eHarmony Blog.comThe TV ads premiered last night. In case you feel sorry for these people, for your information they are all actors.
And by the way, Chemistry.com launched a counterpart to eHarmony’s eHarmony Labs “Hot Science Blog” called “The Great Mate Debate” last 23 April, twelve days after eHL-HSB’s launch. The blogs tackle similar topics, but their personalities are almost opposite!
P.S. For those asking, eHarmony Blog has an answer to “Your question answered: Why eHarmony rejected you”.
A better tagline might be “Chemistry.com – A Place Just For People With Issues”.
(sarcasm mode on)
Oh yes. Can I please pay money to be matched to people who don’t meet eHarmony’s minimal standards? PLEEEEAAASSSSEEEEE?????
(sarcasm mode off)
When I read “The Great Mate Debate” the first time, I misunderstood “The Great MEAT Debate”
Did you notice the TWO stages?
1 Stage: Dr. Helen Fisher was the only expert and they were promoting the “1 – 2 – 3 – Meet in Person”
http://www.whatischemistry.com/media/images/123MeetHR_013006_jp.pdf
“During a process known as 1 – 2 – 3 – Meet, a member first reads specific written responses of five potential matches presented to them by the company; next the member interacts via the Internet with one or more of these individuals whom they find interesting; then, if two members express interest in one another, they meet in person, generally in a coffee house for twenty minutes of verbal exchange. After this first meeting, each member is then requested to return to the Internet site and report on the degree of romantic attraction he/she feels for the individual he/she just met.”
Unfortunately that process only reported early stage attraction between prospective mates and it seems after the first meeting; in some persons attraction reduces its level OR worse even morphs / metamorphoses to rejection!!!
2 Stage: There are more experts and they rename the “1 – 2 – 3 – Meet in Person” to promote:
* The You Part
Our Personality Profile captures your essential truths and goals, so we can find someone to spark a magical combination.
* The Matching Part
We’ll send you up to five free matches with the potential to trigger chemistry every day. They’re based on the latest science of what creates powerful attraction, thanks to our expert Dr. Helen Fisher.
“up to five free matches …. every day” —> HERE IS THE FIRST MISTAKE
They are probably using a simple/multiple_regression relationship_satisfaction_equation; the whole precision is less than you could had achieved searching by your own!
* The Email Part
Our Guided Communications Process (more fun than it sounds) lets you fly past that awkward get to know you stage so you can see if there’s a basis to move forward, or move on.
* The Date Part
It’s time for the chemistry check. If there is, we pop the champagne at Chemistry HQ. If not, tell us what fizzled and the system actually learns.
“the system actually learns.” —> HERE IS THE OTHER MISTAKE, because common sense indicates persons do not want to be part of an experiment involving feelings!
“And that’s how we’re not just different. But better. ”
—> When is Chemistry going to publish serious scientific evidence (scientific papers) proving that its matching method works as it is expected: fall in love and stay in love: long term romantic relationship ?
—> … development and validation of online compatibility testing and disclosing those findings for public and academic scrutiny without divulging proprietary information…
Same as WeAttract!!!!
Have you noticed that WeAttract.com’s tests (launched during 2003 by Match.com with bells, whistles, horns and drums; and discretely buried during 2004, now used in YahooPersonals) have:
great precision to measure what a person is looking for (a point in a scale in different personality factors of the desired partner) but low precision to measure that person’s own variables (a shadowed bar in a scale in different personality factors)?
WeAttract.com also tried to tune/synthesize its matching algorithm asking tests takers “what they are looking for” and after some preliminary matches were delivered to them, use the feedback provided by them to adjust its matching equation. They failed because they used the Big 7 traits in a multiple_regression relationship_satisfaction_equation and prospective mates noticed that the whole precision is less than they could had achieved searching by their own!!!
If eHarmony plans to reach the IPO (Initial Public Offering), eHarmony’s Team should substantiate the matching algorithm == Scientific Papers Available (“…development and validation of online compatibility testing and disclosing those findings for public and academic scrutiny without divulging proprietary information….”) When eHarmony is going to publish serious scientific evidence (papers) proving that its matching method works as it is expected: fall in love and stay in love: long term romantic relationship ?
