Your Experiences with Online Dating Services?

September 20, 2007 2:26 PM

Have you used Chemistry.Com? eHarmony? Match? Etc.?

I recently signed up for six months on Chemistry -- so I will be giving it that much time.

But I'm curious as to whether Mefites liked their time on it (or Match or eHarmony or fill in the blank). Basically, I'm curious to see if a consensus is going to form as to whether any particular service is particularly good or particularly bad, for the purposes of either sticking with them or moving on once my subscription runs out.

I do understand offline dating exists [obviously ;-)], but my question here is solely for people's experiences with online dating services.

Could you also in your response (if not obvious from your handle) advise me of your age group and gender, since that criteria makes a difference with such services? Thanks.

P.S. Any chance of MeFiMatch, Matt?

posted by WCityMike to human relations (48 comments total)

All the MeFites will recommend Okcupid.
posted by k8t at 2:35 PM on September 20, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

But I'm curious as to whether Mefites liked their time on it (or Match or eHarmony or fill in the blank).

I used Match back in 2003. I got married to someone I met from Match in 2005. We've been married two years and it's wicked awesome so far.

I did like my time on it. It's not generally a good service if you're just looking to get laid, just like bars are not generally a good service if you're looking to do much more than that.

Basically, a dating site cuts eliminates the stuff that impedes serious dating:

• Everybody on it is looking for a relationship, so you don't have to wonder if someone is available when you start chatting with them
• Lots of your dating deal-breakers are laid out for you so you have an indication whether the other person is worth talking to
• You don't have to be in the right place at the right time-- everyone's in the same place.

And now it's probably even better to use a site because the stigma's further eroded. Or maybe refined cash-flow techniques have wrecked them. But either way it's worth a shot. Good luck.
posted by Mayor Curley at 2:35 PM on September 20, 2007 [2 favorites has favorites]

I met Mrs. Procrastination through match. Actually, I met her best friend who decided (correctly, as it turned out) that we would be a good fit, and who goaded her to get in touch with me. Match was a good way to meet lots of people, though I was fond of saying that it was only marginally better than not meeting people, because in person people are different in person than they would seem to be online. There seemed to be a wide range of people on match.

I also tried eHarmony, which I despised. They told me I had no matches when I first went on, and then the next day started sending me matches. All the people I know had the exact same experience; I suspect that they do all their matching as a batch process once a day. But their process was tedious, and I found I got more out of meeting people that going through the whole quiz-each-other-thing. Also, I think they don't do particularly good matching. Some of the women they matched me with were clearly not right for me based on what I said.

I looked at nerve as well, though I never paid for the service. The people there seemed more edgy than me.

Male, 30s/40s.
posted by procrastination at 2:45 PM on September 20, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

I asked a similar question a while back - it's worth reviewing. I wrote that in September of last year, met someone at the end of October and we moved in together 3 months ago. We met on Craiglist and I'm still a strong supporter of it. I was 38 when I posted and he responded to my ad. It might be a very different experience as a man posting to CL but I thought it was great as a woman posting. You have to weed out a lot more crap but I really felt like I got much better, ummm, candidates through CL. OkCupid was sort of fun, too. I hate Match.com. I'm betting that there are big differences in what works best for different geographical areas but sheesh, the Match.com profiles I was coming up with were awful and all the interactions I had with guys through Match were boring. But then I tend to like the quirkier (yes, I used that word) types - the kinds of people that wouldn't want to use Match to begin with. I tried eHarm very briefly and thought it was scary and stultifying and way too rigid and the guys I was being told that I should like were SO far away from what I was interested in. Blech.
posted by otherwordlyglow at 2:48 PM on September 20, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

I met my boyfriend through Salon/Nerve personals in 2005 (they're all one big network, along with the Onion, etc.); we're moving in together this month. (I'm female, in my late 30s; he's male, in his mid-40s.) Before he and I got together, I also met several really nice guys through the same service. I know, however, that that particular network has changed quite a bit since I was on it 2+ years ago, so I can't vouch for its coolness any longer.

