Talk:Plenty of Fish

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Plenty of Fish article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Pedantic technology section

The section lists specific details about the site's IT technology ("ASP.NET 2.0, Microsoft SQL Server 2005"). I think this info is of little interest or concern to the vast majority of readers so I vote that this section is removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.124.44 (talk) 20:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of Impact Upon Market

I find the article to be lacking to some degree by not addressing how this site has altered the market. Match.com and eHarmony.com have really been forced to lower prices and have had difficulty justifying their existence almost entirely due to plentyoffish.com, similar to how craigslist has eroded the newspaper classifieds market so drastically.

Yet most articles on other companies and sites that have had a "disruptive" effect on their market (Dell, craigslist, Linux, Walmart, etc.) have some sort of statement or paragraph addressing their impact.

75.118.7.231 (talk) 01:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Criticism section

I think I have enough fuel to add to the fire for this, there's even a POF Sucks website, at http://pofsucks1.wordpress.com/ as well as another source that I cannot list cause it's blocked apparently due to the words "complaints and form".

I'd like to start making this article, so please do not "remove it" just help improvise on it.

Thank you.--Dr. Pizza (talk) 17:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remove criticism?

I'm wondering about the criticism section of this article. The citations for this section all link to one blog, which hasn't been updated in over a year and a half. Additionally, the blog seems heavily biased and one-sided. If there are no additional (more neutral) references, I propose this section be removed Spinner2189 (talk) 03:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the blog was one person's complaints that were not believable. I deleted the section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.103.45.118 (talk) 06:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And i am re adding them because its true, it happens constantly, and i have a new source to back it up too now.--Dr. Pizza (talk) 23:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: Okay i added ALOT of sources from personal experiences, i think the people who view this wikipedia are entitled to other people's experiences, that way they know if this site is a good place to go to or not. :) i got banned in 30 minutes and i did NOTHING wrong, they just simply erased my profile. =(--Dr. Pizza (talk) 00:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am re-adding mine because it is an important warning to anyone using plentyoffish. If you don't find it believable (I didn't) just ask anyone who has an account to check their email carefully. This is it: About once per month, POF sends an email with the user's password unencrypted. Anyone walking by when the email is opened or previewed can see the password. Anyone else who is authorized to open, or accidentally forwarded this monthly email sees the password. Not everyone who has dozens of online accounts uses a different password for each one, so more than one account's security can be compromised. I like plentyoffish very much; I just don't like this quirky policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.155.150.114 (talk) 19:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, we don't give a rat's ass what your opinion is. If yiu can document criticism via a reliable source, we can include it. Blog whining doesn't meet our criteria for inclusion. Full stop. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I think there should be at least some sort of criticism section because as I read this now, it sounds more like an advert rather than a unbiased encyclopedia article. I came to this page wondering if the sight could be trusted and what did I get? Little more than what it boasts about on the homepage. Finding legitimate sources of criticism may be difficult, but not impossible. I suggest some effort. However I don't think blogs count as legitimate sources.Rockguy32 (talk) 04:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, but - lke you pointed out - blogs are not legitimate sources of info, as they lack oversight; its essentially one or two guys rendering a personal opinion. That fails our inclusion criteria. I do concur that informed, reliable criticism wouldn't hurt. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

that's the stupidest thing i've ever heard rockguy32. if you have to scour to the ends of the planet to find a credible source of criticism, the site is as good as not criticized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.101.119 (talk) 12:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a couple of factual points yesterday (definitely not just "one person's opinion"), and today it has been removed . . . and I suspect this was done by Frind or one of his delegates. If this is correct, then apparently he thinks that Wikipedia is his own personal playground to delete facts not to his liking. Is there a way to keep individuals from doing this?Daqu (talk) 01:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Features section?

The entire features section seems like pretty standard stuff that's not worth mentioning, and seems like more of an advertisement than any kind of important encyclopedic information.

I'd remove the whole thing, but I figured it's better to discuss it and see what others think.

Jozsefs (talk) 20:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so after leaving some time for this to be discussed, I went ahead and removed the Features section of the article, in an effort to reshape the article so that it reads less like an advertisement. Jozsefs (talk) 23:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still needs more reshaping. History section currently mostly media references, film etc. I'll have a go. Centrepull (talk) 04:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Real information needed

Plenty Of Fish is listed by Wikipedia as a real entity, yet there is no way of verification or contact other than their website, i.e. under their terms and via their format. In my search of the plentyoffish website, I found no opportunity to ask anything other than their preselected generic options. In my Anywho and Canada 411 search of Vancouver BC for either Plenty Of Fish or plentyoffish, I located only pet stores, fisheries, and restaurants. Similarly my search for a Markus Frind in Vancouver yielded no results.