Kindest Regards,
Fernando Ardenghi.
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
xxxxxxxxxx@gmail.com
Well Eliot and Scott,
You seem to be the rude jerks that eHarmony treasures so much- did you ever consider that it might be you with the “issues”. Match/Chemistry should be complimented for bringing attention to this thinly disguised right wing system. My friend who got in their system (but got nothing but rejection messages because he was short) said that eHarmony has more “losers” than any system he has seen. I’d rather have any of those women than the pathetic people in the eHarmony ads.
Rob Gordon
-an eHarmony reject- and proud of it.
Hey Rob – I have more issues than Time Magazine; you can’t out-issue me… 
Rejection isn’t fun, and I wish eHarmony could find a way not to do what it does quite that way, and I’m sorry that you took my comment personally.
If I’m putting down anything, it’s Chemistry.com, which isn’t offering a service that stands on its own as a compelling value to singles, so it feels obligated to tear down all the good stuff eHarmony is doing. One of the reasons I use eHarmony is because it lets me specify my religious preferences in detail. Since values are such an important part of compatibility, the absence of features like this on almost all the other popular sites tells me that they haven’t put any real thought at all into finding me the right person, and that their sole interest is in my money. eHarmony is just as much a for-profit enterprise as all the others, but it’s little differences like the one I mentioned that tell me that they believe in “doing well by doing good” rather than just profiteering, and that’s why I fork over billions of pesos to them at every opportunity.
I would imagine that the hot:loser ratio is about the same across all dating sites – the difference is mainly in the type of loser. AdultFriendfinder.com will have more “live for empty one night stands” losers than eHarmony, while eHarmony wins in the “desparate for marriage and willing to pay through the nose” losers category. Chemistry.com sounds like it is aiming to balance towards the losers who are eHarmony rejects.
Good luck finding the one for you, and do let us all know the upsides/downsides of Chemistry.com.
Just $0.02 from a “desparate for marriage and willing to pay through the nose” loser… 
Sorry if I touched a nerve, Rob. My flippant comment was meant in jest. I meant no personal attack, and I’m glad you’ve found happiness outside of eHarmony.
Now, if you want to talk about the ideas behind eHarmony’s rejections, I think you’d have some good points. Many of which I’d agree with…
The easiest surefire way to get the rejection message is saying you’re married. That’s it……..wrong! i got rejected and i am not married. i am not a loon and what not. and still i was rejected.
(your comment was taken from http://neverblog.net/why-wont-eharmony-reject-me/
The world is obviously filled with countless varying personality characteristics, wants, and needs. Everyone deserves the opportunity to find a love that is appropriate for them.
A good matching system would not reject people… it would simply match people with other members who are appropriate for them.
eHarmony’s system apparently makes some ludicrous assumptions… and we all know what assuming does to you and me…
Well it seems to me if eHarmony was everything they claim to be then a company like Chemistry or others could not touch them. They reject customers, terminate them without giving then an explanation or due process. Where there is smoke there is fire. And anyway, why shouldn’t there be other date agencies like the above post said since eHarmony obviously is what I consider elitists. To argue that they are better than Chemistry would be like arguing that students who can not get into an Ivy college better pack it in when there are others Ivy League Colleges. And so it goes.
Elitists? Hardly, it has been proven here that they reject Atheists and Agonostics. It is a right-wing Christian site founded by a small minded bigot. I came across some of their ad revenue figures a few weeks ago and they bragged about “the highest payout in the industry” – I believe they said they collect an average of more then $600 from each member. Do you seriously think the want you to find a match – that is the last thing they want. The want your money, plain and simple. eHarmony is a con job and a fraud – please tell your friends to not support it.
Maybe the do not like agnostic or atheists, but there are people who are conservative christian singles who have money. However, I saw a lot of spriritual but not religious and neither spritiual or religious on my matches and they did not seem to be bumping them. I think that they want customers with money and feel they are easier to married off. And people who have money and are in higher paying jobs probably can jet set and easier relocate. BTW I think Warren is just a figure head and probably not that involved anymore in the everyday operation of this cooperation. I could be wrong I do not think so.
(Who are they) 
Do you like this article? Post a comment on Facebook