Talk:eHarmony

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Websites / Computing  (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (marked as Low-importance).
 
WikiProject Sociology (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Gender Studies (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Gender Studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

800 Number hard to find[edit]

At various times, the article has listed their 1-800 number for customer service. At other times, the number has been removed. If the number were listed in plain sight on their web site, then listing it here would be pointless. But it's not. I challenge you to find that number anywhere on their web site: I wasn't able to! Because of this, the stated basis for the recent deletion doesn't apply. It is of encyclopedic and practical value to list this number, especially since people need it if they want to cancel. For these reasons, I'm putting the number back up. If you disagree, please explain your reasoning here and gain consensus before acting, so we can avoid edit wars. ThAtSo 18:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. You've explained the practical value of the customer service number, which is not a strong consideration (quite a bit of practical or useful content is excluded per WP:NOT), but have not supported your claim that it is appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Based on your argument, this is how-to material, which is explicitly addressed in the policy. Dancter 21:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look at the customer service section of Amazon.com, which starts with:

Amazon.com does not publish its toll-free customer service number (+1-800-201-7575) on its own web site.

In the case of both Amazon and eHarmony, the fact that a company has a toll-free customer service number that is not well-publicized is itself encyclopedic, as is the number.

I also took a good look a WP:NOT, especially the "Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages" item, which is the one that comes closest to applying. It still fails to apply because this number can't be looked up in the Yellow Pages or the company web site, so we're not duplicating a directory.

I feel that this successfully addresses your argument, so we should keep the phone number in the article. ThAtSo 21:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Based on a quick examination, I would disagree with the Amazon.com inclusion, as well. It should be noted that the Amazon.com article does not seem to have been placed though any quality review such as assessment rating, peer review, or GA/FA nomination. It's not strong indicator of Wikipedia consensus for this type of content. This is somewhat related to WP:INN. In addition, that it's not duplicating an existing directory resource is somewhat missing the point, as it is still serving the same purpose—and at the expense of things such as encyclopedic balance, tone, style, and organization. Dancter 22:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It can't possibly serve the purpose of a directory if no directory contains the number. If the number were publicized, there'd be no motive for repeating it here. Since Amazon.com has been around longer and is a more popular article (and more popular company), I think it sets a far precedent for what the Wikipedia consensus is. It is unclear how reporting on the existence of this number harms this article. ThAtSo 22:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite understand your reasoning, and I have obviously failed to communicate my point regarding WP:NOT. A directory is not defined by content from other directories. This isn't even about WP:NOT#DIR specifically, even though it's what I mentioned in my original edit summary. A customer service number is of negligible historical relevance for an article of this size, does not contribute to an balanced overall understanding of the subject to a general reader, and its usefulness is only limited to those who use the service. Granted, it's not terribly accessible informationWikipedia is an encyclopedia, first and foremost.
As far as popularity goes, Amazon.com is actually very sedate in terms of talk page discussion and number of article revisions, especially for an article that's been around so long, so I would still disagree with you there. In any case, any serious arguments should be judged on their own merits, and based on policy, rather than other articles. While reporting on the existence of this number isn't harmful in the traditional sense of factuality or neutrality, I feel it damages the quality of the article as an encyclopedia entry.
The external links section is for links to web content that is supplementary to the encylopedic coverage. The customer service number is not web content, and probably isn't well-equipped as a general informational resource. Dancter 01:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, most of my comments no longer apply, given that the information was repurposed as criticism. Dancter 01:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

It is obvious from this discussion here, the critism is factual information and a valid critism and therefore it should definitely be included. This discussion is also prima facia evidence that it is the kind of information people expect to find in this entry. Is there a way to making it harder for people to remove it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.112.149 (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

People continue to point out that Consumers have difficulty finding the company's phone number (1-800-263-6133) to speak to a live representative. And that the phone number for their headquarters in Pasadena, CA is (626)-795-4814. This is as valid a criticism as much as they do not match gays. Both issues have to do with company policy, if you remove one you should remove both. The purpose of the encyclopedia is to provide broad hence encyclopedic information on a subject. This isses here is historical in nature and informs one as to its policies. If policies are selectively deleted one can not form an unbiased broad understanding of them. Additionally, the arguement that Wikipedia is not a directory is flawed for two reasons. One, the purpose of the information is speculation and erroneous speculation at that, since the comment is not in the nature of a directory listing. Secondly, reason for someone looking at information in an articles is not a reason for removing or adding it. Removing it damages the article as an encyclopedic entry because the reader is no longer aware of this policy issue that existed biasing the article and precluding one from all the facts. The removal arguments are not objective but based on personal preference. It is not our job to determine the purpose of what the reader will do with the information but to report it accurately. This is factual information that should remain so that the reader can determine for themselves what to do with it.

The fact that the number is not listed, and that this is cited criticism should not be removed. I did not add the number. I don't care if the number is there. But there is no valid argument for removal of the criticism itself. --130.245.193.204 (talk) 00:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Title[edit]

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)

Homosexuality[edit]

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.

"The fact is that same-sex marriage in this country is largely illegal at this time, and we do try to match people for marriage." --Dr. Warren

Same-sex marriage was legalized across Canada by the Civil Marriage Act enacted on July 20, 2005 and eHarmony Canada does not match same-sex couples.

