Talk:EHarmony

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Title

Would the appropriate title be eHarmony or eHarmony.com? Rad Racer 22:09, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I heard rumors that eHarmony is a con, is their any notoriety of this? --SuperDude 02:14, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
I've heard similar rumors, that they're really no better/more accurate with their matches than any of the dozens of other matchmaking sites out there. eHarmony's biggest difference from the other sites seems to be their vastly superior marketing strategy (tv ads, infomercials, etc.). Dr Archeville 19:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I just obtained a new opinion about eHarmony, since it charges money, I find it to be fraudulent now. --SuperDude 00:36, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Hey, superdork, by your reasoning anyone who charges for their product is fraudulent. Get a life.I have subscribed to the service and love it--put $50 where your mouth is and then have an informed opinion.
There seems to be no clear criteria here for what any participant in the discussion considers to be a "con," other than charging money (which they've never claimed not to do). You might examine existing definitions to find answers to this question. For example, one definition would be if there were no people who had actually received the claimed services, despite paying for them (that one does not appear to be the case). Another definition would be if claims of refunds or simple cancellation were untrue; the answer to that one is more unclear from the article. Another would be if they purported to match people with compatible others, but actually just sent them a set of people without respect to the matching-process results; that one does not appear to be true, based on the information.
My point is, the question of "con" or "fraudulent" has some neutral/objective criteria (e.g., fraud can be a legal term) and that fact seems to be being ignored in the discussion. My own answer would be that based on different criteria and information, I don't think most people would consider it a "con" or a "fraud," but might consider it an organization with which they disagree or might question the degree of success as being lower than claimed or aided by factors they don't mention (such as eliminating beforehand groups unlikely to be successful).Lawikitejana 17:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Homosexuality

FM, yes Dr. Warren is an evangelical Christian. But show me a current link where he says that he uses those grounds to keep same-sex couples off of eHarmony. In the audio file that you added, he says nothing different from the press release... in fact he goes into detail describing how he assisted a team looking to make a homosexual-based matching site like eHarmony, AND he says that he wishes for homosexuals to be matched well. David Bergan 20:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Please. I see you've listened to the interview of Warren linked to in the article. It leaves no doubt that the he discriminates against homosexuals due to his conservative Christian pov. First he boasts that eHarmony accepts non-Christians, even Wiccans. When it's mentioned but not homosexuals, he tries to whitewash it with the excuse that they lack data on matching homosexuals. When it's noted that he likely lacks sufficient data on Wiccans as well yet still manages to accommodate them, he falters and falls back on lame excuses like homosexuality is "still illegal in many states", it's a divisive issue, they're outside of the mainstream, etc. It's clear his previous excuses are a whitewash for his religious bias. Both the man and organization owe their to current success to Focus on the Family who are adamantly opposed to homosexuality. Stop trying to assist in whitewashing the issue. FeloniousMonk 00:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
How about a link that says eHarmony is excluding homosexual matching based on their higher moral standard? Right now all you present is a conspiracy theory based on (a) guilt-by-association and (b) the genetic fallacy. In fact, if Warren was doing this out of a tone of moral superiority, don't you think he would take the opportunity to say that? If he really is trying to tell the world that being gay is a sin, he isn't furthering his agenda by cowardly hiding behind a "we don't have any research" excuse.
According to what you present as "evidence" eHarmony should exclude Wiccans. They too are definitely against Focus on the Family's agenda. But the fact that eHarmony enrolls as many people as it possibly can from all faiths (or the lack thereof) stands against your claims that eHarmony is trying to take any sort of religious stand.
He doesn't have the data. That's all there is to it, unless you can show some new evidence. David Bergan 04:15, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
I see the your attempts at whitewashing of the painfully obvious and apologetics continues unabated from the ID and Antony Flew articles. The interview provided constitutes a primary source. The words contained therein are from Warren's own mouth and in his own voice. His stumbling for an explanation after having his illogic exposed is obvious. It doesn't get any more plain or compelling than that. Ignore it or mischaracterize it as a "conspiracy theory" if you choose to remain in denial, but don't expect others here will do so as well. FeloniousMonk 04:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
If you go back and check the Anthony Flew history, you'll remember that all it took was good links to convince me that I was ignorant. Heck, I even ordered the book to read the intro for myself and then I wrote out an outline of it conceding that his only remarks on ID were not favorable. I know that I am a fallible man, and I assure you that I am a reasonable man. But interpreting a pause in a radio interview as a right-wing agenda is not reasonable. If it is so painfully obvious that Warren is doing battle on this issue, then it should be easy to find better sources using actual words. David Bergan 05:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Which is what is provided in the article in the form of his recorded interview. Those are his own words. His interview is a primary source. No other support is needed to corroborate it; its veracity is self-evident. The statements made in it are unambiguous and support the statements that his religious views influence how he conducts business; the issue isn't even in doubt to anyone who looks at it objectively. FeloniousMonk 05:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
The recording did not say that Warren was excluding same-sex matches on the basis of his religious agenda. Looking at a discussion objectively and dispassionately does not lead one to conclude that he is hiding his real intent. The rule is to presume innocence until proven guilty. David Bergan 06:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, Warren was unambiguous in the interview on the topic of homosexuality. To argue other wise is to engage in dissembling. I've cited additional support, and I've got plenty more to back me up. FeloniousMonk 06:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
User:Dbergan stated in one message, "In fact, if Warren was doing this out of a tone of moral superiority, don't you think he would take the opportunity to say that?" I think a case can be made that he would not. After all, many who use the service would have a problem with the exclusion of same-sex couples on moral grounds and might be "turned off," yet would accept (or not notice) legal bases for rejecting those matches. Additionally, it may serve as a way to side-step objections of discrimination such as those raised in the March 2006 lawsuit by the man who was married but divorcing.
I am not accusing Warren of anything, only pointing out that there would in fact be a motive not to state openly a religious objection to matching same-sex couples, while still rejecting them. In this way, it is possible to distance the company from evangelical roots with those who would object, while not distancing it from the subset of evangelicals who oppose same-sex couples.