Never had any decent matches through Match, and when I took the initial eHarmony test, I got plenty of matches, but very few who seemed to have anything in common with me (I'm an editor and a writer in L.A., so it seemed a bit strange to be matched with a guy from rural Virginia who said that cities were his idea of hell, and who stated he hadn't read a book since high school).
posted by scody at 2:52 PM on September 20, 2007

I met my S.O. on Chemistry, so I'm obviously happy with how that turned out, but I wouldn't really recommend Chemistry to anyone else. Not right now, anyway. The site is just not popular enough for the matches to be, well, matches. Their system basically throws anybody it can at you because the well is a little shallow. The Mister is pretty nifty, I think, but given my options and the way said options seemed to be picked for me - I attribute my end result to sheer luck, which can probably be said of any dating environment. Oh, and I noticed that many of the people on Chemistry seemed to be there because they were lookin' to get hitched. Fast. That was a little unnerving.

That said, I did like Chemistry's process once communication began between my match and I. It guides you into meeting in person and gently forces each person to make a move at some stage. Seems more honest and upfront that way, though the socially disinclined may find that method frightening.

Anyway, it's a good idea. Just needs time to grow, if it hasn't already (it's been months since I closed my account there. Things may have changed)
posted by katillathehun at 2:56 PM on September 20, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

I met my fiancee about two years ago on okcupid.
posted by Netzapper at 2:59 PM on September 20, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

My girlfriend works for Match (note: we met at a party). She loves her job and the site and has always had nothing but praise to sing for it. Recently, one of her best friends used her employee comp account and found someone she's really happy with. Though they're the only success story I've seen in person, my girlfriend tells me about emails she receives on a daily basis from happy couples. From my prospective, the site seems to do its job rather well.

Be honest in your profile and communications with prospective dates. This is important for all the obvious reasons. People really do submit photos of Brad Pitt or Nicole Kidman as themselves and expect others to fall for it. Why, I don't know.

Chemistry.com is owned by Match. eharmony is owned by sexist homophobes - no same sex pairing and if you're a female, you can't choose the age of your male.

I'll show your question to my gf and I'm sure she'll have a ton to add.
posted by Item at 3:00 PM on September 20, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

Oh yeah, and I forgot to mention - I'm female and in my mid-twenties, and my boyfriend is in his mid-thirties. A lot of my so-called matches on Chemistry seemed to be in their late thirties through late forties, which was quite outside my specified range when I signed up.
posted by katillathehun at 3:01 PM on September 20, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

eHarmony rejects anyone who identifies as atheist or similar.
posted by acoutu at 3:10 PM on September 20, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

I tried out eHarmony to see if the atheist thing was true and it is.
posted by jessamyn at 3:14 PM on September 20, 2007

All the MeFites will recommend Okcupid.

I sure would. I did three months on Chemistry a year ago, and there was almost nobody I was interested in on it. Plus, you only get to see five profiles a day, so you can't really browse through who's on the site or anything. I pretty much rejected everyone it showed me, and just gave up after about a month. Also, even with the people I did talk to, the whole staggered approach to the thing, where you have to go through a bunch of steps before you can start emailing, seemed to really stifle things; normally I move at a glacial pace anyway, so that's really saying something.

OKCupid offers a lot of the features of Chemistry, such as the intro test and bar graphs showing where people fall on certain spectrums like introversion (OKC's are far more extensive), but it's free. If you're into more "quirky" people, as I am, there's more of them on OKC than Match or Chemistry. It seems like all the profiles I see on Match are people I would meet just going to bars. I've been with someone I met off OKC for two months now, which isn't long, but I only signed up at the end of March.

