Lindsey B.A.,Physics |
Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research | Year: 2015
We have conducted an investigation into how well students in introductory science classes (both physics and chemistry) are able to predict which questions they will or will not be able to answer correctly on an upcoming assessment. An examination of the data at the level of students' overall scores reveals results consistent with the Dunning-Kruger effect, in which low-performing students tend to overestimate their abilities, while high-performing students estimate their abilities more accurately. Similar results have been widely reported in the science education literature. Breaking results out by students' responses to individual questions, however, reveals that students of all ability levels have difficulty distinguishing questions which they are able to answer correctly from those that they are not able to answer correctly. These results have implications for the future study and reporting of students' metacognitive abilities. © 2015 authors. Published by the American Physical Society.
News Article | August 22, 2012
When I think of APIs, I tend to think of mostly end-user data being passed back and forth between consumer websites and various client apps. Automated uploading to Flickr, for example, or consuming Twitter data in some way. I don’t think of chemical patent searches. SureChem just announced an API for just that function, though, which goes to show that automation and ubiquitous computing is penetrating more and more industries. I’m not a chemist, nor a patent attorney, nor am I engaged in any way with medical research. But if I were, I imagine that SureChemDirect would be a very useful tool. SureChemDirect enables customers to incorporate sophisticated chemical patent search into their workflows, and perform batch queries using their own internal platforms. I asked Nicko Goncharoff, SureChem’s founder, for details about the API. We have a RESTful API that enables users to directly search our database of 12 million chemical structures, 20 million full text annotated patents and 70 million patent abstracts. Results include chemical structures and their associated meta-data, patent numbers, patent meta-data and full text records. In future the chemical meta-data will also include links to our public and proprietary content partners – so for example, if you get back a chemical structure, we will tell you where it occurs not only in SureChem, but in PubChem, ChemSpider, Royal Society of Chemistry journals, etc. The interface purports to allow users to draw chemical structures and work through the database that way, rather than simply use keyword searching. I suppose if you’re a chemist, this is a pretty big advancement. Goncharoff also pointed out that SureChem would be depositing all of their chemical structure data into PubChem. “This will be the first time that a complete patent chemistry collection has been made freely available,” Goncharoff told me.
News Article | July 20, 2015
Earlier this week, Ars got an e-mail from a reader named Rob Plant. “I think most right-thinking people have been dismayed by the tactics of charging for picture take downs—what is worrying to me is that these practices now seem to have been taken up by more legitimate websites.” Ars has long covered the scourge of “revenge porn,” in which seedy websites post revealing photos of unwilling people and then charge those victims a fee to take the photos down. But Plant was writing about a site called Ashley Madison, which markets itself as a dating website for married people to find accomplices in extra-marital affairs. (Its slogan is blunt: “Life is short. Have an affair.”) The website has been around since 2001, and although it's taken some guff for allegations that it populates its network with fake profiles of women, it still boasts 29 million users worldwide, most of whom are presumably not fake. The way it works is this: Ashley Madison allows people to sign up for free with "Guest" accounts, which permit users to send and receive photos and “winks.” Guest accounts can also reply to messages sent by a member. To become a "Full Member," one must buy credits, as opposed to, say, paying a monthly subscription. Full Members can initiate messages and chats with their credits, and women can send messages “collect." After first contact (and guidelines of the Prime Directive permitting) messages between the two users are free. Plant, however, took issue with the way Ashley Madison treats its departing customers. As he described: A few years ago Ashley Madison had a big media blitz on UK TV and I signed up, primarily because the ads were interesting and I had signed up for a few other dating websites, like POF [Plenty of Fish] and wanted to compare. Having had a check out of the website (and some puerile giggles at people's profiles) I promptly forgot about it and Gmail did its thing of filtering all of the updates into the social/promotional folder. I've decided today to get rid of all my online dating profiles (not used them in years, have a longterm girlfriend etc.) and went to delete my Ashley Madison log on to discover that it wants to charge me £15 [approx. $20] for the privilege of them removing my data from their systems! Now I don't care about my profile being up