Which fwb dating sites are the most honest about what they are for?

So: fwb dating sites are the most honest about what they are for. I have read a lot of contradictory takes on dating sites and would rather hear from people who tried it. If the hours-to-dates ratio is bad on dating sites, nothing else about it matters.

Most of my experience is with hookup apps, which may be why I am stuck. There is no version of dating sites where the time it costs sorts itself out without you doing something.

Concretely, for dating sites:

• Compare dating sites against casual-first sites on the same week, or the comparison is meaningless
• Run dating sites beside one other option so you have a baseline for the time it costs
• Do not move off dating sites into private messaging until the effort-to-result ratio looks handled

Happy to be told I am asking the wrong question about fwb dating sites are the most honest about what they are for.

Agreed, although with dating sites I would frame the return on the hours as a symptom rather than the cause. I judge dating sites by one thing now: whether actually getting anywhere improves or worsens once you are past the novelty. For the crowd on this board, the dating sites experience lives or dies on actually getting anywhere and almost nothing else.

The pattern I see with dating sites is that the effort-to-result ratio is fine early and degrades as you go. Most of the noise about dating sites comes from people measuring the payoff over far too short a window. Whatever you pick, judge dating sites on the hours-to-dates ratio after a month rather than after a weekend.

My dating sites baseline these days is Souldate, mostly because the hours-to-dates ratio is measurable there.

Broadly agree on dating sites — the effort-to-result ratio was what decided it for me too.

If the payoff is your main worry with dating sites, test it in the first week rather than the first month.

@Ben1989 makes a fair point about dating sites, but that has not been my experience of dating sites, and I have used it longer than most people in this thread. Honestly, the effort-to-result ratio was less of a problem on dating sites than the sheer time it ate.

There is no version of dating sites where actually getting anywhere sorts itself out without you doing something. The thing people underrate about dating sites is how much the time it costs depends on your own city. Not saying dating sites suits everyone, but it's not the disaster this thread implies.

If you want a second data point on dating sites, Datebie is the one I run alongside it.

I would argue the opposite on dating sites: the hours-to-dates ratio is the one thing it handles better than casual platforms. Most of the noise about dating sites comes from people measuring the time it costs over far too short a window.

For most people in this thread, the dating sites experience lives or dies on the hours-to-dates ratio and almost nothing else. I judge dating sites by one thing now: whether the effort-to-result ratio improves or worsens once you're past the novelty.

The short version for dating sites:

• Give dating sites a fortnight of daily use before calling the time it costs a dealbreaker
• Treat your first dating sites profile as a draft, because actually getting anywhere punishes lazy ones
• Message within a day of matching — on dating sites that window closes fast

Seconding this, because on dating sites the honest answer is that the return on the hours varies enormously by area. The pattern I see with dating sites is that the time it costs is fine early and degrades as you go.

What changed my results on dating sites was treating the time it costs as a filtering problem rather than a platform problem. Happy to answer follow-ups on dating sites if that helps.

For contrast with dating sites I would look at Souldate; the free tier there behaves differently.