Singles can easily find dating sites that allow them to do the most for the least amount of money at CupidsReviews.com. This site has recently launched a new rating criterion, one of the most rigorous
November 28, 2006 (Press Release) --
MONTREAL (PRWeb) November 28, 2006 -- Singles can easily find dating sites that allow them to do the most for the least amount of money at CupidsReviews.com. This site has recently launched a new rating criterion, one of the most rigorous available, which will make the search for online love much easier.
"Our experience shows that the best dating sites are those that are transparent," said Doug Glazebrook, editor of CupidsReviews.com. "Many dating sites want you to pay before you can make an educated decision on value, but this shouldn't be the case. With our criteria, sites with the highest ratings give users the most features for the least amount of money upfront. Therefore, singles should start their search with them."
Some factors that are considered when ranking a site include the ability to conduct unfettered searches, see when users last logged in, view profiles in their entirety and be contacted by others without having to pay for a membership. The criterion also takes into account the cost of becoming a member. However, popularity carries the heaviest weighting, with a possible 20 points out of 100, because the number of people on a site is often the best indicator of value.
"Some might look at the results and say we're being too harsh on some sites, but the reality is that there are big differences between what dating sites offer," said Glazebrook. "We have always provided honest reviews and our new rating criterion gives more value to our readers than any other available online."
Of particular interest is the spam score criterion. It reflects the amount of emails or smiles sent to a test profile over the course of a month. Each profile used the same unremarkable essay, which stated the desire not to be contacted. Signs of interest could signify deceptive marketing practices. Therefore, sites only receive full marks when the profile received no signs of interest. Fifteen percent of the sites reviewed failed to secure full marks, so Cupids Reviews recommends caution when joining any of these sites.
Out of over 100 sites rated, Lavalife scored the highest with 91. Other sites that did well included Mega Friends, despite not being as popular as some of the other leading sites on the market, and Amigos, which beat out its sister site, Friend Finder, by featuring a lower price point. Match.com, often considered the leading dating site in the US, scored 70. Its poor showing was largely due to cost, the inability for new users to be contacted by paid members and a lack of online messaging features. Other popular sites rated on CupidsReviews.com include True, which scored 61, and eHarmony, with a score of 40.
To schedule interviews or for further information:
Doug Glazebrook
Editor
http://www.cupidsreviews.com/
647-430-0870
Information on the new criterion can be found at:
http://www.cupidsreviews.com/ratings.html
and
http://www.cupidsreviews.com/about-us.html
"Our experience shows that the best dating sites are those that are transparent," said Doug Glazebrook, editor of CupidsReviews.com. "Many dating sites want you to pay before you can make an educated decision on value, but this shouldn't be the case. With our criteria, sites with the highest ratings give users the most features for the least amount of money upfront. Therefore, singles should start their search with them."
Some factors that are considered when ranking a site include the ability to conduct unfettered searches, see when users last logged in, view profiles in their entirety and be contacted by others without having to pay for a membership. The criterion also takes into account the cost of becoming a member. However, popularity carries the heaviest weighting, with a possible 20 points out of 100, because the number of people on a site is often the best indicator of value.
"Some might look at the results and say we're being too harsh on some sites, but the reality is that there are big differences between what dating sites offer," said Glazebrook. "We have always provided honest reviews and our new rating criterion gives more value to our readers than any other available online."
Of particular interest is the spam score criterion. It reflects the amount of emails or smiles sent to a test profile over the course of a month. Each profile used the same unremarkable essay, which stated the desire not to be contacted. Signs of interest could signify deceptive marketing practices. Therefore, sites only receive full marks when the profile received no signs of interest. Fifteen percent of the sites reviewed failed to secure full marks, so Cupids Reviews recommends caution when joining any of these sites.
Out of over 100 sites rated, Lavalife scored the highest with 91. Other sites that did well included Mega Friends, despite not being as popular as some of the other leading sites on the market, and Amigos, which beat out its sister site, Friend Finder, by featuring a lower price point. Match.com, often considered the leading dating site in the US, scored 70. Its poor showing was largely due to cost, the inability for new users to be contacted by paid members and a lack of online messaging features. Other popular sites rated on CupidsReviews.com include True, which scored 61, and eHarmony, with a score of 40.
To schedule interviews or for further information:
Doug Glazebrook
Editor
http://www.cupidsreviews.com/
647-430-0870
Information on the new criterion can be found at:
http://www.cupidsreviews.com/ratings.html
and
http://www.cupidsreviews.com/about-us.html
Email
Print
SPAM
