Why Zoosk Wants to Make Online Dating More Like LinkedIn

The Internet dating routine is relatively straightforward, if tough to progress from step to step: Make a profile, find some dates, pick a mate, get offline.

But the dating site Zoosk wants to change that by incentivizing its members to stay online after they’ve found romance. The company is beginning to unveil a host of new features and services designed to make its service more sticky.

“I use the example of LinkedIn versus Monster,” co-founder Alex Mehr said in a Valentine’s Day interview. “Monster just focuses on the job-seeking phase of your professional life, whereas LinkedIn covers your entire professional career. We want to provide a service like that for your entire romantic life.”

Mehr said that Zoosk will be able to do this with relationship-enhancing bonuses such as reminders of key dates including birthdays and anniversaries, deals on events and activities for two, and advice centers for couples.

While Zoosk is looking to add a new twist to the online dating world, the site is already successful. Founded in 2007, it now claims some 15 million monthly active users and company representatives say that its sales revenue surpassed $90 million in 2011.

Zoosk works differently than most dating sites already, Mehr says. It integrates a variety of social networks as well as functionality as a social network of its own with a news feed and interest graph. But it’s the new features, set to debut over the next month, that Mehr thinks will truly set Zoosk apart.

“What we want is for it to have 2 benefits,” he says. “It will capture more value for the customer so that they don’t just turn it off when they find someone. At the same time, we’ll know the transition points, we’ll know when you will want to find someone else if it doesn’t work out, so that gives us a natural advantage.”

When a Zoosk user finds a boyfriend or girlfriend, they will be able to change their relationship status to begin capitalizing on the couples’ features. Change that status back to single, and personal ads will reappear.

Mehr said that reviews of the new features with small groups of test users have been “very positive.” Between now and the end of March, Zoosk plans to roll out a host of different iterations of its new features to see which ones most users prefer and then finalize the site’s added element.

Relationship advice, for example, could be syndicated from outside sources or user generated — though Mehr said he hopes Zoosk eventually relies more on content provided by its members.

And, just as Zoosk already integrates with other social networks, all of its new features will as well. Post a photo of you and your significant other to Facebook, and Zoosk will pull it to your profile there. Post that photo to your Zoosk profile, and the site will push it to Facebook.

“One way to think of it will be as a romantic filter for all your social networks,” Mehr said. “There is no other site out there where, if two people are in a relationship, it provides this type of service to them.”

Do you think Zoosk’s idea will become successful or be a flop? Let us know in the comments.

Article source: http://mashable.com/2012/02/14/why-zoosk-wants-to-make-online-dating-more-like-linkedin/

Wray Herbert: Do Online Dating Services Really Work?

Valentine’s Day is for many just a cruel reminder that they have not yet found the love of their life, their soul mate, their life partner. And let’s face it: finding that special person can be tough in 21st-century America. The village matchmakers are long gone, along with the villages themselves, and most of us are spread far and wide, without the traditional networks of family and old friends.

That’s why millions are turning to online dating services, which promise to use math and science to find people dates — and often more than dates, life partners. But how reliable are these popular services, and the matchmaking algorithms they use? A new and exhaustive study of these online matchmakers — and of romantic prediction in general — raises real doubts about these services’ methods and results. But this critique goes beyond eHarmony, Match.com, and Chemistry.com. It questions the entire enterprise of predicting lasting love for any two people who have never met.

Five psychological scientists at five universities spent a year distilling and analyzing more than 400 scientific studies related to dating, romance, and marriage, to determine what traits are measurable and valuable in successful matchmaking. The effort was headed up by Eli Finkel of Northwestern University, and the resulting analysis is discouraging for anyone who is gambling on these Internet dating services. But the bottom line of the study, published last week in the journal Psychological Science in the Public Interest, is that no third party — not your sister or best pal or the matchmaker of yore — would do much better in finding you your soul mate.

The scientists identify three broad categories of information that matchmakers might use to match people up for lifelong relationships: quality of personal interaction, life circumstances, and individual traits and attitudes. All three are important in determining whether a romantic relationship thrives or fails, the scientists say, but in reality much of this vital information is inaccessible or ignored.

Take personal interactions, for instance. This is everything about how two people are with each other — the way they talk, or don’t; how critical or kind they tend to be; how distant or intimate; how good at resolving disputes. Clearly this is important stuff in any relationship — arguably the most important — but as Finkel and colleagues point out, it plays no part at all in online matchmaking. Think about it. These matchmaking formulas are designed to predict romantic outcomes for two people who have never met — complete strangers — so how could they possibly factor in such interactive qualities? The short answer is that they don’t, but neither do other, more traditional matchmakers. Your sister may have seen you and a potential partner in action, independently, so she can at least imagine the two of you together and make an educated guess about your dynamic — but it’s just a guess.

