Speaking as someone who just recently started using match.com (after the end of a string of long relationships), it seems to me that:
1) dating sites are the perfect example of the benefit of pseudonymity for allowing people to choose how much to reveal about themselves while still being attractive
2) dating sites rely on geographical favorability. I live in DC so as a single guy it works EXTREMELY well. But I hear it's not as great for DC women. But DC is known for having far more highly-educated single women than any other city. But would a dating site work as well in smaller communities where people marry out of high school and generally keep their social circle their whole lives? Is NYC too much of a social cauldron for dating sites to work?
3) Facebook hook-ups seem to work mostly if you are being hooked up with a friend of a friend, so the initial relationship is being built upon referral instead of semi-blind dates.
Facebook is a terrible platform for meeting people because it impels you to reveal too much, reveal it too broadly and doesn't let you control the order in which the revelation takes place.
Dating reveals the chink in Fb's conception of the single identity. Since at least the mid 20th century, sociologists were described modern society as resting on a single-person/multiple-roles system as opposed to simpler societies resting on single-person/single-role. We've only going further in this and Internet sites eventually have to facilitate this rather than forcing a single identity on people (something that Facebook has apparently made part of it's agenda).
okcupid and plentyoffish are much much better options.
And Yahoo Personals and Match.com definitely aren't the only ones. I've heard of other paid dating sites doing the same. Of course these are only rumors which is why it never gets very far in court but it's enough for me to never want to spend my money on paid sites. The incentives to move into fraud in paid dating are very very strong.
Methinks the free sites doth protest too much. I've used Plentyoffish, Okcupid, and Match.com. Only Match.com was a fraud-free experience. Sure, a paywall induces a motivation for 1st-party fraud, but it drastically reduces the motivation for 3rd-party fraud. Someone who solves both will become a rich individual.
For the record, I met my beautiful girlfriend of two years on Match, so count me as biased. :)
I recieved a chat request from a women 30 minutes after I signed up, while I was editing my profile. She looked like a model and her profile picture was her in a bikini. It took her 5-10 minutes to respond to my IMs, which were mostly me asking her if she was a legit and "her" saying "yes, I'm real." uh huh.
Regarding Facebook hook-ups -- I get a LOT of FB friend requests from people I haven't met who usually share a few mutual friends. This is how FB is used as a dating service, from my experience.
Also, some people create profiles specifically made for dating, where they post some pictures of themselves and basic facts. Of course this is a cheap maneuver -- they want to see someone's complete profile, while the other person only gets to see a "fake" one.
1) dating sites are the perfect example of the benefit of pseudonymity for allowing people to choose how much to reveal about themselves while still being attractive
2) dating sites rely on geographical favorability. I live in DC so as a single guy it works EXTREMELY well. But I hear it's not as great for DC women. But DC is known for having far more highly-educated single women than any other city. But would a dating site work as well in smaller communities where people marry out of high school and generally keep their social circle their whole lives? Is NYC too much of a social cauldron for dating sites to work?
3) Facebook hook-ups seem to work mostly if you are being hooked up with a friend of a friend, so the initial relationship is being built upon referral instead of semi-blind dates.