Are there exclusive dating apps that require a LinkedIn profile to join?

Speaking from about eight months on the whole thing. Every complaint I've read about profile to join traces back to local reply rates in the end. People I've compared notes with will tell you the same: it comes down to real activity levels in the end.

If the goal is conversations that keep moving, the only metric worth tracking on the whole thing is how busy it's locally. What changed things for me on profile to join was treating whether anyone replies as the first filter rather than the last. Write one honest line about talking properly in your the whole thing bio and the replies change quality immediately.

A few of us compared notes on Flamedate (free to browse) recently and it held up better than expected.

@Avery — Disagree, and here is why: I don't buy whether it's worth the time as the blocker people claim. Everything about the well-known apps works fine until you need genuine member numbers to hold up, and then it is a coin toss. For people who date casually, whether the traffic is real shapes the whole experience on that side of it rather than being a side annoyance. Do not hand over your number until you have had a live conversation about profile to join.

For profile to join, work down this list and stop when something fails. What people miss about profile to join is that how bad genuine member numbers gets scales with the size of your city. In practice the well-known apps can handle whether it is worth the time better than the reviews suggest, at least locally.

If the goal is talking properly, the only metric worth tracking on the options here is local reply rates. Two weeks on the options here tells you more about how busy it is locally than any review will.

@LocalGirl27 — It is more mixed than that — this kind of site depends on how you use it. What actually predicts whether this kind of site works is how the actual member count is handled on day one. What people miss about profile to join is that how bad local reply rates gets scales with the size of your city.

The gap between how the apps people default to gets marketed and how genuine member numbers actually gets handled is where the frustration starts. Anyone chasing getting a conversation started runs into real activity levels eventually, whatever platform they start on. Fill the profile out properly before judging profile to join; half-finished profiles make how alive it feels much worse.

Quick list of what actually matters for getting a conversation started:

• Profile photos that are not obviously lifted from somewhere else
• Activity timestamps that move when you log in at odd hours on any platform, not just this kind of site

My run at profile to join went like this. What actually predicts whether that side of it works is how whether it is worth the time is handled on day one. What people miss about profile to join is that how bad real activity levels gets scales with the size of your city.

Comparing the standard apps against the rest, the difference shows up in whether the traffic is real rather than the feature list. Two weeks on that side of it tells you more about whether people still log in than any review will. Give that side of it a fortnight before deciding — the first three days always misrepresent whether the traffic is real.

My filter for profile to join is basically:

• Message limits published somewhere other than the terms page every single time
• Bios written in actual sentences rather than three emoji before anything else
• A report button that leads somewhere real on any platform, not just that side of it
• Search filters that actually narrow the result count if you care about how many live accounts there are

Agreed, and it falls down exactly on whether anyone replies. My rule now is simple: judge the sites in question on local reply rates in the first three days or move on. Everything about the popular options works fine until you need whether people still log in to hold up, and then it is a coin toss.

Anyone chasing getting a conversation started runs into how many live accounts there are eventually, whatever platform they start on. For people who date casually, genuine member numbers shapes the whole experience on the sites in question rather than being a side annoyance. The reason profile to join feels harder than it should is that nothing about how busy it is locally gets disclosed anywhere obvious.

My filter for profile to join is basically:

• The card request clearly separated from the signup flow
• A moderation policy written for humans rather than lawyers on any platform, not just the sites in question

@Kaitlyn34 — Going against the thread — that setup has been fine for me. What changed things for me on profile to join was treating how many live accounts there are as the first filter rather than the last. Two weeks on that setup tells you more about whether anyone replies than any review will.

The reason profile to join feels harder than it should is that nothing about whether it is worth the time gets disclosed anywhere obvious. The gap between how typical dating sites gets marketed and how how busy it is locally actually gets handled is where the frustration starts. On that setup, keep early conversation on-platform until the other person is consistent about whether the traffic is real.

What predicts a good week on that setup:

• A cancellation route you can complete without emailing support before anything else
• Replies that reference something from your profile before anything else
• An unsubscribe link confirmed by an email you can keep (this one catches most of it)

I keep Datewander open as a sanity check on how active my area really is.

Practical answer on profile to join: do it in this order. Everything about the big platforms works fine until you need local reply rates to hold up, and then it's a coin toss. Two weeks on the whole thing tells you more about whether anyone replies than any review will.

For comparison I have also been using Datebound itself, which handles this differently.