cross-posted from: https://sh.itjust.works/post/31747128
Instead of creating a platform to automatically match individual profiles, you create a platform aimed primarily at human matchmakers, but with a feature where they can send clients a form to fill out, and then they would have an easy to browse and maintain client database. The matchmakers would advertise their own profiles and meetup and vet clients locally, and if you wanted to make it really easy you could have a poster generator with the platform’s logo and their name and a qr code. Instances might start free to get themselves off the ground but eventually charge the matchmakers a small fee to maintain the server (and if they don’t like how much they’re being charged they could move instances; you could make them be able to export their database as a .csv or something that they could keep backed up and the smart ones would avoid instances that don’t offer that option).
So you could look up matchmakers in your area and see details about them like the size of their existing client base, the amount of successful matches they’ve made, and their typical approaches like whether they provide coaching and whether they’re specialized in a specific religious or cultural community. And if they’re allowed to list their own prices and you could sort by cost per size of their client base or price per number of successful matches which would create a cost gradient where you can go cheaper but for less experience. It would be a platform where individual matchmakers could self-host, but similar to other spaces in fedi a lot of people would probably feel more comfortable using matchmakers hosted on larger instances. So you would still have a problem with having to sort through a pile of shitty matchmakers, but it would also be easy enough to find a larger / more reputable instance that vets their matchmakers more and / or promotes the good ones better, and you’d have some really good full-time matchmakers that are highly recommended in their area who can do well self-hosting, but also benefit from sharing clients to other professionals they find respectable over the fedi network.
Then on the client profile they’d all be mostly only visible to the individual client and the matchmaker but they could send the profiles to the people they’re trying to match and if they have hard to match clients they could choose to share them with other local matchmakers. And they’d be able to sort their database based on percentages of profiles that match similar to how OKC used to have. You could also have them personalize questionnaires like maybe have boilerplate / template questionnaires of various lengths to get new matchmakers started but also help them be more transferable for those hard to make matches. But you’d also still have basic info for everybody like gender, age, what genders they’re looking for, and what type of relationships they’re seeking.
As for how this solves the fedi dating service problem: it solves the issue of having women be too scared to make their dating profiles too public and decentralized servers and individually paid human matchmakers would help prevent enshittification because there’s no one large company that’s profiting off making the service shittier.
If you do this, I’ll be your first matchmaker, I could use a side-gig ;)
This sounds like an idea that would come to a person raised in a culture that values arranged marriages.
I’ve worked for enough years with enough Indians to no longer believe arranged marriages are categorically worse, but I think this might fly in the Valeriepieris circle, but not so well outside of it, where matchmaking was largely abandoned sometime around the Renaissance.
I don’t think you’ll get much traction on this in the West.
So just like therapists, I would have to find, select and hire a matchmaker FIRST and then have them send me on potential dates?
That’s just adding more steps to a bad system.
People like dating apps for the convenience and lack of commitment and this plan would be worse on both fronts. People can’t even be honest when the get a bad haircut, trying to get them to give honest date feedback to the matchmaker would be a nightmare.
This isn’t a shower thought. At least not the type of shower thought this community meant.
I mean if you’ve got a better comm that’s not tiny lmk otherwise you’re just complaining about something without offering a better alternative. I would also argue that fedi is too small for it to be worth narrowing comm usage by that much. It’s gonna cause stagnation.
#showerpitch
More pleasant for some than #showercatch.
This sounds entirely strange to me. Im very likely out of the loop, or from a different culture, but I can’t understand how this could ever work, doesn’t seem like something people would consistently pay for, when it’s usually as easy as just existing normally to automatically and organically meet people and have relationships.
I get that it’s likely not as easy as that for everyone, and ymmv, but even then, there are free options. And options that have thousands and thousands of active users at any given time to match with. Of all the concepts fediverse could plausibly solve, I can’t see this doing that. But I’d love to hear how that’d work! Sounds curious.
I guess I can’t see the analogue, even, in the centralized world. Are there services like this that actually exist long term? Is this a cultural thing? I have never heard of matchmakers outside of rich people stereotypes, and those are few and far between.
I don’t mean to say it won’t work. This is my initial gut reaction and confusion. I suspect it’s a cultural thing, has to be, since you do speak of it as though it was something often done. I’d be curious to hear more about this kind of thing just for curiosity.
Woah. Are we turning matchmakers into realtors with their own dating MLRS system? They could charge for their services not by a monthly fee, but by a commission of 6% of your wedding budget if you do find a match!
In the sense that the power is removed from large corporations and given back to individuals who are local to their communities, absolutely. The rest of this is just doomerism. I would think more like $5-20 one-time for an interview and to have your quiz results added to their database. At a certain point you’re doing them a favor by letting them have your info on standby to give others options. If a person is really hard to match they might need to pay more but at that point what they’re really paying for is more likely to be coaching and/or a wingman anyway. And honestly if you’re new to it you might just let the first 100 or so get the service free (or more, even, until you have a solid track record) just so you have options to offer people who pay later on. The whole point here is to move away from that pricing structure and re-add the human element in a similar way to how services like booksy give hairdressers and similar services a platform to advertise their services, but this adds interoperability for a service that’s primarily information based.
Side gig you said it yourself this is why they’re going to be a thousand and one shitty dating apps they all want money they all devolve to the same thing
nah there’ll be a few that are still decent. Kinda like there’s a million smoke shops now so you just have to put a little work into finding a good one, and often based on recommendations from people you know. The features to sort / find good ones will be what makes / breaks it. You could also add a feature for client testimonials in addition to the successful match statistics. One of the advantages of being hosted by a larger instance would be having your successful matches through that instance verified. Also, early adopters would still need to put food on their tables while the project gets off the ground.
You came up with this in the shower?
deleted by creator
