Talk:Match.com/Archives/2016

Criticism

Censorship

Match.com is notorious for censorship of pictures and profile pages. This censorship is defended by Match.com as a method for maintaining a respectable website. In order to become a member of Match.com, you must agree to the Terms of Use. These terms grant Match.com not only the right to display your content, but also to delete and modify this information prior to publishing it. In the event that Match.com modifies your content, they do not require your permission to publish it.

According to the Terms of Use, this censorship is designed to prevent "defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, obscene, profane, offensive, sexually oriented, threatening, harassing, racially offensive, or illegal material"

References

Pictures

In addition to censoring images that fall under the above categories as defined by the Terms of Use, Match.com also censors images that are not offensive in any way. Photos where someone's face is mildly unidentifiable are unaccepted by Match.com. Images are as such when someone is wearing sunglasses or a hat.

References

Profiles

Profiles, similar to pictures, must be approved by Match.com before they are made public. This approval process can take up to 72 hours. After this process, many words and phases are automatically censored from the profile, despite their context. Because of this, many users' profiles aren't accepted--even after several attempts to correct the issue. This can be frustrating for users who use words like "dirty" in reference to martinis or "petite" to simply describe themselves.

References

Business Ethics

There is significant evidence (in the form of complaints) that Match.com "baits" expiring customers into re-purchasing their subscription by sending the customer messages from fake, attractive users.

Yes there is significant evidence to support that. I myself even have some myself. I believe something about this should be put in the article. --Count —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.85.197.167 (talk) 22:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

References

if you think there's significant evidence, please cite some in a reliable source. To be honest, the anecdotal evidence I've seen so far seems to me like it's atributing normal rudeness of people in an anonymous dating site for a conspiracy. Alternately, I'm okay with writing that many people _believe_ in this conspiracy (whether it's real or not), if in fact we can document that many people do believe this. Zashaw (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

if match is going to be doing this kind of thing, they should at least be required to hire actual whores to compose the messages. this is why the sex industry could benefit from unionization... Zaphraud (talk) 01:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Controversies

There is an avalanche of evidence of Match.com controversies. I ask that no one removes controversies until fully discussed and voted upon in the discussion. Worldedixor (talk) 16:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

If there is really an avalanche of evidence, it should be easy to cite it. Of course, there needs to be evidence in a reliable source, which probably doesn't include people's blogs. If other editors can find such evidence to cite, the content should go back into the article. Zashaw (talk) 19:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to see this avalanche of evidence. The current section relies on one 2005 newspaper report about a lawsuit that was later dropped and blogs and forum postings. Blogs and forums are not reliable sources for Wikipedia's purposes. Better sources need to be found for this section to stay as it is. -- SiobhanHansa 20:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC) --

Agreed. I have reverted to bare bones list as per SH. Whatever you might ask we cannot leave compromised content whilst we wait. --BozMo talk 09:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. All controversies should be mentioned, not from anonymous IP addresses or blogs, but from established WP editors who want to bring unique content based on legitimate personal experiences. Worldedixor (talk) 21:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

That would be using Wikipedia as a soapbox and original research which is against our core policies. We need published, prominent, independent sources that not only verify the facts but indicate the significance of the issue. -- SiobhanHansa 22:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thinking "out of the box" in the best interest of truthful "facts"!... My firsthand experience and the avalanche of the "same" complaints by many bloggers and consumer advocates should indicate the "significance" the questionable practices of match.com. But it appears on WP, all one needs is a gang of 3 wolves (one being an Admin with so much time on his hands) to sabottage a sincere effort by an established editor. This is why you went ahead and reverted for the third time my edits... Congratulations!... The floor is all yours... I made my contribution IN GOOD FAITH and it was sabottaged by WP beaureaucrats and the sorry "gang v/s 1" mentality of WP... I am out of here... Cheerio Worldedixor (talk) 06:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I see from your talk page history that as an established user you have been told time and time again by many other editors and admins that unsourced additions are not acceptable here. I'm not sure how useful or believable your assertion of good faith is when you have repeatedly failed to take on board instruction over two years about Wikipedia's core policies. If you want to get your own story out start a blog. It just isn't what Wikipedia is about. -- SiobhanHansa 12:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Stop ANTAGONIZING!!! and STOP being PATRONIZING... You are creeping me out!... You must be a very lonely woman with so much time on your hands that your ONLY ambition is to become a WP admin... I have a REAL life... so... STOP snooping into my "page history" and back off already... I said the floor is all yours... I made my contribution IN GOOD FAITH and it was "sabottaged" by WP beaureaucrats and the sorry "gang v/s 1" mentality of WP... I am out of here... Enjoy your sorry victory... Do NOT ever think of antagonizing me again. Worldedixor (talk) 07:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

As a casual user of wikipedia who found this page while idly browsing, I'd confess that I was very surprised at the critical tone of an encyclopaedia page. For example "As some estimates put the proportion of “ghost” profiles at over 90%, it would seem that very few of them will. Match.com refuse to comment on this issue." Not only is this not referenced but I find it almost impossible to believe given my own experiences and those of at least 10 other friends who would consider it a laughably conspiratorial claim. I won't edit the page directly, but an experienced editor should imo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.0.196.15 (talk) 20:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

This article--this section, in particular--remains a mess. I am taking the liberty of removing uncited claims and editorializing diatribes. Matt Thorn (talk) 08:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The section which says "Match.com UK, the British version of the site, a subscription cannot be cancelled online" is incorrect. Members can cancel online. If members wish to end their subscription, they can follow the online cancellation procedure or call match.com 48 hours before the subscription payment is due to be taken. A confirmation email is sent if the process has been successful. You can find a discussion on how to end your subscription on their advice blog. http://advice.uk.match.com/dating-advice/online-dating-advice/when-i-find-someone-or-want-break-online-dating-how-do-i-delete-my-matchcom-account — Preceding unsigned comment added by AwesomeAudrey33 (talk • contribs) 09:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

References