there (it does offer the opportunity to hide it so that it can't be found and I'm no longer getting e-mails from them)—but this does seem like a crappy way of a company extorting money out of a (presumably wealthy) audience eager to quickly hide the details of their sordid extramarital dealings. Of course, Ars couldn't resist the urge to look into a story involving sordid extramarital dealings and alleged extortion. As it turns out, however, the issue is a bit more nuanced. Ashley Madison does let users delete their profiles for free, but directions on how to do so can be confusing to the point where they appear misleading. Still, similar dating and social networking sites aren't much better—in fact, Ashley Madison's paid-delete service goes further in scrubbing you off its system than most other networking sites. On Ashley Madison, you can simply hide your profile using the “Profile Options” page. Selecting the box that says “Check this box if you wish to temporarily hide your profile” deactivates your account, but this preserves all your account details in case you want to return months or years later and pick up where you left off. But when you go to actually delete your account, you are presented with two options: you can either choose the option in big, bold letters that says “Full Delete” (Ars also came across the term “Ghost Erase” when we tried to delete our test account), which promises to “remove all traces of your usage for only $19,” or you can choose to “Hide My Profile,” which only promises a “basic deactivation” to “hide profile from search.” If you choose to hide your profile, you are then taken to a page that gives you the option to “permanently hide” your profile. But Ashley Madison doesn't give a clear run-down of what's involved in hiding a profile, whereas with the “Full Delete” option you're told up front that it will include: So naturally, many people assume that Full Delete is the only way to get your profile taken off Ashley Madison's servers. The company's CEO Noel Biderman spoke to Ars over the phone and said that's just not the case. Ashley Madison's Hide My Profile Permanently option, he told us, is the same thing as deleting a profile on most other sites. Your identifying details will be deleted, but messages and pictures you've sent to others on the site behave like e-mail, and you can't get them back. But with a Full Delete, Biderman told Ars, Ashley Madison erases all identifying details, plus any photos and messages you may have sent to others. “We've developed a product where we'll go back in time and remove photos and conversations that you've had,” Biderman said. “We feel it's more than fair to charge a nominal fee to take that away.” “There's a real administrative cost,” he added, noting that sometimes recipients will contact the company asking why messages they received are now missing from their in-boxes. Removing messages you sent in the past is something few other sites will do. Facebook will delete your profile and any pictures you've uploaded, but a spokesperson told Ars that Facebook can't take back messages you've sent. OKCupid, too, told Ars that once a user deletes their account on that site, “any messages that have gone out act like e-mail; once they are delivered then the receiver can see them until they delete them. However, a receiver won't be able to see the sender's profile.” OK Cupid also keeps photos uploaded to its servers for longer than one might expect. After a user has deleted their account, “The photos will remain if a user has a dedicated link to them (they aren't crawlable, however). We are receptive if people want those removed and will do it manually if someone requests.” (This is something Facebook used to do, too, which Ars covered extensively.) Similarly, Match.com requires that you call its payment processing centers first to stop your subscription, and then it allows you to permanently delete your profile. However, it's unclear if messages and photos can be scrubbed off the company's servers after permanently deleting your profile. (Ars has contacted Match.com and will update when we receive a response.) Tinder also lets you delete your account from within the app. “This will delete your matches, messages, etc…” the company writes on its website. One of the few social network services that actually allows a user to remain in control of the photos and messages they send, even after they've sent them, is Instagram Direct. Users can delete their sent communications off recipients' phones (as long as the recipients haven't downloaded the images, of course) at any time after it has been sent. Oddly, Ars discovered that Ashley Madison's site for men seeking men, called “Downlow,” does not organize its delete page like Ashley Madison's main site does. Instead, deleting a profile is much more straight-forward: there's a “delete my profile” option on the left-hand menu bar, and when you go there you can choose to “deactivate your account,” which gives you a warning that your profile will no longer be available after 24 hours. “Delete” is, confusingly, used interchangeably with “deactivate,” but at least customers know their profiles won't be available to others after the button has been pushed. However, the customers for Downlow don't seem to enjoy access to the Full Delete feature that scrubs