"We think the principles probably are different so we’ve never chosen to do it. And that’s the position we take." –Dr. Warren

eHarmony Labs, a research organization dedicated to the study of human relationships, does not seem to be researching same-sex relationships.

One thing that I keep coming back to on this issue is when did anyone start requiring a business to service a particular set of people? There is a great difference between discriminating and not providing service for a particular group. I worked for a company which provided technology services to medium and large businesses. It chose not to service the small business industry. It would be unfortunate if one sub-set of this group, say a minority owned small business, would contact our company and complain (or even litigate) that we are discriminating against her minority owned small business. It is nothing of the sort, the businesses primary target and specialty is in the medium to large business sector. How would this be different then a business such as eH which has targets a group of heterosexuals for their product? Lack of a service does not specifically constitute discrimination. Or how about a steak house "discriminating" against vegans for only offering main courses with meat -- it would be preposterous to claim that they were discriminating against one's religion.

Tiggerjay 02:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

What if it was interracial marriage? What if that was what they were choosing to block? People would be up in fucking arms. --Ragemanchoo (talk) 04:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Um...how about you let the courts decide if it's discrimination? Ok. In terms of this section on Wikipedia, did you notice it's under the subtitle "CRITICISM." Do you know what that means??? It means that since people criticize eHarmony for not offering services for gays and that has resulted not only in a SNL spoof, Chemistry.com commercials, and now a lawsuit you need to accept this is a valid section Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.57.32 (talkcontribs)

eHarmony is a private internet company and has no obligation to provide or not provide services to anyone, any time. It can reserve the right to only offer certain options if it so chooses. In addition, almost every other internet dating service offers same-sex matching options, rendering the entire lawsuit moot, as the person in question could have easily just chosen to use one of those, instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manuelomar2001 (talkcontribs)

^That's neither here nor there. --Ragemanchoo (talk) 04:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, It is a private company and has every right to not assist Homosexuals. Regardless of what you believe, according to the Bible homosexuality IS as sin, and therefore eharmony is well within its right not to support it. Travis Cleveland (talk) 14:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Travis, um, yeah. The bible says a lot of things (nonsensical shellfish laws, crops, etc) and not very clearly. Also, Warren's shitty excuse for blocking gays from the service remains to be seen. The whole "well they can't get married, and since its illegal we'd be breaking the law" is NONSENSICAL. See: California, Massachusetts, New York, Canada, most of Europe. --Ragemanchoo (talk) 04:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

It is absurd that this is not neutrally addressed in the article. It is worth mentioning that multiple mainstream media sources have criticized eHarmony for not including matching for homosexuals. I've therefore put in two of many instances of this. It is tremendously biased to not include this widespread criticism, and this criticism is completely separate from the fact that the company is legally entitled to discriminate against homosexuals, let alone whatever bibles say.--Xris0 (talk) 04:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Christian company[edit]

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)

I think that FM has a pretty weak understanding of corporations. A corporation is defined by its mission statement, vision statement, and corporate activities. The makeup of its founder, officers, board, and customers are relevant, but only in the sense that they shape the direction the company takes. The identities and characteristics of corporations are legally and by definition independent from the persons who run the company. Unless eHarmony's mission statement, articles of incorporation, and other legal and corporate documents suggested that it self-identified as a "Christian" company, I would have a hard time understanding it as such. I am removing the "Christian Company" category. Almondwine 19:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's any black-and-white way to define a "Christian company." FeloniousMonk wrote "A Christian company is one that allows the personal religious beliefs of its constituents to influence its policies and operations." That's fine up to a point, but personal religious beliefs are not always a separable part of one's personality. If you live in a Christian culture, your whole personality and attitude to life will be influenced by Christian doctrine. The same problem arises in the constitutional church-state separation of the United States: ultimately you cannot expect political leaders to dissociate their policy decisions from their personality, which may be a personality shaped by religion. The authors of the US Constitution had their own beliefs too, and I bet those beliefs influenced the Constitution at some level. You can expect some level of separation, but there's no way to define absolute separation. Of course eHarmony was influenced by Christian values, regardless of whether its corporate documents acknowledge them. We can argue endlessly whether this makes it a "Christian" company, just as one can argue whether the United States is a "Christian" nation; ultimately the answers to these questions will boil down to arbitrary definitions based on personal agendas. Mtford 18:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps calling EHarmony a "Christian-based company" or "Christian-owned company" (is that still accurate?) would be more accurate as it describes what the company's basis is and/or who owns the company. WAVY 10 18:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

And "a far-right Christian company" would be even more accurate still. But maybe redundant, too. --Ragemanchoo (talk) 04:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Point by point[edit]

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)
FeloniousMonk, that statement sounds like original research which is not allowed on wikipedia. Do you have a credible link that these services follow the Christian right agenda? Not to mention that I had no idea that fostering relationships was only promoted by the Christian right. I guess that means I should tell all my liberal athiest friends that they need to get divorced. After all, that's not what their side stands for, right?TheCommodore7 (talk) 15:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

United States[edit]

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)

Moved material back from archives[edit]

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)

lawsuit[edit]

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)
Is there any updated information regarding the suit? It is one thing to sue a company, it's entirely another to be proven right in the court. I would assume that if this case was lost by the plantif, this should be removed from the page. Tiggerjay 21:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Costs to use the site[edit]

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)

I just recently signed on with eHarmony (this last Saturday), realized I had definitely made a mistake, called Monday to cancel my subscription and get a refund and they refused to refund my money. It's only $44 but it's the principle of the thing. The last time I was on eHarmony they found "0" matches. They tricked me with three guys, one of them I was communicating with and all of a sudden he stops. eHarmony is nothing but a rip-off. They do not deliver.Knoyes 06:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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)

  • 0 hit in 1 month. cant get to the person of interest without having to go through asking ridiculous questions.

