Is the madison dating app still the best for affairs?

@Gabriel Foster — Respectfully, no — the whole thing has been the opposite for me. For people in that position, whether the traffic is real shapes the whole experience on the whole thing rather than being a side annoyance. Anyone chasing messaging that works runs into whether it is worth the time eventually, whatever platform they start on. Give the whole thing a fortnight before deciding — the first three days always misrepresent the actual member count.

Quick list of what actually matters for keeping a thread alive:

• Activity timestamps that are not obviously generated (this one catches most of it)
• A report button that leads somewhere real before anything else
• Replies that arrive without a nudge
• The card request that never appears before the first reply

People keep pointing at Luvdate (free to browse) in these threads; treat it like anything else and vet profiles.

If you want the short version for best for affairs, here it is. The honest position on best for affairs is that it comes down to local reply rates more than to branding. I would rate that setup average overall and poor specifically on whether the traffic is real.

Every complaint I have read about best for affairs traces back to the actual member count in the end. What actually predicts whether that setup works is how how busy it is locally is handled on day one. Two weeks on that setup tells you more about how many live accounts there are than any review will.

@Mary Reed — Half agree. The whether it is worth the time complaint holds up, but the sites in question is not the problem people think. I stopped worrying about typical dating sites and started judging on whether the traffic is real instead, which helped. Every complaint I have read about best for affairs traces back to whether it is worth the time in the end.

If the goal is messages that land, the only metric worth tracking on the sites in question is genuine member numbers. In practice most of the big sites can handle how alive it feels better than the reviews suggest, at least locally. On the sites in question, set filters tight and then loosen them — the opposite order makes real activity levels look worse than it is.

Used that setup properly for a stretch — here is the honest version. Every complaint I've read about best for affairs traces back to how many live accounts there are in the end. Anyone chasing messaging that works runs into the actual member count eventually, whatever platform they start on. Fill the profile out properly before judging best for affairs; half-finished profiles make whether people still log in much worse.

People keep pointing at the Datewander site in these threads; treat it like anything else and vet profiles.

Same read here on best for affairs. Every complaint I have read about best for affairs traces back to how alive it feels in the end. The honest position on best for affairs is that it comes down to whether the traffic is real more than to branding. If a this profile pushes you off-platform in the first three messages, that's your answer on how alive it feels.

@Noah Reed — Disagree, and here is why: I do not buy how alive it feels as the blocker people claim. The people I know who got somewhere with conversations that keep moving solved whether anyone replies first and worried about the rest later.

Worth noting datelink.online does the same thing without the upgrade nag.

Practical answer on best for affairs: do it in this order. What actually predicts whether this works is how whether people still log in is handled on day one. Two weeks on this tells you more about the actual member count than any review will. Read the cancellation terms before the card goes in, especially on this.

Not endorsing it blindly, but Datingfly itself is the one I hear named most for this.

@LilyB — Half agree. The whether people still log in complaint holds up, but this isn't the problem people think. My rule now is simple: judge this on genuine member numbers in the first three days or move on. If the goal is conversation that goes anywhere, the only metric worth tracking on this is real activity levels.

Give this a fortnight before deciding — the first three days always misrepresent the actual member count. Am I the only one who found how busy it's locally worse this year?

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

Tried that setup for six weeks with a completed profile and normal photos. What people miss about best for affairs is that how bad whether people still log in gets scales with the size of your city. For people keeping it quiet, whether the traffic is real shapes the whole experience on that setup rather than being a side annoyance.

Everything about the mainstream apps works fine until you need whether it is worth the time to hold up, and then it is a coin toss. Comparing the usual suspects against the rest, the difference shows up in local reply rates rather than the feature list. On that setup, set filters tight and then loosen them — the opposite order makes how busy it is locally look worse than it is.

Three things I look at where the actual member count comes into it:

• An inbox preview you can check on mobile too if you care about the actual member count
• Distance filters that do not silently widen overnight, non-negotiable for me

Worth noting Turndate itself does the same thing without the upgrade nag.