I'd recommend sticking with Chemistry until your subscription is up, but not renewing.
posted by LionIndex at 3:17 PM on September 20, 2007

I found Match.com as well as Salon's dating site (manged by Nerve) to be a good way to meet people. At its best it was a way to filter out people with interests/personalities that weren't compatable with me. After being on there for a while though the whole search process started feeling too much like ordering from a restaurant "I want a brunette, between 28-38 and add a side of sense of humor". I found Match.com to have a wider range of different types of people, while Salon/Nerve had a narrower spectrum (interesting people, just coming from a narrower spectrum of society). I also tried, eHarmony, Cupid.com, and a couple of others whom I've forgotten about, but they never led to any dates.

The one thing I've told people doing any kind of dating service is to keep expectations realistic. I encountered more than a few people who were looking for their soulmate a little too hard. I'm a firm believer that when you look too hard for something like that you miss it. If you think of it as fun, keep things low-key and low-stakes good things happen.

Ultimately I met my wife at a speed-dating event. I know the question is specifically about online sites, but I would say my experience with speed dating was more satisfying than Match.com. Speed dating led to some short term relationships and a really fulfilling long-term relationship (a.k.a. marriage) while my Match.com experiences never made it past 3 dates. I never felt enough of a connection to go any further.

Demographic info: On dating sites 2001-2003, mid-30's at the time, male
posted by cptspalding at 3:22 PM on September 20, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

I signed up for eHarmony trial on a lark to see what the personality tests would be like (I was not actually looking for a relationship). I did not get rejected for being an atheist, but my experience was very similar to scody's--the matches were totally random and bizarre. One minor thing that drove me crazy is that they have this must haves/dealbreakers section where you can list ten things in each category. Exactly ten. You want to have three dealbreakers? Fifteen? Tough! Pick ten!
posted by phoenixy at 3:25 PM on September 20, 2007

I've dated heavily online, using a variety of services, for the last two years. When I say "dated heavily" I mean I've actually been on a lot of dates as a result of using various sites. I have the following observations:

1. Paying for online dating is for suckers.
2. Craigslist is, surprisingly, the best. It took me a long time to come around to this point of view, but I've discovered that the LACK of immediate picture availability and a generic personal ad profile template gives you way more insight about the people you meet there. The ones who write a four line ad get skipped. The ones who write five paragraphs and seem really insightful get a response. OKcupid is my second favorite.
3. eHarmony is a waste of time.
4. The only two women I ended up dating longer-term, including my current girlfriend, I met in real life. All the internet hustling (I use that term lightly, not creepily) I've done got me was a long list of first dates and one best friend. She recently said to me, "You're the best thing that came out of a year of online dating. Like, by far."
posted by autojack at 3:25 PM on September 20, 2007

I've tried OK Cupid as well as eHarmony. I haven't had joy from either one of them.

OKCupid seems filled with guys who only want casual sex (despite my indicating that I'm interested in long-term relationships), and eHarmony...well, I'm still trying to get my head around how those people do things. The first guy they tried to match me up with tried to evangelize me. Although I sent "communications" to a whole whack of guys, the vast majority have yet to respond to me.

I'm a female in her mid-thirties. You can find me on OKCupid under the name amhrain, in case you're curious.

Actually, MeFiMatch sounds like a fantastic idea.
posted by LN at 3:30 PM on September 20, 2007

I met my husband on Match.com, but this was "back in the day" (4 years ago?) after about two years, off and on, on the site. I met some great guys there, and had some great dates and a few medium-term relationships, including one who is still a good friend. Here are the two main lessons I learned:

- The good thing is everyone's looking for the same thing, so it's ok after one or two dates to call and say "Sorry, it's just not the match I'm looking for." No hard feelings! It goes both ways.

- Don't get too caught up in the email phase. It's easy to be wooed (and to woo) with words, and personal chemistry is something else. Meet soon.
posted by nkknkk at 3:35 PM on September 20, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

I met my husband on OKCupid, so obviously that's my favorite. However, I have a friend who met her husband on Match.com (female, 50s) and another who met her husband on Yahoo (female, 20s). I'm female, in my late 20s.

