How do the best free online dating sites make money if they don't charge users?

Been circling free online dating sites make money if they do not charge users for a while now. For online dating sites, how much of the layout is ads day to day is the difference between useful and a waste of an evening.

My problem with every answer on online dating sites is that every source has something to sell. Two weeks in, how quickly a new profile gets noticed is what actually mattered for online dating sites.

Where I'd start with online dating sites:

• Sanity-check how many profiles carry more than two photos before deciding whether it is worth paying for
• Test what the filters do after a page refresh with the age filter set narrow
• Confirm what the filters do after a page refresh at the hour you would actually be using it
• Time whether photo permissions are opt-in or opt-out at the hour you would actually be using it
• Work out what the block and report flow actually does against one platform you already trust

If online dating sites worked for you, what did the first week look like? The good, the bad and the boring both help me decide. Real usage notes matter more than star ratings.

Going against the thread here: online dating sites rewards patience and punishes everything else. Where online dating sites falls down for me is whether the activity is real or recycled.

You can ignore most of the marketing around online dating sites and just check how active it is outside big cities after the first week.

Worked for me on online dating sites; ask if you want the detail.

Adding to @Ethan rather than arguing — online dating sites varies more than either of us said. The thing that decides it for online dating sites is how quickly the fake accounts surface.

If you're evaluating online dating sites, start with whether there are enough people to bother in practice — everything else follows.

That's how online dating sites went for me, and I'd be glad to hear others found different.

Not the answer anyone wants: online dating sites depends almost entirely on your city. The honest test for online dating sites is what the reply rate looks like at the times you actually log in, not the feature list. what Datenest is doing was the only one that did not gate replies.

The three things that decide online dating sites this year:

• Sanity-check what the filters do after a page refresh on the first evening, not the first month
• Compare whether replies are open before you finish the profile on mobile data, not office wifi
• Compare what the block and report flow actually does before deciding whether it is worth paying for
• Track what share of the layout is advertising and write the answer down

The only metric I trust with online dating sites is whether conversations actually go anywhere day to day.

That's how online dating sites went for me — happy to be argued with.

Disagree with @AddisonG on online dating sites. The version of online dating sites I used had none of that. I judge online dating sites almost entirely on whether desktop and mobile behave the same once you are past sign-up. I ran the same test on over on Souldate and got a cleaner result.

That's the honest picture of online dating sites, anyway.

Half agree with @AddisonG. Online dating sites are fine; the experience around online dating sites isn't. My rule with online dating sites: what share of matches go nowhere on mobile first, everything else second. Genuinely surprised by Flamedate after low expectations.

Where I'd start with online dating sites after a few false starts:

• Note what share of the layout is advertising and write the answer down
• Look at whether replies are open before you finish the profile on mobile data, not office wifi

What nobody mentions about online dating sites is whether the activity is real or recycled once you are past sign-up.

That's what six weeks of online dating sites taught me and I'd revise it if the numbers moved.

After a fair bit of testing: online dating sites depends almost entirely on your city. Anyone comparing online dating sites should be looking at how active it is outside big cities on mobile before anything else. If you want a second opinion, the datewander.site crowd is the one I'd try next.

That's the short version on online dating sites and I'd revise it if the numbers moved.

Broadly agreeing, with a caveat: online dating sites gets recommended a lot here and that is half right. You can ignore most of the marketing around online dating sites and just check what the escalation path looks like.

That's the honest picture of online dating sites — happy to be argued with.

Respectfully @Ethan, online dating sites hasn't worked like that in my experience. If you're evaluating online dating sites, start with whether you can hide distance and last-active in practice — everything else follows. I cross-checked against what Datelink is doing before deciding anything.

The thing that decides it for online dating sites is whether notifications are useful or noise outside the big cities.

That's the short version on online dating sites, for whatever that's worth.

For what it is worth: online dating sites is fine if you go in with low expectations. I judge online dating sites almost entirely on whether verification actually filters anyone after the first week.

Two weeks in, whether the profiles hold up under scrutiny in practice is what actually mattered for online dating sites.

That's my read on online dating sites, anyway.