Keep wording consistent: change "Complete our simple registration" to "Complete our simple sign-up form". On the registration page, change the "register" button to "Sign Up!"
Keep your logo in the top left corner of all your pages. It's nice that it gets out of the user's way after moving off of the homepage, but it's confusing.
Use a feedback form like the one on slacker.com (i.e. omnipresent) -- you'll be much more likely to get good feedback that way.
I really like the homepage design, but the content in the center of the page should be simpler and draw in users' attention (e.g. http://pixtures.s3.amazonaws.com/misc/mingle-process.jpg). You can offer a detailed explanation of your service after the user signs up -- or on the "see how it works" page... Or even just a little lower on the homepage.
Your homepage actually convinced me to sign up, but the "On your way to the MingleWeek" page is just plain daunting. So much text. No images. No simple instructions. Too much work before I'm able to see a reward. After I confirm my email address I should be taken to a page titled "Upload Your Photo" (i.e. no "Create Some Portraits") and there should be a big "upload" button in the center of my field of vision. While the homepage is really inviting, the pages after sign-up are less than inspiring.
The "Make a First Impression" page is cool. Make it easier to submit content. Don't even bother having multiple fields under the "Music" tab (i.e. Song, Musician, Album). Keep it simple: "Song Name" is enough. People will write "Song Name - Artist Name" in a single text field if they're so inclined. I would also suggest making all of the tabs omnipresent (e.g. http://pixtures.s3.amazonaws.com/misc/getting-to-know-you.jp...).
"Terms and Conditions, coming soon!" heh :)
P.S. Try to find a way to encourage a friendly atmosphere and community. That's why people visit social websites: the community. I would invite some of my friends to your service if there was a more compelling reason than "As the FlowMingle community grows, so do the number of people you can choose from." It seems like what you're trying to do is make a site geared more towards friends casually hanging out, having fun, and getting to know each other -- and I think that's great. Formal dating is overrated.
First, Good luck. There needs to be a winner in this area & I don't know of any candidates. I kind of feel that the secret sauce is something that needs to be discovered not invented. These are my thoughts (no particular order).
1. Most players are paid services. I think there is a good chance that whatever winner emerges will be a free service or at least free for 90% + of active users. The service is essentially better if it is free (network effects but more then that: You can take it lightly if it's free. It's serious business if it's paid) so any paid service would be in constant danger of a free clone emerging.
2. Let non-singles get involved. Encourage meddling. Set other people up. Introduce, create polls on who should be together. I dunno, something in that area. Maybe think along the lines of 14 yr olds instead of 30 somethings using a professional dating service. The former have fun. The latter do not.
3. Let people approach this from an angle. Just like in real life. Meeting in singles bars, via introductions, pickups etc. is only one way. Most people prefer meeting someone at work, meditation workshops or University. Dunno how you'de do that online, but it would be interesting if you could piggyback on ways people interact with each other online already. Facebook/Myspace is an obvious path. But maybe Digg, blogs, wiki editing, amazon reviews or even HN might provide a thread to pull on.
4. Be un-sleazy & you have an immediate edge (design looks right for this). That feeling that half the users are fake, that they inflate women or men's numbers... That's will be on users minds (good reasons too). All that damage needs to be mended.
5. Try to build in dynamism. However this is gonna work, I doubt anyone can predict the whole picture. Find some ways to let users find ways of dating online rather then handing them a system.
6. Let the kids show you how to do it. Maybe you should try & focus on getting dates for 14 yr olds. They might pave some sort of a path.
7. Maybe focus on the non market. There's a tendency to focus on those people that are having trouble. They're very goal oriented. There is a problem that they're going to fix. So many services are tailored around filling that whole. But there it might be easier to get earlier successes with those that will probably get a date this month anyway. You just fill the 'how'.
6. Let the kids show you how to do it. Maybe you should try & focus on getting dates for 14 yr olds. They might pave some sort of a path.
The only problem with this idea is that it's dangerous. The reputation of the Internet is that of a haven for pedo predators...you make a dating site for 14 year olds (or even allow them on your site) and you will bring down the wrath of every Sarah Palin-loving soccer mom in America (i.e. the really dumb ones, who believe it when Oprah tells them that pedophiles are organized, after their children, and have over 9000 penises).
Besides that, kids from high school through college already have tremendous dating-related interactions at school. They're not short of new people to hit on and flirt with. I just don't think it's a very good market to go after, even if it wasn't a death wish from a legal and political perspective.
