I agree with Match.com

11 years ago

She SHOULD have tried to meet half way, etc... This is dangerous for ANYONE, but ESPECIALLY for a woman and ESPECIALLY with a stranger. He knows there is a BIG chance she is ALONE and has some stuff that might be worth stealing.

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7656473].message }}

Khemosabi

11 years ago

[Her attorney, Marc Saggese, told the station that, "The basis of the lawsuit is the advertising that is utilized by Match.com, lulling women and men into a false sense of security."]

What false sense of security? "I read it on the internet, so it must be true?" She had the sense to break up with him eight days later, so she must have had some indication he wasn't all that right. There was no way anyone could have predicted that he would attack her months later.

["They don't say one in five are part of an attempted murder or one in five are killed," she told Fox 5 Vegas. "They don't tell you people are missing." ]

And craigslist doesn't post the stats on ads gone wrong either!

I also agree with Match.com, this is absurd.

~ Theresa

Thanks

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7656477].message }}

MikeAmbrosio

11 years ago

LOL - can't tell you how many responses I started only to erase.

[ 2 ] Thanks

Signature

Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7656526].message }}

kenmichaels

11 years ago

How can anybody make it to 50 years of age, and NOT know meeting strangers can be dangerous.

Even my 3 year old knows that.

[ 4 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Selling Ain't for Sissies!

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7656628].message }}

Kay King 11 years ago

If a person is lulled into a false sense of security - it's because they are wearing blinders in the first place. "Join and meet your soulmate" is the equivalent of "fast, easy money" in IM.

The idea of "8 days of relations" makes me wonder what this woman was thinking. What kind of "relations" are we talking about here?

Instead of the sense to break away after 8 days - why not have the sense to get to know him before starting anything to begin with? Totally new concept? How dumb is it to give out your home address to someone you just met?

I worked for an exclusive (i.e., expensive) dating service for 6 months before internet dating was available. Anyone with $3k could join - there were no background or criminal checks. The touted "extensive psychological testing" was an advertising gimmick. I made a lot of money selling this "service". More than 50% of the men I signed up were a bit odd in one way or another. All of my appointments were with men as the owner hired attractive men to sell to women and vice versa. Smart marketing. When the owner of the dating service decided to increase revenue by providing 'home visits' to applicants I saw the risk in that and quit. Two months later the home visits were discontinued for female sales reps...due to "problems". Who would have thunk it?

You would think a grown woman would have learned not to trust a man she just met - but apparently the need for "love" overrides common sense. This story might wake up other match.com users.
- [ 1 ] Thanks
Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
***
Live life like someone left the gate open
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7656956].message }}

seasoned

11 years ago

Ken,

Maybe they weren't TAUGHT!

Just kidding. At least I never though you had to be TAUGHT such things. I learned it just by going to school, though they NEVER taught it in school, if you know what I mean.

Maybe she was a feminist that believed their press. Ironically, feminism moved them AWAY from a more protected area.

BTW if I didn't make it clear, I think Match.com is right ALSO! Match.com CAN'T validate everyone, and clients should be PREPARED for such things. Male or female, this CAN happen!

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7656874].message }}

MoneyMagnetMagnate

11 years ago

Milton Bradley Mystery Date 1960's TV Commercial...

(*my apologies and condolences to Ms. Beckman, but she cannot hold Match.com liable.)

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7656903].message }}

MoneyMagnetMagnate

11 years ago

"You would think a grown woman would have learned not to trust a man she just met - but apparently the need for "love" overrides common sense."

The need for love almost always overrides common sense - :rolleyes:

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7657001].message }}

TimPhelan 11 years ago

That's why it's a good niche for marketers.

Originally Posted by MoneyMagnetMagnate

The need for love almost always overrides common sense - :rolleyes:
- [ 2 ] Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature
Over 50 Dating
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7657056].message }}
- Khemosabi 11 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by TimPhelan
  
  That's why it's a good niche for marketers.
  
  This is an honest question Tim, I'm curious, I read your help/FAQ on your link to your 50+ website. They will ask you for all kinds of personal information. Now, I know they don't post that kind of information to your viewers, but your site stores it. The "poster" is simply "verified".
  
  Has this helped at all? Do your customers feel better with this in place? Seems to me that your site is taking a huge risk (only because of said article), with somehow "verifying" their information.
  
  Your site says they're verified, and what if your customers take that as a safety? I'm curious, POWERS THAT BE, FORBID, if anything happened to someone on your site, you promoted it, where would you stand on this?
  
  Please don't take this as snarky, I'm actually very curious. What made you choose this particular site to promote? Do you offer some kind of guarantee to your listers? Are they safe when they meet someone?
  
