Talk:EHarmony

message: For some reason the words "united states" don't show up in this article at all. Unless I'm wrong, eHarmony advertises exclusivly in the US, doesn't it?--Tznkai 00:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, no.  It has participants all over the world.  A friend of mine (from Madison, SD) just got married last August to a gal from Brazil after being matched through the eHarmony website.  David Bergan 19:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: United States

message: This discussion had two archive sections, one very short and the other of normal size. I saw no reason they should be archived. Many pages have far, far longer discussions without ardhives. In fact, I think archiving raises POV issues, because it conveniently tucked away discussion about negative aspects of this company. Accordingly, I have merged all the discussion back onto this page. David Hoag 06:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved material back from archives

message: I added a section about the recent lawsuit, but I couldn't find any information. I originally heard it on a credible local radio station, but couldn't find anything to back it up. can anyone do some research on this? --Zeerus (ETC) 13:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It needs to be added, but not until a source is found. I removed the material, as it might be controversial, and could be heresay. Without a source, we don't know. --DanielCD 14:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: found it on digg, will add a notation that links to the original resource, http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/living/community/14199052.htm?source=rss&channel=siliconvalley_community http://digg.com/technology/Married_man_sues_eHarmony_over_rejection --Zeerus (ETC) 15:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks like a good reference. Great job. --DanielCD 19:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is there any updated information regarding the suit? It is one thing to sue a company, it's entirely another to be proven right in the court. I would assume that if this case was lost by the plantif, this should be removed from the page. Tiggerjay 21:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  lawsuit 

message: Can anybody please add to the article how much it costs to upgrade membership, use various features, etc...? Every last feature on the site that costs something- can you list them please? Thanks. --Shultz IV 10:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Costs to use the site 

message: eHarmony's "most annoying feature" to Online Dating Magazine is that "once you are paid you can only communicate with other people who have paid."
* The bigger issue is on another Wikipedia article: Problems with Online Dating Services: Fake profiles and profile misrepresentation.  So, my advice is: be confident yet vigilant, and verify what's on the profile.
Spending over half an hour answering 400 personal-information questions only to receive a message saying eHarmony cannot provide the person the service.
* One solution eHarmony could do is cut the questionnaire short, say on step four, when it becomes apparent that it cannot provide the person the service.
High fees and too few matches.
* I consider eH an automated matrimonial matchmaking service, not an online dating site.  The person's "match settings" might be unrealistic: for example, searching for a specific ethnicity and religion in a predominantly-opposite locality.  Also, if it is an issue, a call to customer service lets a person retake the test to encompass a wider variety of prospects.
** Though, yeah, eH could be a little more transparent with their member demographics.  
The "My Matches" screen do not distinguish who are paid members (and can reply!) and who are inactive (i.e., never logged in for a long time).
* It's not a big problem - let me show why: A non-paying member is limited to ten matches -- so if all ten of these members are inactive and don't close the matches, then the non-paying member is, in effect, out of candidate pool.  How quickly this happens depends on how easily the system finds matches for the non-paying member's profile and specifications.  My guess is that for a "normal" "average" person it takes 3 days to find 10 matches.
* In theory, though, a person could be tossed all over for a long time, too.
* There is a sorting option called "Recent activity". It seems to me that this describes how recently that member logged in and did anything with their eharmony account. I suspect this should be a fairly good method for sorting out non-paying members. Or do I have this wrong? Zaklog 02:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Ill experiences' section - my ([[WP:NOR|own]]) stab at replies 

message: The following screenshot shows how to determine if an eHarmony match is a paid subscriber (who can reply) or a free member (who may be much inactive).  Members should take note of this so they know what to expect when reading a match's profile.  Members find it frustrating when matches don't reply.
* Among the new matches (Laurel, Amber, Marsha and Stephanie), Laurel and Amber are free members -- because of the 1 2 3 4 OPEN under "Communication Stage".  Marsha, tagged Introduction, is a paying member.
** As a paying member, Marsha, by human nature, will act upon the match immediately after reading the profile.  She will either close it or request communication.  She'll waste no time, because to subscribers, time is money.  By this logic, "Introduction" means that she has not seen the match.
** Laurel and Amber cannot reply unless they pull out their wallet and pay US$60, at least.  The profile could also be outdated.  So there's little point in viewing them.
* Take note of this before clicking to view the profile.  Profiles already clicked are marked with a blue i and will show Start Communicating as a next step, like Rachelle.  This "Start Communicating" tag does not differentiate paying and non-paying members.  eHarmony's reps explain that "it's a privacy issue" so do not expect eHarmony to change this.  So take note of the member's status before viewing the profile.
* If a Match Requests Communication, like Denise and Stephanie, then of course he or she is a paid subscriber.
* The "Closed" screen also differentiates paid and free members.  Members can Re-Open and Send Final Message only to paid subscribers.  Free members who are closed always say, "Match is closed".
I'll update this as I learn more --Perfecto 03:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The secret of how to tell if an eHarmony match is a paying member or not

