Well, I'm afraid I didn't see that Reddit discussion from 2 years ago, but quoting from it:

> Basically the breakdown was that rather than 93%+ of the people you are shown being "dead profiles" the actual number is more like 10-20%.

> But if you take these into consideration, our conclusion would say, "Match.com users get married at about the same rate or higher as people not using Match.com!"

That's not really a ringing endorsement here, at best it shows that if we change our estimates a little we can reverse our conclusions. That to me says that they were never able to come to very reliable conclusions in the first place on this issue.

> That's not really a ringing endorsement here, at best it shows that if we change our estimates a little we can reverse our conclusions. That to me says that they were never able to come to very reliable conclusions in the first place on this issue.

And if you read the entire comment thread, you'll see that they removed the article precisely because they were unable to come to any real conclusions.

The original blog post stated that paid dating sites made one's odds worse. Real numbers demonstrated that paid sites were, at worst, a wash.

If this was indeed the case, then instead of removing the article, they could have published an amendment, avoiding the entire sell-out/censorship angle.

> And if you read the entire comment thread, you'll see that they removed the article precisely because they were unable to come to any real conclusions.

The thing is, access to private data didn't change the fact that they were using a self-reported stat to begin with. Given that OKC's data was self-reported to a significant degree, it's hard to see why this wasn't taken into account.

And then they go on to cite how they already knew it could be 10x higher (or more) by citing OKC data. This leads to the (paraphrased) conclusion that they can't be total frauds because they're still in business.