their messages and photos from recipients' mailboxes for a fee. Still, Ashley Madison, Tinder, Match, OK Cupid... these are the best of the bunch. A site called Delete My Account says services like Chemistry.com and SpeedDate.com don't allow you to delete your profile at all; deactivation is the only option. Ars has reached out to these companies but has not yet heard a response. For Ashley Madison, it seems like getting users to simply deactivate their accounts rather than permanently delete them might be just as good for business as pushing them to do a full delete. “I can't tell you how many people delete their profile and come back and say 'oh that was a mistake,'” Biderman said. “Historically this is different from a traditional dating site, where people tend to use it for three months and if they do find a person, then they're done with it, and if they don't then they say 'this isn't working for me. With an affair it's different, with an affair they feel like they need it, it ebbs and flows.” He added that “almost 30 percent of the people that delete their accounts come back and ask us 'oh can we reinstate our account?'” Correction: Ars originally compared Ashley Madison's overall return rate with a statistic from OK Cupid on the number of active users who have re-enabled their deactivated accounts. The two sets of data are not comparable, however, so the OK Cupid statistic has been removed. Still, if you look at the screen shot Plant sent with his e-mail, it's easy to see why he was confused. And he's hardly alone. Many articles, forums, and review sites often advise Ashley Madison users that “the only way to delete your profile is to pay.” Biderman says that these complaints are in the minority, and satisfied customers who want to have every trace of their presence on Ashley Madison removed are happy that the service exists. After all, when you're sending illicit messages between people looking for affairs, you might really, really want that message that you sent deleted from someone else's inbox (especially if that message could be used for blackmail). “That is what we're charging for, and that comes with a bunch of blowback on the other side [from the receiver who can't find old messages], and we're dealing with that blowback,” he said. “16,000 people a month are totally ecstatic with it, and people don't understand that. This isn't a charity, we have to charge for that, and that's our prerogative,” Biderman continued. Ars later asked a spokesperson for Avid Life Media, the parent company of Ashley Madison, to confirm that number, and the spokesperson said that the number of Full Deletes the site sells each month varies between 8,000 and 18,000. (Noel Biderman is both the CEO of Ashley Madison and Avid Life Media.) For those keeping score, numbers like that would mean that Ashley Madison is raking in somewhere between $152,000 and $342,000 each month, just from the Full Delete option alone. Biderman also told Ars that he didn't know why our reader, who wrote that he only ever signed in as a Guest user and had never purchased any credits, would want to do a Full Delete. But that's the problem: the reader didn't know he didn't need a Full Delete. Ashley Madison doesn't make it clear to Guests who want to delete their profiles that “hiding” a profile can mean more than hiding it. Hiding something permanently is slightly clearer, but you don't get that option until you've made the choice between doing a Full Delete and Hiding your Profile. On the other hand, what you get for a Full Delete is probably entirely worth the money to enthusiastic users of the site. Few social networks let you take communication back, and if sporadic affairs are your thing, there are probably worse ways to spend your money. Ultimately, what Ashley Madison is doing is not totally dishonest, but it's not totally honest either. And we would guess that most people coming to a site for extramarital affairs have made peace with that kind of parsing of the truth.
News Article | February 2, 2011
Dating site titans OkCupid and Match.com have hooked up today — as Match.com, an operating business of IAC, has acquired the other site for $50 million in cash, plus future payments depending on performance. OkCupid, an increasingly popular site, generates most of its revenues through advertising (it's mostly free to use — making it popular among members who are strapped for cash), and, according to a release, it has been the fastest growing dating site in the advertising-supported bracket this year. Therefore, we can see how it would be attractive to Match.com, which is — for its part — a paid service. "We know that many people who start out on advertising-based sites ultimately develop an appetite for the broader feature set and more committed community, which subscription sites like Match.com and Chemistry.com offer, creating a true complimentary relationship between our various business models," says Greg Blatt, CEO of IAC. "2010 saw record growth both for Match and OkCupid, and we believe coordinating the adjacent business models will help fuel continued growth for both." OkCupid co-founder and CEO Sam Yagan will stay on at the site to run operations. We've reached out to him for further comment, and will update this post when we know more about how this merger will play out.
