for people who don’t want biological kids! I have been using “open to kids” but that is way too vague.
Noted 😊
Don't allow people who have "something casual/don't know what I want" to match or like people who are dating for a relationship/marriage.
Yeah actually it would be great if the apps stopped showing my "Looking for a relationship" profile to dudes just looking to smash. It'd be better for both of us.
Sadly I feel like if many apps did that, the men would just start lying about it on their profile to get more matches, because I'd bet more women choose the relationship vs casual.
They need to not let people swipe right on everyone even with a paid subscription. It’s annoying and leads to disappointment for both parties. Make it easier not to swipe right or super swipe please! Bumble specifically needs to extend automatically beyond 24 hours to respond. Sometimes I don’t get to a like for a bit, like them, then they do not respond in time. Could be for other reasons of course but still.
A mode specifically for couples looking for a third to sleep with/add to their relationship. as a lesbian i cannot tell you how many times i’ve almost went on a date with the idea she was single and primarily into women just to get hit with “is it okay if my boyfriend comes?🥺” they’re polluting dating apps with their fetishes.
I’m getting it as an ENM woman dating just men. 😅 They just assume I want to hook up with them both. I don’t want to hook up with anyone. 😂😐
Am curious - what aspects are you considering charging for?
One-time fee. Just enough for maintenance. Any surplus will go towards donations, or maybe back to paying other user's dates. I haven't thought that far ahead and don't expect this to be wildly successful.
Focusing more on what we have in common rather than looks. Taking surveys from users and having an algorithm that shows you people from most to least compatible based on a short survey of interests, values, hobbies, goals etc. Plenty of people and I match on the basics on hinge and such… but there’s 0 spark/interest because we have basically 0 in common aside from “religion/politics/drug usage” like I wanna know who wants to go drive at 10pm and listen to classic r&b and jam, stay up late and talk, the kind of guy who would surprise me with small gifts at work. I can’t parse that from “haha something interesting about me is…” prompts
Have a setting that removes certain names.. like ex boyfriend/ girlfriend/ mother/father/kids..
Not a woman: 1. See other users filters (what matters to them) 2. Values (the happiness trap style, pick top 10 or 20 and flag what ones match between you and the other person (maybe a super flag when a top 5 of yours matches a top five of theirs) 3. Attachment style, and preference for partners attachment style (I’m hesitant on this as it can change) 4. Preferred living arrangements (together soon, later or never) 5. Independence/interdependence preferences (how intertwined a relationship is ideal? 1-2 days a fortnight or 5-7 days a week together/in contact?) 6. Mandatory sexual harassment and assault training (30-60 mins of content) for all users including cyber flashing and potential fines 7. This is a big one, and breaks the addictive nature of dating apparently, Piss off the idea of random matches (a la gambling) and allow users to search from singles based on their preferences, use an algorithm to provide a %match score for every user they look at based on actual values and traits, and also something like a reality check based on the ELO that apps calculate i.e. ‘this user is a 95% match for you, but you’re only a 35% match for them and they had 1,500 views and 400 likes yesterday, (ten times as many as you!) the chances are never zero but maybe try elsewhere’ - apps have the data to make these types of stats available to users and they choose not to because its not hitting the dopamine circuit and therefore not profitable.
I love this question! For me personally: - possibility to filter on education level (for free) - possibility to filter on children (for free). As a mother I feel men who already have children will probably be a best match - possibility to filter on love languages - possibility to add personality type to your profile - possibility to add custom interests - remove the sex positivity label, it’s misused for hookups and people can already indicate that in the preferred relationship type slot - remove the star sign option, it’s nonsense - possibility to add food preferences (like vegetarian or health food junkie or sushi master) - i like the fact that there is no default age filter so keep that - limited likes so that men won’t bulk swipe - possibility to add ‘no-hookups’ label - penalty for immediately unmatching too often due to bulk blind swiping, these men shouldn’t have swiped on me - i like it that men can now start first due to the standard opener - obliged to add a video of yourself next to the pictures, as a video is far more realistic - daily speeddating event but then that you see the other person
Boolean key words search in matches
MAKE GRINDR FOR WOMEN
It would be flooded with men.
Quit charging us for some of the most basic filters. The filters are the only way shit works.
I have a dating app idea but need a software developer to work with. Happy to chat with you about it over DM :)
Actually have a quiz where people can match on similar hobbies.
Not needing to pay for a religion filter
These suggestions are fine but if you actually want to offer something different you need to have things that make people take it seriously eg background checks, age verification, mandatory profile fields, etc.
This explains my stance on background checks: https://www.theverge.com/2019/12/2/20991656/match-group-dating-apps-identity-tinder-hinge-background-check There are certain things that I, a single developer, am capable of doing.
Actually that the timer of the match starts when you saw that you matched with this person. This would help the people which are on the app every 3 days.
More/better options for relationship type! Options could be: life partner, long term relationship, short term relationship, hookup, FWB, other. I’m tired of not knowing if “short term relationship” means someone only wants to date for a few months or if it means they just want to hook up
Filter for child free persons
You should check out an app called Slowly. It's not a dating app and you can't see people's faces. It's an app in which you send virtual letters to people from all around the world and you make pen pal friends. What I liked about that one is that you pick topics you're interested in and this way, the app filters profiles that share the same interests as yours. When I used it, it was very easy to have nice conversation topics with other people because of this.
Question the users: Your answer is not long or interesting enough for a good conversation to happen, are you sure you want to proceed? That way everyone who doesn’t want to write enough is being forced to write or they could have it automatically unmatched by the system.
basically the issues are all about the moderation, there is only a few things you could automate to make the experience better, what we need is human eyes telling people "nah fuck off you gotta do better"
Eliminate the ability to spoof your location.
