“As a marketing hook, it works great.”) In reality, dating sites are most effective as a kind of virtual town square — a place where random people whose paths wouldn’t otherwise cross bump into each other and start talking.That’s not much different from your neighborhood bar, except in its scale, ease of use and demographics.That, in the words of its own author, contradicts a pile of studies that have come before it.In fact, this latest proclamation on the state of modern love joins a 2010 study that found more couples meet online than at schools, bars or parties.It’s a question that applies equally well to offline dating, too: When a relationship fails, what or who is ultimately responsible? The length of time they took getting to know each other?Or something squishier, something less precise — a factor not captured in charts and telephone surveys?
A record number of Americans have never been married, and only a scant majority — 53 percent — want to be.After all, 2.1 million people get married in the U. every year, and half of those couples will divorce.If we parsed their fates according to the exact venue in which they met, or any other number of arbitrary factors, we would probably turn up the same kind of confusing, self-contradicting results that research into online dating perennially seems to.It's time science had a go at love." "Imagine being able to stack the odds of finding lasting love entirely in your favour.e Harmony's scientifically proven matching system decodes the mystery of compatibility and chemistry so you don't have to," the ad continued.And a 2012 study that found dating site algorithms aren’t effective.And a 2013 paper that suggested Internet access is boosting marriage rates.That’s a tough one to parse, and different studies have defined it different ways.(This one, for the record, looked at marriages and other long-term relationships; if you’re not looking to tie the knot, its conclusions aren’t for you.) Then there’s a sort of secondary issue in how we define a site’s actual function, because despite the marketing hype, that isn’t clear.And yet, by the end of the interview, she’s off Tinder and in a relationship with a guy she met on the app.Who really had the agency there: the dating app, or the dater?