I also tried eHarmony and had no luck. For me it's too much money to spend on a service that doesn't work that well.
posted by christinetheslp at 3:36 PM on September 20, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

I also tried eharmony and didn't have much luck either. The way their system works is soooo slow, it's good if you're nervous about getting kidnapped by a weirdo and not wanting to give out your personal info but on the other hand it strings you along trying to get to the 'open contact' part where you swap actual real life contact info it's been weeks and you have to pay for another month. That was one awfully long sentence but hopefully made semi-sense. :) Match was a meat market in my experience.
posted by CwgrlUp at 4:11 PM on September 20, 2007

I met my husband on matchmaker.com 5.5 years ago. Not sure if it even exists anymore.

I think dating web sites are just free screening services. You know that the people you're matched with have similar or compatible religious and political beliefs, views about marriage and kids, etc., assuming they answer honestly. You can assess their writing ability and get a hint of their interests and personality. That cuts out a lot of time and effort that you'd have to put in if you were just meeting people in the world, while opening you up to a much broader range of potential dates than if you were just relying on friends.

To find out if the people you're allegedly compatible with are honest (look like their pictures, are actually literate, etc.) and have personalities and looks that you're really drawn to, you have to meet in person. Probably five out of every six people you meet in person won't be a great fit, but that compares to 99 out of 100 people you meet on the street/in the bar/etc., so odds of eventually finding someone good are much higher, as long as you don't give up when the first person you go out with is celibate, the second person has a skin condition and the third person says he isn't technically homeless, he just chooses to sleep outside at night because his roommate is trying to kill him.
posted by croutonsupafreak at 4:24 PM on September 20, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

Nthing OkCupid, k8t's right. It's fun, it's free, and the matching algorithms are really good. Just be sure to explore every corner of the site so you find the little options and set them. OkCupid rewards that behavior with better matches.

I'm not looking to date right now but I've met some absolutely fascinating people through OkCupid. It's highly atheist-friendly, btw. :)
posted by Myself at 4:28 PM on September 20, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

another vote for okcupid. match, eharmony and all those sites are kind of strange for guys, it sometimes seems to me as if the ration girls to guys there is 1:100 and we can argue how many of those on either side are interesting in the first place. I did okcupid just for fun once and it yielded me a good friend.
posted by krautland at 4:37 PM on September 20, 2007

I think age has a lot to do with success. Places like match are great for the 30 somethings, less so the younger you get. My cousin met his wife on match, and they are both definitely catches, but they were also both mid 30's professionals on their second marriage, so I feel like that's sort of the core market.

I've dabbled with a few sites. Overall, I've had very little success. A lot of first dates and that was it, I meet better guys out at bars on any given night, and that really isn't saying much. I wouldn't go with the "soul mate matching" ones like eharmony and chemistry. Internet dating is good for volume, that's really the whole point. I also suggest meeting pretty quickly, people are so different in person, that you'll stop yourself from wasting a lot of time.

My main problem with online dating is I think everyone has a tendency to weed out anyone that they don't think is their type. And the truth is very few of us really know what we want in another person until that person is right in front of us. I'm constantly surprised at the people I'm attracted to, because if someone were to describe them to be in checklist form, I would never put us together. Also, there are a lot of awesome people incapable of putting together a witty profile.

So I think it's worth a shot, but really you put enough single people of a given age together in a room, chances are at least a couple of them will hit it off. I really don't think any site has any secret formulas that really improve on that.
posted by whoaali at 5:05 PM on September 20, 2007 [3 favorites has favorites]

I (34, F) met my husband 2 years ago on match.com.

