Users call Tinder “beauty contest plus messaging” or “McDonald’s for sex”

The authors chose this term because of the way users interact with the swipe has implications to their behavior. The feature allows for mediatization and depersonalization due to swipe pace. A user is only presented with images such that a deeper understanding of the other does not occur. It is noted that an algorithm dictates the swipe logic such that users are forced to have profile that can catch attention various ways, such as being humorous or witty. The lack of information promotes transcendence over being honest and faithful to oneself to be successful at the “game”.

J. (2012) & Sprechers and Sumter, Vandenbosch & Ligtenberg (2017) where they call Tinder a hookup app

Nevertheless, it remains a superficial activity, which due the swipe pace may even be used to waste time. The authors attribute such behavior to the immersive mobile culture in which the touching of a mobile device’s screen has become an essential cultural habit for users. Reviews of users about Tinder as dating app reaffirm the time-waste behavior. Furthermore, it is less so considered as a dating app but rather a matter to find one-night stands. Other articles also mention terms like this, for example in Finkel, E. In contrast to the case file, Tinder displays a very different view towards dating glint than introduced by eHarmony. eHarmony’s goal is it to match partners based on how complementary and how well they fit together, and eventually lead couples to “successful” , eHarmony made use of regression techniques, which may be considered outdated nearly two decades later. While Tinder’s algorithm is not public known, it may very likely be much more advanced than eHarmony’s regression. Based on being a location-based real-time dating application factors such as complementary features of couples may be insignificant for Tinder. Features, such as swipes, likes or dislikes, or possibly advanced image analysis of user’s profiles may be found in Tinder’s algorithm. Advancement in data science methodology make eHarmony seem very outdated from a technical point of view. Furthermore, their take on matching couples for longevity and eventual marriage seems archaic in today’s fast-paced society.

Since 2007, follow-up on eHarmony’s revolutionary matching algorithm has taken several directions. On one hand the scientific community is now realizing there might not be any concrete evidence behind traditional matching algorithms, so for this reason but also simply due to new technologies available, those who want to make a dating business are reprofiling to mobile apps, real-life dating and various creative features. On the other hand, in the media and pop culture an increasing number of stories, movies and opinions have emerged on the topic of online dating and are growing more popular with especially young, digitally literate audiences.

“We, as a scientific community, do not believe that these algorithms work.They are a joke, and there is no relationship scientist that takes them seriously as relationship science” – Eli J. Finkel, an associate professor of social psychology at Northwestern University. ”

“We, as a scientific community, do not believe that these algorithms work,” said Eli J. Finkel, an associate professor of social psychology at Northwestern University. To him, dating sites like eHarmony and Match are more like modern snake oil – “They are a joke, and there is no relationship scientist that takes them seriously as relationship science”

Mr. Finkel spent more than a year with a group of researchers trying to find backing to the claim made by computer dating services and after investigating more than 80 years’ worth of scientific research on dating and attraction, he was unable to find concrete evidence in favor of websites such as eHarmony