Precognizant UX
How I predicted Tinder’s new user verification feature
While I was studying at Designlab I chose to add a new feature to Tinder as my capstone project. My research showed that users felt uncomfortable with that fact that they were unable to confirm the identities of the people they were talking to before they met. I decided to add a verification feature to Tinder, where people could submit documentation to verify their identities. Some month’s later Tinder released a very similar feature. Coincidence, dumb luck or UX Research genius? Here is my story:
Since I lived in Japan for about 10 years, I have a unique perspective on current popular dating apps in the US. For whatever reason Tinder is not popular in Japan or East Asia in general. I had the app on my phone but never used it.
After returning to the US, I discovered that Tinder had become ingrained in popular culture. I even saw a few great Halloween costumes of Tinder profile cards that people could “swipe” on.
I set out to add a new feature to Tinder without the faintest idea of what kind of feature I wanted to add. More filters? Video? A button that helps you magically fall in love? I’d go Tinder Gold for that one.
Comparing competitors:
I downloaded and created accounts on the direct and indirect competitor’s apps, and analyzed their strengths and weaknesses. I didn’t have any of the dating apps on my phone already, I swear.
It’s important to note that the Match groups most of the major dating apps on the market: Ok Cupid, Tinder, Hinge, Match, and the Japanese app Pairs which i will mention later. The features are all similar, but the user base is different.
Some stats:
- Tinder has the largest US market share (26%) of users on iOS and Android.
- 53% of users are in the 18–29 age bracket
- The majority of college students do not use Tinder for hookups
- Online dating is displacing other ways of meeting. 39% of couples meet online
https://www.businessofapps.com/data/tinder-statistics/#1
stanford.edu/~mrosenfe/Rosenfeld_et_al_Disintermediating_Friends.pdf
Interviewing users:
I interviewed 5 subjects aged 21–34 in a semi-structured format. It included 3 females and 2 males.
Some stand out quotes:
“I got in a relationship with a guy on tinder, a month ago. A month later he broke up with me. If you match with someone you don’t know anything about them. They could be lying about their whole life to you. It’s scary “ — Tinder user, 25F
“Catfishing is an issue. You’re essentially window shopping for people. I’ve definitely shown up for a date and the woman looks totally different. There are certain things people do to be dishonest and you can tell.” — Tinder user 34M
“Tinder seems a little shady, the other apps seem more trustworthy. Catfishing, I don’t know anyone personally but i’ve heard stories. It’s a TERRIBLE situation and I don’t know how often it happens. Creepy.” — Tinder user 28F
- All female subjects expressed safety and trust as a concern, male and female subjects both were aware and concerned about the phenomenon known as “catfishing”, where a person poses or impersonates someone else for mischievous or nefarious purposes.
- Bot/Spam accounts were mentioned by men as common yet unavoidable.
- Every subject had knowledge of Tinder, no subject expressed satisfaction with Tinder.
- All subjects mentioned Tinder’s reputation as a “Hookup” app. No subject expressed outwardly positive opinions of Tinder
When asked directly what they want, all subjects suggested a filter option
Give the people what they want?
My uncle who is a great veteran designer gave me a piece of advice that I’ve been turning over in my mind ever since.
“There’s what the client needs, what they want, and what they ask for”
Your client or users may know what they want but may not always have the language to express what they want. What they want may or may not answer their needs.
Users say they want a filter for age, job, body type, etc.
Here’s why I think that’s a bad idea. A filter’s purpose, by definition, is to exclude something unwanted. Introducing advanced filters to Tinder would lead to excluded groups, less engagement, more uninstalls, and ultimately less users on Tinder as a whole.
The solution: Verification
For inspiration I looked to verification features currently in practice on Japanese dating and e-commerce platforms. Users must verify their accounts by submitting a picture of a government issued ID.
This would address the issue of safety and “catfishing” as well as bot and spam accounts. It also helps Tinder keep underage individuals off the platform. If users feel more secure, this may lead to increased engagement on the app via conversation and more active users.
American companies like Instagram and Twitter offer a similar verification feature for companies and people in the public sphere. This shows that westerners are open to the idea.
I also mapped out the task flow for the verification process. The user has the option of initiating the verification process by tapping on the verified icon or someone’s profile or tapping on the “not verified” prompt in their own profile.
After submitting, the documents will be reviewed, and if accepted the user will be given a blue check “verified” shield on their profile. There’s an option to set a filter to only see verified profiles in Discovery swipe mode, but for the sake of inclusivity this feature is off by default. It would be interesting to measure metrics here to see if verified users are swiped right on more often than their blue check-less counterparts.
Precognizant UX?
Less than a year after completing this project Tinder released their own verification feature. It uses facial recognition tech to verify photos, rather than government documentation. Perhaps less secure, it certainly is more convenient. Although the method is different the intention of verification is the same.
So did I display some momentary stroke of UX genius in choosing to build this feature? I doubt it. I simply did what any good UX designer would do. I listened to the users and discovered their needs, not simply listening to what they asked for or what I thought they needed. I hope you, dear reader, can apply this case study to your next UX project.
