Time’s Worst Website
July 13th, 2007 by Andy Didyk
I’m a regular reader of Time magazine and of Time.com (especially their super-friendly mobile edition). Naturally, I was quite interested to see that they had put out an article that highlights the top 50 websites and top 5 “Worst websites” on the internet today. Their criteria is much different than the design community would use, so I anticipated some head-scratching while I read the article.
However, I was totally shocked to see that the number 1 “site to avoid” (also the number 1 worst site on the web) was eHarmony.com. From a design and functionality standpoint, eHarmony isn’t anything to write home about, and it’s probably not going to be at the top of the buzz lists for Web 2.0 applications. It is, however, a solidly designed and functioning site. According to Time magazine, the reason that everyone should avoid eHarmony is:
“Our main beef with this online dating site is its power to cause utter despair. eHarmony claims its more “scientific” approach to matchmaking differentiates it from competitors — its users complete extensive personality questionnaires, in order to connect them to others based on compatibility. In early 2006, eHarmony announced that more than 16,000 couples had married during the previous year as a result of meeting on the site, citing a 2005 Harris Interactive poll. That’s about 90 people finding love every day, a track record bound to inflate expectations. On a more typical dating site, where users are prone to making snap judgments based on photos and sketchy profiles, if you don’t find that special someone you’re less likely to take it personally. It’s easier to shake off because, after all, that’s hardly the real you up there on that site. But if you’ve taken the time to answer eHarmony’s 436 compatibility survey questions and paid its premium charges ($21 to $60 a month, depending on how many months you prepay), and the site then delivers terrible recommendations — or worse, rejects you as unmatchable — what do you tell yourself then? The company’s advice, to stick with it for several months to improve your odds of finding a soul mate, sounds all too self-serving (the longer you use the site the more you pay). The site also discriminates against gays.”
If you read the “discriminates against gays” article, you’ll see the real backbone of Time’s issue with eHarmony and how utterly absurd of an argument it is. The author even acknowledges at the end of his rant that’s it’s perfectly within eHarmoy’s rights as an independent company to choose not to provide services for men seeking men or for women seeking women. The author is gay himself, and he does a thorough job of pointing out that there are many sites that provide dating services for gays only that do not include services for straight people.
Time, normally a trusted source of objective news about what’s going on around the world, has really let their readership down by choosing to publish this article. To be clear – I’d just as quickly blast Time if they were saying that a site for gays was discriminating against straight people by now providing services for them. It’s not like eHarmony is a public institution, or holding back vital services from a particular community…it’s a dating service! People generally want something that is tailored to their particular tastes when it comes to a dating service. It’s no secret that eHarmony is a more conservative site for people who are trying to find that special someone. But so what? Imagine a dating service that did nothing to be selective – how would that do anything to increase the odds of like-minded people getting together?
Rather reviewing eHarmony using objective criteria (or even subjective criteria that is somewhat rational and consistent), some disgruntled writer at Time who evidently has had some bad luck in the dating arena has chosen to take out their personal frustrations on eHarmony.com. The review has nothing to do with site functionality, its impact on the online movement, or anything else. I’m very interested to see if there is any public backlash, as well as how eHarmony will respond.
Thanks for braving my rant!
This entry was posted on Friday, July 13th, 2007 at 2:19 pm and is filed under communication, consumer products, copywriting, design, user experience. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
July 18th, 2007 at 10:58 am
Hey mon – I haven’t read this article and don’t know about this guy’s biases. I will say that I believe eHarmony’s philosophy of what makes for a good marital relationship is dangerous and not very healthy. It sounds good on the surface but it puts far too much weight on “points of compatibility” – as if these were what make a relationship possible for the long haul. See, our problem is that we’ve just not found someone in this way, if we did, we’d “stay in love” with them. Pardone moi, but bullshit.
What we’ve forgotten is commitment and that “love” in a marriage is about a choice. We have bought (hook, line and sinker) the whole “romantic love” theory of relationships. We want a “best friend” who’s just like us. We don’t want to have to work at marriage or love. If we have to do that, we see it as somehow less than what it ideally is supposed to be. The whole eHarmony thing helps perpetuate that in my mind. I could, as you well know, go on and on an on, but I think that’s enough for now. Wheew. Peace to you my brutha!
July 18th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
Alan,
I couldn’t agree with you more without sounding like I didn’t have a mind of my own. Marriage is definitely as much work as play, and compatibility on its own may provide for some good times, but little else in terms of keeping the marriage alive, vibrant, and healthy.
I still hold my same feelings about terrible journalism employed by Time. I’ve sent a letter to the editor, and am awaiting a reply.
Peace back to you.
–Andy
August 31st, 2007 at 12:50 am
“Time, normally a trusted source of objective news” …
Beware (or be aware) that many of our “trusted media sources”, incl. NY Times, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc. are anything but objective. Many in fact have an agenda. (Ever wonder why major media is so biased against the war, reporting all the negative aspects, but rarely do we hear of the schools, hospitals, or water processing plants that have been built the past few years. Just talk to a soldier returning from Iraq – confused by the stories being reported).
If we were to take CNN’s Wolf Blitzer to heart, we’d be anti-American, anti-Bush, pro-abortion, pro-gay rights screaming liberals. It’s unfortunate that many I speak with believe what they hear and read in the news is the unbiased truth. The more our country as a whole (and we as individuals) practice the “separation of church and state”, the harder it is to discern the truth. (Discernment comes from the Spirit of He who we are attempting to separate ourselves from). Tone