I have one critical concern that I would appreciate a response to, and two points of critique:
Background: I started using POF because I live in a remote-ish area, and it appears that neither eHarm, ChrisMingle, nor Match has the volume of users needed to produce a good selection of matches to convince me to pay for/continue their service. I was initially pleased because POF had more potential dates than a most of the aforementioned sites, and I didn't have to pay for my dismay with the remaining members. This time 'round, I used the site for one week, and had one face-to-face meet with a member.
1. I appreciate that POF allows users to flag inappropriate use, and I understand that using a user-report versus POF-review system keeps the site no/lost cost for me and reduces costs for you, too. But, it results in a major reduction of actual safety. I am very cautious when using online dating sites because the community I live in is so small, it isn't uncommon to actually see users in-person. Today, I received a message from a user that said, "I think I've seen you in the gym sexxy"--and that's all he wrote.
Social sites are full of Creepers, and I understand that POF cannot possibly detect them all. That said, this guy's profile is BARE, he thinks 'sexy' has more than one x, and the only picture he has posted is a photo of a military vehicle. I flagged his profile, but he should have been deleted before I flagged him. I used clear, recent photos AND I frequent two gyms, so I'm going to be looking over my shoulder for this Creeper with very little description of him. I realize that he could have joined with no pictures or used a fake photo, but Match and eHarm both have photo approval systems in place. One site requires an administrator to actually approve uploaded photos (eHarm, I think), and the other has an automated system. Either way, POF is behind the Stranger-Danger power curve.
My proposed solution-ideas are:
*Require a minimum number of characters for free text profile fields that flags a certain number or combo of repeated letters and/or special characters.
*Require paid membership for people that don't upload a pic.
*Have some sort of POF screening/approval process for photos. (Actually, I flagged a user whose FOR REAL main photo was COMPLETELY nude-- head to knees. Full moon with wiener-view. DISGUSTING. His other 3 or 4 pics were also full moon, buck naked. He should never have made it to print.)
*Offer a screening option. I would PAY for a dating site that allowed me to choose the specific users who can send me messages as opposed to blocking users (except that I anticipate receiving it as a freebie--see clause below!).
POF could easily incorporate it, I think. Part 1 would list it as a as a preference during account establishment, the way Facebook has the "Friends only," "Friends of Friends," or "Anyone" option for who can view your page. That way people that don't want to "pick users" are served. For Part 2, discriminating users like me will review profiles and grant access to users by some means similar to the "Meet Me" that already exists (see note below re: "Meet Me"). I haven't heard of any dating site that currently offers this innovation. An added perk for POF is that the feature could be used to entice use by both types of customers (for ex. For all users, POF could send notification emails when a discriminating user has "selected" them, and could send discriminating users notifications like, "since you selected, 'this dude,' we think you should review 'this/these dude(s)'.") I don't mind that everyone can see my profile (although if i could limit the displayed info, I'd love that, too!), but it would be solid gold to choose which guys who could message me.
I think the idea for this anti-Creeper function would differentiate POF in a major way-- in exchange for this nugget of genius, I'd like a free until-next-marriage membership upon its implementation.
2. I wish the "Meet Me" option on the site also displayed at least one of the free text fields.
3. The exit survey is quick, but its results data are probably very misleading for POF market research/site improvement. For example, "N/A" isn't even an available response. So, in question one, you don't know if I'm selecting "None of the Above" because I've never heard of OKCupid, never used OKCupid, or don't agree with the statement with respect to OKCupid. (AND, none of the statements are actually above the responses, but that's a pet-peeve). From question two forward, you have no way of knowing why I'm any response for the same reasons listed [actually] above. I realized that people's perception of sites ("it's for old/young people"/worth the money) is valuable. But if you INCLUDE a question that establishes individuals' level of familiarity with the selected products, the response values are multiplied, I think. WITHOUT it, all of the questions are essentially meaningless because there isn't a clear point of reference.
I do accept that I'll probably remain single forever because I am nerdy and be neurotic and/or ultimately un-partnerable. I would just like to continue to reject that fate in a safe, convenient environment. I hope this feedback is useful, and I really appreciate your time and consideration.
