PlentyOfFish review

Quick Summary:


Hookup potential: 4/5 Features: 3/5 Design: 1/5 Content: 4/5

  • Members seem to be pretty interesting and really take the time to update their profiles.
  • Every page of this site is riddled with Google Ads.
  • The links don’t flow logically. It is easy to get lost in the site, or to be tricked into clicking on a deceptive link.

The Full Story

Ok, first things first: the women on this site come off as interesting – and therefore, hot. Some even look it! Most of the profiles I’ve seen are well-written and direct. A new member will quickly get a feel for who among his or her prospects would be a good match.

The filters set upon the site actually work. I once tried to message a woman whom I thought was interesting but the website won’t let me–the woman had specified that she may only be contacted by people who live within her area and didn’t smoke. Oh well.

When you do find someone you can get in touch with, you can send online gifts along with your message. There’s no chat here (I read that it was removed recently) so it’s all about the emailing/messaging.

The very major downside of the website is this: it is atrociously designed and riddled with Google Ads. This is not nitpicking. I’ve seen my share of awfully-designed websites but this is one of the worst-looking I’ve ever seen.

First on the craplist is the Google Adwords advertising. Everyone who’s done his or her share of online searches would have encountered “information-lite” websites with two Google ad banners, and a text strip of ads slapped within the text content. (Google only allows three of its ad scripts to run within the same page.)  You will find these here: two huge, chunky Google image ads and a strip of text ads within many  pages’ content. The real problem is that some of the ads have been deliberately manipulated to look like they’re part of the site’s internal content. It’s clearly a deceptive practice to gain more clicks. Sure, it’s a free site and Markus (the site’s owner) has to make money, but it’s hugely distracting and irritating.

Secondly, the site’s basic organization just sucks. It’s like the webmaster decided to play a cruel joke and just slap random links anywhere he or she pleased. There is no cohesiveness or method to the design and structure – no flow.

Ideally on a website, the navigation links are “chunked” logically. For example, when you’re in a particular subsection of the website, you’d expect to see links related to sections within that subsection. This is not the case here. It’s a retarded, confusing mess. Add this to the Google ads “hidden” within legitimate site content, and you’re bound to get frustrated after a while.

And really, both of these things – the ads, the maze of links – would be tolerable if the site at least looked good. But not even.

Visually the site reminds me of when the plaintext-dominated websites were the thing. You know what I mean: all text content, with chunks of paragraphs and no images, perhaps “jazzed up” with a non-white  background color. Webmasters would just diddle with their font sizes or colors to create visual interest. That’s how a lot of the pages look. You end up thanking the members for having pictures in their profiles; otherwise, the visual experience would send you to sleep.

When you date, you want to attract people, right? So best foot forward. It should be the same with websites, especially dating websites. Dating sites should try their best to engage their members visually. The site should at least be easy on the eyes – it should be attractive and make you want to stay longer.

This does not happen here. If it weren’t for the interesting members and their very engaging profiles, I’d have deleted my account and taken my business elsewhere pretty quickly. What can I say? Looks do matter.

I’d still recommend PlentyOfFish on balance because of the size of the membership database and the quality of the profiles. The messaging and filters work well enough so there is a decent possibility of getting together with someone who meets your criteria. But my recommendation comes with the caveat to look at the site by squinting through your face-covering fingers.

Tags: , , , , , ,

8 Responses to “PlentyOfFish review”

  1. Chris
    August 4, 2009 at 9:39 pm #

    They should pay a professional web designer to work on it. It needs some work, seriously.

  2. Seether
    August 5, 2009 at 10:37 pm #

    yeah they need a major revamp honestly

  3. ozgirl
    August 6, 2009 at 7:50 pm #

    I have had a better response off this website than RSVP. But I found the distorted pictures to be more off putting than the google ads. Better thumbnail pics would be a HUGE improvement in my mind.

  4. hottienottie
    August 9, 2009 at 9:06 pm #

    this is interestingly hotttt!!

  5. Anton
    August 11, 2009 at 8:37 pm #

    Hot site. I don’t care about the design. I care more about the hookups possibility!

  6. LarryLar
    August 19, 2009 at 7:52 am #

    Gotta check this site out.

  7. merritt
    October 7, 2009 at 7:59 pm #

    well i really like this dating web site as i have actually met and gone on dates with 6 women as of this last sunday..total dates with 6 women is now at 16 and i have had sex with 2 of them and with a 3rd in the next week or so…so for me i love this site…the only other one that compares is jew date. i have dated 3 women 11 times and had sex with 1 of them…all the other dating web sites suck…including match.com and singles.net and a few others

  8. Lucas Egbe
    November 16, 2011 at 10:51 am #

    ( obviously the girl does not know )

Leave a Reply