What I Wish I Knew Starting Out in Online Dating
Written by Vincent Ontita
When I first started working on an online dating product, I came in with assumptions shaped by an earlier era of dating. Meeting people had been slower, more contextual, and often grounded in shared environments. Digital dating appeared, at least on the surface, to be a more efficient version of the same thing.
Building Aphromes challenged that assumption almost immediately. It became clear that online dating is not simply a new interface layered onto old behaviors. It is its own system, with different incentives, emotional dynamics, and failure modes. Many instincts that work well in other consumer products need to be rethought here.
Looking back, there are a few things I wish I had understood much earlier.
Online dating is less about matching and more about managing expectations
At the outset, I believed that better matching would naturally lead to better outcomes. Improve compatibility, reduce friction, and the experience improves downstream. In practice, expectations play an equally important role.
Two people can be aligned on interests and still have a poor experience if the product frames the interaction poorly. The way profiles are presented, how access is granted, and what the platform signals as “success” all shape how users show up.
While building Aphromes, this became especially clear. Because experiences are centered around shared trips and small groups, the framing had to emphasize presence, curiosity, and participation rather than optimization or volume. Small changes in language and onboarding had an outsized impact on how people engaged with one another.
A dating product is constantly teaching users what to expect from each interaction, whether intentionally or not.
Human behavior does not improve just because the interface does
Coming from a product background, I initially assumed that clearer design and better tooling would naturally lead to better behavior. Over time, it became obvious that behavior follows incentives far more closely than interface quality.
In dating environments, people optimize for speed, validation, and optionality. If a system allows shallow engagement, a significant portion of users will take it. This is not cynicism. It is human nature in a context of abundance and low accountability.
This insight influenced how we thought about structure at Aphromes. Group size, verification, and curation were not aesthetic choices. They were behavioral ones. Constraints, when designed thoughtfully, often lead to better outcomes than unlimited choice.
Good dating products do not just enable interaction. They guide it.
Trust is not a feature. It is an operating principle
Trust shows up everywhere in online dating, even when it is not explicitly labeled. Profile authenticity, moderation decisions, transparency, and follow-through all compound into a single question users ask themselves. Is this worth my emotional energy?
I underestimated early on how much trust influences not just safety, but willingness to engage sincerely. One of the most meaningful shifts we made was treating trust as something visible and ongoing, not something hidden behind policy pages or automated systems.
Being selective about who joins and how experiences are formed was not about exclusivity. It was about protecting the environment so that people felt comfortable showing up as themselves.
In dating, trust is often the difference between curiosity and fatigue.
Metrics can distract you from the real outcome
Dating products generate an abundance of data: matches, messages, engagement rates, retention curves. Early on, it’s easy to mistake activity for success. But, over time, it becomes clear that the most engaged users are often the most dissatisfied, while the best outcomes may look like quiet departures when someone leaves because they no longer need the product.
At Aphromes, we came to realize that success isn’t about how long someone stays active on the platform. It’s about whether the experience leads to a meaningful connection, whether that’s an actual relationship, or simply a more fulfilling, positive experience, on or off the platform. For example, users who leave after finding a meaningful match are an indicator of success, even if their activity dropped.
Pairing quantitative metrics with real conversations was key to keeping this distinction clear. Numbers tell what is happening. Conversations tell you why, revealing deeper insights into user needs, satisfaction, and what truly constitutes “success.”
Looking Back
Working in online dating has been a reminder that technology does not simplify human connection. It magnifies it.
The most important shift for me was moving away from trying to optimize the system and toward understanding the emotional and social realities of the people inside it. Once that lens changed, better product decisions followed naturally.
If you are entering this space, approach it less like a marketplace and more like a social environment. The difference is subtle, but it matters.
Author Byline: Written by Vincent Ontita, Co-Founder of Aphromes, a platform connecting verified solo travelers through curated experiences designed for real connection.