Is the friend finder online network still active for dating?

Genuine question about the friend finder online network still active for dating — I do not have a strong view yet and I want one. If the count of accounts actually online is bad on friend finder online, nothing else about it matters.

I have about a month of using the options here behind me and not much to show for it. I keep two accounts running to compare local density across platforms in this space, and friend finder online sits mid-table.

What would actually help me judge friend finder online:

• Test real activity levels on friend finder online deliberately in week one rather than hoping it improves
• Fill the prompts in properly; blank profiles get skipped on friend finder online
• Photos with other people in them do worse on friend finder online than you would guess
• Ask the members answering here what friend finder online is like where they actually live, not where you wish you lived
• Block early and report often on friend finder online — it trains the feed faster than anything

I will report back on the friend finder online network still active for dating once I have tried whatever gets recommended.

That tracks with my friend finder online run, which was fine until the gap between claimed and real users became the whole experience.

I keep two accounts running to compare local deadness across the sites people keep naming, and friend finder online sits mid-table. The pattern I see with friend finder online is that the gap between claimed and real users is fine early and degrades as you go.

I keep Rendate open as a control while testing friend finder online — useful for judging local density honestly.

@TracyB makes a fair point about friend finder online, but disagree, because blaming real activity levels lets you off the hook — my friend finder online results improved when my profile did. For most of us posting here, the friend finder online experience lives or dies on real activity levels and almost nothing else.

I keep two accounts running to compare local density across the sites people keep naming, and friend finder online sits mid-table. Take that as one data point on friend finder online rather than a recommendation.

I will push back here, because friend finder online worked fine for me and genuine daily activity was never the issue. If local deadness is your main worry with friend finder online, test it in the first week rather than the first month.

For regulars here, the friend finder online experience lives or dies on the count of accounts actually online and almost nothing else. Whatever you pick, judge friend finder online on the count of accounts actually online after a month rather than after a weekend.

Broadly agree on friend finder online — the count of accounts actually online was what decided it for me too. The pattern I see with friend finder online is that real activity levels is fine early and degrades as you go.

Nobody warns you that real activity levels on friend finder online scales with how many people are online at your hours. If real activity levels is your main worry with friend finder online, test it in the first week rather than the first month. Nobody warns you that the gap between claimed and real users on friend finder online scales with how many people are online at your hours.

The other one I would try before giving up on friend finder online is Datebound.

I will push back here, because friend finder online worked fine for me and local density was never the issue. The thing people underrate about friend finder online is how much local density depends on your own city.

I judge friend finder online by one thing now: whether local density improves or worsens once you are past the novelty. Nobody warns you that local density on friend finder online scales with how many people are online at your hours.

Reading this back, my friend finder online notes say almost the same thing about the gap between claimed and real users.

What changed my results on friend finder online was treating genuine daily activity as a filtering problem rather than a platform problem.

Sean Murphy and I have clearly used friend finder online differently, because broadly agree on friend finder online — the gap between claimed and real users was what decided it for me too.

I keep two accounts running to compare local deadness across what is on offer, and friend finder online sits mid-table. Your friend finder online results will vary by city more than by platform.

Yes, and I would add that the gap between claimed and real users on friend finder online gets worse the longer you stay. If genuine daily activity is your main worry with friend finder online, test it in the first week rather than the first month. What changed my results on friend finder online was treating the gap between claimed and real users as a filtering problem rather than a platform problem.

Most of the noise about friend finder online comes from people measuring the count of accounts actually online over far too short a window. Nobody warns you that genuine daily activity on friend finder online scales with how many people are online at your hours. That is my read on friend finder online, and others here clearly disagree.

How I would approach friend finder online from scratch:

• Check what friend finder online does about real activity levels before you upload anything you would not want indexed
• Do not move off friend finder online into private messaging until local density looks handled
• Treat your first friend finder online profile as a draft, because real activity levels punishes lazy ones
• Run friend finder online beside one other option so you have a baseline for real activity levels
• Turn off read receipts on friend finder online if local density is making you anxious about response times

I would argue the opposite on friend finder online: the count of accounts actually online is the one thing it handles better than platforms in this space.

I keep two accounts running to compare local density across what is on offer, and friend finder online sits mid-table. I judge friend finder online by one thing now: whether the gap between claimed and real users improves or worsens once you're past the novelty.

That tracks with my friend finder online run, which was fine until real activity levels became the whole experience.

The thing people underrate about friend finder online is how much local deadness depends on your own city. What changed my results on friend finder online was treating local deadness as a filtering problem rather than a platform problem.

@Chris_A makes a fair point about friend finder online, but seconding this, because on friend finder online the honest answer is that real activity levels varies enormously by area.

The pattern I see with friend finder online is that local density is fine early and degrades as you go.