But, it should be kept fun, distinctly non-sleazy, and light. I've always been totally turned off by the "Find your soul mate, who has passed our credit check and has a valid US ID.
From what I saw, the site looks decent. The design is pretty good, the registration wasn't painful. I didn't really get to see much.
My main thought: I have to do way too much work before I can see the benefits to using your site. I can't see pictures of people or anything. I'm not going to fill out all of this information, upload pictures, etc with no idea if there are any hot chicks on there. Try and show people the value before asking them to make a time commitment.
Indeed. For someone who is already skeptical about 'online dating' (and they should be with the crap out there now) i think it would be difficult to 'believe in it' enough to jump through all of our hoops!
As soon as we actually have some members and pictures, etc. we will show people a sort of small network that includes people they may be in a MingleWeek with.
"Start on a Monday, have a date by Saturday"...makes it sound like a website done by enterprise software peddlers (or AdultFriendFinder :) ). Something a bit less precise and goal oriented, and more fluid, to go with the concept of mingling perhaps? To "mingle" somehow makes me think of stepping off my routine treadmill and getting to know people in a lazy, smell-the-flowers-along-the-way setting.
I haven't created an account to try it out but I have spent some time browsing your main page, features page, and sign-up form.
Your information is presented cleanly and looks good. I wasn't sure about the background at first but after a few minutes looking at the site I've decided I like it.
Heres what I really love: "We want you to have a date next weekend" and "Start on Monday, have a date by Saturday". That's a very powerful message, almost a promise, and if I had come across the site whilst actually looking for a date it would definitely make me spend some time there.
I like your idea too - it seems to make sense that spending more time sharing messages etc with a small group of people over time is more likely to yield a connection than searching a database of thousands of people and spamming them with requests to hook up.
I have bookmarked your site and will refer back to see how you do over time. Good luck :)
I like "Start on Monday, Have a Date By Sunday" better. It sounds more pleasing to the tongue (since it rhymes). The phrase they use now is semantically nice, but not as stylistically pleasing.
Interesting concept. I have a suggestion about the presentation: Right now there are very few pictures of people on the website. There's some tiny ones on the front page (the b&w one doesn't count), and then even tinier ones in the screenshots on the tour. But mostly what I'm looking at are pictures of web pages.
If I go to a dating site, I'm looking for people. As it is, I look at your site and get the sense that it's all about web pages rather than about people. (I'd imagine this might be especially offputting to women.)
I know you don't have any users to show off now, but I'm sure you could find some suitable stock photos.
I just really like the concept. I am glad that someone is approaching the on-line dating scene in a more collaborate and, well, personal way. It would be interesting to take this slant toward meeting collaborators for projects, or just a group of friends, as well as someone that you like there personality.
The idea sounds great, but if you are actually looking for a date, this seems to provide more hassle than it's worth (why should I wait a week to contact someone?, why the structure? I'd rather do things my way). Have you gotten feedback from people who actually use dating sites?
I was originally put off by having to use my real name at first too (especially since it doesn't say how it's used). Turns out they use your first name and last initial although I'm not sure if this is shown to other members. I believe this is what Yahoo uses also.
I can see how this could be a turn off to some people but realistically if you're serious about online dating, your profile probably needs at least one good photo to yield any worthwhile results. And they're required for this service as well.
match.com uses usernames instead of real names but I don't need to see a person's first name to recognize her from the cube down the hall.
would any of the folks who signed up as demo users want to go through a fake mingle, updating on the hour instead of the day to get a better feel for how things work?
Tried to create a profile, but failed when I got to the picture step. In my first attempt I tried to upload a bitmap. I don't see any reason why you don't support this format. Size isn't the reason, as it's already been uploaded to your servers when you reject it. I converted the file to a tiff, uploaded it, and was stuck staring at a "Loading" screen. I tried both IE and Firefox, but never got past that point.
I think this is a big problem with the whole concept. In real life, a glance, flushed cheeks and a smile tells you everything you need to know about basic attraction. Online, there's the back and forth over bullshit like music and film and food (which all matters to long-term relationships...but without the spark, there won't be a long-term) before you ever even get to meeting the person face to face. I don't know if going online can ever really make it more efficient.