Cancellation policy sux big time. I paid 3 months subscription of 137 some dollars, within a month cancelled via their site online. Later to find out that you don't get refunds for early cancellation and not using their site anymore. No where they say that if you do so, you will not get refund..it advertizes ..cancell anytime and have provided proper site for that. Illusion..bad business. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.181.201.92 (talk) 23:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

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

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)

LGBT Rights deal[edit]

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)

Reinsertion of 12% disqualification data[edit]

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)

Questionable practices[edit]

It would appear the first two points ("Open Communication" and "compatible matches") in this article are not valid questions as any informed person who reviews the website and/or understands any for-profit business model would understand that these are invalid. The only issue which carries any possible merit would be regarding the short statured men. Tiggerjay 21:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I edited these a few days ago but neglected to mention it here. Also, it appears that someone else decided to delete on of the sections. Tiggerjay 02:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

On questionable practices, many have expressed concern over the lack of freedom of expression in communication controlled by this web-site, which is obviously skewed toward Christian Right religious values. It would appear that having a born again Christian founder, and the lack of liberalness, this site is not for everyone. Several studies have concluded that born again Christians have one of the highest marriage failure rates of all religions and with that in mind it would be helpful to see the peer reviewed evidence of the successfulness of the matches from this site. The assumptions attempt to categorize individuals according to the site designer's beliefs on what makes a good match, while many believe what makes a good match should be left in the eyes of those being matched. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.60.157 (talk) 14:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

2006 lawsuit[edit]

Since this was dismissed by a judge, should this section be removed from the page. It would seem that only current and/or successful litigation should be included on the page. Tiggerjay 02:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It might be wiser to incorporate it into a criticism section or some other part of the website, since it reflects market concern with eHarmony even if it doesn't reflect legal or civil wrongdoing. Almondwine 18:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Tiggerjay 23:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the fact that the organization was named in a law suit, despite whether it was dismissed or not, is relevant and should remain in the article. You can state that the law suit was dismissed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ntyler01mil (talkcontribs) 16:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

NPOV[edit]

I don't see any violations of WP:NPOV on the Same-Sex Matching options section and it does not appear to be a current issue for discussion, so I am removing the disclaimer. Almondwine 18:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

2007 lawsuit response[edit]

"Nothing precludes eHarmony from providing same-sex matching in the future it's just not a service we offer now based upon the research we have conducted."

Is eHarmony's legal team unfamiliar with the finer points of comma use, or was it left out by a Wiki editor? I'm not sure whether to edit this or not. PenguinJockey 03:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

  • A quick review shows that it appears to be quoted in routers, which transcribed the response from eHarmony. As a result, it would appear to be perhaps (sic) of Routers to not include the commas. :) Tiggerjay 05:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV?[edit]

The section on the 2007 lawsuit seems one-sided, because it assumes that for a company to refuse to serve Gay people on religious grounds is wrong. I am not the arbiter of whether it is right or wrong for eHarmony to do this, but neither is Wikipedia. And even if a judge decides that eHarmony is legally wrong, this leaves open the question of whether they are morally right or wrong. 69.143.80.200 01:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't follow your point, are you saying it's one-sided to even state that a law suit was brought. This section only reports the facts on what occurred, it makes no statement on whether the law suit will win or should succeed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ntyler01mil (talkcontribs) 16:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Time Critcism[edit]

Despite the source of this new reference being Times magazine, the notability or relevance of this latest addition almost ranks among Trivia instead of true research. It lists some of the most popular websites among its 5 worst, including: MySpace, Evite and SecondLife. Hmm. Almost appears to be a commentary more then an actual article. Tiggerjay 03:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Domain name criticism[edit]

After what appears to be an edit war, I am opening this up on the talk page. An editor which is using different IP addressed on each edit is insisting on a critisim of eHarmony for acquiring two domain names without using them. I have reverted these since they do not provide correct verifiability and/or appears to be WP:OR. After several reverts, and this editor insisting in its correctness, has resulted in a WP:RPP which can be found at: RPP for eHarmony. As a result, an admin protected this page and I hope in the mean time for the interested parties to work through this on the talk page. None of the sources actually provide any information which illustrates eHarmony's ownership of these domains. Your thoughts? Tiggerjay 21:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Why was the controversial text left in the article at the time of locking (it was added by ThAtSo, and is still there)? Surely the purpose of the RPP was to keep the text out? Mtford 01:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The WHOIS links do indicate that both domains are registered to eHarmony (or someone claiming to be eHarmony), so they probably provide adequate evidence of ownership. However, to avoid WP:OR we need more than this. We need to demonstrate that eHarmony's "blocking" of the domains has attracted significant criticism, and not just criticism by the editor concerned. Ownership of two gay domains could, in contrast, suggest that eHarmony is open-minded about the possibility of operating a same-sex matching service in the future. Mtford 01:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