message: I put its founder Warren in, but I took it out. I think that category is meant for organizations when a prime goal of their's is to restrict LGBT rights. I don't think the purpose of this organization fits.--T. Anthony 12:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: LGBT Rights deal

message: For some reason somebody deleted the statistic that approximately 12% of eHarmony applicants are routinely disqualified.  I have reinserted this.  I based this statistic on figures given by Dr. Warren in his interview with PBS, by dividing the number of disqualified applicants by the total number of applicants.  
-Scott P. 13:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now also inserted a footnote reference to this statistic.  Thanks for the suggestions Perfecto.  -Scott P. 04:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reinsertion of 12% disqualification data 

message: It would appear the first two points ("Open Communication" and "compatible matches") in this article are not valid questions as any informed person who reviews the website and/or understands any for-profit business model would understand that these are invalid. The only issue which carries any possible merit would be regarding the short statured men. Tiggerjay 21:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I edited these a few days ago but neglected to mention it here. Also, it appears that someone else decided to delete on of the sections. Tiggerjay 02:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable practices 

message: Since this was dismissed by a judge, should this section be removed from the page. It would seem that only current and/or successful litigation should be included on the page. Tiggerjay 02:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. Tiggerjay 23:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2006 lawsuit 

message: I don't see any violations of WP:NPOV on the Same-Sex Matching options section and it does not appear to be a current issue for discussion, so I am removing the disclaimer. Almondwine 18:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: "Nothing precludes eHarmony from providing same-sex matching in the future it's just not a service we offer now based upon the research we have conducted."
Is eHarmony's legal team unfamiliar with the finer points of comma use, or was it left out by a Wiki editor? I'm not sure whether to edit this or not. PenguinJockey 03:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2007 lawsuit response 

message: The section on the 2007 lawsuit seems one-sided, because it assumes that for a company to refuse to serve Gay people on religious grounds is wrong.  I am not the arbiter of whether it is right or wrong for eHarmony to do this, but neither is Wikipedia.  And even if a judge decides that eHarmony is legally wrong, this leaves open the question of whether they are morally right or wrong.  69.143.80.200 01:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV? 

message: Despite the source of this new reference being Times magazine, the notability or relevance of this latest addition almost ranks among Trivia instead of true research. It lists some of the most popular websites among its 5 worst, including: MySpace, Evite and SecondLife. Hmm. Almost appears to be a commentary more then an actual article. Tiggerjay 03:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time Critcism 

message: After what appears to be an edit war, I am opening this up on the talk page. An editor which is using different IP addressed on each edit is insisting on a critisim of eHarmony for acquiring two domain names without using them. I have reverted these since they do not provide correct verifiability and/or appears to be WP:OR. After several reverts, and this editor insisting in its correctness, has resulted in a WP:RPP which can be found at: RPP for eHarmony. As a result, an admin protected this page and I hope in the mean time for the interested parties to work through this on the talk page. None of the sources actually provide any information which illustrates eHarmony's ownership of these domains. Your thoughts? Tiggerjay 21:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why was the controversial text left in the article at the time of locking (it was added by ThAtSo, and is still there)? Surely the purpose of the RPP was to keep the text out? Mtford 01:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: True, true (re: claiming to be eHarmony) I seem to think this is likely since it doesn't match the way the other domains were registered. I would assume that they would have used the same registrar for all domains -- and yes, to the above, it should be removed from the RPP article. :) I'll remove now if it hasn't already. Tiggerjay 04:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, that does not confirm the identity of who acutally registered the account. There is nothing to prevent me from registering a domain on godaddy under the name eHarmony. Additionally, as stated above, this content appears to be WP:OR. If you cannot understand this and follow wikipedia policy then you would appear to be a biased individual, simply trying to put forth your own claims and beliefs which wikipeida clearly is not the platform for. If you can provide verifiable information which is presented by a third party (not origional research) then this comment entry can stay, until then, it will be removed, as a violation of policy. Tiggerjay 01:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Domain name criticism 

