Tag: gamification

Misunderstanding dating apps from a far

"i saw you on tinder" Trastevere 2014

Tinder, tinder, Bloody Tinder!

Even now people keep going on about Tinder…

In the past I have been pretty down on Tinder and to be fair I still am, but its true people do meet, hit it off and even get married via Tinder. Of course I say the Birthday paradox is in play.

dating-against-humanity-48-638

The thing I keep hearing from people (usually in relationships) is tinder IS dating apps. When I tell them there is a new dating app/service every month, they never believe me. At a party on the weekend I tried to put into words why I use OkCupid and recommend other services over Tinder (yes I know they are owned by the same people).

The point I made is that unless you both swipe right, you can’t talk or get to know each other. Thats ignoring the fact men are more likely to swipe right, profiles are mainly pictures with little text and you can’t see the next person (grass is always greener beyond the swipe) unless you make a decision one way or another (gamification).

I insist the system of tinder encourages or even dictates playful interactions. This is fine if you like playing but not ideal if not. Its clear people are using Tinder to fill their time when bored or playing around with friends.

The tinder/hot or not system is setup that way, and the human behaviour follows suit. Don’t get me wrong, sometimes it can work the other way but Tinder is strongly built with this mentality in mind. I am reminded of addiction by design, simple as this – tinder is built to maximum shallow activity. There’s no other way around that unless you pay them money.

Other services have similar systems (OkCupid has likes, POF has meetme, etc) but each one of theses have the ability to just see a user and message them. This subverts the tinder behavior but requires more effort like getting over your fear of rejection.

The key point I’m making is each service is different and requires a different way to look at it. For example Bumble although it does have the hot or not dynamic, the system is set up to give the women the control. As a result the behavior of the users is quite different?

It’s a mistake to think of Tinder as the de-facto dating app. It would be like thinking McDonalds was the de-facto of restaurants from those who are vegan!

Now that’s one scary thought, I think we would all agree?

I won’t even dig into why all these people with partners always want to get wrapped up in their single friends lives? Thats best left alone…

The problem is simple answers to difficult questions?

Swipe left or swipe right… why not?

More and more the answers are getting more simplistic. There was something Douglas Ruskoff said recently in a chat while talking about present shock.

Its also something I’ve been thinking about, especially since installing Bumble and Plenty of Fish daring apps. Every dating app now includes the hot or not/swipe left or right mechanism; this for me is a bad thing…. I’m not the only one of course.

In the September issue of Vanity Fair, Nancy Jo Sales wrote an in -depth piece called, Tinder and the Dawn of “Dating Apocalypse.” It’s an eye-opener and validation of a woman’s worst fear. The guys are swiping right to hook up and it’s all just a game.

In the story, it’s reported that 100 million people are using mobile apps, with about 50 million on Tinder. The Tinder blog reports 25 million matches a day. The numbers are mind-boggling and enormous.

The VF story is really about sex and hookups. Mobile apps just happen to ramp up the numbers in a digital second, and singles in their 20s are buying into the hooking up program, I believe which ruins their chance at romance.

I of course wrote about the tinder breakdown here. But I find the pattern/ui decision/culture a little disturbing. I did look under dark patterns to see if it was included but couldn’t find it.  Maybe I should submit it?

Swipe Left

Whats wrong with the swipe? Don’t be a hater… I hear you say…

I boil it down to simplification of questions to a binary output/decision. Thinking like a computer...

Conrad Wolfram delivered a good talk at Thinking Digital around the exact same thing. I’ve said it a many times before but I’ll say it again, I do wonder/worry that the digital revolution seems to be driven by one group of people who may think alike and seem more comfortable with binary decisions that the fuzziness of reality.

In today’s touchscreen world, a “swipe right” is a quick, positive way to communicate interest. Alternately, a “swipe left” is the swiftest way reject something or someone. Whether it’s picking a date on Tinder or choosing a dress on Pinterest, technology brings immediate gratification to so many aspects of our lives.

This blog by nehrlich caught my eye which is somewhat related. The world is fuzzy and building up systems to block out the fuzz is in my opinion not great. We need to embrace the fuzz along side the binary.

I’ll say it again… diversity of people and thought just like nature.

Reducing a decision about something as fuzzy as a potential partner does irk me. Do I like the person in front of me or not?

Yes or No. In or Out, One or Zero.

No sense of maybe… Make a decision now….!