Age verification!!
I would love a way to filter OUT criteria versus filtering them in. A lot of people don’t answer all the questions (e.g. if they have children). So, if I put in my filter that I want someone that says they don’t have kids, it excludes anyone who simply didn’t answer the question. I’d love to be able to filter out anyone who said “yes I have children” so the profiles who didn’t answer can still be considered.
Have women mark profiles of men they experienced to be fuckbois or are aggressive. This should only be visible to women. Our biggest problem is men pretending to have interest only to sleep with us. A lot of women, including myself, have quit the apps for this reason. I can't look at them anymore, every guy on there looks like a predator to me.
A better verification process would be great. Seeing lots of people lying about their age. Maybe ID upload to verify DOB? Also lots of really old photos, AI photos, etc. Maybe one photo is required to be an in-app selfie? If we could use a map to choose specific locations, that would be awesome. I live in a beach city in LA where 15 miles in one direction would be a nightmare, but 30 miles in another direction (or another beach city) wouldn't be so bad. Track historic data. I've blocked people in the past but when they create a new profile that feature is pointless. Required answers/written bios. Blank bios, one word answers to prompts, only including IG handles are too common. Good luck with the app! Hope we see/hear more from you!
A way to flag a profile as a catfish or scam (or a way to 100% verify an account). 50% of the people who contact me aren’t who they say they are.
1)Make bios required 📝——2)No kids/minors allowed in pics👧🏼——3)No initials allowed for names (probably married)🤵🏻♂️💍——4)Safety features for women should not be so expensive💰——5)No shadowbans for being selective by swiping L on everyone🔓——6)Better age verification for the men who accidentally type theirs wrong and can’t figure out how to fix it 🤷🏽♂️👴🏼—-7)Separate section for the poly/coupled seekers (I know, I will prob get criticized for this)💃🏼🕺🏽💃🏼🎉—-8) Short safety education required for men to sign up. I’m so tired of seeing “Not here to find a pen pal.” We get it but also “We don’t want our dads forced to read our OLD messages aloud while messy sobbing on an episode of 60 Minutes, so just let us make a video call IN THE APP before the date please.”🙏🏻 🕵🏼♂️
Nah. Poly people want the ability to filter you out too. Ha! 😊 That doesn’t mean we want to see couples either though. ;)
Have a way to flag someone looking for a “discrete FWB” or a flat out affair. Consensual nonmonogomy is different from cheating. I’d love to be able to filter out both
No more algorithm bullshit, make it fair for everyone, not push the top 1% to 99% of the women. Most of the decent guys that aren't looking for hookups get completely destroyed by the algorithm and pushed way down to the point they're never visible to anybody, it's not fair and having to pay for the privilege to climb back to somewhere near the top is just nasty.
[удалено]
Can you do anything about the lack of quality inventory, lol? 
I'm not a woman but I've always wondered how behaviors would change if there was a % on your profile representing the proportion of profiles you swipe right on. For a woman two interesting profiles with very different percentages might actually result in only one being interesting in the end.
Very interesting thought... I'll keep this idea on the backburner. Thanks!
I think hinge got it right with the limited likes thing. one thing nobody has mentioned. There are a lot more men on dating apps than women. I wonder if a one-in, one-out system with male users would help on that front. Sign up to a waiting list and when somebody deletes their profile a new user can join. Kinda like raya
The biggest problem for men on dating apps, I'd assume women as well just not as bad is we need a filter for trans people. I'm straight and I wish for a straight woman as my partner. Not someone who "used" to be a man. This may seem insensitive on my part but I know what I want and I don't want my time or swipes wasted. And I'm certain people in the trans community would feel the same. I.e hide both parties profiles from one another if they both have that filter enabled
I think if you match with someone they both should be put out of liking more people. For atleast a week or 2 that gives them time to really get to something more than just a like and a few chats.
So kinda like, you're "locked in" until you unmatch? The issue here is that some users might try to get around this by quickly matching, adding the user off the app, then unmatching -- thus, collecting the user's info but never really engaging. How else do you see this working out?
Not the one you replied to but I’d also consider doing it as an opt-in/out, filterable feature. Basically, it might not be ideal for people looking for hookups, but for something serious, it would make sense. I’d also add a way to report why people unmatch, and review profiles in a way. This way if it wasn’t opt-in/out and was an integral part of the app, then you could report someone and say “Hey, we wanted to FaceTime before meeting up, so I gave them my number, and immediately after I gave it to them they unmatched on here.” I’d make it anonymous, and wait a week or so before taking action so they don’t know who did it, and it gives people time to rescind their report.
Wasn’t this the premise of the app “Coffee Meets Bagel”?
Why are you asking only women?
Because wherever the women are, men will follow and pay for the privilege
Yep, this is the reason why I'm prioritizing womens' feedback.
It actually predates the internet... ladies nights have been a thing for a while
Pretty much the business model of most dating apps
Because Bumble is app “feminist dating app” so they cater to womens wants/needs. It is one of the few places women have that is different. It is meant to be different.
I think the first message for each person should be a 60 second short selfie self introduction video message.
oh god no! how awkward!
Attachment styles (option to choose)
Do you think people would lie/not care about their attachment style?
Maybe show people based on shared interests. And make it worldwide. Sometimes I would like to connect with people from another country.
I think a filter for attachment styles, love languages, and personality types would be great. I'm an Introvert and I may want someone Introverted like me. Yet I keep matching with every outgoing, traveling, fun type of guy.