The immediate impression Cupid.com left on us was not a good one. That first impression was that they don’t know how to code a form and still have the page look decent. The entire thing is shoved all the way to the left; some letters appear to touch the edge of the monitor when the window is full-sized. So from right there, we thought they probably wouldn’t rank terribly highly.
We signed up anyway, though, since first impressions can possibly be deceiving. In this case, they were not. Cupid.com relies on your profile and only your profile to start matching you with people. We’re pretty sure that’s because they don’t know how to code anything other than a randomized list. It seems like that’s what we got; every woman it offered as a result didn’t seem compatible with us. Definitely not a good site.
Cupid.com: Review Our Results Using The Cupid.com Site
While it’s nice that Cupid.com doesn’t have tons of questions for compatibility testing, unlike True.com, it still needs something. Using just our profile basically gets our gender, gender we’re looking for, and location and bases matches on that. We could be paired with a vegan, tree-hugging hippie who wears hemp shoes, when our idea of a first date is getting burgers and beer at the awesome place downtown, where we’ll drive in our gas-powered truck.
Actually, one of our results was a vegan, tree-hugging hippie who mentioned her hemp shoes. We mentioned our leather jacket when we replied. Understandably, we never heard from her again.
Cupid.com Issues: 3 Things Cupid.com Didn’t Do Well
The very first thing we saw when we landed on Cupid.com’s home page was that terrible form. The boxes and text are shoved to the very edge of the window, and it’s on a plain white background. It looks like someone’s first attempt at coding a form when they forgot to allow for side room and, you know, attractiveness. That bit of cringing made us dread the whole rest of our time on the site, which turned out to be justified.
Then there’s that total lack of algorithms and testing. To us, it translates as, “We’re out to rip you off and hope you don’t realize you could get the same results by messing around on Facebook for an hour.” We tried it; we found women who were just as qualified as a Match via the Facebook method as we did on Cupid.com. Compare that to something like Match, where they actually take things into account, and we saw a definite difference in quality.
That makes the fact that you pay to access the full site seem kind of pathetic. Facebook is completely free, and we had results that were just as good from it. Paying for Cupid.com’s services seems like something a person too shy for Facebook, or too hopeless about their chances on a matching site like Match, would do. Trust us: you’ll have better luck being matched than you will on Cupid.com. Don’t waste your time or your money.
Cupid.com Review: Is Cupid.com Legit & Worth Joining?
We really can’t recommend Cupid.com at all. Between the hippie chick, the terrible front page, the poorly-designed form, the fees for basically being a stripped-down Facebook for singles, and the total lack of algorithms, it’s pretty much useless. You might as well go to the park, fire a Nerf gun at random, and chat up the women the darts hit. You’ll probably have better luck.
If you want a real dating site, check out Match. You’re far more likely to find someone who actually meshes with you.