Some of the art could use some changes, but the core idea looks like fun! Perhaps you could also add something along the lines of principle components analysis so that you don't only use random groups from your area - you want to have a netflix kind of thing going on mixed with some truly random ones.
So we match people based on demographics (age, ethnicity, children?, etc.).
We also match based on the Media you include in your First Impression.
After you have been through a MingleWeek, we have data about who you rated highly and so we can compose groups based on common affinity.
nicely done! good to see an original take on online dating.
i wouldn't worry about the background. for every person you find that doesn't like it, you'll find someone who will. people are visiting the site for a reason. they probably won't even notice the background.
I actually think "flomingle" would be better. It de-emphasises the less pleasant connotations of "flow" while getting closer to the "flamingo" connotation.
"Flamingle" on the other hand would only be good if it were a gay dating site.
[+] [-] songism|17 years ago|reply
Get rid of the b&w stock image on the homepage.
Keep wording consistent: change "Complete our simple registration" to "Complete our simple sign-up form". On the registration page, change the "register" button to "Sign Up!"
Keep your logo in the top left corner of all your pages. It's nice that it gets out of the user's way after moving off of the homepage, but it's confusing.
Use a feedback form like the one on slacker.com (i.e. omnipresent) -- you'll be much more likely to get good feedback that way.
I really like the homepage design, but the content in the center of the page should be simpler and draw in users' attention (e.g. http://pixtures.s3.amazonaws.com/misc/mingle-process.jpg). You can offer a detailed explanation of your service after the user signs up -- or on the "see how it works" page... Or even just a little lower on the homepage.
Your homepage actually convinced me to sign up, but the "On your way to the MingleWeek" page is just plain daunting. So much text. No images. No simple instructions. Too much work before I'm able to see a reward. After I confirm my email address I should be taken to a page titled "Upload Your Photo" (i.e. no "Create Some Portraits") and there should be a big "upload" button in the center of my field of vision. While the homepage is really inviting, the pages after sign-up are less than inspiring.
The "Make a First Impression" page is cool. Make it easier to submit content. Don't even bother having multiple fields under the "Music" tab (i.e. Song, Musician, Album). Keep it simple: "Song Name" is enough. People will write "Song Name - Artist Name" in a single text field if they're so inclined. I would also suggest making all of the tabs omnipresent (e.g. http://pixtures.s3.amazonaws.com/misc/getting-to-know-you.jp...).
"Terms and Conditions, coming soon!" heh :)
P.S. Try to find a way to encourage a friendly atmosphere and community. That's why people visit social websites: the community. I would invite some of my friends to your service if there was a more compelling reason than "As the FlowMingle community grows, so do the number of people you can choose from." It seems like what you're trying to do is make a site geared more towards friends casually hanging out, having fun, and getting to know each other -- and I think that's great. Formal dating is overrated.
Cool concept. Good luck.
[+] [-] pmsaue0|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] netcan|17 years ago|reply
1. Most players are paid services. I think there is a good chance that whatever winner emerges will be a free service or at least free for 90% + of active users. The service is essentially better if it is free (network effects but more then that: You can take it lightly if it's free. It's serious business if it's paid) so any paid service would be in constant danger of a free clone emerging.
2. Let non-singles get involved. Encourage meddling. Set other people up. Introduce, create polls on who should be together. I dunno, something in that area. Maybe think along the lines of 14 yr olds instead of 30 somethings using a professional dating service. The former have fun. The latter do not.
3. Let people approach this from an angle. Just like in real life. Meeting in singles bars, via introductions, pickups etc. is only one way. Most people prefer meeting someone at work, meditation workshops or University. Dunno how you'de do that online, but it would be interesting if you could piggyback on ways people interact with each other online already. Facebook/Myspace is an obvious path. But maybe Digg, blogs, wiki editing, amazon reviews or even HN might provide a thread to pull on.
4. Be un-sleazy & you have an immediate edge (design looks right for this). That feeling that half the users are fake, that they inflate women or men's numbers... That's will be on users minds (good reasons too). All that damage needs to be mended.
5. Try to build in dynamism. However this is gonna work, I doubt anyone can predict the whole picture. Find some ways to let users find ways of dating online rather then handing them a system.
6. Let the kids show you how to do it. Maybe you should try & focus on getting dates for 14 yr olds. They might pave some sort of a path.
7. Maybe focus on the non market. There's a tendency to focus on those people that are having trouble. They're very goal oriented. There is a problem that they're going to fix. So many services are tailored around filling that whole. But there it might be easier to get earlier successes with those that will probably get a date this month anyway. You just fill the 'how'.
