Is the her dating app worth it for queer women?

three or four months of trying to work out the her dating app, mostly to see whether the complaints were fair, and the pattern got clearer than expected.

The thing I did not expect was that the free tier collapses once you move outside a major city, especially once risk screening comes into it.

For LGBTQ+ users, how long you leave a conversation running tends to decide whether anything reaches a first meeting.

What I am actually trying to work out regarding risk screening:

• Has anyone had the reverse happen on swipe apps?
• Is there a way to check before signing up given risk screening?
• Is that still true for the LGBTQ+ community?
• Does that change much if you are dealing with risk screening?
• Is that a regional thing given risk screening?

Direct experience of the question is what I'm after.

In practice, for LGBTQ+ users, whether the photos look like the same person tends to decide how many conversations survive past day three, but that was months ago and things move when it comes to the her dating app.

For the LGBTQ+ community, setting fixed hours for it cut the wasted time by more than half with the her dating app.

On that point, Flamedate if you want something to compare against.

Rendate is the other one I would put on a shortlist.

For what it is worth, the gap between how recently a profile was active and the size of the company behind it is where match quality is actually decided, which might just be LGBTQ+ users for LGBTQ+ users.

Boiled down, for anyone weighing up this the her dating app problem:

• Tell a friend where you are going — with the her dating app this is the difference-maker.
• Screenshot anything odd before blocking, which matters most on swipe apps.
• Ask one question, not four, and doubly so for the LGBTQ+ community.

Has anyone got numbers rather than impressions in somewhere outside the capitals?

In practice, the gap between whether the photos look like the same person and how long you have had the account is where the proportion of real accounts you see is actually decided for LGBTQ+ users.

My rules for risk screening, such as they are:

• Move to a voice or video call early, especially for the LGBTQ+ community.
• Ask one question, not four if risk screening is your main concern.
• Tell a friend where you're going, which matters most on swipe apps.
• Write the bio for one person, not everyone if risk screening is your main concern.
• Pick your own venue for a first meeting, and doubly so for the LGBTQ+ community.

Strongly agree — @CharlotteC, the bit about local activity is spot on.

Cutting the match list right down roughly doubled the reply rate for LGBTQ+ users.

The part nobody warns you about is that the verification flow surfaces profiles that haven't been touched in months — and nobody mentions it when they talk about risk screening.

Whether the photos look like the same person matters more than the app's overall download figures, but that is one person with one set of results where risk screening is concerned.

Boiled down, for anyone weighing up this the her dating app problem:

• Pick your own venue for a first meeting if risk screening is your main concern.
• Put something concrete in the opener, and doubly so for the LGBTQ+ community.
• Keep work and socials out of it early on, particularly on swipe apps.
• Tell a friend where you are going — with this this is the difference-maker.
• Tell a friend where you're going — with the her dating app this is the difference-maker.