[edit] Christian company

What defines a "Christian company"? eHarmony is not an exclusively Christian service. The term "Christian company" probably is not synonymous with "Company that has a Christian as its founder and president." David Bergan 20:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

A "Christian company" is one that allows the personal religious beliefs of its constituents to influence its policies and operations. See the section directly above if you need further clarification as to what constitutes religious beliefs influencing policies and operations. FeloniousMonk 00:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
No evidence that this is a "Christian" company. It has Christian employees. Sure. I bet the ACLU does, too. If the only evidence of eHarmony being a "Christian" company is that it started on a Focus on the Family broadcast and that it excludes homosexuals, that's not sufficient. FOTF was a marketing opportunity, that many publicity-related businesses would love to have. So all you have is their homosexual policy: making them perhaps an "anti-homosexual" company , but you surely cannot make the link that "anti-homosexual" equates to "Christian". Many Christians accept homosexuality. Many other religions reject it (ie Islam, Judaism, Mormonism). To take one piece of their policy (which has a very logical reason behind it: they don't have the data for homosexual matching) and label it with a vast, complex, and diverse religion is a hasty generalization.
Moreover a consistently "Christian company" wouldn't match people of other faiths, and yet they do. If they have a Christian agenda, they would exclude atheists and make sure everyone prays to Jesus before sending them matches. David Bergan 04:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Right. Stop denying the readily apparent. Listen to the interview. In it, Warren wears his faith on his sleeve. Warren is the former dean and psychologist at Fuller Theological Seminary. He holds a Master of Divinity degree from Princeton Theological Seminary. He's wrote and published "God Said It, Don’t Sweat It." He's very active in the Christian ministry and his Christian oriented publications. And his company's policies mirror those of the Christian right. Now you'd have us believe that's all just a coincidence and not connected in any way. Please...
His company is no more likely to exclude atheists and Jews than it any other evangelical organization. It fact less so, as it views them not as potential converts, but as paying customers. Citing that it doesn't exclude those of other faiths or no faith as proof it is not Christian is flawed logic. The Salvation Army, an overtly Christian organization, offers its services to all others as well. The obvious difference being the Salvation Army doesn't ask you if you're gay before you are served. FeloniousMonk 05:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Which makes me much more inclined to call the Salvation Army a "Christian" organization because it does reach out to all people (including homosexuals). Inclusion is a Christian (ie Christ-like) concept. So if eHarmony accepted homosexuals, in my mind it would be a better candidate for the Christian label.
But all this is seemingly irrelevant because essential Christian doctrine isn't even considered: (a) the Incarnation, (b) the resurrection, (c) substitutional atonement, etc. Homosexuality is a very fringe, and heavily disputed belief among Christians by comparison, and using that as the sole criterion is unjustifiable.
I don't doubt that Dr. Warren believes in the creeds and a, b, c. But so did Al Capone. Meaning... we don't call an exclusionary outfit "Christian" just because the boss is Christian. It needs something like the mention of Christ in its mission statement or articles of incorporation to merit that classification; which is why the Salvation Army and Lutheran Social Services are Christian organizations. David Bergan 06:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't find your logic here compelling. Especially when compared to the simple, clear evidence of Warren's own words. The man's background is unambiguously Christian; he states as much in numerous interviews. But since you're in deep denial, I've simply added more supporting links, including FotF's James Dobson, his former backer, attributing his support for Warren and eHarmony: "he was and it was decidedly Christian in nature." FeloniousMonk 06:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Point by point

1) The company has no political involvement, now

Taken from the article: "The services offered by eHarmony remain in step with the Christian right's social agenda; for example, eHarmony does not offer services to those seeking same-sex partners."

