A 2012 analysis of dating websites by Scientific American stated that eharmony, along with other algorithm - based dating sites, had not yet provided members of the scientific community with information about their matching algorithm which could be used to vet
their claims about their algorithms being scientifically - based.
Not exact matches
To be sure, the exact details of the
algorithm can not be evaluated because the dating sites have not yet allowed their
claims to be vetted by the scientific community (eHarmony, for example, likes to talk
about its «secret sauce»), but much information relevant to the
algorithms is in the public domain, even if the
algorithms themselves are not.
I find absolutely nothing
about their so called «matching
algorithm» that warrants their price or their
claims.
«Online dating creates a shopping mentality, and that is probably not a particularly good way to go
about choosing a mate,» says Harry Reis, Ph.D. eHarmony and PerfectMatch.com,
claim to minimize the guesswork involved in online dating by using mathematical
algorithms to match couples according to various traits — including, in one case, the ratio of index - to ring - finger length.
The findings
about greater happiness in online couples «are tiny effects,» says Finkel, whose research published last year found «no compelling evidence» to support dating website
claims that their
algorithms work better than other ways of pairing romantic partners.
Can someone point me to the answer
about whether or not the
algorithm computing the hockey stick in the IPCC third report actually does produce that shape with random red - noise, as
claimed by McKitrick / McIntyre — ie something that makes the case on that without resorting to character assasination?
Alarie: use what the courts say to check whether the
algorithm is right; train the
algorithm using 70 % of the data then use the remaining 30 % to see if
algorithm can predict what the court decided; achieving over 90 % success rate; not making any «normative
claims»
about how things should be decided; rather predicting what the courts are likely to say
Knowing little
about Wills law, they tried to
claim that Wills could be done via an
algorithm but it was easily demonstrated that such a process was seriously deficient in important ways including, among others, determining capacity and the presence or lack of undue influence.
While the feature brought Apple's phones up to speed with existing Qi - compatible charging standards, the announcement fell short of some expectations that this year Apple would introduce technology allowing iPhones to be powered wirelessly at a distance, rather than having to use a charging mat.However, Pi is a California - based startup that aims to break from that limitation with the Pi Charger — a cone - shaped tabletop device that combines Qi - based resonant induction with a special beam - forming
algorithm that allows it to charge multiple devices within
about a foot in any direction.The Pi might not reach the distances
claimed by Energous» WattUp