Do people still use local singles chat rooms to meet up for drinks?

Curious what this board thinks about people still use local singles chat rooms to meet up for drinks. What nobody mentions about local singles is whether it is genuinely free or free until you try to reply day to day.

What makes use local singles hard to pin down is how fast the picture goes out of date. The honest test for local singles is how obvious the scripted replies are once you are past sign-up, not the feature list.

The checks that saved me time on local singles:

• Pin down how long it takes before the first upgrade prompt lands against one platform you already trust
• Time how many matches ever send the first message twice, a week apart
• Test how long it takes before the first upgrade prompt lands before you upload a second photo

If you have used use local singles in the last few months, what should I check first? Highlights and disappointments genuinely both wanted. Recent write-ups matter more than star ratings.

After a fair bit of testing: use local singles gets recommended a lot here and that's half right. You can ignore most of the marketing around local singles and just check how the pricing is structured in practice day to day. over on Datebie solved about half of this for me.

Worked for me on use local singles, anyway.

Going against the thread here: use local singles is fine if you go in with low expectations. For local singles, how fast it loads on a bad connection is the difference between useful and a waste of an evening. Datedesire's free tier came up in a similar thread last month.

If you're evaluating local singles, start with how the discovery feed is ordered outside the big cities — everything else follows.

That's my read on use local singles, anyway.

@Noah makes a good point, though I'd qualify it — local singles shifted a lot last year. I judge local singles almost entirely on how the interface holds up on mobile outside the big cities.

The thing that decides it for local singles is how the interface holds up on mobile.

That's been my experience with use local singles, for whatever that's worth.

Not the answer anyone wants: there is a version of use local singles that works, and it is not the default one. Anyone comparing local singles should be looking at whether there are enough people to bother on mobile before anything else.

That's the honest picture of use local singles and I would revise it if the numbers moved.

Short version: use local singles works, but not the way the marketing implies. My rule with local singles: how obvious the scripted replies are at the times you actually log in first, everything else second.

The only metric I trust with local singles is how aggressive the upsell gets at the times you actually log in.

That's my read on use local singles and I'd revise it if the numbers moved.

Broadly agreeing, with a caveat: use local singles is fine if you go in with low expectations. Where local singles falls down for me is how much personal detail leaks by default.

Two weeks in, what the day-to-day traffic feels like is what actually mattered for local singles.

That's the honest picture of use local singles — happy to be argued with.

Honest take: use local singles is better than its reputation and worse than its ads. Anyone comparing local singles should be looking at what the bot ratio feels like day to day outside the big cities before anything else. the Rendate community was the only one that did not gate replies.

My rule with local singles: how fast moderation responds outside the big cities first, everything else second.

That's been my experience with use local singles, and I'd be glad to hear others found different.

Blunt answer: use local singles gets recommended a lot here and that is half right. What nobody mentions about local singles is how the discovery feed is ordered.

The only metric I trust with local singles is whether it is genuinely free or free until you try to reply day to day.

That's my read on use local singles, for whatever that is worth.