Tony Karrer, on the value of a matching algorithm

Tony KarrerDr. Tony Karrer was the acting Chief Technology Officer of eHarmony during its humble beginnings. Because he helped first construct eHarmony 1.0, he is often met by people who have an idea of a startup online service based on a matching algorithm. For example, an “eHarmony of” careers, college, doctors, contractors, etc.

In today’s explosion of information, and narrowing of distances through improved telecommunications, the choices we can make in our lives are growing and growing. Indeed, he explains, there is value and broad appeal in a service that cuts this copiousness down into a smaller list of reasonable choices.

His article on his blog, SOCAL CTO, dated 2 November 2009, explains two key requirements of a matching algorithm found in eHarmony. Some notable quotes:

A matching algorithm is at the heart of how you deal with scale and complexity.

If you can offer something that’s not at all clear how you are doing it, then people perceive greater value.

[eHarmony's] free personality profile … nails you [and] gives you confidence that they understand you and what would make a good potential marriage partner.

A lot of people I talk to about their matching algorithm don’t know that eHarmony (more specifically Neil Clark Warren) had years of scientific research that were the basis of his dimensions of compatibility.

Without the foundation [of research data], you are likely going to have trouble creating something that [has higher perceived value].

Comments 7

  1. Fernando Ardenghi wrote:

    Please do not believe those notable quotes:

    ” … years of scientific research that were the basis of his dimensions of compatibility …”

    Where is exactly that research ???

    eHarmony is only supported by a big marketing budget and not by serious scientific evidence.

    eHarmony DOES NOT HAVE any Scientifc Paper, peer_reviewed by Academics (public scrutiny of findings) from different Universities showing eHarmony’s matching algorithm can match prospective partners who will have more stable and satisfying relationships than couples matched by chance, astrological destiny, personal preferences, searching on one’s own, or other technique as the control group.

    “… data that they was distilled down into a fairly complex matching algorithm. …”

    fairly complex matching algorithm ???

    eHarmony has been always the same:
    1) Big5 to assess personality.
    2) Dyadic Adjustment Scale (invented by Dr. Graham B. Spanier in 1976) to calculate compatibility (similarity) between prospective mates.
    3) Guided Communication Process as an appendix of its main matching algorithm. The Guided Communication Process is a mutual filtering step.

    You can use a 1982 Commodore 64 or ZX Spectrum computer to calculate Dyadic Adjustment Scale between prospective mates.

    eHarmony is in the range of 3 or 4 persons highly compatible (who select to each other) per 1,000 persons screened!!! so in a 10,000,000 persons database, one person will see 30,000 to 40,000 persons as highly compatible; 30,000 persons is the population of an average small city!!!
    Any person can achieve 3 or 4 persons highly compatible per 1,000 persons screened in a big database by searching on one’s own or by mutual filtering!

    Regards.

    Fernando Ardenghi.
    Buenos Aires.
    Argentina.
    ardenghifer@gmail.com

    Posted 05 Nov 2009 at 8:24 pm
  2. SingleGuyInNC wrote:

    “You can use a 1982 Commodore 64 or ZX Spectrum computer to calculate Dyadic Adjustment Scale between prospective mates.”

    That is a great line, Fernando. I knew you would be commenting on this one. :)

    Posted 06 Nov 2009 at 6:45 am
  3. Ron wrote:

    Karrer is saying that sites like OKCupid are doomed to obscurity because they already gave away its recipe.

    To put it anohter way, why would clients hire you when you love to say how simple it is and that anybody can do what you’re doing? What’s your value then?

    Posted 07 Nov 2009 at 9:04 am
  4. SingleGuyInNC wrote:

    Ron, while I can see this point, I’m not sure how universal it is. Open source software is a fairly compelling counterexample.

    Posted 07 Nov 2009 at 9:35 am
  5. Ron wrote:

    It’s a dating service, not a software download. Compare the ongoing operation costs of having 10 million site visitors vs. costs of serving 10 million linux downloads.

    Totally unrelated, there is recent opinion that the open source business model is a lousy moneymaker: http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/nov2008/tc20081130_276152.htm .

    Posted 07 Nov 2009 at 9:52 am
  6. Elizabeth R wrote:

    Karrer says, “Certainly eHarmony relies on this. They come back with their free personality profile that nails you. It gives you confidence that they understand you and what would make a good potential marriage partner.”

    I can see why Karrer says this, because he was with eHarmony only while it was young. Now, the commercials don’t talk squat about the personality profile. Now it’s about being matched with the ying of one’s yang.

    If the personality report isn’t doing the nailing anymore, then where else? eHarmony needs to explain onscreen why it matched Sam and Sammy to each other, given the shallow pigs that they both are.

    How can a first-time user be nailed when half of one’s matches have incomplete profiles and no photos?

    Posted 07 Nov 2009 at 11:09 am
  7. SingleGuyInNC wrote:

    To return to dating sites, just because you pay for it doesn’t mean that it is better. I’ve had better results from Craigslist (of all things) than Match.com and some months, eH. Free, no complicated matching algorithm, no fancy graphics and not really known as a dating site.

    “If you can offer something that’s not at all clear how you are doing it, then people perceive greater value.”

    My takeaway is he just enforces that eH is mostly marketing and hype, once you understand the basics of how the service operates and have spent some time using it. If more people were actually subscribers and gave some thought to the psychological background it is based upon, I think it might be more “worth it”. As it currently stands, to be successful, you don’t bother reading profiles, just send communications to EVERYONE and try to get anyone to OC and on a date because beggars can’t be choosers. That is the reality of eHarmony, quite a far cry from when I started out, tried to follow “the model”, was very picky about matches, asked hard-hitting questions and more or less and was getting absolutely nothing out of it.

    After three years of wasted time and money, I’m starting to conclude that all the special sauce they tout is useless and it’s only marginally better than Match.com because of the ratio of men to women and the throttling. I can’t wait for some new competition to get going and show that there is a better way.

    Posted 07 Nov 2009 at 12:53 pm

Post a Comment

Your email is never published, shown nor shared.

In case it isn’t obvious, we are not eHarmony. Your message will not be sent to them, and no, we cannot help you with your account.

Unmoderated: Comments appear after two to five seconds. Have your own topic? Start a new discussion. XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Subscribe without commenting