eHarmony Blog.comAt around 1:29 this morning (February 11), eHarmony served its two billionth match. eHarmony’s match ID turned two billion and I have two emails that prove it. That’s the number of pairings the system has made since it started off circa August 2000.
eHarmony hit the first billion milestone on September 22, 2008. 507 days = 1.97 million matches per day.
Dr. Warren’s Message: Guidelines to Open Communication 31 seconds ago
Q&A: Joining eharmony from outside north america? 1 minute, 2 seconds ago
eHarmony Japan, live or not soon? 1 minute, 23 seconds ago
Compatible Partners really wants you to answer a survey 1 minute, 27 seconds ago
How to get a refund from eHarmony (The Complete Procedure) 1 minute, 30 seconds agoeHarmony: 2 billion served?
Uhhhh!
It is clearly an indicator of the low quality of the service!!!
And consistent with:
Use eHarmony or any other site like Chemistry, Parship, Be2, Meetic, etc performing mostly as a Compatibility Matching Algorithm and you will see [on average] a member receives 3 or 4 prospective matches as highly compatible for dating purposes per 1,000 (one thousand) members screened in exactly the same range of searching on one’s own and mutual filtering methods.
A high quality serious online dating site with compatibility matching should reach no more than;
48 most compatible persons in a 10,000,000 persons database.
So any person will be effectively matched with no more than 48 others and the matching system will not pass more than 480 million matches in a 10,000,000 persons database.
The only way to achieve that is:
- using the 16PF5 normative personality test, available in different languages to assess personality of members, or a proprietary test with exactly the same traits of the 16PF5. The ensemble of the 16PF5 is: 10E16, big number as All World Population is nearly 6.7 * 10E9
(WorldWide, there are over 5,000 -five thousand- online dating sites, but no one is using the 16PF5)
- expressing compatibility with eight decimals, like The pattern 6.7.6.8.9.6.7.7.8.7.2.5.8.7.3.4 is 92.55033557% +/- 0.00000001% similar to the pattern 7.7.6.8.8.7.6.5.8.7.4.5.7.7.3.4
Using a quantized pattern comparison method (part of pattern recognition by cross-correlation) to calculate similarity between prospective mates.
That is the only way to revolutionize the Online Dating Industry.
All other proposals are ………….. NOISE
Regards,
Fernando Ardenghi.
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
ardenghifer@gmail.com
So, for every 10 million people there are in a database, I should ideally be matched to no more than 48 individuals? So, if the entire population of the US was in eHarmony (~330 million) … 33*48 = 1584 matches.
So far, I’ve been matched to ~2500. Something here does not add up. 
48 most compatible persons in a 10,000,000 persons database. This mean that 9,999,952 do not get matches. And probably there are 24 couples since there are two in match. But it is ridiculous. Because these 10mill people are not in one area. So what does it prove. I may be compatiable with someone in the North Poole but it doesn’t do me any good if iam in Texas and not a jet setter. Still sounds like the odd of winning a lottery. Just think how many people buy a lottery ticket and never win. GEEZ
“48 most compatible persons in a 10,000,000 persons database. This mean that 9,999,952 do not get matches”
No, this is an incorrect statement/interpretation. It means that out of 10 million people in a database, you should only be matched to 48 of those. Read Fernando’s post again.
.So any person will be effectively matched with no more than 48 others and the matching system will not pass more than 480 million matches in a 10,000,000 persons database.
HE TALKS LIKE 10 MIL IS CULiMATIVE AND THE TOP FIGURE. I THINK HIS STATEMENT COULD INTERPRETED EITHER WAY.
Perhaps he should have said that in a data base of 48 mill, 10 mill people will get matches of 48. However in the above he talk like it is a data base of 10 mill. It could be intterpreted either way. Sorry this is clear as mud.
By the way this is the problem with mathematicans they do not talk in every day layman or lay person terms. I think the figure are relatively high any way and reality does not bear them out.
I meant to say that in a data base 480mill, 10 mill people will get matches of 48. So the data base is really 480 mill wtih 10,mil of them getting 48 matches. That is the only way it makes sense to me. I suppose I am suppose to read in between the lines. But, I am not mathematican.
And if you wanted to go further you would say that 5mill would be males getting matches and 5 mills would be females getting matches. That is how it makes sense to me. That is not how is was presented but it makes sense.