News Article | April 29, 2010
Match.com has sent letters to several rival dating sites demanding that they stop circulating what the company considers to be false statistics about their services. We reported yesterday that Match.com had asked PlentyOfFish to stop making some claims about its site — but Match.com CEO Greg Blatt tells us the company sent letters to other sites last week as well. “There are a number of players in the space who are really just trying to ‘get theirs’ and they make wild and misleading and unsupported claims on a regular basis on their sites, in their online advertising,” he says. “Over time, those kind of things erode people’s confidence in the category.” He declined to name sites other than PlentyOfFish, saying he didn’t want to give those competitors the “PR benefit” of naming them. The dispute comes as Match.com’s traffic has been dropping off sharply, according to comScore (NSDQ: SCOR). But Blatt calls those numbers “sort of silly,” noting that Match.com recently purchased Singlesnet, which regularly ranks among the top dating sites by traffic, “for virtually nothing.” (Match.com parent IAC (NSDQ: IACI) never disclosed the purchase price). “ComScore … is really not at all demonstrative of the activity on the site and the success of the site,” he says. During our chat, I asked Blatt whether Match.com, which in addition to Singlesnet, recently purchased People Media, was still on the look-out for acquisitions. “We’re always looking at things in the industry,” he says. “A lot of it is driven by price. At the end of the day, I think right now we’ve got the field pretty well covered — we’ve got Match which is the core, we’ve got Chemistry, we’ve got the People Media niche sites, which are more demographically targeted. There’s no gaping hole in our portflio, so I don’t think there’s a strategic need to buy anything in particular.” For the record, Blatt is dismissive of two seemingly obvious holes in Match.com’s portfolio: A free offering and one based on an existing social network. Blatt says free is a “misnomer” since most so-called free sites, including PlentyOfFish, do have paid options. As for a social dating site, like Zoosk, Blatt says it’s a “subscription-based, paid dating site that does exactly what Match does only with far fewer people and not as good tools and features.”
News Article | June 26, 2015
Tinder will soon be setting its location preferences to Wall Street. InterActiveCorp (IAC) announced its plans to go public with its Match Group dating division that includes Tinder, Match.com, OkCupid, and Chemistry.com. In conjunction with the IPO, IAC will sell a 20 percent stake in Match Group. The revenue from the dating services rose to $897 million last year, but Match Group has not announced the pricing or volume of shares. Located in West Hollywood, Tinder has been geographically matching mutually-interested people via their app since September 2012.They have recently implemented a paid subscription model and are reportedly Match Group’s highest valued property. In preparation for the IPO, Tinder bolstered their executive team with Chris Payne (CEO) in March and Hugh Williams (VP of engineering) in early June. Payne has served as vice president for eBay and Microsoft. Similarly, Williams was a manager at Microsoft and also served as vice president at eBay. “The dating industry has come a long way since its inception, but the category remains underpenetrated,” Match Group Chairman Greg Blatt said in a statement. “We believe the combination of our more established businesses such as Match, Meetic and OurTime, and earlier stage businesses such as Tinder and OkCupid, creates an attractive combination of significant cash flow generation, strong margins and meaningful growth potential.” Have a tip for us or know of a company that deserves coverage? Email us via firstname.lastname@example.org
News Article | February 3, 2009
Internet services company InterActiveCorp said Tuesday that the company swung to a profit in the fourth quarter of 2008, bolstered by the sale of a 30 percent stake in a Japanese TV shopping company. On the other hand, IAC was not "recession-proof," and it adjusted earnings, missing analysts' expectations. IAC, headed by billionaire Barry Diller and including Web properties such as dating Web site Match.com, earned $227.4 million, or $1.57 per share, in the quarter. This compares with a loss of $369.9 million, or $2.53 per share, in the same quarter last year. IAC said its earnings include a benefit of $242.5 million from the $493 million December sale of its stake in Jupiter Shop Channel, for $1.67 per share. Excluding the Jupiter benefit and $26.4 million write-down in the value of the company's investment