<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Make Online Dating Better</title>
	<atom:link href="http://betteronlinedating.wordpress.com/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://betteronlinedating.wordpress.com</link>
	<description>Uncurbed critiques of online dating services and shameless self promotion of my online dating site project.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 26 Sep 2008 22:43:19 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>Comment on Match.com&#8217;s Matching Misses The Mark by Keith</title>
		<link>http://betteronlinedating.wordpress.com/2008/09/19/match-coms-matching-misses-the-mark/#comment-3</link>
		<dc:creator>Keith</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Sep 2008 22:43:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://betteronlinedating.wordpress.com/?p=11#comment-3</guid>
		<description>That&#039;s a good point I hadn&#039;t thought of -- dating sites stand to lose money the more successful their users are at finding a match.  Keep your users constantly searching and resubscribing, and you can milk them pretty good.  In that case I would argue that the subscription model is a problem.  And anyway, I&#039;m all for abolishing the subscription model altogether.  Online dating SHOULD be free!  I&#039;ll get to that in a future post.

I&#039;d like to hear more about your 2nd point -- when users ignore the basic criteria.  Are you referring to bogus dating profiles or just poorly created ones?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That&#8217;s a good point I hadn&#8217;t thought of &#8212; dating sites stand to lose money the more successful their users are at finding a match.  Keep your users constantly searching and resubscribing, and you can milk them pretty good.  In that case I would argue that the subscription model is a problem.  And anyway, I&#8217;m all for abolishing the subscription model altogether.  Online dating SHOULD be free!  I&#8217;ll get to that in a future post.</p>
<p>I&#8217;d like to hear more about your 2nd point &#8212; when users ignore the basic criteria.  Are you referring to bogus dating profiles or just poorly created ones?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Match.com&#8217;s Matching Misses The Mark by scifibutterfly</title>
		<link>http://betteronlinedating.wordpress.com/2008/09/19/match-coms-matching-misses-the-mark/#comment-2</link>
		<dc:creator>scifibutterfly</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Sep 2008 03:56:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://betteronlinedating.wordpress.com/?p=11#comment-2</guid>
		<description>To my fellow single:  One thing to keep in mind when it comes to Online Dating is that these sites are in a business.  If they were to match all of us up perfectly they would really lose a lot of money.

Nonetheless, I continue to try.  I have used just about every site out there at one time or another.

Oh yeah, the flaws of the sites are bad enough, but when the users ignore your basic criteria, that is even worse!!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>To my fellow single:  One thing to keep in mind when it comes to Online Dating is that these sites are in a business.  If they were to match all of us up perfectly they would really lose a lot of money.</p>
<p>Nonetheless, I continue to try.  I have used just about every site out there at one time or another.</p>
<p>Oh yeah, the flaws of the sites are bad enough, but when the users ignore your basic criteria, that is even worse!!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
