For obvious reasons, I like the free sites because there is no commitment needed with time or money, and you know exactly what you are getting. It’s quick and efficient. However, when you don’t have to put any effort into your online dating, do you really expect results? Do relationships form easily this way? Free access may be convenient, but convenience does not always create commitment. It is easy to sign up and browse without thinking too much about what you actually want.

I’d have to side with the paid sites on this—they tend to attract the more serious daters. When I was on PlentyofFish and OkCupid I got a ton of messages and matches, but they all went nowhere. I think I only went on 5 actual dates from POF. The number of messages can look impressive, but it does not guarantee anything meaningful. Sometimes a smaller pool feels more focused. Paying does not magically make anyone more compatible. But it may encourage people to participate with clearer intentions.

But I have to wonder…when it comes to online dating, isn’t the success all about participation and effort? I get excited at first, then overwhelmed, go on a few bad dates and get discouraged, and then I stop checking after 3-4 weeks. Then I start again because I haven’t had any dates. It’s a vicious cycle. Mostly because I can be a lazy dater, or maybe skeptical. The pattern can happen no matter what site I’m on. At some point, the website becomes less important than whether I keep showing up.

OkCupid points out that eHarmony fails people 93.8% of the time, but it doesn’t list its own statistics. Online dating is inherently tricky, and all dates are bad until you meet the person who sticks. I don’t think free sites are better in terms of your odds; they just make it easier to sign up. I found the most responses and real dates from Match and Chemistry. OkCupid doesn’t make a good case. Besides, categorizing people as “more” and “less” attractive sounds a little questionable.