Plus you can’t move forward or go back. Its some seriously dark user interface voodoo. It seems so playful and fun but under the gamification there is something dark happening…. and its spreading like wildfire! This is certainly something which chimes against my new years resolution around thinking humanity…

After 3 hours of swiping right on Tinder

Which leads headlong into the “I want it now, instant gratification, etc culture…” but I’m feeling too happy for that right now.

When Tinder met Vanity, we all got popcorn and watched

TechCrunch Disrupt Europe: Berlin 2013 (Day 2)
…at the helm of the company that’s changing society in ways they can’t stop, or even fathom because they’re right in the middle of it. Scary.

Tinder (which I have written about and am now somewhat convinced will be seen as a bad bad joke in many years time) was recently written about in Vanity Fair and… Oh dear, tinder took to twitter to complain!

The best deconstruction of the whole thing comes from David Evans over at onlinedating insider.

I couldn’t even bring myself to finish the VF article. Story after story about relationship-challenged New Yorkers. Men in New York treat women terribly and brag about it in Vanity Fair. Wow, you don’t say?

The VF article is a retread of a topic that’s been beaten to death by the media and dating bloggers for almost two years, but VF decided to hang out with a bunch of New Yorkers who rack up Tinder sex-mates like there’s no tomorrow and talk to them like they are adults or something. The writer clearly emerged from a cave last week and the first thing they did was go on a Tinder date and now she’s scarred for life.

Tinder is simply a throw back to old skool dating (when it was al about looks and not the personality), but it doesn’t stop a whole host of articles, posts and shows being written about it… even in mid 2015! Tinder has become the symbol of our misogynist culture much like how the game was a few years ago?

“It’s an eye-opener and validation of a woman’s worst fear. The guys are swiping right to hook up and it’s all just a game.” Give me a break. The women who enable men to behave this way are just as complicit in the degradation of modern courtship as Tinder is. And Tinder is at the bottom of the pile, along with Ashley Madison.

Add gamification and repeat

The gamification of online/social dating can be scary stuff which I’ll cover in my TedX Talk early next year… Don’t miss it, its going to be pretty wild…! Ironiclly it will be on Valentine day, so expect a blood path of broken hearts and trashed dreams

Its so clear there is a problem, as many people including Sherry Turkle and even comedian Aziz Ansari’s modern romance, identifies. They wonder about current social impact of not just its users but on the mating process as a whole!

David really gets into to the metric problem of the throw away action of a swipe.

What is the equivalent of a right-swipe on a dating service? Replied to emails? If I email you and you email me back, that’s a match. Sam Yagan at Match told me that years ago. Back when he was the Co-founder of OkCupid, and they always said Match wasn’t worth the money and nobody should have to pay for a dating site…

…Tinder’s definition of a match as two people physically moving their fingers about a quarter of an inch to the right compared with writing and responding to emails. Comparing swipes to responded-to emails is ridiculous; they’re not even comparable. But we’re talking about Tinder here, so anything goes.

How about this. Whenever two people like or favorite each other’s photos on a dating service, they are a match. Is that comparable to Tinder mutual swipes? I don’t know and I really don’t care anymore. And neither does anyone else, because all I read about in the media are stories about people on Tinder hooking up three times a week and 25 million matches a day.

He’s right, no body is really thinking about what the metrics mean when  writing about Tinder. It might as well be 25 millions acorns! There is so much more David writes in the post but I love the ending line, and I’m really starting to agree (even though I know a few friends who have successfully had serious relationships via tinder)…

Tinder is the worst thing to ever happen to the online dating industry. End of story.

Touches of Perceptive Media in odd places

Virgin toiletsVirgin talking Trains toilet

I wrote about the idea of Perceptive Media at a theme park a  while ago and frankly theres some equally fun places it could be used.

Every time I go to London and use the Virgin trains, I laugh inside to myself about the Virgin toilet signs. It reads..

“Please don’t flush Nappies, sanitary towels, paper towels, gum, old phones, unpaid bills, junk mail,  you’re ex’s sweater, hopes, dreams or goldfish down this toilet.”

In the bigger toilets the sign-age is spoken aloud, and you’re ex’s sweater is swapped with your *friends sweater. Its always gender specific.

My first thought was that it could be randomly done then maybe every other one it cycles? If it was up to me, I would hook it up to the toilet seat. If the seat is down, play the boyfriend version if the seat is up play the girlfriend version? I assume it wouldn’t be noticed by most, but those who did would think it was great!

A little bit of game-play in real life.