Quick Summary:

Hookup potential: 3/5 Features: 4/5 Design: 3/5 Content: 3/5

  • A legit dating site, with a wide membership base.
  • The design is too compressed. There’s a lot going on within each page so there’s very little “white” space left. It’s hard on the eyes.
  • Some functions are redundant and don’t work correctly.

The Full Story:

This site presents itself first and foremost as a browseable database of “available” people – a HUGE browseable database. And I think this represents the germ of my main problem with it.

It is always great for a dating website to have so many subscribers. It’s great for the site owners, and it’s great for us, the users. They get their income, while we get a lot of choices.

But the fact that there are so many results should not affect how the website is laid out. At Mate1, it seems like they’ve adopted the presentation strategy of cramming as many results as possible into just one page. A typical results page is a 6 X 5 grid of results. Meaning there are six people (with pictures) per row, and five rows for each page. The allotted space for the results is about 500 X 700 pixels, which is like, only half of a typical monitor screen.

Now, imagine being the user and going through each one of these results. You’d want to read up on the interesting-looking ones, right? The problem is that there isn’t much space allotted for each person in the results page–at least not enough to include information you might want, such as occupation or orientation. It gets tiring on the eyes. There’s just too much visual noise.

Most everything else about the site is decent. There’s the requisite flirting options for each profile–you can say “hi” or send a personal message to anyone you’d like. You can even chat if the member happens to be online. There’s no fuss about this. And not much by way of restriction either. There’s no need to be in someone’s “buddy” or “allow” list if you want to chat with her.

One funny thing about the site is that it beats you over head with the idea that you should be here to “search.” Why? Because three of the five main links on the top of each page are (redundantly) pointing to “Search.” There is Search (according to your parameters), Popular Search (according to popular parameters), and In Your Area (local search). Now, if anyone comes in here and complains about not knowing where to begin looking for dates, then maybe it’s poetic justice that he or she doesn’t get one. Duh!

I tried using the Advanced Search option where you can specify certain details, such as non-smokers only, spiritual persons etc. I also specified that the results should only include those that are at a maximum of 25 miles from where I am. I used the Search section on the left side of the screen. And lo and behold, I was given results that had women from other countries! Hello?!

I decided to attempt a little troubleshooting. Maybe I shouldn’t have used the Search section on the left? Maybe I should’ve used the one on top? (Yes, there is a search section right below the three main search links, and right next to the Search section on the left panel screen.) This search section was oddly not updated when I previously tweaked the search parameters.

So I searched again, and this time my search yielded more suitable results. Gone were all the out-of-the-country results (although some of the women on the list were still way beyond my specified radius).

Still, if one were to employ redundancy in a site layout, there should be a meaningful limit to it. It can get confusing to the user to have so many search options in one page. With Mate1, there’s about five Search links on every single page.

And, more importantly, the functionality of the whole website, especially the redundant features, should cohere with everything else. If I change my specification in one Search section, the others should update their values too. In the case here, I had to update each time I used a different site search option.

Oh well. I suppose this is the price you pay for having a deluge of choices. In the final analysis, the logical loopholes in this dating site are tolerable. A hot hook up is certainly possible, so it’s all good.

Tags: , , , , , ,

8 Responses to “ review”

  1. John
    July 14, 2009 at 9:08 pm #

    Site should consider some serious revamping. Great review btw.

  2. Thursday
    July 15, 2009 at 9:58 pm #

    You reviewed it subjectively. Great review!

  3. Google
    July 16, 2009 at 8:22 pm #

    They have overlooked site navigation. It’s a bit redundant in terms of the search engine.

  4. Exena
    July 19, 2009 at 10:16 pm #

    In terms of the design, yeah.. I agree. It’s hard on the eyes.

  5. merritt
    October 7, 2009 at 8:03 pm #

    plenty of fish is better as i have hooked up with 5 women in 3 1/2 months there and i have 2 more in the works..

  6. Clay
    January 28, 2010 at 5:13 am #

    In terms of the design, I agree. It’s amateurish, navigation sucks and fake profiles suck more.

  7. Sven
    February 18, 2010 at 7:12 am #

    I agree, the whole site is very amateurish. I noticed the fake profiles too.


  1. Mingle2 review | Casual Encounters - July 28, 2009

    […] think it’s such a great idea to show ads of direct-competitor websites (in this case, mostly Mate1’s). Why lead traffic away from your website to a competing service, right? I suppose this is the cost […]

Leave a Reply