So 10 mil people got 48 mill in a year maybe that is 4 a month. Even if that is true, it doesn’t mean they hit it off with 48 matches. So what!
I meant get 48 matches in a year.
If eHarmony, a nationwide advertiser, only creates 1.97M matches a day, it only means that less than a million member accounts are receiving 2 matches a day.
On the other hand, if 200,000 members receive 6 matches today, those already counts towards two-thirds of today’s supply of matches.
If any, this means eHarmony is better than another website who sends 20 million “here are your new set of matches today” emails daily.
Just a different perspective.
Yeah, I know, I know, 236 marriages divided by 1.97 matches gives you odds of 8357 to 1.
Hello!
I want to clarify the paragraph “So any person will be effectively matched with no more than 48 others and the matching system will not pass more than 480 million matches in a 10,000,000 persons database.”
The explanation is a bit long but quite interesting.
If you check any online dating site performing as a Powerful Searching Engine, you will discover [on average] a person (mostly men) will strongly like 3 or 4 prospective mates per 100 (one hundred) members or 30 to 40 prospective mates per 1,000 (one thousand) members screened, then that person will send messages to them an only [on average] 10% will strongly like (mostly women) and reply to the person who initiated the contact.
Searching on one’s own is in the range [on average] of 3 or 4 prospective mates who search and select to each other per 1,000 members screened.
In a 10,000,000 women database, a man will have a list with a number ranging from 30,000 to 40,000 women to contact. Impossible to handle.
Searching on one’s own is a low efficiency method.
If you check an online dating site performing as a Bidirectional Recommendation Engine (Matching based on Self-Reported Data by personal preferences & likes and dislikes) you will discover [on average] a member receives 3 or 4 prospective mates as recommended for dating purposes per 1,000 (one thousand) members screened in exactly the same range of searching on one’s own.
In a 10,000,000 women database, a man will have a list with a number ranging from 30,000 to 40,000 women as recommended prospective mates. Impossible to handle.
All type of Recommendation Engines are low efficiency methods
If you check an online dating site performing as a Compatibility Matching Algorithm (those sites are mostly using different versions of the Big5 normative personality test as its core) and you will discover [on average] a member receives 3 or 4 prospective matches as highly compatible for dating purposes per 1,000 (one thousand) members screened in exactly the same range of searching on one’s own and mutual filtering methods.
In a 10,000,000 women database, a man will have a list with a number ranging from 30,000 to 40,000 women as highly compatible for dating purposes.
Suppose
U.S eHarmony could have an over 40,000,000 persons database since year 2000.
20,000,000 men database and 20,000,000 women database
but suppose active members are only 500,000 men database and 500,000 women database
(active members, persons who used eHarmony at least once in last 3 months)
In a 500,000 women database, a man will have a list with a number ranging from 1,500 to 2,000 women as highly compatible for dating purposes.
That list come from the Compatibility Matching Algorithm based on personality similarity with the Big5 normative personality test for the United States and Dyadic Adjustment Scale (invented by Dr. Graham B. Spanier in 1976) as its core. The Guided Communication Process (a mutual filtering step) is an appendix of its main matching algorithm to narrow the number ranging from 1,500 to 2,000.
eHarmony serves 1.97 million matches per day. It is like a machine gun shooting flowers, good for nothing.
—————————————————————————-
During 2003 I had discovered “the online dating sound barrier” for Compatibility Matching Algorithms. They only use different versions of the Big5 or other proprietary models instead (like Chemistry or PerfectMatch) to measure personality traits. They are all like placebo, because they have less or at least the same precision as searching on one’s own. [in the range of 3 or 4 persons compatible per 1,000 persons screened]
Breaking “the online dating sound barrier” is to achieve far better precision than searching on one’s own or mutual filtering.
Breaking “the online dating sound barrier” is to achieve at least:
3 most compatible persons in a 100,000 persons database.
12 most compatible persons in a 1,000,000 persons database.
48 most compatible persons in a 10,000,000 persons database.
100 times better than Compatibility Matching Algorithms used by actual online dating sites!
In a 10,000,000 women database, any man will have a list with the 48 most compatible women for him.
Sample email for men
“Over 10,000,000 million women database, here is the list of 48 women more compatible with you.
