RSS
Home
Dating site evaluation: Chemistry.com
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
(6).jpg)
Advertising: Truthful. Chemistry.com has claims to being featured on 20/20 and Good Morning America and the administrators make quite the deal out of their personality test. If you read the bottom of the page, you’ll see that the site is actually a subsidiary of Match.com.
Layout: Counterintuitive. Clean and basic site designs almost always make me wary; when a site clearly has put very little time or effort into the graphics and layout, it’s easy for one to know what to expect from the service. I started feeling like I was taking an IQ test at certain points during the personality assessment you must first take before you can actually get to the site, and some of the questions didn’t make any sense. For example: I smother quickly. So even if I’m in a close relationship, I still need my space: (Not important/Somewhat important/Quite important/Very important). I felt as though this site was trying to ape eHarmony with all the questions. If you plan on signing up, you’d better clear your schedule and bring a magazine.
Profile Information: Satisfactory. Considering the sprawling nature of the questions, it’s not a surprise that the profiles are pretty limited in terms of self-expression. At least all the important attributes are covered.
Relationship Options: Pathetic. Men and women can look for men and women, and the site seems to be geared almost explicitly towards marriage.
Matching: Mediocre. The ‘interpersonal matrix’ intended to do the matching first asked the relationship between the index and ring finger of my right hand. I can’t even make stuff like that up. Later in the testing, they ask racially and sexually charged questions, like whether you would buy a used car from a white woman, a white man, a Hispanic woman, or an Asian man based on their smiles. When I finally got to read my personality profile, I agreed with a majority of it, which I don’t find to be a revelation since many of these tests are about as specific as horoscopes. For all the hype, I wasn’t impressed by some of their suggestions about what I should do to improve my relationships.
The matches returned thanks to your interpersonal matrix, in other words, the other people, aren’t given any pictures or identifying information aside from their personality type and their name. It’s quite frustrating to have to look at every single profile to see pictures, ages, and locations. The matches returned were based entirely on the interpersonal matrices of the other people, which means you can’t look for anything you want and you’re supposed to rely entirely on their judgment. I liked only one of the suggested ten matches, and she and I didn’t really seem like a good match.
People: Real. Anyone that could sit through the sign up process has to be a real person. Or a machine designed to answer abstract questions.
Communication: Restricted. Got something to say? Then you’ve got to pay.
Pay For: Essential Features. Even if the matching page is awful, they let you actually look at the person’s profile and pictures, but beyond that you have to pay $50 a month or $160 for six months. Fortunately, they don’t monitor your profile, so you can advertise yourself on other dating sites if you’d like.
Grade: C+. With the mere mention of ‘guided communication’, it’s clear that this site is a substandard eHarmony; though it has slightly better relationship options, it’s not as comprehensive, and though the personality profile part can be fun, it’s not worth the steep price. As usual, you’re much better off just answering a lot of questions on OkCupid.
Related Articles:
Add a Comment
