Abstract
This paper explores the changes in online technologies that have helped facilitate growing online communities and their subsequent effects on online dating. The advancements of Web 2.0 technologies have allowed Web users to easily and more efficiently participate and collaborate in online communities. Platforms such as social networking sites encourage users to share content and form connections with other users of similar interests (Cormode & Krishnamurthy, 2008). This has helped propel online dating as virtual communities provide a better suited romantic network for people of either isolated communities or of small romantic possibilities, such as those looking for specific qualities. Even though dating, whether online or offline, is one-to-one, the affordances of Web 2.0 and communities allow Web users to meet and communicate with a far greater romantic network than they would be by offline dating practices alone. This can be seen by the abundance of online dating sites that encourage the formation of weak ties within online communities to create a bigger dating pool, so that Web users can better find a romantic match. This includes growing niche dating sites such as JDate and Christian Mingle, operated by Spark Networks, which aim to bring together people of the same faith who are seeking long-term relationships. It encourages the formation of weak ties online as users are willing and wanting to meet people outside of their offline romantic network.
Keywords: Web 2.0, communities, online dating, network, weak ties
Impact of Web 2.0 & Communities on Online Dating
The impact of Web 2.0 on the growth of online dating communities is the opportunity to forego face-to-face communication and spacial proximity when it comes to looking for a romantic partner. Web users from all over the world and of different ethnicities, religions, and sexual orientations can meet a new network of romantic possibilities as a result of changing Web 2.0 technologies. Specifically, it has changed the way people can find information and communicate with other people of interest online. Prior to the facilitation of online dating, people would generally look within their community to find a partner but are now empowered as a result of the Internet to look beyond spacial proximity and face-to-face communication to do so. Instead, users can find suitable interest communities provided by leading online dating networks such as Spark Networks. Spark Networks provides users with niche dating sites to help create weak ties among other users as they encourage similar people to come together on the same site; such as popular JDate and Christian Mingle bringing together users of the same religion. Weak ties refer to the bridges made between strangers or friends-of-friends, and is the first stage of cultivating any friendship, and help online dating site’s such as JDate to excel by providing a common community for people to meet.
Affordances of Web 2.0 on Community
Web 2.0 can be characterised by technological advancements that facilitate a more “socially connected Web” where everyone is able to add to and edit the information space (Cormode & Krishnamurthy, 2008); a result of standards produced from people working on Web 1.0 (Berners-Lee cited by Anderson, 2007). Users of the Web have moved from mostly content consumers to now content creators; where niche groups can exchange content of any kind to people from anywhere (Cormode & Krishnamurthy, 2008). Certain features that have come to be associated with ‘Web 2.0’ include participation, user as contributor, and richer user experiences, and should be seen as a consequence of a more fully implemented Web (Anderson, 2007). Sir Tim Berners-Lee, creator of the World Wide Web, believes Web 2.0 is what the Web was supposed to be all along; an interactive and collaborative global information workspace all about connecting people (cited by Anderson, 2007). The ability that Web users can create and share content to anyone is a result of a series of technologies such as blogs, wikis, and social networking sites, that enable greater user participation and collaboration. Cormode and Krishnamurthy believe the important site features of a Web 2.0 platform include first class entities and prominent profile pages; ability to form connections between users; ability to post content in many forms, such as photos, videos, and comments; and other more technical features, such as third-party enhancements, rich content types, and communication with other users (2008). These features allow Web users to greater organise content and communication online, and thus encourage users to interact with the Web as a result of the ease of access and use of online platforms. More importantly, the ability to control Web 2.0 technologies has encouraged the formation of online communities; where users of the same interest and of same social networks can participate and collaborate together, opening the door for endless possibilities of online communication.
