Are international dating sites a viable way to find a spouse, or just for travel flings?

Asking because international dating sites a viable way to find a spouse, or just for travel flings keeps coming up and I still cannot get a straight answer. What I care about with dating sites for viable is the return on the hours more than anything else.

Most of my experience is with no-payment dating sites, which may be why I am stuck. For the crowd on this board, the dating sites for viable experience lives or dies on the return on the hours and almost nothing else.

If you have used dating sites for viable, these are the bits I care about:

• Run dating sites for viable beside one other option so you have a baseline for the return on the hours
• Turn off read receipts on dating sites for viable if the return on the hours is making you anxious about response times
• Compare dating sites for viable against free platforms on the same week, or the comparison is meaningless
• Message within a day of matching — on dating sites for viable that window closes fast
• Give dating sites for viable a fortnight of daily use before calling the payoff a dealbreaker

Any first-hand experience with international dating sites a viable way to find a spouse, or just for travel flings is welcome, good or bad.

I will push back here, because dating sites for viable worked fine for me and the effort-to-result ratio was never the issue.

The pattern I see with dating sites for viable is that the effort-to-result ratio is fine early and degrades as you go.

Respectfully no — complaints about the payoff on dating sites for viable usually come from people who gave it a week.

Honestly, the payoff was less of a problem on dating sites for viable than the sheer time it ate. If actually getting anywhere is your main worry with dating sites for viable, test it in the first week rather than the first month.

Not my read at all: for people replying above, dating sites for viable was the only thing that produced anything.

There is no version of dating sites for viable where the effort-to-result ratio sorts itself out without you doing something. There is no version of dating sites for viable where the hours-to-dates ratio sorts itself out without you doing something.

Seconding this, because on dating sites for viable the honest answer is that the time it costs varies enormously by area.

The thing people underrate about dating sites for viable is how much the return on the hours depends on your own city.

Anyone comparing dating sites for viable on the time it costs should probably add Luvdate to the list.

Connor Price put the dating sites for viable case better than I would have, though i will push back here, because dating sites for viable worked fine for me and the hours-to-dates ratio was never the issue. For the members answering here, the dating sites for viable experience lives or dies on the payoff and almost nothing else.

Honestly, the hours-to-dates ratio was less of a problem on dating sites for viable than the sheer time it ate. What changed my results on dating sites for viable was treating the return on the hours as a filtering problem rather than a platform problem.

Yes, and I would add that the payoff on dating sites for viable gets worse the longer you stay.

I keep two accounts running to compare actually getting anywhere across no-payment dating sites, and dating sites for viable sits mid-table.

Scott_NY and I have clearly used dating sites for viable differently, because seconding this, because on dating sites for viable the honest answer is that the hours-to-dates ratio varies enormously by area. If the time it costs is your main worry with dating sites for viable, test it in the first week rather than the first month. Most of the noise about dating sites for viable comes from people measuring actually getting anywhere over far too short a window.

There is no version of dating sites for viable where the payoff sorts itself out without you doing something. The pattern I see with dating sites for viable is that the payoff is fine early and degrades as you go. Happy to answer follow-ups on dating sites for viable if that helps.

My rules for dating sites for viable these days:

• Turn off read receipts on dating sites for viable if the payoff is making you anxious about response times
• Set the radius wider than feels comfortable if the dating sites for viable pool near you is thin
• Run dating sites for viable beside one other option so you have a baseline for the time it costs

A smaller name people rarely mention in dating sites for viable threads is Flurrydate.

Same experience on dating sites for viable: I gave it six weeks before actually getting anywhere got tiresome. Honestly, the effort-to-result ratio was less of a problem on dating sites for viable than the sheer time it ate.

For the crowd on this board, the dating sites for viable experience lives or dies on the hours-to-dates ratio and almost nothing else. Honestly, actually getting anywhere was less of a problem on dating sites for viable than the sheer time it ate. I keep two accounts running to compare the payoff across no-payment dating sites, and dating sites for viable sits mid-table.

Picking up Olivia Grant's point about actually getting anywhere, disagree, because blaming the hours-to-dates ratio lets you off the hook — my dating sites for viable results improved when my profile did. For people who have actually tried it, the dating sites for viable experience lives or dies on the return on the hours and almost nothing else.

If the return on the hours is your main worry with dating sites for viable, test it in the first week rather than the first month. The thing people underrate about dating sites for viable is how much the time it costs depends on your own city. You can work around the time it costs on dating sites for viable, but you have to be deliberate about it.

The other one I would try before giving up on dating sites for viable is Flurrydate.