I met my first wife on a dating website back in 1998 when internet dating was looked upon as something vulgar, or at least exotic. The site was called friendfinder.com and it looked like this:
I was 26 and Karen was 23. We seemed compatible and at first understood how much fun it was to have lots of sex together. Our relationship worked for about two-and-a-half years until we realized that we did not attract each other like we did at the beginning. Karen finally noticed that I had dumb jokes and found my habit of sitting in front of a computer until late at night unbearable. In fact, she told me I had so many bad habits that even a family of gorillas would decline me. I don’t remember whether I made a list of my complaints to her but I soon started spending evenings with my single friends in bars – even more so than before I got married. To conclude, six months later we decided to part peacefully. Now it seems that she’s quite happy in her second marriage and is bringing up two kids. As for me, I’ve been successfully running away from any serious relationship and I’ve only recently begun to think that settling down and living with someone is not such a bad idea.
During the last 12 years, I have tried a lot of dating sites but, as I’m sure you understand, not to find another wife! And it has worked. I honestly believe that dating sites have sparked a sexual revolution. Just take a look at the “3 Dates” rule, which was like a bible for our grandparents. Now it is looked upon as out-of-date. What’s the point in following this rule if both partners know that all they are going to have is an easy and light relationship, which will not lead to the altar, kids and a mortgage? And one more thing: you don’t need to search for partners in bars! No, I love bars. But I also love my liver, which is not getting any younger and doesn’t like alcohol like it used to when I was 20. Secondly, what are the chances of meeting a girl in a bar who will not only interest you but who will also be interested in you? So if you want to stay fastidious and you’re not Brad Pitt, there is no better alternative than dating sites.
But as I stated earlier, my aims have changed. I’m not just looking for girlfriends anymore. Those beautiful women who were in my life as girlfriends did not have the character traits of a potential future wife (and I think it was mutual. The best characteristic of myself I have heard is “Jack, you’re so cute. I’ll never forget this. Please don’t forget to delete my number from your cellphone.”)
Alright, the aim is clear, but the variants of resolving it aren’t. Let’s take a look at how the modern market of online dating can help me.
Remembering that a non-conflict divorce is much more expensive than several tens or hundreds of dollars spent on a dating site, I will not divide the sites into free and paid. All we’re interested in is the effectiveness of the service from the point of view of long-term relationships and marriage.
Historically, all dating sites have developed simple search engines. You can choose simple criteria like age, city, ethnicity, race, physique etc. and then search for partners until you find one that appeals to you. One such example was Yahoo Personals, until the guys from Yahoo developed it into the more modern Match.com after they probably realized that developing a dating site was not that simple. Now the majority of the big dating sites use their own algorithms to find compatible partners. These algorithms are often based on opposite approaches. The most famous dating site in this sphere is eHarmony. 
As far as I know, eHarmony is the only dating site that has its own academic laboratory, headed by Dr Gian Gonzaga. He developed a method that claims to find compatible partners by 29 dimensions of compatibility (patented by him). These dimensions include sexual passion, anger management, appearance, intellect, spirituality and emotional health. To get results you need to answer hundreds of different questions. But spending an hour or two completing the tests is not such a bad thing if you end up meeting your soulmate as a result. But what is important is whether you trust the algorithms devised by Dr Gonzaga. I don’t have anything against psychology but what has puzzled me for years is this: if psychology is so effective, then why do many couples I know go to psychologists for such a long time without any significant results? And why do seven out of 10 couples I know, who went to family consultants, split up anyway? Dr Gonzaga, I like your site, and I can spend (well, to be honest, already spent) two hours and almost $60 for you to find me a girl of my dreams. I have even received hundreds of profiles of women who seem to be compatible with me. But it would be easier for me to make a decision over whether I should continue my relationship with them if you can publish a percentage of people who met each other on your site – and who later got married and considered their marriage a happy one after five years together. Please!
The complete opposite to eHarmony in every sense is PlentyOfFish. 
