…but depending on your perspective/goals, do not initiate/respond to new communication with matches during the free event…
[One can read the emphasized sentences for the executive summary...]
I believe that if you turning matching off, you will end up devaluing your subscription by losing out on matches in the long runbecause eHarmony is based on a fixed period of time (we pay to use the service for a time period and not by each match, like Rewarding Love or other services).
If you leave matching off:
During the free event, you are not receiving any new matches. No rapid back and forth responses to communicate to non-paying members. Your life is nice and easy as you only are dealing with paying members from before the weekend sending you communications (or ones that have lapsed in the interim and still want to try and communicate).
I agree with all of this...
EXCEPT!!!!
If it is a "Free GUIDED Communication Event", then none of the above apply, and in fact, there is absolutely NOTHING to be gained by having Matching turned on. …
The ad doesn’t say “Free Guided Communication Event” so this one may not be as awful as the 10-day event last Jul 23-Aug 1. Then again, as of today, we’re not sure.
UPDATE: It’s a Free GUIDED Communication Event. That’s it, folks, nothing new to see here.
Paid members, get ready to nudge your matches on Thursday and move them along communication until Sunday. Free members, get ready to sneak in your email address and meet the love of your life free-of-charge.
Get ready to turn your matching on (or off, depending on how you look forward to these things).
eHarmony Blog is on your side. If you have a complaint with eHarmony and you have trouble getting through customer service, let us know. If so, Do not forget to give your eHarmony account email address and do not forget to give us permission to chase eHarmony on your behalf.
Here is last month’s supply of consumer complaints against eHarmony posted on the leading gripe website ConsumerAffairs.com, plus our comments. Some of this month’s complaints are valid and justified, thus highlighted, while the rest are “buyer beware — read the fine print” or may be resolved with a call to customer service.
No, we are not eHarmony, we just like to help out or comment. If you have an opinion as well, post them at the end of the article.
Our website logs show that eHarmony staff read the September issue of “EHB, on your side” at least eight times last month. Continue Reading »
Have an opinion? Post a comment
wrote
I have signed up for U.S. and Ireland and I have 7 matches...7 matches.
For 50 dollars a month there should be more then 7 matches or maybe a discount if less people are signed up for my age group. It seems like a total rip-off for the older generation because there are no matches and you have alre …
Has anyone else started to see an increasing number of matches on eHarmony that are closing their accounts after only being on the service a very short time (less than a week)? I have been seeing a couple a week that go straight from being matched with me to closing their accounts out. Certainly, they came to see what the service is like and decided against it (there’s just no way they could have met “the one” THAT quickly? This can’t be good for eHarmony’s overall “we have this many members” numbers. I wonder if they do any sort of data mining to examine behavior/patterns of early account closers to try to avoid losing them as being part of the matching pool?
Of course, what is annoying is eHarmony STILL has not fixed the “bug” where these closed matches don’t end up in the archived tab (which is where they belong). You still have to occasionally go through all of your communicating matches to find them…
Around 43051 marriages (and counting) were matched through eHarmony since March 2, 2005. Around 1337 members married today. - Harris Interactive (Caveat)
I agree with all of this... EXCEPT!!!! If it is a "Free GUIDED Communication Event", then none of the above apply, and in fact, there is absolutely NOTHING to be gained by having Matching turned on. …
Respond to ScottK »