Match.com $15 million a month on ads.

Match.com spent $145 million between January and October 2007 on  Ads.

http://www.brandweek.com/bw/news/recent_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003687833

Chemistry spending 10’s of millions on attack ads.

Chemistry.com is going after Eharmony again in the media.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/24/business/media/24adcol.html?ref=media

Another Amazing computer dating program from 94…

Between 1988 and  1994 One of the large offline matchmakers created a computer dating application.   Instead of hoarding all this prior art i’ll just throw it out into the open.

http://web.archive.org/web/19970214092831/www.cupidnet.com/snglsrch/more.html
“Professional: The difference between Single Search and other matchmaking services is the software. Our custom-designed, state of the art program matches characteristics, traits and preferences (350 items), then cross-matches to ensure that both parties needs are significantly met. All reported matches must be at 60% or better! This AAA rated system insures that you have a high probability of being in a successful relationship with clients who meet your criteria. When romance blossoms between Single Search clients, its a strong bond. “

More info here  http://web.archive.org/web/19981202203649/http://www.singlesearch.com/Matchmaker.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/19981202013449/www.singlesearch.com/sample.htm    (this company advertised mostly offline)

Also this other site did nearly the same thing to  http://www.computer-dating.com/samplem.shtml

This sounds virtually identical to Bogus Patent 6272467 

Transaction History 08/784,713  of patent 6272467
Date Transaction Description
03-17-2005 Applicant Has Filed a Verified Statement of Small Entity Status in Compliance with 37 CFR 1.27
02-16-2000 Workflow - File Sent to Contractor
08-07-2001 Recordation of Patent Grant Mailed
07-19-2001 Issue Notification Mailed
08-07-2001 Patent Issue Date Used in PTA Calculation
07-01-2001 Application Is Considered Ready for Issue
03-07-2000 Issue Fee Payment Verified
06-23-2001 Withdraw Publication/Pre-Exam Abandon
06-04-2001 Termination of Official Search
06-04-2001 Case Found
06-04-2001 Official Search Conducted
06-04-2001 Case Reported Lost
04-04-2001 Mail Abandonment for Failure to Correct Drawings/Oath
04-04-2001 Abandonment for Failure to Correct Drawings/Oath/NonPub Request
11-27-2000 Mail Miscellaneous Communication to Applicant
11-27-2000 Miscellaneous Communication to Applicant - No Action Count
02-02-2000 Mail Examiner’s Amendment
02-02-2000 Examiner’s Amendment Communication
01-18-2000 Communication - Re: Power of Attorney (PTOL-30
01-03-2000 Mail Notice of Allowance
01-03-2000 Notice of Allowance Data Verification Completed
12-22-1999 Date Forwarded to Examiner
12-16-1999 Amendment after Final Rejection
12-18-1999 Communication - Re: Power of Attorney (PTOL-30
10-12-1999 Mail Final Rejection (PTOL - 326)
10-12-1999 Final Rejection
09-28-1999 Date Forwarded to Examiner
08-30-1999 Continuing Prosecution Application - Continuation (ACPA)
08-30-1999 Mail Express Abandonment (During Examination)
08-30-1999 Express Abandonment (during Examination)
08-30-1999 Request for Extension of Time - Granted
03-02-1999 Mail Final Rejection (PTOL - 326)
03-01-1999 Final Rejection
12-30-1998 Date Forwarded to Examiner
12-17-1998 Response after Non-Final Action
12-17-1998 Request for Extension of Time - Granted
07-17-1998 Mail Non-Final Rejection
07-15-1998 Non-Final Rejection
05-17-1998 Case Docketed to Examiner in GAU
04-18-1997 Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) Filed
04-18-1997 Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) Filed
04-23-1997 Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) Filed
04-23-1997 Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) Filed
04-23-1997 Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) Filed
04-23-1997 Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) Filed
09-13-1997 Case Docketed to Examiner in GAU
05-13-1997 Transfer Inquiry
03-29-1997 Application Captured on Microfilm
02-12-1997 Initial Exam Team nn
 

The next huge site….

Every now and then you come across sites you know are going to become massive…   freerice.com  is one that will be big in the young demographic as schools force students to use it.

Some Lawsuit details.

There are 8 dating sites being sued to date and one of the things being thrown about is a Signed & Sworn Statement from execs of the time is that the main dating site at the time didn’t have or own 2 way matching prior to 1997.

Oh really….

ERIC KLIEN created the following computer dating system that employed 2 way matching.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.personals/msg/a8cbc5fbaa7ecf17?&q=compatibility

Which was then sold to Match.com

http://lifeboat.com/ex/bios.eric.klien

Confirmed here

You can even see him using a match.com email address back in 93.

1992 Online Dating service.

Doing a little digging tonight and I came across this dating service from 1992. Surprising at how not much has changed in the last 15 years. This is a post from 1992 describing a Computer dating service along with technical details and questions. The page is absolutely massive. its a 750 Question Personality test that once done allows you to date. The program then forward and reverse matches profiles and sorts the results by a compatibility score. Electronic Matchmaker(tm) Questionnaire - Draft 6.85

Draft 4.5 contains a nice algo to!