At the end of the Salon article, Warren says very clearly that eHarmony is not a politically-minded business. They split from FotF because they want to distance themselves from FotF's politics.

Before I even murmured James Dobson's name, Warren was anxious to proclaim his distance from his friend and former associate. "I have a lot of respect for a lot that goes on in Focus on the Family," he said. "Where I get nervous is when people think we're political like Focus on the Family. You kind of have to trust me on this, I guess, but we don't talk about things like abortion. I wouldn't have the slightest idea where our employees would stand on that issue." [1]

It would be factual to claim that eHarmony was tied to FotF, but the situation is different now. They are separate, and eHarmony chose to go this way because they don't want to have the stain of political involvement on their company's reputation. Therefore, the fact is that they currently are not politically motivated. David Bergan 14:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Stop the dissembling. Your history of pov promotion and dissembling at Wikipedia is well documented. Wasting the time of others with tendentious objections is highly frowned upon by the community.
That said-- eHarmony's business policies align with those of the Christian right. This is a factual, well-supported observation. Noting it in the article it is merely making a descriptive statement. The statement does not claim that eHarmony is political; it merely notes a simple fact lets the readers decide for themselves. The additional supporting links I've added, including the one to the Salon.com article you deleted, all support the statement that Warren has been influenced by his evangelical roots, which are in turn reflected in eHarmony's business practices. FeloniousMonk 19:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] United States

For some reason the words "united states" don't show up in this article at all. Unless I'm wrong, eHarmony advertises exclusivly in the US, doesn't it?--Tznkai 00:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, no. It has participants all over the world. A friend of mine (from Madison, SD) just got married last August to a gal from Brazil after being matched through the eHarmony website. David Bergan 19:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moved material back from archives

This discussion had two archive sections, one very short and the other of normal size. I saw no reason they should be archived. Many pages have far, far longer discussions without ardhives. In fact, I think archiving raises POV issues, because it conveniently tucked away discussion about negative aspects of this company. Accordingly, I have merged all the discussion back onto this page. David Hoag 06:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] lawsuit

I added a section about the recent lawsuit, but I couldn't find any information. I originally heard it on a credible local radio station, but couldn't find anything to back it up. can anyone do some research on this? --Zeerus (ETC) 13:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

It needs to be added, but not until a source is found. I removed the material, as it might be controversial, and could be heresay. Without a source, we don't know. --DanielCD 14:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
found it on digg, will add a notation that links to the original resource, http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/living/community/14199052.htm?source=rss&channel=siliconvalley_community http://digg.com/technology/Married_man_sues_eHarmony_over_rejection --Zeerus (ETC) 15:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
That looks like a good reference. Great job. --DanielCD 19:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Costs to use the site

Can anybody please add to the article how much it costs to upgrade membership, use various features, etc...? Every last feature on the site that costs something- can you list them please? Thanks. --Shultz IV 10:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Ill experiences' section - my (own) stab at replies

eHarmony's "most annoying feature" to Online Dating Magazine is that "once you are paid you can only communicate with other people who have paid."

  • The bigger issue is on another Wikipedia article: Problems with Online Dating Services: Fake profiles and profile misrepresentation. So, my advice is: be confident yet vigilant, and verify what's on the profile.

Spending over half an hour answering 400 personal-information questions only to receive a message saying eHarmony cannot provide the person the service.

  • One solution eHarmony could do is cut the questionnaire short, say on step four, when it becomes apparent that it cannot provide the person the service.

High fees and too few matches.

  • I consider eH an automated matrimonial matchmaking service, not an online dating site. The person's "match settings" might be unrealistic: for example, searching for a specific ethnicity and religion in a predominantly-opposite locality. Also, if it is an issue, a call to customer service lets a person retake the test to encompass a wider variety of prospects.
    • Though, yeah, eH could be a little more transparent with their member demographics.

The "My Matches" screen do not distinguish who are paid members (and can reply!) and who are inactive (i.e., never logged in for a long time).

