But not absurdly low enough to ring his alarm bells and check his reasoning for mistakes, apparently.
I like the okcupid blog, but that one paragraph was pretty bad. This post is now getting huge amounts of viral attention from people, and they subtly beat down the competition that just paid them million.
I forget all the details but he noticed that billboards for these startups were pointing to the same creator.
Basically since turnover is so high on a lot of these the idea was to get people investing while the numbers looked good and repeat the process as it cycled.
As such, I still doubt it'll be easy to make the money back by pushing them off Ok Cupid.
The other side of this is they could be buying OKCupid's matching algorithms.
Will they really make that much money back off Ok Cupid's target demographic?My guess is that it was based on the potential profits.They're probably going to keep it free, and so with ad revenue (it doesn't exactly have as many ads as, say, Facebook) I'm guessing the site would "only" make a few million a year (after paying for the servers and so on).It just sounds so forced, like he was told not to say something bad about the new owners. claims causality in 6 marriages/day, the writer assumes that this means 12 members of get married every day iirc.Then he compares this with the average for the single population at large, and concludes that this is absurdly low.