I have always liked this site. Despite the old-fashioned design, it’s full of people, it’s free and it’s easy to use. Spend three minutes of your time and let the dating begin. I can officially claim: guys PlentyOfFish is the best alternative to bars that western civilization can offer. But what about dating with serious intentions? Some time ago they launched the PlentyOfFish Relationship Chemistry Predictor (POFCP). They predict chemistry by measuring your self-confidence, family orientation, self-control, social dependency/openness and easy-goingness. Looks good, but where’s the chemistry anyway? I always thought that chemistry is when you are looking at a girl, she’s looking at you, your eyes light up and you go to watch the sunset together. And they think that chemistry is self-control and family orientation? Hah. Sorry, PlentyOfFish. See you later when I give up my idea of finding my ideal woman.
Well, on the subject of chemistry. Chemistry.com speaks about it like no other. 
At first glance, the difference in approach of eHarmony and Chemistry are not so obvious. Both sites use a complicated test system to measure compatibility and both don’t allow you to start searching for a partner yourself, offering you partners by the pattern “Mom knows better!” But the algorithm of Chemistry, which is based on the scientific research of anthropologist Dr Helen Fisher, goes to the inner properties of a man and they predict the chemistry required for love and a happy relationship. Seems good, but too hypothetical. I’m too trusting for a guy and I can trust everything and everyone. But please explain to me how it all works in a little more detail. Apart from this, Chemistry.com looks nice, and considering it’s a product of the biggest dating site Match.com, there are a lot of members to choose from.
The people behind OKCupid (another big and popular site) are sure that psychometric methods don’t work in dating. 
One of its founders, Sam Yagan, claims: “eHarmony’s patronising belief is that they know what’s best and you need help. We believe you know what you’re looking for and put the power in the user’s hands.” Fifteen years ago I’d be ready to write this on a placard and walk along crowded streets shouting “Vote for Sam Yagan!” Now I’m not that certain. I always thought I knew better, but look at me now? I’m a 40-year-old single man looking for a woman to marry. OKCupid works in the following way: you need to answer a lot of questions, probably which you never even asked yourself. And it’s clearly stated that people who have similar answers are compatible to you. Sounds logical, but I’m still not sure. For example, take my grandfather. This old gentleman has a lot views similar to mine. But will I marry his younger female version? Oh no, never. If our drawbacks are doubled, nobody will notice our positive traits of character.
A similar point of view on the doubling of drawbacks is shared by the founders of a new site for those who are seeking a serious relationship: Yangutu. 
The people behind Yangutu pay attention to your objective, demographical and medical data, and not to how you answer the questions. They also have a short test comprised from several pictures for defining the personality type, but it’s not mandatory. The idea behind Yangutu is simple: some pairs statistically have more chance of getting divorced than others. If you got married to your school teacher when you were 18, you’ve got very little chance of living happily together for the rest of your life (unless the woman passes away, of course). However, if you waited until 30 and married a woman of 25 with a good education, the chance of a happy marriage is much bigger. Yangutu uses an algorithm of compatibility based on general statistics of thousands of happy marriages and divorces. The project is quite new and there are not many users but I think the method is quite innovative. It’s based not upon speculative conclusions, but on objective statistical data, and I have trust in what I can measure. This logic is used in dealing with medical factors too: you’re asked whether you or your relatives have inherited diseases. If you have any, you’ll not be matched with people who also have them. And if you have children in the future, they will thank you for this. Well, ok, they won’t. Grown-up children don’t have a habit of thanking their parents unless it concerns a car or pocket money. But your chances of healthy children are higher anyway.
One of my friends once said: “A good dating site isn’t a free one or with the most up-to-date design. It’s a site where a girl of your dreams is waiting for you.” Oh, I wish I knew which site this girl is using. Everyone decides for themselves but I decided this is the way forward for me: I’ll continue to use eHarmony since I started there but will also try Yangutu at the same time. At least I understand how it works.
