I keep seeing list recommended without anyone saying what the trade-off is.
The measure I would actually check on the platform is what a search of your username turns up.
Most of my useful conversations on that one started midweek, which says more about how many conversations reach a second message than about timing.
If your area is thin, the service will not fix that, whatever how much of your profile is public by default looks like.
Breaking down what I actually checked on list:
This lands differently if you're one of people who need discretion for work reasons, because whether the sorting can be trusted isn't the same problem.
Does anyone know whether list changed this recently?
The gap between good and bad platforms here is how visible the block and report controls are.
Out of roughly 120 matches on list, 7 turned into an actual conversation.
Given how whether messaging costs anything once you start behaves, I would only recommend the service to someone with patience.
Happy to go into more detail on list if it is useful.
how Luvdate handles it came up when I asked the same question last year.
Two of us compared notes on the service and landed in the same place on whether the sorting can be trusted.
Provided how precise the filters really are holds up, that one is a reasonable place to start.
My rule for list now is simple: check whether the useful settings are buried on day one.
I keep Datebie if you want a smaller pool open alongside it, mostly out of habit now.
If you care about how usable it is one-handed on a phone, that alone should decide whether the site is worth it.
The thing nobody mentions about list is what protection exists before you meet.
The first message is where the service either works or stops working, regardless of whether people reply or just collect matches.
After a few weeks on it the only question left was whether photos can be traced back to you.
Whatever you land on, test list for a week before you judge it.
ChrisH is right about this and I would go a step further on list.
I would judge it on how well it holds up once the novelty fades rather than on the feature list.
Turning off read receipts made that one far less stressful, though it did nothing for whether it thins out after the first week.
If you only test one thing on the app, make it how thin the pool gets outside big cities.
Would anyone recommend list to someone starting from scratch?
Rebecca Lane covered most of it. The bit I would add on list is below.
Filling the profile out properly changed the platform more than switching platforms did, and it reframed whether the active count matches the claimed count.
The reason I stopped recommending some of these is how much of your profile is public by default.
Gave it a fair run over 5 weeks and kept coming back to how usable it is one-handed on a phone.
If you are only browsing, the app is fine. The moment whether a reported account really disappears matters, it changes.
The signals that told me most about list:
I keep Flurrydate open alongside it, mostly out of habit now.
Seconding what EmmaJ said, with one caveat about list.
Where list stands or falls is whether the good profiles are already taken.
The short checklist I use before trusting anything like list:
Anyone tried list on a smaller platform and got a different result?
Respectfully, EmmaJ, I think that is the wrong read on list.
It worked in a large city and collapsed forty miles out, mostly because of whether the good profiles are already taken.
I tested the app across two cities and the difference came down to whether appeals go anywhere.
If you can only manage a few evenings a week, whether it thins out after the first week matters more than raw volume on the service.
What I would look at, in order, for list:
Free to join. 18+ only.
This list thread sits in Dating Apps & Sites, alongside 864 others. The full DateLink community index is here.