portfolio, IAC earned 2 cents per share lower than what analysts surveyed by Thomson Reuters expected. The company's media and advertising unit -- which includes search engine Ask.com --reported that its revenue sank 19 percent to $183.7 million. IAC said this was due in part to the removal of toolbars and search boxes from a variety of non-IAC sites as it moves to place them mostly on its own Web sites, according to an AP report. IAC also said that fewer searches were performed at proprietary Web properties such as Ask.com and at Fun Web Products sites. It attributed the drop in Ask.com searches to lower marketing spending. Ask.com relaunched in October, and the company blames the drop in revenue to a more efficient (and thus less clicks) site. Sales from the company's Match unit, which includes the Match.com and Chemistry.com dating Web sites, dipped 3 percent to $88.1 million. IAC cited a 21 percent decline in revenue per subscriber in its international markets that stemmed mostly from strengthening of the dollar, which lessens the value of sales in other currencies. The number of Match's paid subscribers rose 5 percent to 1.3 million. IAC reported growth in two areas — its emerging businesses and ServiceMagic units. Revenue from emerging businesses, which includes Web sites such as ShoeBuy and Gifts.com, increased 19 percent to $54.6 million. ServiceMagic, which runs Web sites that match homeowners with home-improvement contractors, reported sales rose more than 15 percent to $25.3 million. For the full year, IAC reported a loss of $156.2 million, or $1.08 per share, compared with a loss of $144.1 million, or $1.01 per share, in 2007. The company's revenue climbed 8 percent, totaling $1.45 billion in 2008. The fourth quarter was the first in which IAC operated alone. Previously, it was part of a larger conglomerate that split into five publicly traded companies in August.
News Article | February 28, 2013
The ads resemble a highlight reel from a Nicholas Sparks movie: Couples twirl, cuddle, and walk hand in hand through golden fields. “Sometimes we wait for God to make the next move, when God is saying, ‘It’s your time to act,’ ” the kind-sounding narrator says. “The next move is yours.” Finally, the trademarked slogan: “Find God’s match for you at ChristianMingle.com.” Mocked by Stephen Colbert and parodied in scores of YouTube (GOOG) videos, the $30 million advertising and marketing push has done its job, making ChristianMingle an unexpectedly popular destination in the growing online dating market. The upstart service boasts the largest user base—9 million registered users, 154,000 paying subscribers at $29.99 a month—of any of the 28 sites owned by its parent company, Spark Networks (LOV). That’s almost double the 84,000 paying subscribers of the company’s groundbreaking Jewish singles site, JDate. (Spark Networks’ 26 other niche sites, including Black Singles, Silver Singles, LDS Singles, and Deaf Singles Connection, combined generate only about 26,000 paying subscribers.) The Internet, to paraphrase Rihanna, is no longer a hopeless place to find love. Annual revenue from online dating in America tops $1 billion. A 2012 University of Rochester study found that 23 percent of U.S. couples were finding their partners through online dating as of 2009, second only to mutual friends. EHarmony boasts that 5 percent of American marriages are a result of the site’s algorithms, and Match.com (IACI) claims about 96 million registered users (and nearly 2 million active accounts), not including the millions of members at sister companies Chemistry.com and OkCupid (which is ad-supported and free). Sites such as Plenty of Fish and Gay.com have been joined by smartphone apps and sites such as Grindr and HowAboutWe—many of them not exactly geared toward the faithful. Ashley Madison, with more than 17 million registered users, explicitly encourages married people to violate one of the Ten Commandments: “Life is short. Have an affair.” Based in Beverly Hills, Calif., Spark Networks is a relatively small player. It was founded in 1997, when “online dating was new,” says Chief Executive Officer Greg Liberman, who’s Jewish and has been with the company since 2004. “Our founders started JDate because one of them had recently gotten divorced, knew a bit about the Internet, and wanted to meet Jewish women who weren’t in his immediate social circle.” JDate grew rapidly by word of mouth, introducing Jewish singles separated by city blocks and time zones. “Now JDate is at the core of the Jewish community and has been for a long time,” says Liberman, noting that awareness of the brand among Jews is nearly universal. JDate has been so successful that growth has flattened: When