Traditional matchmakers also have a slight advantage over computers when it comes to weighing life circumstances. Some of the best predictors of romantic and marital success are things beyond our control — social and economic status, for example. Some of this could in theory be known ahead of time — before two people meet — and factored into a prediction. But the fact is, online matchmakers don’t pay much attention to economic and financial issues. Nor do they factor in crucially important life stresses — including unanticipated stress from losing a job, or chronic illness, infertility, a flood or cyclone. These things are unknowable in advance, and even things that are knowable — life alcohol abuse or family pathology — are hidden from online matchmakers. Traditional matchmakers have a better chance of knowing some of these circumstances in advance, but even your sister can’t predict a factory closing or the onset of cancer.

So that leaves individual traits, which is really all that these online matchmakers have to work with. These traits include not only personality — outgoing, shy, daring, gloomy — but also views and attitudes and values. Do Ron Paul’s politics resonate for you? How about Thai food? Long walks in the woods? Online services are well equipped to gather a lot of this kind of information and to match up strangers who share such interests and values.

But how important are these things, really? Does matching up on tastes and preferences predict long-term satisfaction as a couple? Probably not, the scientists conclude. Most of the online matchmaking services match people up based on the assumption that similarity is important to relationship success, but the existing studies of this theory are mixed in their findings and not easily interpretable. For one thing, it’s not at all clear which dimensions of similarity are important. You may both like those long walks in the woods but have very different tastes in food or politics. What trumps what in the search for compatibility?

Electronic matchmaking’s preoccupation with compatibility may itself be a problem, these scientists conclude. More important than compatibility, they suggest, is something called relationship aptitude. Aptitude is the constellation of traits, preferences, and personal history that makes a person more likely to have good relationships in general — not necessarily with a specific other person. One of the most robust findings from relationship science is that the capacity for intimate relationships is a relatively stable quality in individuals — regardless of partner — as is the incapacity. That all-important trait may not show up in preferences for Thai food, libertarian politics, or autumn strolls. That’s what used to be called good character, which no matchmaking algorithm can possibly capture.

<!–

Books by this author

–>

This Blogger’s Books from

Follow Wray Herbert on Twitter:

www.twitter.com/wrayherbert

Article source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wray-herbert/online-dating_b_1268511.html

Julie Spira: Experts and Researchers Say Online Dating Has Lost Its Stigma

It’s official. According to a team of five researchers, online dating has lost its stigma. The report was published on Monday in the February issue in the journal, Psychological Science in the Public Interest.

This is good news for singles in the U.S. as the research analysis says that Internet dating is now the second most common method of matchmaking, behind personal introductions from friends.

This should be no surprise to singles and couples alike, as just about everyone knows someone who’s met their significant other or spouse online. At a Super Bowl party that I attended, two out of three couples met online; one on JDate, and another on Fitness Singles, both considered niche-dating sites.

Professor Harry Reis, one of the five co-authors of the research study cautioned that comparing large numbers of potential dates might encourage a “shopping mentality.” This latest research looks down upon the scientific matching and algorithms that many sites such as eHarmony have successfully woven into their profile sign up and matching process.

Dating algorithms and scientific matching were a subject of a heated panel at the recent Internet Dating Conference in Miami, where Dr. Eli J. Finkel, the study’s lead author and an associate professor of social psychology at Northwestern University, said there was no science behind the algorithms. OkCupid’s CEO and co-founder Sam Yagan and Dr. Pepper Schwartz, professor of sociology at the University of Washington in Seattle, who created the Personality Profiler for online dating site Perfect Match, vehemently disagreed. The sites stood by their list of questions to help singles meet better matches, whether through math or science.

On February 9, 2011 at 9pm ET/PT CNBC aired an in-depth documentary called Love at First Byte: The Secret Science of Online Dating, where executives from several dating sites including Match.com, eHarmony, and OkCupid will discuss the business of finding love online in time for Valentine’s Day. One thing’s for sure, online dating is a hot-topic in the news this Valentine’s Day.

Julie Spira is an online dating expert and founder of Cyber-Dating Expert. She’s the bestselling author of The Perils of Cyber-Dating: Confessions of a Hopeful Romantic Looking for Love Online and coaches singles on the dating scene. Visit her at CyberDatingExpert.com and like her at Facebook.com/CyberDatingExpert.

