Image via CrunchBase
If you’re like me, you’ll try anything that has Google’s name attached to it. Google Buzz. Google Voice. Google Music. Google Chrome. Google Chrome OS. And, most recently, Google+.
Like at least 1/2 of exes (someone has to be the cause of the breakup), Google has treated us badly in the past. Google set high expectations for Google Wave. We got excited and then, bought invites on eBay, and then it disappeared less than a year later. Google forced Gmail users onto Google Buzz and were subjected to a class action lawsuit because of it. Google told us that Google TV was going to change the world, but the Logitech Revue has sold so poorly that it has caused Logitech’s CEO to step down and now the $299 device will be sold for $99.
And most recently, we have been let down by Google+. Google+ drew more than 10 million early adopters, but friend streams are starting to turn into a trickle. I knew that Google+ would not amount to much because I witnessed the same thing happen with Google Wave and Google Buzz. But I signed up for it. Why?
Because despite all the bad, I still love Google. I use Gmail, Google Voice, and Google Reader everyday. These are great products and are what make the company great. In that respect, Google is like an ex. There are things we like about him/her. There are things we hate about him/her. But we go back when we, often naively, believe that things will be better this time around.
Eventually, however, we reach a point where we disregard all the good and cut things off for good. Is Google+ our last straw for Google or will be clamoring over invites to Google ++?
I’ve never really been a fan of online dating. I’ve always seen it as a meeting place for people who do not have luck in the “real world.” Proponents of online dating reference the ability to match people based upon interests. Sure enough, online dating is the number three way people meet (behind family/friends and work).
This week the New Yorker had a feature article on dating sites. The article focused at length on the science behind matchmaking and whether all the research actually counts for something. In the end, the algorithms used to predict compatibility are no better than a friend saying “Hey, I know someone I think you would be interested in.”
According to the article, one of the reasons why online dating does not work is because there are too many options. The article states:
If your herd is larger, your top choice is likely to be better, in theory, anyway. This can cause problems. When there is something better out there, you can’t help trying to find it. You fall prey to the tyranny of choice—the idea that people, when faced with too many options, find it harder to make a selection. If you are trying to choose a boyfriend out of a herd of thousands, you may choose none of them. Or you see someone until someone better comes along. The term for this is “trading up.” It can lead you to think that your opportunities are virtually infinite, and therefore to question what you have. It can turn people into products.
I’ve previously written about this topic. but the New Yorker made me think about this in phenomenon in a new light. Of course datin sites and sites which you can use to find dates (i.e. Facebook) present unlimited options for users of the site, but what about people who do not use the site. In other words, does the fact that Match.com and Facebook exist delay dating decisions for people who could, but do not, use the sites?
I would be interested in seeing some research in this area, but I am sure that dating trends are similar for users and nonusers. Before we had the Internet, we knew that there were attractive people outside of our social circle, but it was difficult to connect with them. However, with the Internet, reaching a stranger from another state or even country is as easy as pressing send. While it seems like everyone is on Facebook (they have 700 million members after all), there are still billions of individuals who do not use the site. If they are at least aware of the site, however, they know that there are millions of people on the site. And with that knowledge comes the realization that they have a safety net if things do not work out in “real life.”
Before the Internet, there was no such safety net. Being alone was a legitimate fear. Once you’d seemingly exhausted all the possibilities in your town/city, where else would you go to find an potential mate?
But that’s the dilemma with the Internet – it provides more avenues to meet people so that you will not be alone, but there are too many options which cause people to be alone. The Internet is here to stay. Staying away from online dating sites likely won’t help because you cannot forget that they exist.
I do not have an answer, but if I had to suggest something, I would say to stop looking for perfection. No one is perfect and if you are willing to toss someone away for one flaw, you’ll be maneuvering through the dating pool for life.
Source: New Yorker
They say women want guys that they can’t have. This may be true. But in order to get that woman that only wants you if you’re taken, you’ve got to be taken, right? Wrong. Enter Cloud Girlfriend, a new start-up in which users pay money to have real women write on their Facebook wall and send tweets. You may think this is a(n early April Fool’s0 joke, but the service has been covered by Mashable, CNET, PC Magazine, and the Boston Herald to name a few.
When you visit the site, you’ll see a disclaim that reads: “Due to high demand, we are only able to accommodate a limited number of users to the site. Register early to get in line.” I truly hope these early adopters did so as a joke. Then again, the service costs money, so these people may be for real.
As pathetic as this may seem, it’s not the first service of it’s kind. For instance, there’s Rentafriend.com if you need someone to hang out with. The truly sad thing is that there is a plethora of single women out there waiting to be asked out. If you don’t have the balls to ask a woman out, I seriously doubt you’ll grow a pair after having a confidence boost by a fake girlfriend.