True, true (re: claiming to be eHarmony) I seem to think this is likely since it doesn't match the way the other domains were registered. I would assume that they would have used the same registrar for all domains -- and yes, to the above, it should be removed from the RPP article. :) I'll remove now if it hasn't already. Tiggerjay 04:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You can confirm their ownership of these domains by going here Godaddy Whois Info. Then enter the verification code and you will see the full registrant info for eHarmony registered with Godaddy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The-Saint-Sebastian (talkcontribs) 21:00, August 18, 2007

Actually, that does not confirm the identity of who acutally registered the account. There is nothing to prevent me from registering a domain on godaddy under the name eHarmony. Additionally, as stated above, this content appears to be WP:OR. If you cannot understand this and follow wikipedia policy then you would appear to be a biased individual, simply trying to put forth your own claims and beliefs which wikipeida clearly is not the platform for. If you can provide verifiable information which is presented by a third party (not origional research) then this comment entry can stay, until then, it will be removed, as a violation of policy. Tiggerjay 01:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge eHarmony Criticism with main article?[edit]

I don't see any good reason for the eHarmony Criticism article to be separate from this one. It's only a short article, and it would fit neatly into the criticism section of the main article. Reading a few reviews on other online dating sites and forums, I notice the following:

  • Most detailed "professional" reviews, for example this one, are quite positive. However, professional reviewers may have limited experience actually using the site in their search for a long-term relationship.
  • Most consumer reviews, for example here, are either very negative or very positive. This is common on internet forums, since only the people with strongest opinions are motivated to speak out. Generally the people who found their dream man/woman on eHarmony gave it 5 stars, while those who did not were aggrieved and gave it 1 star. The vast majority are in the "1 star" category, and nearly all of them accuse eHarmony of dishonest extortion.
  • Many people claim to have been "matched" with wholly inappropriate individuals, including criminals. In one case, two female roommates say they filled out the eHarmony questionnaire on the same day, and were matched with many of the same men, even though the two women had very different personality profiles. This all adds to the criticism that eHarmony's 29-dimensional matching algorithm might not be all it claims to be.

Considering the huge volume of criticism on forums like edatereview.com, I think the criticism section in this main article should be more visible, to balance out the positive-sounding information in the "Singles Program" section. Any thoughts? Mtford 22:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this is interesting but you're going to need to cite some solid reliable sources. ThAtSo 23:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
This is a case where the definition of WP:OR becomes slightly fuzzy. If an internet forum contains 1000 informal contributions expressing a particular opinion, does the forum itself represent a WP:V source? It's certainly verifiable in the sense that anybody can look at the forum and see the overwhelming weight of public opinion expressed there. Or would we be guilty of synthesizing published material if we claim that "many people" have expressed a certain view, without deriving this generalization from an existing source? The existing eHarmony Criticism page already states that "some consider the service expensive," which is certainly a verifiable statement, but does not have a supporting citation at present. [NB - I'm not suggesting that all of my observations above should go into the article. I'm just saying that there's a lot of negative feeling about eHarmony on the internet, and the current article does not adequately reflect it.] Mtford 02:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the merge proposal, I agree and have returned the content to the main article and requested PROD to remove the specific criticism page. Tiggerjay 16:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

COI Tag[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Sophisticated paid editing scheme. Please do not remove the {{COI}} tag until you have thoroughly checked the article. Please leave a note at WP:COIN if you clean up the article. Thank you. - Jehochman Talk 04:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

As an active editor of this article, I was unable to find anything other that two minor, non-POV based edits from your suspected editors, so I have removed the COI tag as the article appears fine and nothing questionable has been edited since July. Tiggerjay 06:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
OK. Suggestion: could you add their logo to the infobox? If you do, be sure to provide a detailed fair use summary. Cheers - Jehochman Talk 13:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Some comments on the criticism section[edit]

I'd really like to see some verifiable references for the quoted material in this section, particulary for the Online Dating Magazine quote. And why is it a "criticism" that you're matched up only with other paying members once you pay up? Last I checked, you won't receive any matches at all unless you cough up some money.

  • "Failure to match short men to tall women"

This is a load of crap. I'm on eHarmony, I'm a 5'6" tall man, and I've been matched up with taller women, 5'8" and up. I know, empirical evidence like this doesn't fly on WP, so I'm not going to add this to the article. I just wanted to put my two cents in. This "criticism" really should be removed until we can get a verifiable reference.

  • "The service is expensive compared to other dating sites."

Exactly which dating sites are we referring to here? How much more expensive is eHarmony compared to those other sites? This is just way too vague and weaselly for my taste, so I put the clarifyme tag on it. Whoever put this line in the article, please add more hard information.