<!–

Books by this author

–>

This Blogger’s Books from

Follow Julie Spira on Twitter:

www.twitter.com/JulieSpira

Article source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/julie-spira/online-dating_b_1256443.html

Online Dating Sites Don’t Match Hype

HOW scientific are the “matching algorithms” of online-dating Web sites?

For a fee, many dating sites will collect data about you, crunch the numbers and match you with someone who, as eHarmony puts it, has been “prescreened for deep compatibility with you across 29 dimensions.” Sites like Chemistry, PerfectMatch and GenePartner make similar scientific-sounding claims.

But can a mathematical formula really identify pairs of singles who are especially likely to have a successful romantic relationship?

We believe the answer is no. It’s hard to be certain, since the sites have not disclosed their algorithms. But — as we and our co-authors argue in an article to be published this month in the journal Psychological Science in the Public Interest — the past 80 years of scientific research about what makes people romantically compatible suggests that such sites are unlikely to do what they claim to do.

One major problem is that these sites fail to collect a lot of crucial information. Because they gather data from singles who have never met, the sites have no way of knowing how two people will interact once they have been matched. Yet our review of the literature reveals that aspects of relationships that emerge only after two people meet and get to know each other — things like communication patterns, problem-solving tendencies and sexual compatibility — are crucial for predicting the success or failure of relationships. For example, study after study has shown that the way that couples discuss and attempt to resolve disagreements predicts their future satisfaction and whether or not the relationship is likely to dissolve.

Likewise, dating sites don’t take into account the environment surrounding the relationship: factors like job loss, financial strain, infertility and illness. But research indicates that when couples encounter such stresses or unexpected demands on their energy, their satisfaction with their relationship declines and their risk for breaking up increases. To give just one example: in a 2004 study by the psychologist Lisa Neff, wives who experienced relatively high levels of stress outside of their marriage tended to evaluate their marriage increasingly negatively over time.

Another major problem with the algorithms of dating sites is that the information that they do collect — about individual characteristics — accounts for only a tiny slice of what makes two people suited for a long-term relationship. Certainly, some characteristics predict relationship well-being. For example, decades of research confirms that people tend to have troubled romantic relationships if they are emotionally volatile, were mistreated as children or abuse drugs or alcohol. Eliminating people from the dating pool who are likely to have relationship problems, as some sites may do by declining customers based on their answers to questions about things like emotional stability, can be a useful service (as long as you’re one of the lucky singles who make the cut).

Of course, dating sites promise much more than access to a somewhat improved pool of potential mates; they promise to identify specific pairs of strangers who are likely to mesh well together in a romantic relationship. In particular, almost all of the sites claim that partners who are more similar to each other in certain ways will experience greater relationship satisfaction and stability relative to partners who are less similar.

But our review of the literature revealed that the forms of similarity advertised by dating sites provide a meager foundation for an enduring relationship. To be sure, similarity on some dimensions, like race and religion, does predict relationship well-being. Analyses by the National Center for Health Statistics, for example, indicate that marriages between spouses of the same race or ethnicity have a lower divorce rate after 10 years than interracial or interethnic couples (31 percent versus 41 percent). However, the vast majority of people mate with demographically similar partners anyway, so such findings aren’t especially useful in helping dating sites narrow a client’s pool of potential partners.

Perhaps as a result, these sites tend to emphasize similarity on psychological variables like personality (e.g., matching extroverts with extroverts and introverts with introverts) and attitudes (e.g., matching people who prefer Judd Apatow’s movies to Woody Allen’s with people who feel the same way). The problem with this approach is that such forms of similarity between two partners generally don’t predict the success of their relationship. According to a 2008 meta-analysis of 313 studies, similarity on personality traits and attitudes had no effect on relationship well-being in established relationships. In addition, a 2010 study of more than 23,000 married couples showed that similarity on the major dimensions of personality (e.g., neuroticism, impulsivity, extroversion) accounted for a mere 0.5 percent of how satisfied spouses were with their marriages — leaving the other 99.5 percent to other factors.

None of this suggests that online dating is any worse a method of meeting potential romantic partners than meeting in a bar or on the subway. But it’s no better either.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/opinion/sunday/online-dating-sites-dont-match-hype.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Love-Seekers Beware: Online Dating Fraud Rose 150% Last Year

Lonely hearts seeking love this Valentine’s Day, be wary. Online dating fraud rose by 150% percent in 2011 as scammers and hucksters turned up the false charm and predatory trolling.