I hated eharmony - they rarely sent me matches and, when they did, generally sent me completely inappropriate men. I have one or two friends who married men they met there. It also seemed like a scam, because I'd go months with no new matches, but a *huge* set of them (maybe as many as - gasp - five) would show up the day after my membership expired. Of course, none of them ever communicate with you once you renew....
posted by belladonna at 5:13 PM on September 20, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

I've found match.com to be filled with folks that are a little too much on the "normal" side for me (bridge & tunnel tequila shot women looking for abercrombie models), so I recently cancelled and I don't miss it.. OKCupid is good for casualness (tho looking upthread obviously not exclusively). I have not (and I've said this before) found a site catering to information junkies like myself that arent geeks of a specific type (computer, d&d, indie rock, etc). Very frustrating, that.

Obviously no matter where you go, separating the wheat from the chaff is the hard part. Then again, there are those who would say that putting yourself on a dating site is counter to the whole "if you're looking for love, you wont find it" theory.
posted by softlord at 5:19 PM on September 20, 2007

My main problem with online dating is I think everyone has a tendency to weed out anyone that they don't think is their type.

Maybe so for some (and even most) people, but A) that often happens in the world on non-online dating for plenty of people, and B) can wind up being irrelevant. For example, for many years I had -- or so I thought -- a very specfic "type," and most of the guys I contacted online fit that mold. My boyfriend is very much a different type, on the surface, and yet.... there was something about his profile that I really, really liked. (It was funnier than hell, mainly, plus he was one of the few 40-something guys on there who didn't give the eyeroll-provoking 18-34 age range for the women he was seeking.) I didn't contact him right away -- specifically because he didn't seem to be my type -- and then finally gave it a shot (because I figured, hey, it's just an email). We met a few weeks later, got on like a house on fire, and have been together ever since.

So yeah, having a "type" is bunk. But in my case, I don't know that I would have found that out if I hadn't tried online dating.
posted by scody at 5:21 PM on September 20, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

I (25, M) met my wife almost three years ago on match.com. Luckily she was a member and messaged me, a non member. I signed up for a 7 day trial, and got her number just before day 7 and canceled in time not to pay anything. Ha! To be truthful, I only went to meet her because she was the only person who'd ever contacted /me/ and no-one else I contacted during the trial replied. Turns out she was way better looking than the profile and extremely nice.. and still is :)
posted by wackybrit at 5:22 PM on September 20, 2007

There are a handful of Mefites on my site: The Impersonals. It's also free.
posted by the jam at 5:29 PM on September 20, 2007

My mother used match.com and had success with it, ranging from funny stories to going hiking in the grand canyon with a guy from match.com to her current marriage. She's in her late 30s.
posted by mustcatchmooseandsquirrel at 5:34 PM on September 20, 2007

My main problem with online dating is I think everyone has a tendency to weed out anyone that they don't think is their type.


What I was really getting at more, is that in real life you meet people in a non dating context the majority of the time, so you get to know them regardless of whether you initially think they are dating material. You still make small talk with the college friend of your friend at a party, even if you feel no initial attraction because you aren't approaching this person as a potential date, you're just talking to someone at a party that happens to be standing near you.

And even with your situation, scody, you felt some initial attraction even if he wasn't your type. There was something there. I'm talking about the people you wouldn't look twice at until you get to know them.

I mean if I saw the profile for a republican engineer from Iowa who loves to watch the game every Sunday, I couldn't move onto the next person fast enough, but he could be nothing like what I expected and I think often those are the people that are the diamonds in the rough.

Don't get me wrong I'm not saying don't try online dating, I feel meeting someone is ultimately a bit random, so up your odds, it certainly isn't worthless. But if I were to pick one over the other, I'd go offline everytime.
posted by whoaali at 5:47 PM on September 20, 2007 [2 favorites has favorites]

I'm just curious what exactly is a bridge & tunnel tequila shot women?

I don't get the reference at all.
posted by whoaali at 5:48 PM on September 20, 2007

I met my wife (christinetheslp) on okcupid. I'm late 20s and male. With OkCupid, it's free so how can you go wrong?
posted by drezdn at 5:49 PM on September 20, 2007

whoaali: "I'm just curious what exactly is a bridge & tunnel tequila shot women?

I don't get the reference at all."