  ~ Theresa
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7661120].message }}

seasoned

11 years ago

Kay,

I'm glad YOU had the sense to quit. It sounds like the sales people, like you, were probably generally PRETTIER than the female clients.

As for the men being a bit off, that is to be kind of expected. The ones that LOOKED/WERE the best, or were very confident, probably wouldn't have needed to go to such a place, or would not have thought about going there.

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7657009].message }}

Patrician

11 years ago

I used it a little many years ago and the thing I remember most is all are the warnings NOT to tell anybody your address - or even your last name.

You meet in PUBLIC and you don't even let him see your car. Even show up early and scope the guy out and if he is anything besides what he said, you are to leave without meeting (a liar). (if you do go as far as to introduce yourself to see he is a liar, excuse yourself to the lady's room and then split - quick). (the operative word here IS 'liar' - not that he is not 'cute' enough or tall enough - the point is you can't trust liars).

If you do meet him, you still leave alone and don't let him see your car if possible. - I only had a few dates because I found (duh) some men will say whatever you want to hear ('yes i am only interested in serious') and there were just a few first dates that went nowhere -

(actually many treat online dating like it's an electronic pimp - and like real life, a lot of guys only want sex, no matter how fancy they might get to achieve that end. Heck they might even invest TWO dates! wow).

The problem is when you do meet and do feel an affinity - someone is easy to talk to, and seems to be 'authentic' - then you let your guard down - and you let them know facts about you like your address or where you work - or even where you grew up - (even a phone number can lead to other info) -- often enough to trace your exact whereabouts if they are weirdos.

I did invite ones that made it to date #2 over twice and lived unscathed to tell about it - however, I was really in horror (in my head) both times when I realized how 'easy' I could have been 'set up' - Obviously for a change my judgement about people was good and they were both 'gentlemen' who so far have not come back to 'byte me' (close to 10 years now).

When you think about it though it is a lot 'safer' than just meeting someone at a bar or wherever - I really liked the fact that you got a chance to get to know them online BEFORE you met - this really 'breaks the ice' and you feel you are meeting someone you already know and like -

I have heard more good stories than horror stories. Yet there was just something about the whole process that seemed humiliating (and dangerous) so back to trolling hardware stores and the produce section. hehehe just kidding -

[ 2 ] Thanks

Signature

Patricia Brucoli
Plug-In Profit Site Helpdesk

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7657346].message }}

Dennis Gaskill

11 years ago

Just another case of people trying to take advantage of an unfortunate circumstance.

[ 2 ] Thanks

Signature

Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7657707].message }}

KimW

11 years ago

I agree Dennis.
In my opinion the only entity she has any possible legal right to pursue would be the killer's estate,if there is any.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

Read A Post.
Subscribe to a Newsletter
KimWinfrey.Com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7657714].message }}

thunderbird

11 years ago

The article does make me wonder if there can be better background checks for dating sites. "They don't say one in five are part of an attempted murder or one in five are killed," she told Fox 5 Vegas. "They don't tell you people are missing." One in five!? Wow, could this be true?

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Project HERE.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7658401].message }}

seasoned

11 years ago

Originally Posted by thunderbird

The article does make me wonder if there can be better background checks for dating sites. "They don't say one in five are part of an attempted murder or one in five are killed," she told Fox 5 Vegas. "They don't tell you people are missing." One in five!? Wow, could this be true?

She was using a cigarette warning as an example. 1/5 EVENTUALLY for cigarettes is probably about right. It is certainly NOT right about relationships! I have known a LOT of people that have been married 2-4 times with NO abuse!

As for having a central background check, that is illegal. You would have to ask for stuff that the government would not feel you had a need for. Without it, you couldn't be sure the person is the same. And what WOULD you do? HECK, the gun shop even wanted to know WHERE I was born. I know they were careful, they spotted one typo, and a street code that they could find ONLY if they knew a LITTLE street tens of miles away, or actually CHECKED. But they were REQUIRED to do that.

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7658461].message }}

HeySal

11 years ago

Had she had a gun, she wouldn't have gotten stabbed. (LMAO - jeez, how could I resist that one?).

Originally Posted by thunderbird

The article does make me wonder if there can be better background checks for dating sites. "They don't say one in five are part of an attempted murder or one in five are killed," she told Fox 5 Vegas. "They don't tell you people are missing." One in five!? Wow, could this be true?

I'm sure that most background checks aren't going to turn up anything such as "deranged psychopath". The most you're going to find is where they work(ed), maybe financial circumstances, and previous convictions. Previous convictions are good to know but if the guy is a murderer and on the loose to date, it's most likely that nobody has ever caught on that he's out murdering people.