Online communities, as defined by Tedjamulia et al., are a social network of users who share similar interests and practices and who communicate regularly over a common communication medium (as cited by Liu et al., 2014). The abilities for online communities are therefore endless as they allow anyone with access to a common communication medium to interact, and have been found useful for knowledge sharing, building relationships, sharing experiences, buying and selling, having fun, and creating new personalities, environments, or stories (Armstrong and Iii, as cited by Liu et al., 2014). The rise in social networking sites, however, has propelled online communities as a result of their collaborative nature. As defined by Boyd & Ellison, a social network site should allow individuals to: (1) construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system (as cited by Porter, 2015). Thus the structure of social networking sites means mutual information sharing is central in creating online communities, as it provides connection, communication, and privacy management capabilities (Porter, 2015). Just by participating in the structure of social networking sites, Web users are automatically creating and engaging in an online community fuelled by users with similar interests. This can be seen with the rise of online communities, ranging from social, professional, interest, and dating communities.
Online dating communities, in particular, are a growing industry aimed at providing a communication channel for Web users all over the world, tailored specifically to users who are looking for a romantic partner, connection, or encounter (Quesnel, 2010). As a result of growing Web 2.0 technologies, social networking sites such as JDate and Christian Mingle have allowed Web users to better find a dating community suited to different dating needs. In particular, it has seen the rise in ‘interest communities’ where spacial proximity is not a necessary condition as it instead involves people with common interests communicating with each other (Averweg & Leaning, 2012). For example, Jewish people looking for a Jewish partner in a small community will benefit from using Jdate as it provides a central online community of varying Jewish singles looking for long-term relationships. Even though dating in these examples is one-to-one, community is an important element of online dating as it encourages similar people to come together in hopes of finding a romantic partner.
Impact of Web 2.0 & Communities on Online Dating
Ortega & Hergovich explain that dating in the past hundred years has been a result of ‘weak ties’ which serve as bridges between close friends and other clustered groups, allowing people to connect to the global community in several ways (2017). This phenomenon means that people were more likely to marry a friend-of-a-friend or someone they coincided with in the past, such as through work or educational institutions (Ortega & Hergovich, 2017). The way Web 2.0 and online communities have revolutionised dating is by connecting users “to meet and form relationships with perfect strangers, that is, people with whom they had no previous social tie” (Rosenfeld & Thomas, as cited in Ortega & Hergovich, 2017). The affordances of the Internet have brought people together from all over the world and of varying differences to better find a suited romantic network. Subsequently, people are no longer bound to geographical locations and community barriers as online dating serves as a bridge between strangers and users to meet people outside of said barriers. Online dating creates a larger dating pool for Web users as it brings people from outside their known social circle, creating connections with ‘strangers’ of similar interests in hopes of forming solid relationships. It also allows users to make weak ties with even more people and bridge over to even more communities as online dating creates a virtual community space, allowing users with a desire to connect to strengthen ties with other users (Ortega & Hergovich, 2017).
Why Interest Communities are Important for Online Dating
Above all, the importance of online communities is its ability for Web users to establish ties with people whom they would have of otherwise had no connection to. For online dating, its main attraction is to expand the romantic network for people seeking a romantic partner. Interest communities can help speed up the process by creating a central (virtual) location for people of similar orientations, ethnicities, and other qualities to easily meet online. Spark Networks does this by providing users with a portfolio of premium niche dating sites that all aim for singles seeking serious relationships (“Global Leader in Online Dating”, 2018). CEO of Spark Networks Adam Berger explains ‘niche dating’ as a tight-knit community, where “people instantly feel comfortable and know they’re among people who are just like themselves in many different ways” (as cited in Alfonsi & Thompson, 2010). By creating a narrower and shallower dating pool, niche dating sites connect people “by their beliefs, their backgrounds, and their passions” (Berger, as cited in Alfonsi & Thompson, 2010). By following Boyd & Ellison’s structure of a social network site, Web users would create a public or semi-public profile within niche dating sites in order to articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection (as cited by Porter, 2015). By creating a profile and answering a questionnaire Web users can easily identify with whom they already share similar qualities, such as Berger’s examples of beliefs, backgrounds, and passions. For example, users of Spark Network’s can create a public or semi-public profile, articulate a list of users with similar beliefs and passions, and view and create connections with suitable users. This new dating pool will be specifically tailored to each user and will subsequently increase their romantic network possibilities as it allows them to meet suitable people outside of their offline community.
