I find it interesting that Match.com has agreed to start implementing this process, but they seem very nonchalant about the case and even hesitant to screen users. The article on Mashable.com said, "although the site’s officials still don’t think that screening is the best option to prevent cases such as this one. We want to stress that while these checks may help in certain instances, they remain highly flawed, and it is critical that this effort does not provide a false sense of security to our members." It seems as though they are making excuses for future incidents. As if they are saying, "We will implement this process, but if it happens again it's not our fault because we're doing what you wanted."
I understand that Match.com wants it's users to understand that screening won't prevent everything that could ever happen. However, I feel that screening users will make those who were hesitant to join before comfortable with joining, and even make current users feel more comfortable. It could even increase their traffic on their website and usage - which is beneficial for Match.com.
My question is: do you think it's a good idea for dating sites to screen their users? And although we understand it might not prevent all incidents, would it make you more comfortable about joining a dating site knowing they screen for sexual predators?
I would have thought that screening their applicants would have been something that they did from the begging. If i were going to apply to one of these sites, I would definitely want the other applicants to be screened. I think it is a good idea because sets the site apart from just any other regular social networking site. It provides the user with a sense of security and you know that someone you may be talking to does not have a criminal background.
ReplyDeleteScreening the users should definitely be done. Like Emily mentioned, it seems like they would have already been doing this. Regardless, it will make people feel more comfortable about joining the site because no previous offenders will be allowed on it.
ReplyDeleteI agree that screening users is a good idea. I also believe that match.com should take a little more interest in this case and be more committed to the screenings. This case can and probably has hurt their reputation. If they want to continue to be successful, then they should be more concerned with their users' safety. Good post Chelsea!!
ReplyDeleteI think screening is a good idea. It would make me feel much better about joining a site if I knew there would be no proven sex offenders on it. However, Match.com is correct in their assumption that just because they are screening does not mean incidents will not happen. That is a chance with any random encounter. You could meet someone at a bar and on the second date have a similar incident. It is the simple fact that you don't know the other person well, whether meeting in a bar, a coffee shop, or on the internet. It is a chance you have to take with someone to get to know them.
ReplyDeleteMatch.com did the right thing to start screening their users. They may have more traffic now if women feel safer. I think they should also stress the importance of personal responsibility in each dating relationship that occurs from the site to establish a relationship in a public setting first before getting in an intimate setting where an incident could occur.
I think that every dating site should somehow incorporate some sort of screening. You never know who really is sitting behind a computer, but finding out as much information as you can really helps. A person is taking a risk by meeting up with people from these sites and hopefully by screening, it will give a better sense of a security to that person. I'm surprised something like this hasn't been implemented earlier!
ReplyDelete