Please notice that woman#1 is the most compatible with you but she could be more compatible with other men right now.
woman#01 is 95.58476277% compatible
woman#02 is 95.56224356% compatible
woman#03 is 95.52998273% compatible
woman#04 is 94.18354278% compatible
woman#05 is 93.00453871% compatible
woman#06 is 93.00007524% compatible
…………………
…………………
…………………
woman#46 is 89.17359887% compatible
woman#47 is 89.10515556% compatible
woman#48 is 88.97349558% compatible”
The only way to achieve that and improve the online dating efficiency is:
- with the 16PF5 normative personality test, available in different languages to assess personality of members, or a proprietary test with exactly the same traits of the 16PF5.
- Using a quantized pattern comparison method (part of pattern recognition by cross-correlation) to calculate similarity between prospective mates.
———————
Regards,
Fernando Ardenghi.
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
ardenghifer@gmail.com
The whole thing gives me a headache. How often do those 10mill person get their 48 matches. Once a day year, month. And even if you do it doesn’t mean that the matches will work. IT an exercise in futility in my book. I suppose I should study this but why. In the terms and conditions they even state that they do not guarantee compatibility.
What you are saying is some customers are more compatible in large groups than others. But in populatons groups you come up with it is meaningless unless you apply that to certain geographic area. I used to hear that when I was at eHarmony. Well there are not many people that are compatible with you in your area. There are other variable like how many customer acutally joined and so forth. I am not sure that their test in compatilbity is on the mark. The problem is if a person is in another geographic area they might be more compatible supposedly if you give their personality test that much creditbility. Since I am idealistic a lot of customer aren’t maybe if I was in blue state with a lot of libleral deep thinkers I might match up. However, it is not that simple, I still think chemistry come first, ineteest second and compatilbility distant third and so it goes. And eHarmony was a cold uncaring company to me. And so it goes. I still like to know how long customers in that data get 48 or less matches.
Suppose a new paying member joins U.S. eHarmony right now; a man, John Doe.
U.S. eHarmony is a very big online dating site intended for serious daters.
U.S. eHarmony could had screened over 40,000,000 persons since year 2000.
20,000,000 men database and 20,000,000 women database
but suppose active members are only 500,000 men and 500,000 women
(active members, persons who used eHarmony at least once in last 3 months)
What will John Doe expect from U.S. eHarmony?
The list of 24 most compatible women for him, extracted from a 500,000 women database,
AND NOT
matches from eHarmony’s matching algorithm performing as a powerful machine gun shooting flowers.
Regards,
Fernando Ardenghi.
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
ardenghifer@gmail.com
Intended for serious have you read the “navigating the one night stand” or what guy wrote about staying with someone strictly because she it hot.
As for your scenario I don’t know he won’t be out there alone for long. However, the numbers are probably uneven which shows how ridiculous this is anyway. Unless you control the numbers.
(active members, persons who used eHarmony at least once in last 3 months)
In a 500,000 women database, a man will have a list with a number ranging from 1,500 to 2,000 women as highly compatible for dating purposes.
Well this is your answer and even if someone buys this scenario. It wouldn’t work unless they are in the same geographical area(unless there jet setters) and there is some chemistry. Maybe in California. When are these matches divided out. I don’t know now the whole thing is academic.
I might add I think the ideal is far fetched.
Furthermore, if you do the math further. Let’s take the 1500 figure divide that by 12 you get around 125 matches a month with around 31 a week. Gee even Hugh Heffner doesn’t even have those odds. Again you have to look at chemistry location and interests. I will agree that maybe the more you have as compatible the more likelyyou will maybe end up with someone. But geographically those matches could be all over the US and even into Canada and beyond. The whole think is academic and like arguing about how many Angels can dance on a pinhead. And again I do not necessarily think that eHarmony has only serious daters looking for a long term relationship. I think the more upbeat you are the better chances you can pass their personality profile. And upbeat individuals probably are hedonsitc( not all but a lot) and so it goes.
In addition, to chemistry and interests you have to takeag into account. It maybe that a 65 year old woman maybe compatible with a 25 year old man. That in my book doesn’t work. Granted old men married women young enough to be their grand daughter. But they are men like Davud Leterman and Larry King or they are rich. So, all these variable are a part of matching that in mybook can not b programed by personality tests are anythings. Because there are too many variables.
Most women unless they are rich probably are not going to married men a lot younger. I have been told that some men like older women. Yes maybe to have a fling with. But to marry I doubt it. There may be exception but they are probably few.
(Photo credit) 
Do you like this article? Post a comment on Facebook