Online dating has only become more ubiquitous and socially acceptable since the first sites launched in the mid-'90s: in a 2007-2009 study, 22 percent of couples surveyed formed as a result of dating websites, and it's now the second-most common way for people to meet. But a meta-analysis of online dating and psychological studies shows that while some people are successful using those services, the sites themselves oversell their benefit. There are also a number of downsides, from wrong impressions gotten from too much Internet interaction to unnecessary pickiness from an abundance of potential dates to choose from.

The front-facing parts of dating websites often namecheck science, math, and other quantitative disciplines when describing their methods, throwing around high percentages of people matched and married, large numbers of dimensions of compatibility, and surprisingly even numbers of male and female users. Based on their iffy science, the services claim their methods are superior to offline dating. Despite the fact that "news agencies frequently parrot these claims uncritically in awed tones," the meta-analysis says, its investigation suggests that "dating sites have failed to produce compelling evidence" for them.

The authors also point out that dating sites, as products advertising claims to success, might need to be regulated the way other products devoted to health and safety are evaluated by federal agencies like the FDA or FTC. "Dating sites lose two paying customers (or potential advertising revenue) when they facilitate the formation of a romantic relationship," the analysis says, so "dates sites have a perverse incentive to keep users single." This motivation is mitigated by the positive word-of-mouth that can result from a successful relationship (not to mention the lovey-dovey commercials centered on successful matches) but drawing users into a service with muddled motivations with claims of scientific methods is prime for some scrutiny.

The percentages and use of "science" in matching—the paper points out one site, GenePartner, that matches users based on their DNA—are easily dismissed on a rational level. But the theory of dating sites stands; that is, how can you argue with the efficacy of a service that gives you access to more potential dates online than you might meet in person in your lifetime? Most of those people will be wrong for you in some way, but in terms of numbers, online services afford everyone some choosiness, which is an indisputable benefit.

Using the Internet to meet men and ladies removes some of the more intimidating parts of offline encounters, such as ambiguity about whether someone is romantically available, and the need to have to broach the topic of astrological signs and ideal numbers of children in person. The social risks of an online approach are lower. But the authors of the analysis found that what makes online dating easy is also where its negatives lie.

For one, people don't know what they want. According to the surveyed studies, users can list things they like to see in a potential date's online profile, but often a completely different set of preferences emerge in real-life encounters. When users selected dates, the degree to which a person's profile "matched their ideals" did not predict their romantic interest after a meatspace encounter. People can go on and on about what they like, but they have a less-than-perfect idea of what they will be attracted to.

Another problem with initiating relationships online is that evaluating many potential dates at once messes with our perceived preferences even more. The authors found that "people tend to prioritize different qualities when conducting joint evaluation (as in browsing) than when conducting separate evaluation (as in determining whether a specific potential partner is appealing)." Online, people tend to get distracted evaluating traits and aspects of dates that they end up not caring about once they meet someone in real life.

For instance, a user who likes tall people may select a date partially based on which person in the served profiles is tallest, when in reality a date may only need to be tall enough to satiate that preference. A person who read and enjoyed the Harry Potter books deciding between Profile 1 and Profile 2 may choose 1 because they list "Harry Potter" as an interest and 2 doesn't. Never mind that 1 listed "Harry Potter" because they liked the movies and hate reading, while 2 also read and enjoyed the books, but didn't think it was worth mentioning in their profile. This exacerbates the mismatch of what's attractive in a profile versus what's attractive in person.

While dating sites can take the pressure off initial contact, the authors also noted that extending online contact for too long before meeting face-to-face created impossible expectations on both sides. If a short time elapsed between online contact and face-to-face meetings, a couple of studies found that the in-person interaction could actually be more positive than meetings that weren't preceded by an online introduction.

In the end, the only resounding praise the authors could offer online dating is the breadth of access it offers to other people—access to lots of people is better than access to a few, or none at all. But aside from the minor benefit of a short online interaction before meeting face to face, dating sites make a lot of unsubstantiated claims about how well they work (or, at best, claims substantiated by scientists paid by those services).

That, combined with our inability to predict what we will find attractive and how side-by-side evaluation of other users differs from how we evaluate individuals, inspires doubt about whether the services are useful at all in their current state., The creation of profiles, the listing of interests, and the ratings from 1 to 5 of how important abstract things like "morality" or "religion" are maybe just a waste of everyone's time.

The authors suggest upping the rigor of the sites, including independent evaluation of the science-y claims and new features, like a way for users to report back on the accuracy of someone's profile once a meeting has taken place. But we see an opening for a straightforward site that forgoes matching of interests and priorities and embraces the power of online dating as a simple way to meet people. If only we could come up with a good domain name.