Lastly, please don't use vague, imprecise terms like "Critics note..." or "Critics counter..." in this section. Who exaclty is lobbing these criticisms against eHarmony? Please, lets add some names and (better yet) some good references here, so this looks more like an encyclopedia article and less like a forum for bashing eHarmony. — EagleOne\Talk 16:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Good comments, I just completed some soft/minor changes, and may work on this later. However, you can feel free to use WP:BRD and just remove the un-sourced criticisms, and let those who have the information chime in with reliable sources. :) Tiggerjay 05:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'll go in and remove some of the material tagged with "cite needed". If anyone has some verifiable sources for the removed material, please feel free to add them.
On another note, prior to this discussion I did not know about the bold, revert, discuss page. Thanks for the heads up, Tiggerjay. — EagleOne\Talk 18:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed material[edit]

Per the proto-policy WP:BRD, I have removed some material in need of verifiable sources:

According to Online Dating Magazine, eHarmony's "most annoying feature" is that "once you have paid you can only communicate with other people who have paid."[citation needed]

  • Failure to match short men to tall women [1] - this reference doesn't actually say anything about eHarmony at all!
  • Consumers have difficulty finding the company's phone number (1-800-263-6133) to speak to a live representative.[citation needed]

The company issued the following statement in reference to the lawsuit: "It is false to state that eHarmony discriminates against gays or lesbians and making such allegations is reckless. The research that eHarmony has developed, through years of research, to match couples has been based on traits and personality patterns of successful heterosexual marriages. Nothing precludes eHarmony from providing same-sex matching in the future; it's just not a service we offer now based upon the research we have conducted."[citation needed]EagleOne\Talk 19:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Just removed two more unsourced and definitely non-neutral statements from the article:

  • Very strict refund policy or they will reply after the refund period has expired.[citation needed]
  • Dissatisfaction with speed and scripted email replies of the site's help desk.[citation needed]

People, please provide verifiable sources when adding to this article. This is NOT a forum for bashing eHarmony! If you have complaints with the service, take them up elsewhere. — EagleOne\Talk 17:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

What is a verifiable source? If you do a simple goggle search you can find thousands of people complaining about billing errors. Seriously though did eHarmony's marketing department write this? Is there any other company that gets to explain what makes their product superior? the "singles program" section talks about how the matches are superior, how their process is better, all from the perspective of the company and it's employees ie "Director of Research". The "Marriage Program" section should be one line in the lead "In 2006 marriage.eharmony.com was establish to provide advice and counseling to failing marriages" or something like that, we don't need to include pricing and details about the products. If eHarmony wants to tell people about their new products let them buy more TV or Internet adds. If people want details about the product let them go to the website. If I got to the Nissan website I don't see the retail price of the Titan truck or available options. Also what is the deal with the rejection issue, it seems to be brought up in 4 separate spots. So they don't do same sex couples so they don't want people who are currently married, so they don't want people with a history of divorce. It is called a Marriage oriented matchmaking site. I guess if you want to call it a Heterosexual marriage site that would be ok. Although that seems silly since the vast majority of the world population still view term marriage as heterosexual. Wasn't it match.com's marketing champaign to tell people eHarmony rejects 20% of applicants? I have seen sites that cater towards homosexuals, Mormons, elderlies and other groups, it is no big deal. How can you criticizes someone for focusing on a specific market or screening clients? Would you criticizing Saturn for not making pick up trucks or Ford for not making motorcycles. Also, why mention a lawsuit, it is a multi million dollar company with 16 million registered users, so that means 4 million people got rejected and one person is suing. If they lost a significant lawsuit that impacted the company we should include it, anyone can sue anyone in this country not every lawsuit is news worthy nor should it be in an on line encyclopedia. Well I am done, I just came here out of curiosity I don't have more time to help you fix this disaster. Sorry if I seem crabby it just the quality of many articles aren't worthy of wikipediaMantion (talk) 16:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Logo and First title[edit]

I added the company logo, got it from the eharmony.com page, also consolidated the first three paragraphs under the heading "Founding and Funding," Is this section header even necessary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bougie back (talkcontribs) 06:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The 32 Dimensions[edit]

The twenty-nine dimensions of compatibility to me qualifies as one of the more noteworthy catchphrases. Notably eharmony lists thirty-two dimensions in their explanation page. This is almost as bad as if the Colonel had used twelve herbs and spices. I see that by combining Energy,Emotion Management, and Passion (but not Artistic Passion), the magic twenty-nine flavours is achieved. I think at least the catchphrase should be part of the article. The Heinz and Baskin-Robbins entries mention their slogans. It does not seem unreasonable that this article should also.

Core traits

       Emotional Temperament
               Self Concept                             1       1
               Emotional Status                         2       2
               Energy: Emotional               *        3       3a
               Obstreperousness                         4       4
               Passion: Romantic               *        5       5a
       Social Style
               Character                                6       6
               Kindness                                 7       7
               Dominance                                8       8
               Sociability                              9       9
               Autonomy                                10      10
               Adaptability                            11      11
       Cognitive Mode
               Intellect                               12      12
               Curiosity                               13      13
               Humor                                   14      14
               Artistic Passion                x       15      15
       Physicality
               Energy: Physical                *       16       3b
               Passion: Sexual                 *       17       5b
               Vitality and Security                   18      16
               Industry                                19      17
               Appearance                              20      18

Vital Attributes

       Relationship Skills
               Communication Style                     21      19
               Emotion Management: Anger       *       22      20a
               Emotion Management: Mood        *       23      20b
               Conflict Resolution                     24      21
       Values and Beliefs
               Spirituality                            25      22
               Family Goals                            26      23
               Traditionalism                          27      24
               Ambition                                28      25
               Altruism                                29      26
       Key Experiences
               Family Background                       30      27
               Family Status                           31      28
               Education                               32      29

Fotoguzzi (talk) 00:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


Warren quote disappears. HELLO?[edit]

"The fact is that same-sex marriage in this country is largely illegal at this time, and we do try to match people for marriage." --Dr. Warren Why was this removed from the article? It is VERY relevant, especially now that California and Massachusetts have legalized gay marriage, New York has decided to recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages, and most of Europe has legalized it. Its VERY relevant. --Ragemanchoo (talk) 03:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Problem with Dates[edit]

The article says the site was founded in 2000, and then in 2004 (4 years later) that they compared married couples who had been together for more than 5 years.