singles get married, they log off. ChristianMingle was launched in 2004, “but there was still some level of stigma associated with online dating then,” says Liberman. Conservative and evangelical Christians weren’t leading the charge: ChristianMingle remained small until 2010, when Spark consulted with local ministers and prominent Christian leaders about how best to serve their constituents. As a result, the company founded an advisory council of church leaders and hired ChristianMingle spokeswoman Ashley Reccord, a pastor’s daughter, to help conduct outreach. Then the company launched Believe.com, which features Christian editorials, and redesigned the site into something more devout-seeming than JDate. “The tone of JDate is kitschier,” says Arielle Schechtman, that site’s spokeswoman. “We’re not afraid to make fun of ourselves.” Built more on shared cultural affinity than interpretations of the Torah—it features a gossipy Kibitz Corner—JDate jokingly advertises how cheap the service is. “Save beaucoup bucks ($$ bling-bling $$),” the site announces on its About JDate page. “One month’s Subscriber costs less than a night on the town.” That claim isn’t advertised as prominently on ChristianMingle, but Liberman laughs it off. “The sites have very different voices,” he says. “It’s not that Jews are looking for a deal, though I like deals and I’m Jewish, so that would resonate just fine with me. Going to either site is cheaper than a date on the town.” Unlike the mostly coastal population of JDate, the majority of ChristianMingle’s users live in the Midwest or the Bible Belt. Fifty-five percent are older than 36, and 25 percent are older than 50. Daters are encouraged to identify primarily through descriptions of their faith, in statements such as, “To me, being a Christian means …” or “My favorite Bible passage is …” You don’t have to be Jewish to join JDate—you can sign up for “Willing to Convert,” “Not Sure if Willing to Convert,” and “Not Willing to Convert” categories. On ChristianMingle, in the Ministry category, the only option for nonbelievers is “Other.” Reccord explains that Christian singles identify much more with their faith than their favorite movies or albums. “It’s a self-selecting, targeted experience,” she says. “People are joining ChristianMingle because that’s the driving force in their life, and when you get there, you’re already among those who share those same values.” As for the controversial slogan, Reccord says, “we’re not saying that ChristianMingle is the only place where you can find God’s match for you, but so many say, ‘We just don’t see how we could have met had it not been for ChristianMingle.’ ” She cites Miki, a Radio City Rockette, and Tre, a California youth pastor, who found each other on the site and are featured prominently in the service’s ads. “We think this is really something that God can use,” she says. And why not? Most religions have a tradition of paid matchmakers and faith-based singles events where pastors encourage marriage to strengthen the religious community. ChristianMingle is “just another example of His creativity,” says Reccord. “If God gives us the ability to be able to create the Internet,” she says, “why wouldn’t He use a site like this to bring people together?” Spark reported the number of ChristianMingle paid subscribers grew 89 percent for the third quarter of 2012 vs. the period a year earlier. There are other suitors in the market for Christian romance; the biggest remains the much larger EHarmony, which once had a marketing arrangement with James Dobson’s Focus on the Family. And some evangelicals have been skeptical of ChristianMingle’s mission because it was founded by Jews. The upstart competitor ChristianCafe announces on its site: “ChristianCafe.com is Christian owned and operated, unlike all other major Christian dating sites.” Liberman is treading carefully, attempting to establish Spark’s Christian bona fides while balancing its other interests. JDate offers its users the opportunity to register as “men seeking men” or “women seeking women,” for example, but ChristianMingle, like EHarmony, doesn’t. (EHarmony settled a class action brought by gay and lesbian singles in 2010; both EHarmony and Spark offer separate sites for LGBT singles.) “Many gay sites are more casual in nature, and Spark’s mission is to create more serious online dating sites,” says Reccord. “We’re aiming to forge more focused relationships.” Asked to explain why ChristianMingle excludes gay and lesbian Christians who may be looking for long-term relationships, Reccord says, “We strive to run all of our sites to the standards of that community, and that extends to ChristianMingle.” God couldn’t be reached for comment.