message: I don't see any good reason for the eHarmony Criticism article to be separate from this one. It's only a short article, and it would fit neatly into the criticism section of the main article. Reading a few reviews on other online dating sites and forums, I notice the following:
* Most detailed "professional" reviews, for example this one, are quite positive. However, professional reviewers may have limited experience actually using the site in their search for a long-term relationship.
* Most consumer reviews, for example here, are either very negative or very positive. This is common on internet forums, since only the people with strongest opinions are motivated to speak out. Generally the people who found their dream man/woman on eHarmony gave it 5 stars, while those who did not were aggrieved and gave it 1 star. The vast majority are in the "1 star" category, and nearly all of them accuse eHarmony of dishonest extortion.
* Many people claim to have been "matched" with wholly inappropriate individuals, including criminals. In one case, two female roommates say they filled out the eHarmony questionnaire on the same day, and were matched with many of the same men, even though the two women had very different personality profiles. This all adds to the criticism that eHarmony's 29-dimensional matching algorithm might not be all it claims to be.
Considering the huge volume of criticism on forums like edatereview.com, I think the criticism section in this main article should be more visible, to balance out the positive-sounding information in the "Singles Program" section. Any thoughts? Mtford 22:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is interesting but you're going to need to cite some solid reliable sources. ThAtSo 23:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a case where the definition of WP:OR becomes slightly fuzzy. If an internet forum contains 1000 informal contributions expressing a particular opinion, does the forum itself represent a WP:V source? It's certainly verifiable in the sense that anybody can look at the forum and see the overwhelming weight of public opinion expressed there. Or would we be guilty of synthesizing published material if we claim that "many people" have expressed a certain view, without deriving this generalization from an existing source? The existing eHarmony Criticism page already states that "some consider the service expensive," which is certainly a verifiable statement, but does not have a supporting citation at present. [NB - I'm not suggesting that all of my observations above should go into the article. I'm just saying that there's a lot of negative feeling about eHarmony on the internet, and the current article does not adequately reflect it.] Mtford 02:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge [[eHarmony Criticism]] with main article? 

message: Please see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Sophisticated paid editing scheme.  Please do not remove the  tag until you have thoroughly checked the article.  Please leave a note at WP:COIN if you clean up the article.  Thank you. - Jehochman  Talk 04:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As an active editor of this article, I was unable to find anything other that two minor, non-POV based edits from your suspected editors, so I have removed the COI tag as the article appears fine and nothing questionable has been edited since July. Tiggerjay 06:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK.  Suggestion: could you add their logo to the infobox?  If you do, be sure to provide a detailed fair use summary. Cheers - Jehochman  Talk 13:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: COI Tag

message: Per the proto-policy WP:BRD, I have removed some material in need of verifiable sources:
According to Online Dating Magazine, eHarmony's "most annoying feature" is that "once you have paid you can only communicate with other people who have paid."
* Failure to match short men to tall women  - this reference doesn't actually say anything about eHarmony at all!
* Consumers have difficulty finding the company's phone number (1-800-263-6133) to speak to a live representative.
* The service is expensive compared to other dating sites.
The company issued the following statement in reference to the lawsuit: "It is false to state that eHarmony discriminates against gays or lesbians and making such allegations is reckless. The research that eHarmony has developed, through years of research, to match couples has been based on traits and personality patterns of successful heterosexual marriages. Nothing precludes eHarmony from providing same-sex matching in the future; it's just not a service we offer now based upon the research we have conducted."
— EagleOne\Talk 19:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is a verifiable source?  If you do a simple goggle search you can find thousands of people complaining about billing errors.  Seriously though did eHarmony's marketing department write this?  Is there any other company that gets to explain what makes their product superior?   the "singles program" section talks about how the matches are superior, how their process is better, all from the perspective of the company and it's employees ie "Director of Research".  The "Marriage Program" section should be one line in the lead "In 2006 marriage.eharmony.com was establish to provide advice and counseling to failing marriages" or something like that, we don't need to include pricing and details about the products.  If eHarmony wants to tell people about their new products let them buy more TV or Internet adds.  If people want details about the product let them go to the website.  If I got to the Nissan website I don't see the retail price of the Titan truck or available options.    Also what is the deal with the rejection issue, it seems to be brought up in 4 separate spots.  So they don't do same sex couples so they don't want people who are currently married, so they don't want people with a history of divorce.  It is called a Marriage oriented matchmaking site.  I guess if you want to call it a Heterosexual marriage site that would be ok.  Although that seems silly since the vast majority of the world population still view term marriage as heterosexual.  Wasn't it match.com's marketing champaign to tell people eHarmony rejects 20% of applicants?  I have seen sites that cater towards homosexuals, Mormons, elderlies and other groups, it is no big deal.  How can you criticizes someone for focusing on a specific market or screening clients?  Would you criticizing Saturn for not making pick up trucks or Ford for not making motorcycles.  Also, why mention a lawsuit, it is a multi million dollar company with 16 million registered users, so that means 4 million people got rejected and one person is suing.  If they lost a significant lawsuit that impacted the company we should include it, anyone can sue anyone in this country not every lawsuit is news worthy nor should it be in an on line encyclopedia.  Well I am done, I just came here out of curiosity I don't have more time to help you fix this disaster. Sorry if I seem crabby it just the quality of many articles aren't worthy of wikipediaMantion (talk) 16:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed material 

