The Grok (Lisa Davis) writes a very insightful review of our favourite site, covering customer relationships (hint, hint!), her trip in eHarmonyLand, and following through.
When it comes to matchmaking, people want to find friendship, maybe love, maybe…

There is a reason for the rejections, all of them (fact is, rejection happens in life PERIOD. Doesn’t mean you’re hopeless, or the dating site is ‘not right’ on the spot.)

Understand that the creator of eHarmony, Neil Clark Warren, is a ‘grandfatherly moral’ if not traditional faithful believer. His background, or religion, is Christianity (Okay, that right away should explain why he doesn’t promote gays and lesbians, but the reason lies with his lack of experience in that field. Yes, aiding homosexual relationships differ from that of heterosexuals.)

It has nothing to do with religion. He has faithfully left that out, thankfully for a more peaceful outcome to the audience of the world. (Members of eHarmony range from atheist to wiccans.) So that assumption is out the window.

Warren’s goal is to match those with an intent of marriage. Marriage is actually the point in general of the site, from what I interpret of his words. For that reason, I understand why those under 21 aren’t allowed on the site (It just makes sense, right?) Especially when dealing with a creator who’s more traditional and desires your relationship to be meaningful. Age plays a part. If it didn’t, you’d have a bunch of 16 year olds legally drinking (of course, we have those, but it isn’t legal here).

Warren also intends to run a project for not matching members who intend to marry, but to IMPROVE marriages as a whole.

Being rejected from eHarmony doesn’t mean they’re saying you won’t find your soul-mate. Both a moral-backbone from its creator, and an excellent business proposal on the market (eHarmony is the 4th largest dating service on the internet), the site is not without its targeted audience and purpose.

So please, you’re not any ‘lesser’ of a person able to find love than those who are accepted. Don’t feel bad, or hold a grudge for this web site. Just try to be more understanding of how this old friendly-face man think and believes.

Don’t believe me?

He tells it all here.

http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2005-05-18-eharmony_x.htm

By the same token, my own online dating website for australias takes the same principle. Free webcam, chat etc, supported by google adsense. http://www.1stdate.com.au

Divorced white male, lives in Seattle, 35 years old at time of experience. Yes, identifying information, but in any realistic analysis of a dating site you have to take demographics into account.

I’ve used both Chemistry and eHarmony – I subscribed to eHarmony at the same time a relative bought me a Chemistry subscription, so I used them at about the same time period, with similar profiles. I used both of them for six months, starting around May of this year.

I’d generally get 4-5 dates (that’s meeting in person, people) a month on eHarmony, and I met 4 people TOTAL on Chemistry. I’d say something like 98% of the people I got matched up with on Chemistry NEVER RESPONDED to me at all. We’re not talking about “closed” – we’re talking about no response at all from any of them of any sort whatsoever indicating any kind of activity on the part of the account. eHarmony was MUCH more productive in meeting people, and while the people I did actually meet up with on Chemistry were very good matches, they also complained of a total lack of activity on the site as well. I recently met someone through eHarmony, and we’re exploring where it goes.

Maybe I’m not the target demographic for Chemistry, but it sure didn’t work for me.

Last I heard, the NAD didn’t think much of Chemistry’s claims to be “scientific”… or even to provide a service based on matching. So, what is it that’s so great about Chemistry.com again? The loopy columnists that no one reads? The matching system derived from the inane ramblings of the world’s most self-aggrandizing anthropologist?

You’re right (if woefully incomplete) about what defines a relationship for both good and ill, but you seem to have lost the forest for the trees when it comes to eHarmony. Their ads may make YOU butt itch, but they have been HUGELY effective. A minority of users may post lengthy blogs about how it DIDN’T work for them, but for what must be considered a critical mass of users, eHarmony has been HUGELY successful.

Chemistry and PerfectMatch and True may hope to base their advertising on a “chip away at the leader” strategy, and may pick up some of the “rejects” in that way… but the real opportunity lays in waiting for eHarmony and the day when they can figure out how to capitalize on their eager user base in a way which leaves less people “disenfranchised” by a system that appears to stil have some very rough edges.