[+] [-] SwellJoe|17 years ago|reply
The only problem with this idea is that it's dangerous. The reputation of the Internet is that of a haven for pedo predators...you make a dating site for 14 year olds (or even allow them on your site) and you will bring down the wrath of every Sarah Palin-loving soccer mom in America (i.e. the really dumb ones, who believe it when Oprah tells them that pedophiles are organized, after their children, and have over 9000 penises).
Besides that, kids from high school through college already have tremendous dating-related interactions at school. They're not short of new people to hit on and flirt with. I just don't think it's a very good market to go after, even if it wasn't a death wish from a legal and political perspective.
But, it should be kept fun, distinctly non-sleazy, and light. I've always been totally turned off by the "Find your soul mate, who has passed our credit check and has a valid US ID.
[+] [-] hooande|17 years ago|reply
My main thought: I have to do way too much work before I can see the benefits to using your site. I can't see pictures of people or anything. I'm not going to fill out all of this information, upload pictures, etc with no idea if there are any hot chicks on there. Try and show people the value before asking them to make a time commitment.
[+] [-] iloveyouocean|17 years ago|reply
As soon as we actually have some members and pictures, etc. we will show people a sort of small network that includes people they may be in a MingleWeek with.
Totally agree.
[+] [-] trezor|17 years ago|reply
Simple as that.
[+] [-] ChaitanyaSai|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kirpekar|17 years ago|reply
Good name too. "Mingle" sounds non aggressive, laid back and cool... exactly what I want in a dating site.
I really see this being a success. I'm not flattering, nor am I kidding. Good Luck!
[+] [-] jkent|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] djm|17 years ago|reply
Your information is presented cleanly and looks good. I wasn't sure about the background at first but after a few minutes looking at the site I've decided I like it.
Heres what I really love: "We want you to have a date next weekend" and "Start on Monday, have a date by Saturday". That's a very powerful message, almost a promise, and if I had come across the site whilst actually looking for a date it would definitely make me spend some time there.
I like your idea too - it seems to make sense that spending more time sharing messages etc with a small group of people over time is more likely to yield a connection than searching a database of thousands of people and spamming them with requests to hook up.
I have bookmarked your site and will refer back to see how you do over time. Good luck :)
[+] [-] technoguyrob|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] iloveyouocean|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Raphael|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gabrielroth|17 years ago|reply
If I go to a dating site, I'm looking for people. As it is, I look at your site and get the sense that it's all about web pages rather than about people. (I'd imagine this might be especially offputting to women.)
I know you don't have any users to show off now, but I'm sure you could find some suitable stock photos.
[+] [-] opal|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] iloveyouocean|17 years ago|reply
Thanks for the good luck!
[+] [-] brentoids|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rksprst|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] qwph|17 years ago|reply
* Why do I have to sign up using my real name? I'm not sure I'd want that plastered all over a dating site.
* As someone living in Canada, I don't have a valid ZIP code.
[+] [-] michaelmurphy|17 years ago|reply
I can see how this could be a turn off to some people but realistically if you're serious about online dating, your profile probably needs at least one good photo to yield any worthwhile results. And they're required for this service as well.
match.com uses usernames instead of real names but I don't need to see a person's first name to recognize her from the cube down the hall.
[+] [-] sfamiliar|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Bluem00|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] iloveyouocean|17 years ago|reply
Sorry for the inconvenience.
[+] [-] elai|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SwellJoe|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SapphireSun|17 years ago|reply
Some of the art could use some changes, but the core idea looks like fun! Perhaps you could also add something along the lines of principle components analysis so that you don't only use random groups from your area - you want to have a netflix kind of thing going on mixed with some truly random ones.
Good luck guys!
[+] [-] iloveyouocean|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smoody|17 years ago|reply
i wouldn't worry about the background. for every person you find that doesn't like it, you'll find someone who will. people are visiting the site for a reason. they probably won't even notice the background.
[+] [-] mvid|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hugh|17 years ago|reply
I actually think "flomingle" would be better. It de-emphasises the less pleasant connotations of "flow" while getting closer to the "flamingo" connotation.
"Flamingle" on the other hand would only be good if it were a gay dating site.
[+] [-] benjamincanfly|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] h34t|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] known|17 years ago|reply