Slick023 (talk) 17:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

eharmony.ca[edit]

Regarding the quote, "Warren responds that he has not done the same amount of research on same-sex match-making as he has done on heterosexual match-making. He also notes that eHarmony is about marriage, and that same-sex marriage is illegal in most states"; has Warren issued any statement about the Canadian eHarmony ( eharmony.ca ) - in a country where same-sex marriage is legal? samwaltz (talk) 03:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Moved from article[edit]

I removed the following from the article:

Large % of matches are ether old members whom discontinued membership or are non paying members. Tv ad make seem far better then it is. The responce process to matches is long and drawn out. 1 800 number can't be found unless you use google.com it's found on http://www.pinoy.ca/eharmony/12. Over all I would say don't bother unless you want to waist your time and money. Getting your money back is no go. Try other sites do to bad services.

It was written by an IP (207.81.60.79) and seemed more like a comment than an encyclopedia addition. JazzMan 02:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Relationship Site[edit]

I changed "relationship site" back to "dating site" because 'relationship site' is not a real term. It's either eharmony marketing department astroturfing their page or it's someone who is legitimately confused about what a dating site is. In the first case, that's not welcome, and in the second case, they can click through the the link and read what a dating site is. In either case, the current terminology makes it clearer what eHarmony is. 68.33.89.114 (talk) 23:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Greg

Class action suit settled[edit]

The information about the separate gay and straight eHarmony sites should probably be updated in view of the the settlement of the California class action suit: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/01/eharmony-agrees-to-make-site-welcoming-to-gays-and-lesbians-ending-la-lawsuit.html

E A (talk) 15:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Eharmony[edit]

I think that the difficulty with many of the users is they have not researched the website. Unlike other websites that just want to MATCH you or tell you there are PLENTY OF FISH in the see; eharmony actually uses proven methods, utilizing 29 dimensions and then some. You can read about the dimensions on the website, and also click on many useful links. They provide many services for free, research and information. Of course they charge for the service, does charging at a restaurant make it fraudulant? How do they pay their almost 200 Pasadena employees? They usually have 20 bucks a month specials, the cost of a latte a week. I really recommend that anyone looking for a quality relationship, based on many aspects, tries it out. You do not have to post a pix until you are comfortable and their security system is superb. I do not work for eharmony, though have tried it myself and had success. I also know several people of the over 200 that marry each day, who have their happily ever after. Perhaps the critics might want to take the chance and put some trust into the system...they might actually smile. V.G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.173.200.65 (talk) 22:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Commercial plagiarism[edit]

I've noticed nowhere on the internet does it mention eHarmony's blatant plagiarism of the song Black Eyed Peas - Where is the Love? in their commercials. See here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y_FLOGDSCo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.32.109.94 (talk) 22:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

If its nowhere else on the internet we can't write about it here (WP:NOR). Maybe eHarmony bought a licence so they could use the song.... Smartse (talk) 22:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Efficacy statistics by an industry leader[edit]

eHarmony does not publish comprehensive efficacy statistics, but they do present numbers in other ways such as by saying number of people on the site, number of members who get married, etc. An industry leader who works for a competitor just published statistics for eHarmony using eHarmony's numbers. This is important for article inclusion because he is an authority in the industry, he presented the findings as an official statement, and because so far as I know, no other authority has ever presented data of this sort, including eHarmony. The data is inherently interesting.