That’s according to data shared with Mashable by fraud protection agency Iovation, which works with several major Internet dating services. Iovation reached that number by employing patented technology that analyzes hardware and software, rather than mine for personal information, says Molly O’Hearn, vice president of operations.

Iovation found that in 2011, 3.8% of all transactions it processed for online dating sites were fraudulent. That includes users misrepresenting themselves to try to acquire personal information, directing users to phishing sites, spamming people with unrelated messages, or persistently harassing users.

From 2009 to 2010, dating fraud on the sites Iovation monitors declined slightly, from a rate of 1.5% to 1.4%.

The spike in 2011 was due to two trends in the industry, according to O’Hearn. The first is that “while dating sites have been around for several years, we’re now entering an era where the later adopters are willing to give it a go,” she says. “With that growth comes more bad guys, because it represents an opportunity.”

Another emerging opportunity, O’Hearn said, is the proliferation of dating sites targeted at specific niches — people who are Catholic, Jewish, virgins or pot users. This narrowing of the field allows scammers to better target their marks and tailor their nefarious strategies.

O’Hearn said that one common scheme involves trying to direct conversations off-site to personal email or instant messaging accounts, where it’s easier to mine for information. Another preys on the sympathy of possible paramours by asking for money to deal with crises like huge medical bills or the need to visit a dying relative.

O’Hearn said that two main giveaways of swindlers are the use of the world “love” in the early stages of correspondence, and people whose syntax and use of language don’t jibe with their pictures or where they claim to be from.

So, if that charming blue-eyed farm boy from Nebraska suddenly tells you he wants to “make nice date with you, love” for Valentine’s Day, take the suger with a few grains of salt.

Do you believe that online dating fraud is on the rise? Why or why not? Let us know in the comments.

Image courtesy of iStockphoto, pearleye

Article source: http://mashable.com/2012/02/10/online-dating-fraud/

Online Dating: 7 Fun New Sites for Finding Your Match

The latest wave of online dating sites forgoes mysterious equations in favor of straightforward, sometimes unexpected, matching techniques.

Whereas Match.com, eHarmony and OkCupid promise to calculate your ideal mate based on your actions and stated preferences, these new sites use some interesting new criteria such as common friends, activities, alma mater or even face structure to make matches.

A team commissioned by the Association of Psychological Science recently deemed the purely algorithmic approach to online dating no more effective at predicting compatibility than a good old-fashioned chat.

We’re not sure that any of the seven approaches below would be any more effective. But many of them are certainly more fun.

---

1. Clique: Stop Dating Strangers

---

When the dating world plugged into the Internet, it largely catered to the classified-style dating that preceded it — facilitating meetings between strangers who might like each other. But the age-old method of meeting dates through friends was largely ignored by online dating sites.

Clique, which will celebrate its one-year anniversary Valentine’s Day, is trying to make that method its niche. On the invite-only site, only you, your friends and people connected to you by fewer than three degrees are visible. When you’re browsing profiles, you can see how you’re connected to each person, and your friends can make match suggestions for you.

Upside: A personal reference for every potential date.

Downside: Your common friends will inevitably hear feedback about your dates.

---

2. Sparkology: Ivy League Men Only

---

Sparkology has set out to filter its community with rigid criteria. To join the site, you need to be a college graduate. If you’re a man, you need to be a verified graduate of a school on the site’s list of “top universities.”

Payment also works a bit differently than traditional dating sites. Women pay a flat fee per month to be on the site. Men pay a small fee to start conversations, which theoretically prevents them from spamming everyone on the site.

Upside: Men have to invest each time they communicate and are less likely to do so when they aren’t sincerely interested.

Downside: Although the site’s founders point out that its list of top universities includes 85 schools, Sparkology is still no doubt missing some interesting, successful people who don’t happen to have a top-notch college degree.

---

3. Nerve Dating: Less-Painful Introductions

---

Once a site for listing personals, Nerve Dating relaunched in 2011 with a focus on natural ice breakers. Users post mini-updates on their profiles that answer simple questions such as “What did you do last night?” Whether they read a book, saw a concert or watched TV, the hope is that it will give others a reason to connect. Browsing the site is free, but unlimited messaging costs $20 per month.

Upside: there’s something to talk about when you message someone for the first time.

Downside: Another status to update.