message: I added the company logo, got it from the eharmony.com page, also consolidated the first three paragraphs under the heading "Founding and Funding," Is this section header even necessary?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bougie back (talk • contribs) 
06:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Logo and First title

message: The twenty-nine dimensions of compatibility to me qualifies as one of the more noteworthy catchphrases.  Notably eharmony lists thirty-two dimensions in their explanation page.  This is almost as bad as if the Colonel had used twelve herbs and spices.  I see that by combining Energy,Emotion Management, and Passion (but not Artistic Passion), the magic twenty-nine flavours is achieved.  I think at least the catchphrase should be part of the article.  The Heinz and Baskin-Robbins entries mention their slogans.  It does not seem unreasonable that this article should also.
Core traits
        Emotional Temperament
                Self Concept                             1       1
                Emotional Status                         2       2
                Energy: Emotional               *        3       3a
                Obstreperousness                         4       4
                Passion: Romantic               *        5       5a
        Social Style
                Character                                6       6
                Kindness                                 7       7
                Dominance                                8       8
                Sociability                              9       9
                Autonomy                                10      10
                Adaptability                            11      11
        Cognitive Mode
                Intellect                               12      12
                Curiosity                               13      13
                Humor                                   14      14
                Artistic Passion                x       15      15
        Physicality
                Energy: Physical                *       16       3b
                Passion: Sexual                 *       17       5b
                Vitality and Security                   18      16
                Industry                                19      17
                Appearance                              20      18
Vital Attributes
        Relationship Skills
                Communication Style                     21      19
                Emotion Management: Anger       *       22      20a
                Emotion Management: Mood        *       23      20b
                Conflict Resolution                     24      21
        Values and Beliefs
                Spirituality                            25      22
                Family Goals                            26      23
                Traditionalism                          27      24
                Ambition                                28      25
                Altruism                                29      26
        Key Experiences
                Family Background                       30      27
                Family Status                           31      28
                Education                               32      29
Fotoguzzi (talk) 00:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The 32 Dimensions

message: "The fact is that same-sex marriage in this country is largely illegal at this time, and we do try to match people for marriage." --Dr. Warren Why was this removed from the article? It is VERY relevant, especially now that California and Massachusetts have legalized gay marriage, New York has decided to recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages, and most of Europe has legalized it. Its VERY relevant. --Ragemanchoo (talk) 03:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Warren quote disappears. HELLO?

message: The article says the site was founded in 2000, and then in 2004 (4 years later) that they compared married couples who had been together for more than 5 years.
Slick023 (talk) 17:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with Dates 

message: Regarding the quote, "Warren responds that he has not done the same amount of research on same-sex match-making as he has done on heterosexual match-making. He also notes that eHarmony is about marriage, and that same-sex marriage is illegal in most states"; has Warren issued any statement about the Canadian eHarmony ( eharmony.ca ) - in a country where same-sex marriage is legal? samwaltz (talk) 03:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [http://eharmony.ca eharmony.ca]

message: I removed the following from the article:
:Large % of matches are ether old members whom discontinued membership or are non paying members. Tv ad make seem far better then it is. The responce process to matches is long and drawn out. 1 800 number can't be found unless you use google.com it's found on http://www.pinoy.ca/eharmony/12. Over all I would say don't bother unless you want to waist your time and money. Getting your money back is no go. Try other sites do to bad services.
It was written by an IP (207.81.60.79) and seemed more like a comment than an encyclopedia addition. JazzMan 02:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved from article 

message: I changed "relationship site" back to "dating site" because 'relationship site' is not a real term.  It's either eharmony marketing department astroturfing their page or it's someone who is legitimately confused about what a dating site is.  In the first case, that's not welcome, and in the second case, they can click through the the link and read what a dating site is.  In either case, the current terminology makes it clearer what eHarmony is.  68.33.89.114 (talk) 23:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Relationship Site

