Dating web sites: from “yes” to “don’t even bother”

Online dating is a proverbial land mine. Some people claim it still has a negative stigma, others swear by it and/or have met their current significant others because of one. I fall somewhere in the middle: don't think about the stigma, but haven't had success either. But I've tried my fair share of sites (though not all), and we thought it would be fun to rank the most well known ones out there, to help you along in your search for true amor.

Bottom of the barrel:

Craigslist – Whether it’s posting a missed connection that never gets seen or an ISO missive about how you want to just find someone to drink beer and watch sports with, it’s the ultimate site for trolling. That being said, I do actually know one couple who met from Craigslist personals and are now married, but they are by far the exception rather than the rule. Like Hollywood with Lindsay Lohan, I wouldn’t even bother.

Plenty of Fish – According to the web site: Now with the help of a team of PhD's we've created the world’s most advanced matching system. If it is the world’s most advanced, how did I end up on one of the worst dates of my life thanks to them? And what, exactly, did this team of PhD’s have their degrees in? Russian Literature? It’s like Hawk Harrelson’s theory that “the will to win” is a better statistic than sabremetrics. We appreciate what he’s trying to do but it makes absolutely no sense when you wind up with a bunch of insecure whiners. Need more proof? Here you go.

Zoosk – Claims to provide behavioral matchmaking. I guess that’s why they allow you to choose from multiple relationship statuses, which include engaged and married. Yeah, that’s definitely the site to find a lasting and honest relationship. But hey, if you’re just looking for some fun, have at it. Just don’t expect your story to end the way The Wedding Planner did (NOT THAT I HAVE WATCHED THAT RECENTLY, JUST SO WE’RE CLEAR).

Halfway decent if you have the patience:

Match.com – According to Match.com, they “pioneered the Internet dating industry” and “Match.com singles are serious about finding love.” They may say that, but most people I know who have used the site tell me it is a cesspool for hookups. On the other hand, I definitely know of success stories – kind of like gambling in Vegas, there is usually no middle ground, and breaking even is considered a success.

OKCupid – “We use math to get you dates.” Getting dates should not have to involve engineers and an algorithm. “It’s extremely accurate, as long as (a) you’re honest, and (b) you know what you want.” That is a very important caveat considering everyone lies and no one knows what they want, for the most part. How many of you have spent far too long figuring out how to construct your profile so it had the exact perfect combination of charm and mystery only to wind up splitting a $29 check with someone who still lives with their parents? Apparently, I am not the only person who has emailed MANY a man on OKC only to receive either no response or a response suggesting activities out of the Kama Sutra. Like a Twix bar, I’m just not that flexible. Creeps like OKC.

Chemistry.com – The site claims, “Our interesting conversation-starting activities, personality insights and personalized tips help you get to know the person behind the profile.” Isn’t that what the PROFILE is for? At least this site doesn’t claim to use math, and I am sure after you weed out the never-gonna-happens, you could find some potential matches here. I do know another couple who met on this site and got married, so yes, there are definitely quality people, but you might not find them until you’re about to cancel your subscription. Remember how you felt that one time you changed the channel and your team scored a walk-off homer? Don’t let that regret engulf you ever again! Stick it out!

Don’t go if you aren’t serious:

eHarmony – How could you not love a site that uses a song from “While You Were Sleeping” in its commercials? They tell us that, “eHarmony remains committed to investigating and understanding what makes long-term relationships successful by conducting ongoing, rigorous scientific research to keep the matching model up-to-date and relevant for domestic and international markets.” Even though all of the scientific research baffles me, eHarmony means business, and you have to get through like, 47 levels of communication before you’re even allowed to e-mail someone.  It didn’t work for me, then again I’m the only person I know who has gotten food poisoning TWICE from Chicago staple Portillo’s, so maybe the problem is me.

Christian Mingle/J-Date: These sites are good because they are targeting a narrow audience. If religion is important to you, sites that cater to that specific religion are the perfect place to go, and you’re probably going to find stronger matches there than say on sites that claim to cater to all religions even though it’s really impossible to tell how serious people are. For people serious about religion and finding a mate that is just as serious, sites like these are far better than the more generic ones. It’s like if you are an only Mac person – you’d NEVER buy an Android, right? So stick to the Apple store.

Facebook/Twitter: Hear me out. I know neither of these sites are traditional dating sites, but how many times have you heard of those two people finding each other on Facebook or Twitter and are married a year later? Or of the high school sweethearts reconnecting? Social networking was not meant to be a dating scene, but it inevitably becomes that for some people, when they least expect it, and for free!! Think of it as Mother Theresa meets Gisele – the best of both worlds!

Not to be taken seriously:

Adult Friend Finder – Kind of like the Raiders of dating sites. A mess that no one wants to go near.

Dating is hard and some people are liars. Some people have great luck on dating sites, others not so much. However, the most successful site will be the one that creates a photo verification tool so you’re looking at a true picture of your potential match, rather than a picture of their younger sibling that was taken eight years and 30 pounds ago.

While some sites are better than others, the one thing that remains the same is you. So, if you're honest about who you are and what you want, the site you use doesn't matter. But, don't say we didn't warn you!

About Reva Friedel

Reva is a staff writer for Awful Announcing and the AP Party. She lives in Orange County and roots for zero California teams.

Quantcast