  • It's not a big problem - let me show why: A non-paying member is limited to ten matches -- so if all ten of these members are inactive and don't close the matches, then the non-paying member is, in effect, out of candidate pool. How quickly this happens depends on how easily the system finds matches for the non-paying member's profile and specifications. My guess is that for a "normal" "average" person it takes 3 days to find 10 matches.
  • In theory, though, a person could be tossed all over for a long time, too.
  • There is a sorting option called "Recent activity". It seems to me that this describes how recently that member logged in and did anything with their eharmony account. I suspect this should be a fairly good method for sorting out non-paying members. Or do I have this wrong? Zaklog 02:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Opinions that eHarmony rations out matches to push members to stay beyond the 7-day trial or their current subscription.

  • This is anecdotal. I called the toll-free number and the rep told me they run their matching batch process for one hour every night. The members get whatever number of matches that the batch process finds during that hour.
  • How does the matching software work? Read the patent to get an idea.

The procedure to unsubscribe as a paying member is complex and leads to errors or undesired credit card charges.

  • The trick is, call the toll-free number to cancel. Note the date and the live representative's name. That's it!

Dissatisfaction with standard email replies of the site's helpdesk to inquiries.

  • Then call the toll-free number!

Consumers who cannot find the company's phone number to speak to a live representative.

  • The customer service phone number is 1-800-648-9548. It's open from Monday to Friday, between 8am and 6pm PST every day between 6am and 11pm PST. Be ready to wait though.
    • They say the best time to call is from 9am to 11am.

I'll update this as I learn more --Perfecto 21:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Positive Experiences Section

I met my wife on this service. If it works for me it will work for almost anyone!!! If you are looking for a quick hook up, an affair, a gay partner or to tend to other fettishes, there are boundless resources on the internet or the local paper to choose from. If you just want to finally settle down with the right person and are tired of all the BS at the bars and all the endless sob stories, neurotics and circus freaks at the church singles groups, this is the site for you. Yes it's expensive, yes it takes time to answer the profiles and yes, you may have to consider people outside of your area to make it work (in my case 3100 miles), but if you're willing to work at it and want nothing more than to meet that someone special, you've got a better chance here than any other avenue I'm familiar with. Personally, I'm glad Dr. Warren told Dobson what to do with himself because the man is a hypocrite and a bigot, but I'm also glad that the site is still heterosexual and is used by mostly churchgoing Christians, because like it or not, we still make up the majority of the population and many of us are tired of all the hoops one has to jump through these days to meet someone nice.

[edit] The secret of how to tell if an eHarmony match is a paying member or not

The following screenshot shows how to determine if an eHarmony match is a paid subscriber (who can reply) or a free member (who may be much inactive). Members should take note of this so they know what to expect when reading a match's profile. Members find it frustrating when matches don't reply.

  • Among the new matches (Laurel, Amber, Marsha and Stephanie), Laurel and Amber are free members -- because of the 1 2 3 4 OPEN under "Communication Stage". Marsha, tagged Introduction, is a paying member.
    • As a paying member, Marsha, by human nature, will act upon the match immediately after reading the profile. She will either close it or request communication. She'll waste no time, because to subscribers, time is money. By this logic, "Introduction" means that she has not seen the match.
    • Laurel and Amber cannot reply unless they pull out their wallet and pay US$60, at least. The profile could also be outdated. So there's little point in viewing them.
  • Take note of this before clicking to view the profile. Profiles already clicked are marked with a blue i and will show Start Communicating as a next step, like Rachelle. This "Start Communicating" tag does not differentiate paying and non-paying members. eHarmony's reps explain that "it's a privacy issue" so do not expect eHarmony to change this. So take note of the member's status before viewing the profile.
  • If a Match Requests Communication, like Denise and Stephanie, then of course he or she is a paid subscriber.
  • The "Closed" screen also differentiates paid and free members. Members can Re-Open and Send Final Message only to paid subscribers. Free members who are closed always say, "Match is closed".

I'll update this as I learn more --Perfecto 03:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LGBT Rights deal

I put its founder Warren in, but I took it out. I think that category is meant for organizations when a prime goal of their's is to restrict LGBT rights. I don't think the purpose of this organization fits.--T. Anthony 12:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reinsertion of 12% disqualification data

For some reason somebody deleted the statistic that approximately 12% of eHarmony applicants are routinely disqualified. I have reinserted this. I based this statistic on figures given by Dr. Warren in his interview with PBS, by dividing the number of disqualified applicants by the total number of applicants.

-Scott P. 13:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I have now also inserted a footnote reference to this statistic. Thanks for the suggestions Perfecto. -Scott P. 04:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/h/a/Talk%7EEHarmony_7dfc.html"