Talk:Online dating/Archives/2017

Graphics on dating websites per country
Hello, I added the graphics about the biggest dating websites per country last June. Could you tell me whether you find them usefull ? Thank you for your constructive comments. Hippo75 (talk) 11:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't find them useful. I don't think either of those websites have verifiable data, and the images are taking up too much space in the article. I think a list or comparison page would be better suited to provide information about these dating services. vortexcube (talk) 05:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer they were removed. MyWOT.com is not a reliable source as it bases its ratings largely on user-submitted opinion which can be manipulated. K7L (talk) 16:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Take these ugly things off asap! They are WP:OR and alexa is not a reliable source. Abductive  (reasoning) 15:50, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't find them useful it talks about article mostly Celine kanawi (talk) 04:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Finding scammers on line
I have found a scammer on Zoosk dating site know as I have been scammed on this site before I reported this scammer but he is still on line what should I do next — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.103.245 (talk) 16:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * This talkpage is only for discussing and improving the Wikipedia article Online dating service itself, not for general discussions and questions (see info on top of this page). We can't give such advice here. Please consult a lawyer or other qualified authorities to help you with this issue. GermanJoe (talk) 17:06, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Plans to improve this page up to Wikipedia's standards
Hello to the Wikipedia community members watching this page,

We wanted to let you know that we are planning on editing this article in the next couple of days. We are two PhD students in a class on social computing (users VerySirius and FauxNeme). We are not associated with any dating sites, nor is our research on this topic, so we are impartial and unbiased editors. Our intent is to increase the quality of the article and bring it up to Wikipedia’s standards. Here is our critique of the article, including our editorial plans. Please let us know if you have any concerns, so that we can pre-empt unnecessary work for all of us. Thanks for helping us improve this page!

Style and organization: The introduction to an article is the most important part, and we think that this introduction is scattered and would benefit from a re-write. We won’t delete any of the core information, but we will rearrange some of the information to improve the flow and style. There are several notes throughout the article that state that sections need restructuring, clean-up, or removal of original research. We want to combine sections that belong together and present information in a more concise and cogent manner.

Citation quality: Most of the the references on this page do not meet Wikipedia’s citation standards. (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources) Most sources are popular entertainment/news/radio sites, personal blogs, and even dissertations, i.e. unacceptable. Only a small subset of the references are from peer-reviewed journals, books and verifiable sources. Furthermore, the links do not work for all of the citations. We intend to remove poor quality and broken citations, in addition to their corresponding “facts” to improve the article’s quality. We may also remove information that contains no citation or add the tag when appropriate, in order to maintain verifiability. (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability) Irrelevant Information: The article is interspersed with anecdotal references from news sites (even reliable sources). These are not relevant for an encyclopedia-style description of the topic, so we propose to remove them to clean up the article and make it more professional.

Neutrality:The article is not neutral due to the presence of references to blogs of commercial online dating services such as POF.com and OkCupid. Also, the article has a negative view of the topic and numerous reports of negative impacts (from unverifiable sources) are reported. This bias is not noted. We will note the presence of controversy and include verifiable examples, and attempt to present information in a less biased manner.

Completeness: There are emergent modalities of online dating (i.e. howaboutwe.com and tinder.com) that could be described in order to present a more thorough scoping of what online dating means in today’s world. We will describe how the online dating paradigm is expanding to include geo-based or activities-based mechanisms. FauxNeme (talk) 01:50, 30 March 2017 (UTC) and VerySirius (talk) 01:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Update: We have done a good deal of editing and the page is much much cleaner than it was before. For future editors: We think this article could benefit from the addition of a more in-depth and unbiased history or timeline of the emergence of the online dating paradigm, along with more thorough descriptions of how this form of dating is evolving. We might do a little bit more work to add in such descriptions. Please make sure that if you edit this page, you add only impartial, factual edits so that the page doesn't get so messy again in the future! Thanks! FauxNeme (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)