Plentyoffish Not In Danger Of Over Fishing

MASHABLE -- Dec 21 -- Plentyoffish.com boasts 900k active daily members and one solo developer and is actually gaining market share and distancing itself from seasoned competitors with full staffs and fancy websites like Match.com and eHarmony. Plentyoffish's US monthly market share in the dating category continues to rise, now 17%, while Match and eHarmony have only managed to amass 3 - 5% market share. According to Frind's Plentyoffish blog, not only is Plentyoffish the top dating site in the US and the UK, but it's continuing to see steady signups in December, a month that Frind observes normally sees a 30% decrease. FULL ARTICLE @ MASHABLE        

Mark Brooks: In this economy, no wonder. Your comments please. (Full Disclosure: POF is a client of Courtland Brooks)

See all posts on Plentyoffish

Comments

[Fernando Ardenghi]

From
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/politics/story.html?id=6ea70f26-747a-45b2-a111-671de5b398d8&k=44884&p=2p=2

"He works two hours a day and makes as much as USD$10 million a year."
............
"Everyone lies about what they want, or they don't know what they want," he says. "I look at who they're messaging, not what they're saying."
............
"I'm driven. It's just fun winning. I feel like I'm playing a video game. There's always another level."

1) PlentyofFish, as OKCupid and others pretend to be free online dating sites, but they are not.
Their members had been and are paying with ...... precious time.
Spending time browsing profiles could be more expensive than paying a serious online dating subscription fee.

2) PlentyofFish has over 120 employees, people who have moderating powers in the Plentyoffish forum, with no salaries.

3) PlentyofFish tried to be the next free_eHarmony, and after more than a year of the PlentyofFish Relationship Chemistry Predictor what really happened?
Nothing. Complete fiasco. It was like using a cannon to shoot flowers.

From http://www.plentyoffish.com/personality_faq.aspx
"6. How does the CP matching algorithm work?
The mechanics of the CP are proprietary, and its success in creating online dating partners will soon be published in an academic journal together with outcome data from actual daters. "

Is there any Scientifc Paper peer_reviewed showing the PlentyofFish Relationship Chemistry Predictor matches persons who will have more stable and satisfying relationships than couples matched by chance, astrological destiny, personal preferences, searching on one's own, or other typical type of compatibility test (like Wilson & Cousins) as the control group; with low 'divorce rates' (e.g. after 2, 5, 10 years of 'marriage'). ?????????

When the brains behind that test are going to publish?

PlentyofFish Relationship Chemistry Predictor: 3 mistakes

I) PlentyofFish Relationship Chemistry Predictor based on a "46-item relationship test that assesses individuals' standing on five broad dimensions of personality."

From the 16PF5 test manual
......
Because the Big Five groups the more specific primary-level factors, feedback organized around the five Global Factor scales is more easily understood. For detailed feedback or predictive purposes, one should assess the more specific primary factors. Research has shown that more specific factors like the primary scales of the 16PF Questionnaire predict actual behavior better than the Big 5 Global Factors. For example, one extravert (a bold, fearless, high-energy type) may differ considerably from another (a sweet, warm, sensitive type), depending on the extraversion-related primary scale score patterns.
........

II) failed on how to validate the test. "Validation of the POFCP was done using a national sample of individuals with the same demographic characteristics as members of the PlentyofFish community" /// "the only tool of its kind to match you to people worldwide"

The brains behind that test should have constructed and validated a different test for different languages and countries, like:
* English for Australia and the Norm for Australia (sample of individuals with the same demographic characteristics of Australia).
* English for Canada and the Norm for Canada (sample of individuals with the same demographic characteristics of Canada).
* English for India and the Norm for India (sample of individuals with the same demographic characteristics of India).
* English for South Africa and the Norm for South Africa (sample of individuals with the same demographic characteristics of South Africa).
* English for the United Kingdom and the Norm for the United Kingdom (sample of individuals with the same demographic characteristics of the United Kingdom).
* English for the United States and the Norm for the United States (sample of individuals with the same demographic characteristics of the United States).
* Portuguese for Portugal and the Norm for Portugal (sample of individuals with the same demographic characteristics of Portugal).
* Portuguese of Brazil and the Norm for Brazil (sample of individuals with the same demographic characteristics of Brazil).
* German for Germany and the Norm for Germany (sample of individuals with the same demographic characteristics of Germany)
* French for France and the Norm for France (sample of individuals with the same demographic characteristics of France)
* Spanish for Spain and the Norm for Spain (sample of individuals with the same demographic characteristics of Spain)
* Spanish for Mexico and the Norm for Mexico (sample of individuals with the same demographic characteristics of Mexico)
* Spanish for Latin America and the Norm for Latin America (sample of individuals with the same demographic characteristics of Latin America)
and so on, so on.

III) failed on how to calculate "similarity" between prospectives mates.

Regards,

Fernando Ardenghi.
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
[email protected]