While we can’t recommend them, we hope we can save you the trouble of experiencing them yourself.
Not into the idea of creating a full-blown dating profile? As opposed to a matching algorithm that evaluates your answers to various questions, Tinder is all about first impressions — your photos are the most prominent part of your profile.
And it’s easy to get started: upload a few snaps from your Facebook profile, add an optional bio, and start swiping through other users in your area.
It organizes in-person events like speed dating, happy hours, and game nights for its members to help accelerate the search for “the one,” and it works — studies have shown it’s one of the top two sites to produce marriages.
(Match.com’s user base is slightly older, too, which may indicate more people who are ready to settle down.) However, Match lacks the robust matching algorithm of Ok Cupid — it came in fourth place for good matches in our testing — and isn’t as streamlined as Tinder or Bumble. We also tested three other sites: e Harmony, Plenty of Fish, and Zoosk.
We still got a few bad messages, but the overall quality was better compared to the traditional dating sites we tested.
Because none of the platforms we tested were exorbitantly priced, we didn’t weigh cost too heavily when ranking them.But almost all of them were suspiciously short, spammy, or just plain rude.Zoosk took it one step further — you’ll pay a monthly subscription for low-quality matches.” and “What do you spend a lot of time thinking about?”) but also lets you rate how important a potential match’s answers to those same questions are.Even though we received fewer messages compared to other sites, we rated 40 percent “good” — the most out of the seven sites we tested.