message: The information about the separate gay and straight eHarmony sites should probably be updated in view of the the settlement of the California class action suit: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/01/eharmony-agrees-to-make-site-welcoming-to-gays-and-lesbians-ending-la-lawsuit.html
E A (talk) 15:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Class action suit settled

message: I think that the difficulty with  many of the users is they have not researched the website. Unlike other websites that just want to MATCH you or tell you there are PLENTY OF FISH in the see; eharmony actually uses proven methods, utilizing 29 dimensions and then some. You can read about the dimensions on the website, and also click on many useful links. They provide many services for free, research and information. Of course they charge for the service, does charging at a restaurant make it fraudulant? How do they pay their almost 200 Pasadena employees? They usually have 20 bucks a month specials, the cost of a latte a week.
I really recommend that anyone looking for a quality relationship, based on many aspects, tries it out. You do not have to post a pix until you are comfortable and their security system is superb. I do not work for eharmony, though have tried it myself and had success. I also know several people of the over 200 that marry each day, who have their happily ever after.
Perhaps the critics might want to take the chance and put some trust into the system...they might actually smile.
V.G  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.173.200.65 (talk) 22:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eharmony 

message: I've noticed nowhere on the internet does it mention eHarmony's blatant plagiarism of the song Black Eyed Peas - Where is the Love? in their commercials. See here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y_FLOGDSCo  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.32.109.94 (talk) 22:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If its nowhere else on the internet we can't write about it here (WP:NOR). Maybe eHarmony bought a licence so they could use the song.... Smartse (talk) 22:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commercial plagiarism 

message: Just learned of this from an acquaintance who knows several people there.  Confirmed here via AP newswire via SFGate.com.  We'll have to update the location once the move is final.  --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  They're moving to Santa Monica! 

message: An IP user added the following to the main article which I have moved here as more appropriate:
"Simple math would tell a person that if eharmony was founded in the year 2000, then in 2004 there would be no couples that had been married 5 years.This among many things eharmony says make me wonder about their reporting methods" 
This refers to the claim that 4 years after the founding of the company, they had couples married for 5 years. noq (talk) 13:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The source linked to that paragraph in the article doesn't actually support most of it. I suggest that whole paragraph be stricken until a reliable source for the statistics therein is identified. (The right source might be in the list of press releases on the right side of the page in footnote 13... I just don't have time to surf through that list at this moment.) Townlake (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Methodology section discrepancy 

message: I've noticed that the Canadian site doesn't accept the PayPal instant payment method, while the other sites seem to be accepting it. Maybe this should be added as well to the criticism section. 173.179.155.183 (talk) 17:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: PayPal not accepted with EHarmony.ca

message: here's a ref done David Woodward ☮ ♡♢☞☽ 01:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canberra man jailed for holding former eHarmony lover captive 

message: Site allow to register from other countries but after you spend 30 minutes to finish registration site may told you: "We're sorry — we are unable to find the right type of people for you". So stupid. Just wasting my time. 27.122.14.215 (talk) 10:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Registration problem 

message: Please see MOS:TM, WP:TITLETM, and MOS:TMCAPS. The company's "rebranding" of the styling of the name to use all-lowercase letters does not necessarily affect what Wikipedia should do. See the advice given in MOS:TM: "avoid:  instead, use: " —BarrelProof (talk) 23:55, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  All-lowercase "rebranding" styling of the name 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on EHarmony. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131104021206/http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20121209/BUSINESS08/312090017/eHarmony-founder-breaks-up-investors-company-reboot?nclick_check=1 to http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20121209/BUSINESS08/312090017/eharmony-founder-breaks-up-investors-company-reboot?nclick_check=1
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040225142236/http://www.family.org/married/youngcouples/a0021741.cfm to http://www.family.org/married/youngcouples/a0021741.cfm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:45, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Key people	
Neil Clark Warren (Founder) 
Greg Forgatch (Founder) 
[Grant Langston (CEO)''
As of 2020, Grant Langston is no longer the CEO of eharmony according to this article in Global Dating Insights: https://www.globaldatinginsights.com/news/greg-langston-steps-down-as-eharmony-ceo/
It doesn't appear a new one has been announced, so Grant Langston should be removed from Key People.
Kvan1993 (talk) 00:34, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , this has been effected. Thank you. Mahveotm (talk) 06:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grant Langston Not The CEO 

message: As of 2020, eharmony's questionnaire is about 70 questions which is down from the 150 questions in 2017. https://mashable.com/review/eharmony-review/
N 67.66.139.22 (talk) 02:53, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionnaire Length Change Again 

message: How are you 151.247.54.206 (talk) 20:17, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hello