I don't care who it is you are meeting - you don't have a guarantee of safety. Husbands and wives even kill each other sometimes. Good grief it's time for people to stop this BS crying because someone else didn't protect their ass and learn to protect themselves.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7659096].message }}

seasoned

11 years ago

Originally Posted by HeySal

Had she had a gun, she wouldn't have gotten stabbed. (LMAO - jeez, how could I resist that one?).

I'm sure that most background checks aren't going to turn up anything such as "deranged psychopath". The most you're going to find is where they work(ed), maybe financial circumstances, and previous convictions. Previous convictions are good to know but if the guy is a murderer and on the loose to date, it's most likely that nobody has ever caught on that he's out murdering people.

I don't care who it is you are meeting - you don't have a guarantee of safety. Husbands and wives even kill each other sometimes. Good grief it's time for people to stop this BS crying because someone else didn't protect their ass and learn to protect themselves.

Some things like this are bargained away. And if they happen because of something like alcohol, or before you are 18, they may disappear.

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7659983].message }}

Kay King

11 years ago

The article does make me wonder if there can be better background checks for dating sites.

That's along the same lines as "they should test WSOs for us".

It seems the more convoluted and complex our society becomes - the weaker our sense of self preservation is.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

***

Live life like someone left the gate open

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7660223].message }}

thunderbird

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

That's along the same lines as "they should test WSOs for us".

It seems the more convoluted and complex our society becomes - the weaker our sense of self preservation is.

I would have thought that society becoming more convoluted and complex would inspire some individuals to take stronger measures for self-preservation and protection of loved ones. Greater complexity increases the chances of something going wrong.

Match.com’s terms of use says it “does not conduct criminal background checks on its members.” Why not? Pretty easy to do.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Project HERE.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7660398].message }}

Big Rob

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

That's along the same lines as "they should test WSOs for us".

It seems the more convoluted and complex our society becomes - the weaker our sense of self preservation is.

Survival of the fittest.

Originally Posted by thunderbird

I would have thought that society becoming more convoluted and complex would inspire some individuals to take stronger measures for self-preservation and protection of loved ones. Greater complexity increases the chances of something going wrong.

Match.com's terms of use says it "does not conduct criminal background checks on its members." Why not? Pretty easy to do.

Then why not DIY?

[ 4 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7660558].message }}

thunderbird 11 years ago

Originally Posted by Big Rob

<snip>
Then why not DIY?

Good point.
- Thanks
Signature

Project HERE.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7660573].message }}

Dennis Gaskill

11 years ago

Originally Posted by thunderbird

Match.com's terms of use says it "does not conduct criminal background checks on its members." Why not? Pretty easy to do.

2 million members (estimate)
$50 for a simple background check (more or less)
----
100 million dollars

...if they could even find enough investigators to do that many.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7660860].message }}

KimW

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill

2 million members (estimate)
$50 for a simple background check (more or less)
----
100 million dollars

...if they could even find enough investigators to do that many.

If they had to pay for an investigator then they wouldn't make anything off it.
They could easily use one of the top online services,or even work with several to get a 3 in 1 background report like the big 3 credit reporting agencies will give. Either build it into the regular service or use as an upsell. Charge $50 lik Dennis suggested, give each reporting company $10,keep the remaining $20 for yourself and reporters get an extra $10 mil and you get an extra $20 mi.

Thanks

Signature

Read A Post.
Subscribe to a Newsletter
KimWinfrey.Com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7660964].message }}

HeySal

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill

2 million members (estimate)
$50 for a simple background check (more or less)
----
100 million dollars

...if they could even find enough investigators to do that many.

Which also brings up the point - if people are concerned about who they are meeting, isn't it THEIR responsibility to do the checking? If it's YOUR butt on the line, it should be YOU investigating the danger.

This whole world has a "do it for me" mentality these days.

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7660997].message }}

MissTerraK

11 years ago

Originally Posted by HeySal

Which also brings up the point - if people are concerned about who they are meeting, isn't it THEIR responsibility to do the checking? If it's YOUR butt on the line, it should be YOU investigating the danger.

This whole world has a "do it for me" mentality these days.

Which seems to be leading to our downfall, well, the trending of it anyway. :rolleyes:

Terra

[ 2 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7661003].message }}

Khemosabi

11 years ago

Originally Posted by HeySal

Which also brings up the point - if people are concerned about who they are meeting, isn't it THEIR responsibility to do the checking? If it's YOUR butt on the line, it should be YOU investigating the danger.

This whole world has a "do it for me" mentality these days.