The data is neither good or bad, but since its presentation is not part of eHarmony's marketing plan, some people may perceive it as negative. I am posting on the talk board in advance in case anyone wants to discuss my addition of it to this article. Thoughts? Blue Rasberry 17:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Rudder is a direct competitor of eHarmony with a vested interest in advancing his point of view. How do we get past that? Townlake (talk) 19:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Undoubtedly he is a competitor, but he is still the highest profile industry leader to ever speak on the topic. If any neutral party of comparable rank has ever said anything that conflicts with what he said, then probably their statement's integrity should be weighted more heavily. But so far as I know, eHarmony has never said anything on this issue, nor has anyone else. In absence of other viewpoints on this fundamental data that is highly relevant to understanding eHarmony, I think Rudder's statement takes priority. Is this sufficient to bypass suspicion of data integrity? Please be frank; I know I posted this, but I also have doubts. Still, the data is too interesting not to include without a good reason. Blue Rasberry 01:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
The blog post is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. It's not a close call. Even if this had been published at a neutral site, the logical holes in this "authority"'s argument are significant. I know you mean well and you added this in good faith, but including OKCupid's point of view about its competitors to the article doesn't trump Wikipedia policy. Townlake (talk) 12:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I took the post down and I am putting it right here for now.
I disagree that this is a clear violation of NPOV, because if it is a violation it is not clear. At the very least, the data being presented is not being presented as an opinion, and NPOV exclusions are concerned with interpretation of data and not raw data presentations themselves. If the data is bad, then it should not be included, but bad numerical data does not mean it is NPOV. Or do you think the data is inclusive of a non-objective opinion? I feel like Rudder made an aggressive and uncommon move, but the methodology for data generation is sourced and Rudder is an authority in the field with his good reputation at stake. Does having a public financial motive for publicizing one's data automatically make it somehow unsuitable for Wikipedia?
I feel that eHarmony would agree with the content of the statement, even though it is inherent in their business model not to promote distribution or acknowledge the existence of this information. Indeed the conclusion is drawn from simple analysis of eHarmony's own public data.
If you assert that what I have written is not NPOV, could you give a short statement about how this data could be presented in a NPOV way? So far as I can tell, the only way to frame the information favorably to eHarmony's advertising model is to suppress it.
You put "authority" in scare quotes. This is in reference only to his being a competitor and not because you doubt his industry standing, correct? Or put another way, would you agree that he is an authority for the industry in general, if not to critique competitors? Also, while it is not entirely appropriate to critique a reliable source's methodology and WP's focus should be on the stated results, I am not able to readily point to any "significant" logical holes in his argument, but if I had even a small recognition of any problem with the data itself I would not be promoting his statement. What are you seeing that is unrelated to the bias inherent in who he is?
Thanks for your attention. Blue Rasberry 20:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I see no problem with the bare statistics, so long as they can trace back to either eHarmony or a neutral source. My issue with this particular source is that the writer 1) states his biases up front, 2) extrapolates some statistics that take flawed assumptions for granted (such as the eH revenue stream and the number of users likely to match with another user at any given time), and 3) packages all this together in an argument that paid dating sites are bad and OKCupid is good. As for the scare quotes, they're only there because it's somewhat strange to frame him as an industry authority here, when he's clearly an industry participant with a vested interest in this particular argument. The source should be assessed based on what it is, not on what it could be if stated differently. Townlake (talk) 16:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I think this is not a NPOV issue, but rather a reliable source issue. Honestly, I do not know know if this source is reliable, but it is questionable for all the reasons you name. I appreciate your feedback and am not discrediting what you have to say, but I am putting a question about this on the reliable source notice board to get some feedback from people there. I totally agree with your point 1. I also agree with your point 2 that this source has flawed assumptions, but he states that these flaws are in favor of the article subject, and since he posts his methodology, I agree with this source when he says that whatever flaws are inherent in his process make the final data he presents more favorable to the subject and if the data is bad, it is because it is too flattering. Still I think the data is better than none at all. For your 3rd point, yes, I agree that the source draws a conclusion, but I am not sure if that taints the data presentation. The conclusion is his subjective interpretation of the data, and I am not citing that; I feel that the data itself is objective, but I totally agree with you that the source may not be appropriate for what I am doing. As I said before, though, I feel this data is necessary for understanding the nature of the article's subject, and if there is some appropriate way to present it, then I would like to do so. Thanks for your attention. Blue Rasberry 00:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm here after seeing the post on WP:RSN: I entirely agree with Townlake. OKCupid is doing some really fancy and questionable math, mixing some numbers reported by eHarmony with others reported by "industry analysts", calling everyone who hasn't paid for an account ahead of time "dead" (when the entire point of allowing unpaid accounts is that they are able to pay in order to reply)... it's a highly biased mess. If some third party reliable source, such as a newspaper or magazine, is suckered into taking those numbers at face value and reports on them, maybe we can mention it then, maybe. Until then, it's all as per Mark Twain's famous quotation about figures not lying. The fact that a company competitor has criticism is neither reliable nor noteworthy, and the fact that he phrases it by juggling figures rather than just words doesn't make it more so. --GRuban (talk) 04:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure that a bad original source becomes appropriate for Wikipedia by being published by other outlets, but I take your other points. I also do not accept that this is not noteworthy; the source may not be encyclopedic, but this is not simple advertising either. Thanks for the input. Blue Rasberry 15:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

They're moving to Santa Monica![edit]

Just learned of this from an acquaintance who knows several people there. Confirmed here via AP newswire via SFGate.com. We'll have to update the location once the move is final. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Matching paying members with non-paying members[edit]

Should we disallow the use of the article "Why You Should Never Pay For Online Dating" by OkCupid while allowing the article "eHARMONY? MORE LIKE TONE DEAF" by blacktable.com and the article "What To Do With Non Active Dating Site Members?" by About.com? Shawnc (talk) 08:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Somebody's just added a reference about them matching paying members with non-paying members which was written six years ago. I just wondered if anyone knows if this is still the case now? Smartse (talk) 20:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

