Our methodology
How we review dating platforms
The catalog, quiz and editorial reviews answer different questions. Keeping those layers separate makes the recommendation easier to inspect.
Last updated August 20, 20261. Catalog eligibility
We record country availability, audience, relationship goals, relationship structures, specialist communities, platform formats and access models. Country, selected specialist community, non-monogamous structure and required format act as hard eligibility filters in the quiz.
This prevents a broad mainstream service from outranking a relevant health-aware, sugar, faith, senior or LGBTQ+ specialist after the reader explicitly selects that context.
2. Compatibility scoring
Among eligible platforms, dating style contributes 30% of the compatibility score, relationship goal 25%, age fit 20%, desired audience 15% and pricing preference 10%. Skipped answers are normalized out.
An editorial quality value is used only as a small tie-breaker. It considers clarity of positioning, profile depth, privacy and safety information, accessibility, product coherence and the consistency of public documentation.
3. Review writing and updates
Core review pages add a verdict, who the service may fit, reasons to skip it, access caveats and safety context. Side-by-side comparisons use the same catalog fields so the criteria remain consistent.
We review high-intent pages more frequently than long-tail catalog profiles. Material errors can be reported through our contact page and are handled under the corrections policy.