If I remember my New Jersey days correctly, it's a reference to New Jersians who party in NYC and have to traverse the ... er ... _________ Tunnel and ________ Bridge (couldn't tell you which ones specifically) in order to get into the city.

Great answers thus far ... and I'm definitely going to be checking out OKCupid.
posted by WCityMike at 6:14 PM on September 20, 2007

I had no idea that Match.com was the unpretentious dating site. Good thing it was the only one I had heard of-- I might have gotten discouraged if I told the Unique Snowflakes on other sites that some of my interests are mundane and subsequently got dismissed as a trogolodyte.
posted by Mayor Curley at 7:16 PM on September 20, 2007

I've met some cool people on Plentyoffish.com. It's free and there are also some fun message boards on there. : )
posted by SisterHavana at 7:33 PM on September 20, 2007

We should totally just get married, obviously. :)

I've liked okcupid in the past. It led to one (now ended) long-ish relationship, a few friends, and a lot of first dates. I tried craigslist, and got a lot of responses, but it seemed like most of them hadn't really read what I'd written and nothing ended up coming from it.
posted by rosethorn at 7:55 PM on September 20, 2007

I met my husband on a combination of Match.com and Springstreet/the now-defunct 3waction.com personals about 2.5 years ago. He signed up for Springstreet through Salon.

I also used OkCupid and CatholicSingles (or similar). Match did have a tendency to be full of troglodytes, but they were easy to screen out. The OkCupid guys were fun, but never anyone I'd end up in a relationship with -- just have a few dates with. And CatholicSingles, well, most of them couldn't even conceive of a liberal Catholic like me. I might have been the only one on the site.

I liked online dating, but I have to echo the assertion that meeting IRL as quickly as possible is a good idea in most cases.
posted by wildeepdotorg at 7:59 PM on September 20, 2007

Stupid eHarmony. I answered all the questions honestly, trying to really put myself out there, and it told me I wasn't fit for their site or their members. Auugh! What a self-confidence killer. I was still kind of bruised about that lo these two years later. I'm glad to hear there might be some kind of religious filter on there. I hope I got blocked for something like that and not because I'm some kind of undesirable mess. I don't like that old man on the commercials anyway. I bet he keeps a gimp in his basement.

As for match.com, I find so much boring sameness in the women there that it's hard to sift through all the results. If I read "I can do jeans and beers at the sports bar or dress up for a night on the town and everything in between" or one of its close cousins one more time, I'm gonna hurl, or at least my eyes are gonna cross. I can't tell if the site attracts that kind of sameness or enforces it, but it makes me think of vapid cows. For the record, only 2 of my 4 dates from Match were this sort of cookie cutter girl in person. The other two didn't wind up being for me, but they were at least distinct and had some flavor.

That's why I like the Onion/Nerve/Salon/Etc. network (powered by FastCupid?). I find the people there so much more interesting and willing to put themselves and their warts and quirks out there up front. I feel like all of those Match clones secretly have these same warts and quirks but cover them up and don't advertise them. I dunno, maybe not. More tattoos, porn-admitters, nerd glasses, scooters, and artsy types on Onion/Nerve/Salon/Etc., that's for sure. It just seems more honest and interesting.

I will say that it seems to have gone downhill in the past couple of years, and it never did have the kind of critical mass of a Match.com to start with. They have been progressively fiddling with the site functions and features over time and just seem to make the wrong choices each time. Now you can't even see more than a thumbnail picture without going premium. Stooopid! And I just don't see many new faces show up anymore. It's not happening, 5'11" schoolteacher. Stop showing up as my #1 already! You and German mangirl.
posted by kookoobirdz at 8:10 PM on September 20, 2007

No wait, not FastCupid. Springstreet Networks.

And speaking of cupid, I'm going to check out OKCupid now. Thank you, magic donkey!
posted by kookoobirdz at 8:12 PM on September 20, 2007

Perhaps I've feeling particularly jaded today but I find they all pretty much...um...suck. I had what you might term as "success" with Match and Yahoo in the past (one year-long relationship, another just short of that.)