---

4. SinglesAroundMe: Location-Based Dating

---

SinglesAroundMe is an Android, BlackBerry and iPhone app that lives up to its name. Quite simply, it uses the GPS feature on your phone to find singles near you, literally plotting them on a map. Profile information is pretty limited, but there’s an option to message people to find out more if you fork over $2.95 per month or $19.95 per year. So far I have gotten one message on the network: “you are a fake!drop dead.”

Upside: Dating people near you seems practical.

Downside: When proximity is the major criteria of interest, there may be reason to question the motives of people who contact you.

---

5. HowAboutWe: Activity Dating

---

HowAboutWe puts focus on the date rather than the individual. Users propose fun activities. Other users can send them messages if they like their ideas. To send such a message, however, you’ll need to fork over between $7.99 and $34.99 per month depending on how long you commit.

Upside: Fewer coffee shops, more adventures.

Downside: “How about we… communicate only through facial expressions for the first 30 minutes of our date.” How about not.

---

6. Soul2Match: Similar Faces

---

Soul2Match promises to match singles based solely on one piece of information from each of them: their headshot. Founders Jorn Eiting and Linda van Liempt are serious. They cite several studies that show what we’re all really looking for in our ideal mate is ourselves.

“The more two people have similarities in their faces, the more they look alike, the happier they are in the relationship, the stronger the relationship,” Eiting told Mashable in September.

The website compares your mugshot with other faces to rate your compatibility.

Upside: Entertainment.

Downside: Remember that research the company cites? Some of it shows that couples with similar levels of attractiveness are the happiest. Other research says people trust those who have similar facial features more than those who don’t.

The best proof for Soul2Match‘s matchmaking method is a 1999 study that used computer-graphic image manipulation to generate male faces that looked like female participants. For example, if a woman’s cheekbone stuck out 0.3 percent more than the average woman’s cheekbones do, the program would generate a male face with cheekbones that stuck out 0.3 percent more than the male average. Women were more likely to rate faces as attractive that had been manipulated to match their own.

Trouble is, a later study by Lisa M. DeBruine of McMaster University showed that people are more likely to rate faces similar to their attractive when it’s the same sex than photos of the opposite sex.

“The same-sex bias … is a product of specialized responses to facial resemblance as a cue of kinship,” DeBruine wrote; it helps us “favor kin in a non-sexual prosocial context and avoid kin in a mating context.”

In other words, her theory is that it’s all part of the brain’s recognition mechanism that helps us be nice to family members — and avoid incest.

---

7. Grouper: Group Dating

---

Grouper arranges group dates between three women and three men.

Upside: Less pressure and a “meet three new people for one time commitment” structure.

Downside: Here’s to hoping you and your friends don’t all fall for the same person in the other group.

---

BONUS: 12 Pinterest Boards for Valentine’s Day Inspiration

---

• 
  
  

  How to Get Old Facebook Back

• 
  
  

  10 Essential YouTube Tips and Tricks

• 
  
  

  15 Best ‘Sh*t People Say’ Videos

• 
  
  

  10 Valentine’s Day Cards for Your Special Tech Geek

• 
  
  

  5 URL Expanders to Help You Avoid Spammy Links

• 
  
  

  10 Awesome Accessories Featuring the Vintage Apple Logo [RAINBOWS]

Comment
Share

Etsy is a no-brainer for gifts, and even though its Valentine’s Day board is rather sparsely populated, the content is super original.

The Twinery not only Pinned lots of yummies, but has a good eye for crafts too.

Need ideas for Valentine cards themselves? Check out Perkins’s cute Board.

Smullin takes the cake for quirky Valentine’s gift ideas that fit the whole family.

Real Simple‘s Valentine’s board has something for everyone, prices attached.

Chef Deen’s Date Night Recipes Board will inspire you to cook for your honey on Valentine’s night.

CreatingHOME’s Board features lots of yummy treats.

Iddrise Ann’s be mine

With over 300 Pins, Beckett includes enough Valentine’s treats and treasures to last a lifetime.

Valentine’s gifts are that much more special when they’re DIY. Anna S will help inspire you.

Cookies, cakes and crafts galore on Fabulous Fun Finds’s Board.

Silbermann’s Board isn’t Valentine’s-themed, specifically, but he has a pretty accurate idea of what a girl wants. Check out his Gifts for Guy Friends Board too.

View As One Page »

View As Slideshow »

Etsy is a no-brainer for gifts, and even though its Valentine’s Day board is rather sparsely populated, the content is super original.

---

The Twinery not only Pinned lots of yummies, but has a good eye for crafts too.