In most posts on Wikipedia, information that can be verified only by the speaker is termed as rumor. An encyclopedia is not a place to publish someone's press releases. From my own experience, I believe the quoted 11,000,000 membership is inflated by contrived difficulty for members to resign from the website. I would like to see a hard opportunity to prove myself right or wrong.

65.172.201.7 (talk) 09:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)wallace Do a WhoIs searchand contact the company directly, asking for information. That should yield some results. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Over one million babies were born because of pof -- hmm, does he also take credit for the traffic fatalities for members that date, drink, and drive ? Would all of those pof folk have been childless otherwise. Would more than one million have been born without pof? I think you get the idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:C502:7DD0:F4FC:7966:6CFA:D0F7 (talk) 04:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fall of POF

According to Alexa, POF was virtually dead since August 2012. Confirmation of that? Macaldo (talk) 06:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where and how does Alexa say this? ZarhanFastfire (talk) 05:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

for me i dont think is nice for people to use an opportunity tofroud or lie to other,so pls be sincere to your self and others — Preceding unsigned comment added by Destyno omodia (talk • contribs) 01:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013 letter to users who Frind decided not to summarily delete

5/20/2013 2:50:38 PM

My name is Markus and I created POF/Plentyoffish. When I created POF, I wanted it to be all about finding relationships with the right person. For the first 7 years this worked really well, I got the site to 10 million users without any employees people and POF was generating a ton of relationships. Around 3 years ago, everyone started using the website via mobile phones. Today about 70% of POF use is via a mobile phone and unfortunately about 2% of men started to use POF as more of a hookup site mostly due the the casual nature of cell phone use.

In sticking with my vision that POF is all about Relationships, I'm going to make a bunch of changes to ensure it stays a relationship-focused site.

1. Any first contact between users that contains sexual references will not be sent. Anyone who tries to get around this rule will be deleted without warning. This rule has actually been in effect since last month and it's made the site so much better.

2. You can only contact people +/- 14 years of your age. There is no reason for a 50 year old man to contact a 18 year old women. The majority of messages sent outside those age ranges are all about hookups. Anyone who tries to get around this rule will get deleted.

3. Intimate Encounters will go away in the next few months. There are 3.3 Million people who use the site every day, of those there are only 6,041 single women looking for Intimate Encounters. Of those 6,041 women, the ones with hot pictures are mostly men pretending to be women. Intimate Encounters on POF can be summed up as a bunch of horny men talking to a bunch of horny men pretending to be women.

In short the vast majority of people will not be impacted. This is because the vast majority of people are not going around spamming women saying "let's have sex tonight". I can't change POF alone, I need your help to get the word out there that POF is all about relationships!

Markus

Hi, the critiera for the inclusion of information such as this within Wikipedia is verifiability. We cannot add any of this material to the article until reliable sources have picked this up or the website itself has posted these rules. Them From Space 21:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wish this website worked. I have been on here since 2007 and I haven't been on one date! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanmarcantonio (talk • contribs) 16:31, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

American?

I thought POF was Canadian, given it was set up there and their headquarters are based there, or is this more Wikipedia American bias? Scf1985 (talk) 11:51, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Kateclara (talk) 17:01, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Non-functional

The site seems to be non-functional. Link is dead, maybe it's time to show this in article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suncatcher 13 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

dating

im kevin i im tall and im at 820 63rd ave moorhead im loving and caring outgoing love kids and i want kids somedayi have brown eyes and hair i would love to treat u just like a queen and i will be your king i love pets ang much more as well 158.222.82.2 (talk) 19:50, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In second paragraph, what is this sentence about?

In second paragraph... "That are happy to take your money, but have few benefits." ... doesn't connect with anything in the article. Wkussmaul (talk) 14:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dating for seniors

Im older senior seeking companionship & friendship 70.74.237.145 (talk) 22:46, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dating for seniors

Im a senior lady seeking companionship & friendship 70.74.237.145 (talk) 22:50, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why do u havd to make this so hard for us 70.74.237.145 (talk) 22:51, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]