Out of all of the sites mentioned, Craigslist works best for me. It's free and seems to have a higher number of the not so "normal" types. As far as I can tell (and maybe this is true only for my neck of the woods), everyone on Match.com is looking for the house in the 'burbs, 2.5 kids and car payment life....YMMV.
posted by notjustfoxybrown at 8:12 PM on September 20, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

Ummm...I'm feeling. Duh.
posted by notjustfoxybrown at 8:19 PM on September 20, 2007

I've tried them all and have had little success. I'm a male, atheist in the bible belt so finding a match is very difficult. Surprisingly Eharmony let me on and matched me with another atheist. Actually got to the open communication stage and convinced her to call me which she did and promptly said she didn't have anything to say...Sigh.....
posted by Justin Case at 9:35 PM on September 20, 2007

OKCupid worked for me twice over the past three years, and I met two very amazing women who I'm glad I knew and dated. I've also had some seriously awkward first dates, but c'est la vie. Plentyoffish is free too, but my impression is that the women on POF tend to be less interesting/literate/well-spoken than those on OKC (purely subjective there, YMMV). I've never met/dated anyone from POF, though, so who knows.
posted by Alterscape at 11:43 PM on September 20, 2007

I wasn't saying there was anything wrong with those folks, just wasn't for me.
posted by softlord at 6:20 AM on September 21, 2007

I met my SO (of one year) on Match. I had a really good experience with it, as have some of my friends, but I've also had friends who hated it. As far as the type of people you'll meet, a lot of the above posters are right that Match tends to be for more "mainstream" individuals, though my SO and definitely are not (he's an artist, and I'm a lawyer, though not a typical one).

I think of online dating as a good way to meet lots of people, which gives you more of a population to work with. Statistically, the more people you're exposed to, the greater chance you have of meeting someone good for you.

My SO and I are both late-20s, never been married, and tend to run with less mainstream crowds. We live in a good-sized Midwestern city, for what it's worth. And I did hear from my SO that the male-female ratio on Match is something like 10-1, so it's definitely easier if you're a female.
posted by elquien at 6:47 AM on September 21, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

I met my girlfriend on Craigslist 2 years ago. Just recently she posted on CL on behalf of a (female) friend (i.e. "Go on a date with my kick-ass friend") and got a lot of responses, several of them from cool-sounding guys. I was on match.com for a while and got all of two dates out of it, one a complete bore and one that I'm sort of friends with. Utter waste of time and energy. (I'm late 20s, female.)
posted by bassjump at 8:07 AM on September 21, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

Just as a follow-up for future thread viewers, I'm really displeased with Chemistry and have asked them to refund my money or (better for them) bump it over to a paid Match subscription.

The matches thus far have royally sucked, and said matches seem to have been picked with no attention whatsoever to the questionnaire I filled out asking my preferences. Most significantly, the minimum radius it allows for searching is 25 miles. I am in a city with at least three million residents, and it keeps throwing suburbanite after suburbanite in my direction. As someone who works and lives in the city, even were I willing to do a half-hour-plus commute, I don't have the car to do it in. It's ridiculous.

Much thanks to everyone for the recommendations. Thus far, I've been quite impressed with OKCupid's abilities, although we'll see if anything pans out.
posted by WCityMike at 10:14 AM on September 26, 2007

i met my other half off a social networking site that I rarely frequented. Just being in the system is sometimes enough. Frankly after being on pretty much every free dating/networking site, some work better than others for me. Just cos its a site with a large membership doesnt mean it'll work better. a certain large site only has 20% active members for instance. if a sites not working try a different one. there's plenty.

The best sites are the ones where u can identify how people are coming into contact. that way you can tailor your profile accordingly. I dont mean lying just selling yourself in a certain way.
posted by browolf at 4:33 AM on October 21, 2007