---

Need ideas for Valentine cards themselves? Check out Perkins’s cute Board.

---

Smullin takes the cake for quirky Valentine’s gift ideas that fit the whole family.

---

Real Simple‘s Valentine’s board has something for everyone, prices attached.

---

Chef Deen’s Date Night Recipes Board will inspire you to cook for your honey on Valentine’s night.

---

CreatingHOME’s Board features lots of yummy treats.

---

Iddrise Ann’s be mine

---

With over 300 Pins, Beckett includes enough Valentine’s treats and treasures to last a lifetime.

---

Valentine’s gifts are that much more special when they’re DIY. Anna S will help inspire you.

---

Cookies, cakes and crafts galore on Fabulous Fun Finds’s Board.

---

Silbermann’s Board isn’t Valentine’s-themed, specifically, but he has a pretty accurate idea of what a girl wants. Check out his Gifts for Guy Friends Board too.

---

Image courtesy of iStockphoto, adventtr

Article source: http://mashable.com/2012/02/09/new-online-dating-sites/

Online Dating? You Might as Well Look for Love in a Bar [STUDY]

Online dating sites frequently trumpet their ability to corral the most compatible fish in your sea through sophisticated algorithms. But a psychological study released this week says that you may be better off doing it the old-fashioned way and just meeting a stranger at a bar.

A team commissioned by the Association of Psychological Science says that the algorithms employed by sites such as eHarmony, Match.com and OKCupid don’t do much much to determine whether sparks will fly when they compare people’s interests and personalities, according to a recent Reuters interview with report author Eli Finkel.

“There’s no better way to figure out whether you’re compatible with somebody than talking to them over a cup of coffee or a pint of beer,” said Finkel, an associate professor at Northwestern University.

Finkel and his team found that the massive databases of potential matches don’t reveal enough about the people behind the profiles. And the sheer volume of options can overwhelm users to the point of “shutting down” and making poor decisions because of too many choices, according to Finkel, who compared the situation to shoppers at an overstocked supermarket.

“Eighty years of relationship science has reliably shown you can’t predict whether a relationship succeeds based on information about people who are unaware of each other,” Finkel told Reuters.

The researchers did not have access to the algorithms themselves, but Finkel scoffed at the accuracy of websites’ studies of their own success.

“The assumption is that they work,” he said. “We reviewed the literature and feel safe to conclude they do not.”

Finkel and his team’s research will be published in an upcoming edition of the journal Psychological Science in the Public Interest.

Do you think that online services have value in the dating game? Why or why not? Let us know in the comments.

Image courtesy of iStockphoto, pearleye

Article source: http://mashable.com/2012/02/08/online-dating-study/

Words With Friends Opponents Get Married

Who needs dating sites when you can find love playing Words With Friends?

The social Scrabble-like app is the latest game to become a hotbed for romance. The popular Zynga game introduced Megan Lawless and Jasper Jasperse as random opponents in November 2009.

We’ve seen proposals using StumbleUpon, Google Maps and Google+, but what’s noteworthy about Jasperse and Lawless’s story is that the mobile game was where they met.

SEE ALSO: Top 10 Geekiest Marriage Proposals

What began as simple “Hi” and “Hello” messages sparked more extensive communication via email and Skype. Jasperse moved from the Netherlands to live with Lawless in Chicago and the couple was eventually engaged and married in July 2011.

While it took their story six months to begin circulating, the couple’s unusual history no doubt resonates more with a mainstream audience following actor Alec Baldwin’s hyped airplane removal for playing the game.

So now that mobile games are in the romance mix, where do you see the next great social media love story originating from?

Article source: http://mashable.com/2012/01/06/words-with-friends-marriage/

Worst Online Dating Username Ever

I guess I feel badly for this guy because I’m trying to hide his identity… but only somewhat. I logged into OKCupid to find this staring at me on the home page like he’s some sort of featured guy. What caught my eye fairly quickly was his username.

This reminds me of when I try to tell my clients that their logo or slogan is trying to be too many things at the same time. This guy’s online dating username is trying to convey WAY too many ideas that should NEVER be this close together.

Sure, he might be a great Dad! Sure, he might be born in 1969. Sure, he might like the double entendre of 69 since I see it just about every day in online dating usernames. However, let’s please NOT put “69″ after “Dad.” They just shouldn’t go together, especially when you read it as “one great Dad 69.” No no no no no. FAIL.

Like It? Share It!

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Article source: http://brassflowers.com/worst-online-dating-usename-ever/