Thank you Sal!!

~Theresa

Thanks

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7661181].message }}

KimW

11 years ago

No, it can't be true. that would be 20% and that amount would definitely not go unnoticed.

[ 2 ] Thanks

Signature

Read A Post.
Subscribe to a Newsletter
KimWinfrey.Com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7658440].message }}

Patrician

11 years ago

well steve have you ever used 1-800-us-search? you can get all kinds of information about people... easy: you can see death and criminal records - however without key pieces of information about their distant past or birth it is pretty difficult if not impossible to locate them.

with recent information it may be a total piece of cake.

lol. i (twice) tried to find an old boyfriend i lost contact with in the mid-1960s - it was the mid 1970's the first time and then in the mid 1990s i tried again.

i had reams of paper - databases of addresses & phones of people with similar names all over the world. hundreds - for just a few bucks. ages also with many of the lists.

...but when i actually decided to pay a detective i found out real quick there was not much chance of ever finding him - and his name was not that common - but just a lot of variations for example because alot of immigrants shortened their long names when they came to US.

what a daze we were in. (there is truth to 'if you can remember the sixties you weren't there' - i was there - at least i thinkso. and this was somebody i was pretty close with for a year or so, knew his friends, and dated a few times - but who asked anybody 'what school did you go to' or where were you born?

we knew what was important. i knew his sign (Sagitarius) and that he was a very bright doll and he liked me. I have no idea where he came from - i just knew him in Berkeley CA -

terrible that i have no idea where he went when we lost touch or even if he is still alive or not. I guess I never will - oh well God bless you James A wherever you are. Still sorry I lost you!

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Patricia Brucoli
Plug-In Profit Site Helpdesk

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7658832].message }}

thunderbird 11 years ago

Originally Posted by Patrician

<snip>Still sorry I lost you!

Nice! I'd be very moved if I ever saw anything like that from anyone.
- [ 1 ] Thanks
Signature

Project HERE.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7658922].message }}

seasoned

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Patrician

well steve have you ever used 1-800-us-search? you can get all kinds of information about people... easy: you can see death and criminal records - however without key pieces of information about their distant past or birth it is pretty difficult if not impossible to locate them.

with recent information it may be a total piece of cake.

lol. i (twice) tried to find an old boyfriend i lost contact with in the mid-1960s - it was the mid 1970's the first time and then in the mid 1990s i tried again.

i had reams of paper - databases of addresses & phones of people with similar names all over the world. hundreds - for just a few bucks. ages also with many of the lists.

...but when i actually decided to pay a detective i found out real quick there was not much chance of ever finding him - and his name was not that common - but just a lot of variations for example because alot of immigrants shortened their long names when they came to US.

what a daze we were in. (there is truth to 'if you can remember the sixties you weren't there' - i was there - at least i thinkso. and this was somebody i was pretty close with for a year or so, knew his friends, and dated a few times - but who asked anybody 'what school did you go to' or where were you born?

we knew what was important. i knew his sign (Sagitarius) and that he was a very bright doll and he liked me. I have no idea where he came from - i just knew him in Berkeley CA -

terrible that i have no idea where he went when we lost touch or even if he is still alive or not. I guess I never will - oh well God bless you James A wherever you are. Still sorry I lost you!

Well, I was a young kid in the 60s, but I WAS there. I remember farther back than most. Yeah, I tried to search for a person I once knew. I found out that she was related to a person that did a family tree and she was on it. I was told they moved to the other side of the country. Ironically, when I moved to the other side of the STATE, she was nearby. She died about a decade later, and her mother died about a decade after that. I tried to find out HOW she died, etc... but, surprisingly, her name was NOT very uncommon.

BTW the reason why I am SO sure it was her? Same age, within potentially a few months, same place, only her mother was listed, her mother was within the right age range, her mother had a name fitting for the nickname I knew her by. I guess there IS a chance I got it wrong, but she was the only one I saw that matched anywhere NEAR this well.

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7659976].message }}

swood

11 years ago

This is what's wrong with the human race. If something goes wrong we feel the need to point the finger. It is horrible what happened to her, but it is common sense to meet in a public place for the first couple of dates.

You can have the most secure dating website ever, running all the possible checks. It just takes one individual with no criminal record what so ever to do something like this and
have everything come tumbling down. Similar to the gun laws in America after these shootings. If someone really wants to go on a rampage or something, they will get there hands on a gun one way or another.

Most dating sites say not to reveal your address, meet in a public place, be very careful with personal information etc, etc.

Personally i see this as her taking advantage of what's happened. She has all right to be angry, but not at Match.com

/rant over