Online Dating Today
CEO of Spark Networks Adam Berger believes by catering different dating sites to specific qualities of different individuals, people are more likely to feel comfortable with online dating as they are already in a community that they would want to associate themselves with. This can be seen by the success of Spark Network’s most popular niche dating site ‘JDate’ which is the “leading online community for Jewish singles and [is] responsible for more Jewish marriages than all other online dating sites combined” (“Global Leader in Online Dating”, 2018). This proves the argument that even though dating is one-on-one, online communities are a necessity and extremely influential in the online dating realm. Compared to finding a partner solely in face-to-face communities, people now have the luxury to find a better suited romantic network of people as a result of varying niche dating sites. For example, people in a small Jewish community can expand their network by using JDate to find more Jewish partners in other surrounding communities. This helps to cancel out all people the Web user is not interested in, much like in real life, as the aim of niche dating sites is to bring together similar people. Spark Network’s has other popular sites such as Christian Mingle, aimed for people who practice Christianity; Elite Singles, for educated and successful singles; and eDarling, for European users seeking long-term relationships, under their repertoire. By providing a bundle of different niche dating sites, Spark Networks increases the potential to meet the perfect partner by decreasing and specifying various dating pools. Instead of users jumping into a dating site of millions of people, they have the opportunity to find a better suited romantic network based on their own interests and qualities in a much more personal pool.
Conclusion
To conclude, the affordances of Web 2.0 allows Web users to greater organise content and communication online and encourages users to interact with the Web and with each other. Greater interaction is the result of growing interest communities and communication platforms where groups of similar people can come together online for a myriad of reasons, such as for educational, professional, and social purposes. The success of online dating in particular is the result of the increase in social networking sites, such as Spark Networks, which encourage similar people to communicate and create meaningful connections online. Interest communities and niche dating sites have helped propel online dating as they provide users with a more suitable and personal online dating pool, bringing together people of similar qualities and interests by creating public or semi-public profiles. Without the ease of Web 2.0’s platforms, people would look within their offline community and within their weak ties to find a romantic network but are now empowered as a result of online dating sites. Instead of looking just within a geographical community, users can find various online dating communities based on beliefs, backgrounds, and passions, and are able to meet people with whom they otherwise have no connection to — only increasing their romantic network.
Maletic_18822072_ConferencePaper
References
Alfonsi, S., & Thompson, V. (2010, June 18). As Dating Pool Shrinks, Love Matches Grow. abcNews. Retrieved from http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Broadcast/spark-networks-niche-dating-web-site/story?id=10909280
Anderson, P. (2007). What is Web 2.0? Ideas, technologies and implications for education. JISC Technology and Standards Watch. Retrieved from http://21stcenturywalton.pbworks.com/f/What%20is%20Web%202.0.pdf
Averweg, U. R., & Leaning, M. (2012). Social media and the re-evaluation of the terms ’community, ’virtual community’ and ’virtual identity’ as concepts of analysis. i-Manager’s Journal on Information Technology, 1(4), 12. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/1671518035?rfr_id=info%3Axri%2Fsid%3Aprimo
Cormode, G., & Krishnamurthy, B. (2008). Key differences between Web 1.0 & Web 2.0. First Monday 13(6). Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2125/1972
Liu, L., Wagner, C., & Chen, H. (2014). Determinants of Commitment in an Online Community: Assessing the Antecedents of Weak Ties and Their Impact. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 24(4), (pp. 271-296). Retrieved from https://www-tandfonline-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/doi/abs/10.1080/10919392.2014.956609
Ortega, J., & Hergovich, P. (2017). The Strength of Absent Ties: Social Integration via Online Dating. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.10478
Spark Networks SE. (2018). Global Leader in Online Dating. Retrieved from https://www.spark.net/about-us/company-overview/
Porter, C. E. (2015). Virtual communities and social networks. In L. Cantoni & J. A. Kanowski (Eds) Communication and Technology (pp. 161-181). Retrieved from https://books.google.com.au/books?id=AhxpCgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
Quesnel, A. (2010). Online Dating Study: User Experiences of an Online Dating Community. Inquiries Journal/Student Pulse LLC, 2(11), 3. Retrieved from http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/323/online-dating-study-user-experiences-of-an-online-dating-community