Related articles
Front
After getting caught cheating on Facebook (how cliche), 26-year-old Joe Page’s live-in girlfriend Jess Little threw him out. To make things right, he decided to put on a sandwich board with the words “I cheated on my girlfriend. I am humiliating myself to show I am sorry” on the front and “I love her so much. I will do anything to get her back. I am so sorry” on the back.
He seems to have received mixed reviews. I think it’s silly. Cheating on someone is extremely hurtful. It’s going to take more than a public apology to heal those wounds. Moreover, does the fact that an apology is public make it more sincere? Does buying expensive jewelry, i.e. Kobe Bryant, make you more sincere than if you don’t purchase an expensive gift?
Sorry, but it’s going to take time before Jess gets over this. Spend this time reflecting on why you did what you did and learn from the mistake so it won’t happen in your next relationship.
Back
Related articles
- ‘I’m a love rat!’ Cheating man parades around city wearing ‘confession’ sandwich board in bid to win his girlfriend back (dailymail.co.uk)
By now, you’ve probably heard the story of Rev. Cedric Miller of NJ. He has given 50 top officials in his church one week to delete their Facebook accounts because says Facebook can (and has) lead to adultery.
I have long advocated safe Facebooking, but I’d never tell someone not to be on the service. Are couples tempted when they hear from an ex on Facebook? Certainly. But the same thing goes for unsolicited cell phones and e-mail.
I don’t believe in a one-size fits all approach. There are millions of people that are mature enough to use Facebook to keep in touch with friends and not be tempted to have an affair. If you are tempted to cheat, then maybe you shouldn’t be on Facebook. But what about people that are 100% comfortable in their relationship and have absolutely no desire to cheat. Certainly they should be able to use the service.
The reality is, if people want to cheat they are going to find a way whether it’s Facebook or the local grocery store. If we want to attack infidelity, we get to the root of the problem: weak and unhappy individuals. If you’re not happy in your marriage, staying off of Facebook is not going to solve your problems.
Source: CNN
One of my friends from law school was at Harvard while Mark Zuckerburg was there. He told me that Facebook was started as a dating site. I believed him because well…look at what people use it for. When I was in college, I mostly used Facebook to check out attractive women and send flirtatious message or the infamous poke. The poke is sufficiently ambiguous. We all know what it means, but it saves butts because it doesn’t say anything. If your girlfriend finds out that you were poking someone, she’s likely going to get upset. And when she does, you respond, “I didn’t mean anything by it.” According to David Kirkpatrick, author of “the facebook effect,” it was intended to be this way.
When he launched Facebook the following February (initially called thefacebook.com), it was a rudimentary site, but flirting on Facebook quickly became a sort of art form. One feature — the poke — made doing so absurdly easy. Poking was a particular fascination in those days, even among the supposedly sophisticated students of Harvard. What did a poke mean? Its indeterminate message was one of its appeals. Zuckerberg posted an insouciant answer on the site: “We thought it would be fun to make a feature that has no specific purpose… So mess around with it, because you’re not getting an explanation from us.”
Now that I’ve matured and realized what it’s all about, I really don’t have a desire to use Facebook anymore. The difference between Facebook and Twitter is the ability to look at complete profiles and pictures. People don’t regularly update their profile; it’s the pictures that we go on there for. And I’m too old to be getting excited about what some 20-something friend adds an album with her Spring Break pics.
You can think I’m cynical, but just think about your Facebooking patterns. How often do you visit the profile of a male friend in comparison to female friends. Whose photo albums are you looking at?
Since I just use Facebook to keep in contact with people, I just text them or contact them on Twitter.
Source: TechCrunch
When I first started this post, it was a vent about this new Facebook Relationships feature. The article showed up in Google Reader at 10:10am this morning, so I figured it was sent today. It appears, however, that this was an April Fool’s joke that was sent extremely late. It has never taken more than a few minutes to receive something in my inbox, so I don’t know what gives. Anyway, Michael Arrington, you didn’t really get me because the joke was not executed AND received on April 1.
Source: TechCrunch
I have three Twitter accounts, all for blogs that I have (I deleted one of them though). I don’t have a personal Twitter account because the vast majority of what people talk about it pointless: no intellectual discussion at all. Just a bunch of people gossiping and saying a bunch of stupid stuff. Just look at the snapshots of what people are saying and their profile pictures. Real classy.
Today’s #2 trending topic is #iCheatedBecause. I have a serious problem with this because people make infidelity out to be some type of joke. It’s a really serious issue plaguing society. Moreover, the vast majority of the people posting are minorities, which have the lowest rate of marriage. There’s some truth to every bit of sarcasm…
Shouts out to all the people on Twitter that recognized that this trend is a damn shame.
I am on my phone and will post regular sized pictures later.
Nothing new here. I do, however, find the following quote amusing:
“I found it very odd that many nights her not coming to bed, instead spending hours on Facebook and because I was not very familiar with it, I didn’t realize you could chat and do all these different things,” he said. “She found an ex-boyfriend. She also built a relationship through Facebook.”
Source: WLKY
Recent Comments