In the third installment of Reviews you can Use! [tm], I discuss a subject near and dear to my heart: dating over the Inter-web. As we all know, the potato is the king of the vegetable kingdom, and thus is the best standard for excellence (listen well, Oakland Raiders. I’m not saying a gigantic potato mascot will make you an unstoppable juggernaught, but let’s face it, you need all the help you can get). Thus, each service is rated on several categories, from one to five potatoes. I only give addresses for the two free ones because they deserve free publicity; the others can pay me. It’s not that hard to figure out anyway.
eHarmony
I have been a member of eHarmony the longest of the services I have subscribed to. It is the most advertised, and does have certain strengths most other websites do not. However, it is also quite expensive and until recently provided a limited number of matches.
How you’re matched: Through a series of tests, used to determine your profile, combined with attributes you select. The initial personality profile is very rigorous and can take some time to complete.
Quality of matching system: 
. This is one of the strongest attributes of eHarmony; most of the matches are very strong fits. I can’t think of a single match I rejected strictly because I thought we were too far apart in the important stuff. I initially had issues with quantity (two to three matches per month), but with flexible matching, it’s a lot easier to find matches.
Likelihood/quality of responses: . This is somewhat problematic, as only subscribers can talk to subscribers. If you can get out of the first stage of questions, you generally get to Open Communication. I do like the response system, it’s just impossible to tell who is a subscriber and who is not.
Site design: . I love the site’s interface. Absolutely fantastic. It’s very intuitive and not overly burdened.
Site features: . No IM feature cripples the potential of this site. I believe once you arrive in Open Communication, you should be able to instant message people. This is a severe shortcoming.
Cost vs. quality: . Yeah, it’s 59.95 a month (usually), but there are all sorts of special offers you can get once you subscribe. The problem is the site is useless unless you subscribe. The matches you get are usually good, but they are often very far away.
Number of dates resulting from service: 0.
Number of girls I got to open communication with: 5.
Number I’m still talking to: 0.
True.com
While the most successful service in terms of quantity of dates for me, I absolutely abhor this system. I’ll explain why at the end.
How you’re matched: There’s a sex test and a match test, but those are guidelines. You pretty much do the matching yourself.
Quality of matching system: . Most people don’t take either test, and the self-matching is very tedious because it’s based on the tests. You essentially do all the work. Picture standards on the site are atrocious. The only reason it even gets one potato is because of the rigorous check for felons and married people. On the other hand, that’s also an invasion of privacy. Screw it. No potatoes for you, matching system!
Likelihood/quality of responses: . While there are no real ways to break the ice (unlike the helpful question system of eHarmony) and you can’t talk to non-subscribers, there generally aren’t many BS responses either. I really dislike, however, that there’s no vetting process; you often get people who haven’t viewed the site in a couple of years as matches.
Site design: . There’s just too much clutter. Links bleed out of boxes, and the feature to clear the people who have viewed your profile doesn’t work.
Site features: . If you prefer to meet through chat rooms, True is a great site for you. If you don’t, it’s kind of limited, also lacking an IM feature.
Cost vs. quality: – . Thats right, a negative potato. The site is initally $39.99 a month. They try to keep you by giving you reduced rates and free months; however, when they charged me twice, they charged me for a full month at the higher price and also charged me a refund fee when they “removed” it. In the end, I ended up paying more than full price.
Total number of dates: 2.
American Singles
An interesting site I just never bothered to subscribe to. It didn’t seem worth it, in the end, but I could see why people would use it. The chicks are very attractive, I must admit.
How you’re matched: You give it general parameters, which the site follows, but the really innovative part is the “ClickIt” system. Basically, for each match, if you both click “Yes”, you get an e-mail saying you both picked yes. It’s a really ingenious way of introducing people.
Quality of matching system: . I do like the matching system, even though it didn’t get many results. However, there are issues with haphazard matches, including one male for me. It will occasionally give you matches way outside your age range and geographic area, too.
Likelihood/quality of responses: . It’s just too hard to respond without being a subscriber. You can be hot-listed, and occasionally picked up through the ClickIt system (never happened for me), but that’s about it. The only person I met on the site left her Yahoo name on her profile; this is no longer an option.
Site design: . Very clean, very intuitive. The ClickIt system is occasionally cumbersome, making you go through matches you’ve already had, which knocks it down a couple of potatoes.
Site features: . This site is pretty feature-poor. The IM feature is there, but just barely. However, the huge variety of ways you can respond to somebody without subscribing is simply fantastic. Most just give you a basic “hi!” message; there are literally about thirty options here. You still can’t communicate, but the idea of multiple ways to tell her your interested is really clever.
Cost vs. quality: n/a. I never subscribed to this site, so I can’t say how useful it would be.
Number of dates: 0.
Plenty of Fish (www.plentyoffish.com)
I was referred to this site by the girl I talked to from American Singles. I initially loved this site, and it still holds a special place in my heart, but it’s honestly not the greatest site.
How you’re matched: Initially, the matching seems pretty poor, until you realize the messaging restrictions. You set who can and cannot initially message you (you can message whoever you want, provided you meet THEIR messaging restrictions).
Quality of matches: . You pretty much only get matched by age and location. It’s not so much that the matching is bad, but that it doesn’t really exist.
Likelihood/quality of responses: . It’s easy to get a hold of people, but for the most part, people don’t respond. If they do, though, you usually get pretty good conversations.
Site design: . Not very flashy, but a solid site. The matches are sometimes counter intuitive, but IMing is especially easy to use.
Site features: . Message boards, a working IM client, and e-mail. Probably the best site in terms of easy to use features.
Cost vs. quality: . It’s free, which is good, and there are lots of people on it. However, you have to match most of them yourselves, and given how long it can take to get responses (one girl responded about two months later), it can be problematic.
Number of dates: 1*
* It should have been two, but the $*%&* stood me up.
OK Cupid! (www.okcupid.com)
I found this one through Plenty of Fish, actually. A very, very professional website, and best of all, it’s free. Probably my favorite of the lot, although eHarmony is a close second.
How you’re matched: You can set some pretty robust parameters, but what’s truly unique is the compatibility score. Essentially, you answer a bunch of multiple choice questions. You select your answer, what you’d like them to answer, and how important their answer is to you. The system finds an overlap and tells you how you score.
Quality of matches: . Only eHarmony does it better. If you choose not to go by compatibility scores, you could have some problems, but you get pretty high quality matches through the compatibility system.
Likelihood/quality of response: . There are enough ways to contact somebody that if you want it bad enough, you’ll find somebody. The quality of response is sometimes poor (occasionally you’ll get a bot), but it’s pretty solid.
Site design: . Given that they cost the same (nothing), OK Cupid looks much more professional than Plenty of Fish. What’s more, it even looks better than True.
Site features: . Tests, journals, IM, message boards, lots of accessible features. The cream of the crop.
Cost vs. quality: . The best of the bunch. It’s free, but you get a lot more than free. If eHarmony were also free, it would be the better site, but since it isn’t, OK Cupid wins. Congratulations!
Number of dates: 0.
Note: All of these sites are based from the perspective of a biased male (me). If you want a female perspective, there are lots of other sites on the Inter-web that can help you with that.