ALGORITHM
The matching algorithm is set up to look at DESIRED MATCH choices
using the following priorities:
“A” for absolutely and “R” for refuse
“Y” for yes and “N” for no
“L” for like and “T” for tolerate
After each step, the algorithm will see how many matches are
available. If only ___ matches are left, the algorithm will stop.
The rate of agreement on matching is checked for both people. If A
matches very well with B, the algorithm still checks to make sure that

B matches very well with A.
After sending in your questionnaire, you will receive a report like

the following:
Of the 52,421 men on the system
1 matched your criteria 90%
25 matched your criteria 60 - 89 %
425 matched your criteria 20 - 59 %
15,149 matched your criteria 5 - 19 %
You can then reply with choices like the following:
SHOW TOP 10 or SHOW TOP 5 or SHOW TOP 1

HOW TO FILL OUT THE QUESTIONNAIRE
In each of the following rating questions:
1) Specify your own attributes by replacing the dash in the appropriate
selection in the SELF column with an X. Use multiple Xs for SELF
where appropriate.

2) Specify whether you wish this attribute in your DESIRED MATCH
by placing a (Y)es, (M)aybe, or (N)o in place of the dash for each
appropriate attribute. If you don’t replace the dash, then your
answer will be interpretted as (M)aybe.

3) If you don’t care about a question, just leave the entire DESIRED

MATCH column blank.

4) For increased precision you may answer (A)bsolutely must match,

(Y)es - want match, (P)refer such a match, (M)aybe,

(T)olerate such a match, (N)o - don’t want match, (R)efuse anyone with this attribute. If you can’t remember all these letters, you may answer with an answer of 1-7 with 1=R, 2=N, 3=T, 4=M, 5=P, 6=Y, and 7=A.

5) If you use the simple Y/M/N method on some questions you may still chose to use the more precise A/P/L/M/T/N/R on other questions. I would highly recommend that you use the “A” and “R” options in the gender and orientation question.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.personals/msg/a8cbc5fbaa7ecf17?&q=compatibility

First Dating/Matchmaking site, wasn’t webpersonals or match.com.

Not that many people have heard of computer-dating.com  but it was the first dating site and compatibility testing site on usenet in 1990(?) and then on  the web Oct 1st  1995.  It was born out of a research project in Isreal .    They were offering 2 way personality and compatibility matching to US users before even the rest of Isreal was even online.  This was also long before Match.com and Webpersonals came along.

http://web.archive.org/web/19961122183517/http://computer-dating.com/faq.shtml

Some interesting stuff from the FAQ in 1996…………………..   I’m sure a few executives will find this VERY INTERESTING.

Q8: Only some of the people which I contacted received me also on THEIR list. Isn’t the compatibility supposed to work both ways?

A8: The compatibility DOES work both ways. So if you fulfill 85% of your date’s expectations and he/she fulfills 89% of yours, both these scores will be taken into account, and they will be the same on your list and on the other person’s list. However, the RELATIVE POSITIONS on your lists can be quite different, so if someone appears in the 3rd place on your list for example, you may appear on his/her list in the 67th place, etc. And if someone appears in your secondary list (the list of persons that fell just because of only 1 question but would have a high score otherwise), you will not appear in his/her list at all. This is why IT IS ALWAYS MORE EFFICIENT TO CONTACT ACTIVELY THE MOST COMPATIBLE DATES ON YOUR LIST THAN TO WAIT FOR THEM TO CONTACT YOU.

Q3: Why are there two columns for the IDEAL mate in the questionnaire?

A3: You use two columns instead of one if you want to emphasize some possibilities more than others IN THE SAME QUESTION. For example, if you want a mate with Post-secondary education or higher but prefer B.A. or M.A., then you fill 1 column for Post-secondary, 2 for B.A and 2 for M.A. If you don’t mind which of these 3 possibilities it will be, then you can either mark 1 column in each of the 3 or 2 columns in each of the 3 - the results will be the same. The use of 2 columns in any question will mean higher preference only if there are other option(s) in that question which you marked with only 1 column. Another example - if you want Blondes or Red hair but prefer Blondes, then mark 2 columns for Blondes and 1 for Red hair. If you don’t mind if it’s Blonde or Red hair, mark the same number of columns for both of them.

Q6: I wanted only dates taller than 175 cm but got on the list also dates with smaller height (or any other question) .
A6: This means that you didn’t give this question Absolute importance. Use the interactive filling program to correct this question and E-mail us again your questionnaire. However, you must understand that Absolute weight is available only for the questions in Background and for Height. Otherwise you can only use weight 4 instead, which can significantly change the score but does not guarantee any given condition.

Q17: Why is there no Absolute weight in Attitudes, Interests, and Personality?
A17: It is our experience that Absolute can be easily misused in these areas. In real life interests & attitudes are changeable and negotiable and cannot be considered absolute criteria for choice. As for personality, the questions are usually too vague and problematic to enable the use of Absolute weight.

All major dating sites sued…

All major free/paid dating sites in the US have been sued in the last week for “patent infringement”.

Friendfinder sells to penthouse for $500 Million

The sale has been confirmed…

Attack of the fakes….

Over the last few years i’ve seen everything,  from people pretending to be me in bars trying to pick up girls to posts on the net trying to push some agenda.  Check out these blog comments by my ”fake”  http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2007/08/why_admob_rocks.html   When everyone can say they are anyone I rarely believe what is posted unless I see it on their actual blog.