An article from 2010 has been added. Shawnc (talk) 10:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
That source has already been rejected as biased - OKCupid is an eHarmony competitor, and the math in the article is very sketchy. See this Talk page link... or look two topics above. I'll be reverting this addition. Townlake (talk) 15:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry I missed the discussion. So, the issues raised by the editors were: NPOV, reliability, and notability.
There appears to be bias in the article, but NPOV is fundamentally not an issue here, as per official policy: "A biased statement violates this policy when it is presented as a fact or the truth. It does not necessarily violate this policy when it is presented as an identifiable point of view." Even if the article was highly biased, NPOV would not be violated, given proper phrasing.
Reliability-wise, the objection was that the author mixed or extrapolated numbers from different sources. While Wikipedia has the policy of no original research via "the synthesis of published material that advances a position", it also points out that this restriction does not apply to "reliable sources". It would be a circular argument to deem a source unreliable on this ground alone. Actually, mixing sources is not atypical for professional analysts, who are expected to make sense of data from multiple sources. To quote a financial textbook, "Aside from company-provided sources of information, analysts also obtain information from third party sources such as industry organizations, regulatory agencies, and commercial providers of market intelligence." The numbers used by the author were clearly sourced. Whether the analysis is correct is a separate issue, but there is no indication that it is necessarily unreliable.
OkCupid, with its own Wikipedia article, is more notable than blacktable.com or Bonny Albo, the current sources that reference the idea of "Matching paying members with non-paying members". OkCupid's analysis more or less echoes this idea. If OkCupid's article is not notable for inclusion, then on what ground are we allowing the other sources to be used, which are arguably random criticism from non-mainstream websites? The fact that OkCupid is a competitor does not make its view unnotable. At least, it would be considered an "identifiable point of view". If none of the sources are worthy of inclusion, the entire section should be deleted.
My recommendation is to present OkCupid's article without repeating biased language or implying that its numbers are accurate. This would be consistent with NPOV and verifiability. We could present that "OkCupid, a competitor, claimed that the majority of eHarmony's users are non-paying and thus may not be able to reply." This is not the same as simply stating that "the majority of eHarmony's users can not reply" and then cite the article.
At least, the article makes for an additional citation for the section. Shawnc (talk) 11:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Your post is too long and lawyerly. The issue here isn't that complicated. I continue to object to using this OKCupid editorial as a source here. Townlake (talk) 14:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I see that we will have to escalate this. I should also ask, however, whether you are a current user or employee of eHarmony? I am not affiliated with OkCupid or other such websites. Shawnc (talk) 07:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm neither. Townlake (talk) 13:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I really don't like the idea of using knocking copy from a rival business. If it was part of a notable public dispute between these organizations (reported in secondary sources), then fine, but it's not. A rival company is not like a campaigning group (eg. consumer, trades union, environmental) and its advertising (even when called an "article") is still advertising. --Simon Speed (talk) 12:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Is there a policy which suggests that a rival's comments should not be used, considering that the comment in question is an additional citation for an existing, independently conceived notion, and when said rival is more visible than the other critics? Statistics from competing companies are an efficient source of information, the more antagonistic the more powerful the effect. "Go to key managers in five different companies in an industry and ask each of them questions about the other four. You will emerge with a detailed and accurate picture of all five companies" (Philip Arthur Fisher). Shawnc (talk) 05:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The proposed reference is for the Criticism section. You'd think that any notable criticisms would be open for coverage there including criticisms by competitors. Making it clear that the criticism is not from a competitor as Shawnc (talk · contribs) has proposed is prudent. (BTW, the idea of an unbiased source is pretty much fiction.) On the other hand, this section is already causing a serious WP:UNDUE problem for the article and first order of business here should be to trim it or split off into a separate article. --Kvng (talk) 14:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, this "criticism" is coming from a competitor, using a unique combination of statistics that, to my knowledge, nobody else has combined in this manner. It strikes me as unremarkable that OKCupid would develop some quantitative arguments to establish itself as superior to its competition. Townlake (talk) 19:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry. Typo there. I've corrected. It is clear to me that we're talking about criticism from a competitor. --Kvng (talk) 20:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
But the author's mix of statistics is neither foreign to analysts nor a violation of Wikipedia policy to my knowledge, as mentioned. Similar quantitative arguments by eHarmony, if they existed, would also help bring balance. If the numbers in OkCupid's article were blatently false and malicious, it could be accused of libel. If there is no evidence that the numbers are grossly inaccurate, this should be a matter of citing a verifiable point of view. Shawnc (talk) 05:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Methodology section discrepancy[edit]

An IP user added the following to the main article which I have moved here as more appropriate:

"Simple math would tell a person that if eharmony was founded in the year 2000, then in 2004 there would be no couples that had been married 5 years.This among many things eharmony says make me wonder about their reporting methods"

This refers to the claim that 4 years after the founding of the company, they had couples married for 5 years. noq (talk) 13:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The source linked to that paragraph in the article doesn't actually support most of it. I suggest that whole paragraph be stricken until a reliable source for the statistics therein is identified. (The right source might be in the list of press releases on the right side of the page in footnote 13... I just don't have time to surf through that list at this moment.) Townlake (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

PayPal not accepted with EHarmony.ca[edit]

I've noticed that the Canadian site doesn't accept the PayPal instant payment method, while the other sites seem to be accepting it. Maybe this should be added as well to the criticism section. 173.179.155.183 (talk) 17:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

about lovin someone[edit]

To all eharmony people out there what's tha deal with every thing on line. Is there somethin there in the line of love r not.Well that's what im lookin for — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.155.100 (talk) 18:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ "National Organization Of Short Statured Adults" (Press release). 2007-04-02. Retrieved 2007-04-09.