News Article | January 7, 2009
This post was written by guest contributor Mark Brooks, an analyst/consultant whose blog Online Personals Watch summarizes the daily internet dating industry news. Earlier this week InterActive Corporation (IAC), which owns and operates popular paid dating sites Match.com and Chemistry.com, launched a completely free dating site called DownToEarth.com (you can check out an ad for the recently launched site here). The somewhat counterintuitive move is IAC/Match.com’s answer to Plentyoffish.com, a popular free dating site that was long run by one man out of his apartment (he now has an office and a small team). DowntoEarth.com was started by Jacob Solotaroff who spent a year as the Director of Product Management and Member Integrity at Match. Now he runs the site out of Dallas, where Match is also based. Apparently IAC believes if someone is going to put Match out of business, it might as well be Match. The most interesting feature on the new site is the RealRatings user ratings system for ranking the accuracy of people’s profiles against real life. Users who post inaccurate photographs and profiles of themselves are ratted out by other users who have been on a date with them. Users can grade the accuracy of profiles on a scale of 1 star to 5 stars once they’ve been on a face to face date. 1 star means “not even close” and 5 stars mean “true to life.” Could this be the end of white lies on dating profiles? Here’s a look at how some of the free competition DowntoEarth will be facing off with in the USA, UK, Australia and Canada. The top free dating sites in the USA are currently: #1 Plentyoffish (#2 overall in the internet dating category in Dec ’09, #2 in May ’09) #2 Adam4Adam (#5 overall in Dec, #6 in May) #3 Date Hookup (#6 overall in Dec, #7 in May) #4 OKCupid (#12 overall in Dec, #14 in May) #5 Mingle2 (#13 overall in Dec, not in top 100 in May) #6 MatchDoctor (#32 overall in Dec, #33 in May) #7 WebDate (#33 overall in Dec, #22 in May) #8 FriendsReunitedDating.co.uk (#41 in Dec, not in top 100 in May) #9 Woome (#46 in Dec, #79 in May) #10 Connecting Singles (#53 in Dec, #55 in May) And in the UK the top free dating sites are: #1 Plentyoffish (#1 overall in Dec, #1 in May) #2 Person (#2 overall in Dec, #13 in May) #3 FriendsReunitedDating.co.uk (#8 overall in Dec, #12 in May) #4 Smooch (#9 overall in Dec, #15 in May) #5 Freedating.co.uk (#14 overall in Dec, #16 in May) #6 ProfilePic (#27 overall in Dec, #68 in May) #7 Flirtomatic (#29 overall in Dec, #36 in May) #8 OKCupid (#31 overall in Dec, #32 in May) #9 Speeddate (#44 overall in Dec, #71 in May) #10 Midsummers Eve (#53 overall in Dec, #43 in May) #1 Plentyoffish (#4 overall in Dec, #7 in May) #2 Person (#7 overall in Dec, #6 in May) #3 Matchfinder.com.au (#22 overall in Dec, #32 in May) #4 Speeddate (#23 overall in Dec, #38 in May) #5 OKCupid (#27 overall in Dec, #30 in May) 90% of the top free dating sites in the USA and UK moved up rankings from May to December 2008. Data: May and December 2008, Hitwise Competitive Intelligence USA, UK and Australia rankings by market share of visits, which is the % of online traffic to the category. #1 Plentyoffish (#1 overall in Nov) #2 Kijiji.ca Personals (#3 overall in Nov) #3 Speeddate (#8 overall in Nov) Disclosure: Plentyoffish and Webdate are clients of Courtland Brooks, Mark Brooks consultancy.
News Article | December 12, 2016
ATLANTA, Dec. 12, 2016 /PRNewswire/ -- The latest video for Friends of Animals is part of a fundraising campaign that takes aim at trophy hunting. Nothing is taboo as viewers embark on a dark journey from brothel to blood diamond mine to an illegal pill mill and finally a boastful trophy...