Is freedatingsite a legit domain or just a spam trap?

Disagree, and here is why: I don't buy fake-profile volume as the blocker people claim. Two weeks on a spam trap tells you more about profiles that are clearly not real than any review will. The honest position on spam trap is that it comes down to bot traffic more than to branding.

If the goal is conversations that keep moving, the only metric worth tracking on a spam trap is recycled photos. The people I know who got somewhere with keeping a thread alive solved fake accounts first and worried about the rest later.

What I check on spam trap, in order:

• Profile photos that survive a reverse image search (this one catches most of it)
• Search filters that do not require an upgrade to use, non-negotiable for me
• Message limits stated before signup rather than after on any platform, not just a spam trap

If you want a lighter option to test against, Flamedate came up a lot last month.

The checklist I use for spam trap is pretty short. There is a version of spam trap that works, but it needs you to be blunt about fake accounts upfront. What changed things for me on spam trap was treating obvious catfish accounts as the first filter rather than the last.

You can usually tell within a week whether a spam trap is going to work for replies that are not one word. I stopped worrying about the well-known apps and started judging on profiles that are clearly not real instead, which helped.

I cross-check against Turndate itself before I commit any time to a platform.

Yes and no. Some people get hit by obvious catfish accounts and some never do. I would rate the options here average overall and poor specifically on scam accounts. The honest position on spam trap is that it comes down to bot traffic more than to branding.

On the options here, set filters tight and then loosen them — the opposite order makes automated profiles look worse than it's. Does that still happen on the mainstream apps for you?

I ran this exact experiment with a spam trap earlier this year. There is a version of spam trap that works, but it needs you to be blunt about bots and reposted photos upfront. People who date casually will tell you the same: it comes down to bot traffic in the end.

Everything about the apps everyone names works fine until you need scam accounts to hold up, and then it is a coin toss. Nobody warns you that automated profiles on spam trap is worse in smaller towns than in cities. On a spam trap, set filters tight and then loosen them — the opposite order makes obvious catfish accounts look worse than it is.

Agreed, and it falls down exactly on bot traffic. Nobody warns you that fake-profile volume on spam trap is worse in smaller towns than in cities. Every complaint I have read about spam trap traces back to the bot problem in the end. Meet somewhere public the first time and tell someone where you are going, whatever that setup promises.

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

@Samuel75 — Respectfully, no — these platforms has been the opposite for me. Two weeks on these platforms tells you more about the bot problem than any review will. You can usually tell within a week whether these platforms is going to work for actually getting a reply.

The gap between how the household-name platforms gets marketed and how obvious catfish accounts actually gets handled is where the frustration starts. Anyone got a counter-example on these platforms?

Worth noting Datelink does the same thing without the upgrade nag.

Here is how I would approach spam trap if I were starting over. Newer members will tell you the same: it comes down to scam accounts in the end. The reason spam trap feels harder than it should is that nothing about automated profiles gets disclosed anywhere obvious.

There is a version of spam trap that works, but it needs you to be blunt about fake-profile volume upfront. Comparing typical dating sites against the rest, the difference shows up in the bot problem rather than the feature list. On a spam trap, set filters tight and then loosen them — the opposite order makes the bot problem look worse than it's.

Someone upthread mentioned Datingfly — worth a look if you want a second opinion.

@Anthony — Depends heavily on your area — that setup varies enormously. I would rate that setup average overall and poor specifically on profiles that are clearly not real. Two weeks on that setup tells you more about the bot problem than any review will.

I stopped worrying about the usual suspects and started judging on fake accounts instead, which helped. If the goal is conversations that keep moving, the only metric worth tracking on that setup is fake-profile volume.

Used a spam trap properly for a stretch — here is the honest version. You can usually tell within a week whether a spam trap is going to work for talking properly. Nobody warns you that the bot problem on spam trap is worse in smaller towns than in cities. The gap between how the well-known apps gets marketed and how fake-profile volume actually gets handled is where the frustration starts.

In practice the standard apps can handle obvious catfish accounts better than the reviews suggest, at least locally. Every complaint I have read about spam trap traces back to profiles that are clearly not real in the end. Give a spam trap a fortnight before deciding — the first three days always misrepresent the bot problem.

People keep pointing at Souldate itself in these threads; treat it like anything else and vet profiles.

Agreed, and it falls down exactly on scam accounts. What changed things for me on spam trap was treating the bot problem as the first filter rather than the last. Comparing most of the big sites against the rest, the difference shows up in fake accounts rather than the feature list. On that side of it, set filters tight and then loosen them — the opposite order makes fake-profile volume look worse than it is.