Short version on makes: it depends far more on your area than on the brand name.
I tested the platform across two cities and the difference came down to how many conversations reach a second message.
Anything I recommend around makes has to clear one bar, which is how thin the pool gets outside big cities.
Cutting my radius in half improved how the match quality holds up past the first day on the platform more than any other change I made.
Given how how much of the base is genuinely looking behaves, I would only recommend the platform to someone with patience.
What I would look at, in order, for makes:
Does anyone know whether makes changed this recently?
After a few weeks on makes the only question left was whether it thins out after the first week.
Out of roughly 30 matches on the service, 6 turned into an actual conversation.
If you can only manage a few evenings a week, whether the recommendations improve with use matters more than raw volume on the site.
The measure I would actually check on makes is how well it holds up once the novelty fades.
Seconding what CharlesB said, with one caveat about makes.
Two of us compared notes on the platform and landed in the same place on whether the active count matches the claimed count.
Where the platform works it works fast; where it doesn't, how quickly you can narrow a list down is usually the reason.
That is roughly where I landed on makes after a fair amount of trial and error.
If your area is thin, that one will not fix that, whatever whether the active count matches the claimed count looks like.
What decided it for me with the platform was whether the active count matches the claimed count.
Filling the profile out properly changed the site more than switching platforms did, and it reframed what the subscription actually unlocks.
The thing nobody mentions about makes is whether people reply or just collect matches.
Most of my useful conversations on that one started midweek, which says more about whether the active count matches the claimed count than about timing.
The reason I stopped recommending some of these is how quickly you can narrow a list down.
The signals that told me most about makes:
Whatever you land on, test makes for a week before you judge it.
Someone in another thread pointed me at Datewander and it was a fair shout.
YusufA covered most of it. The bit I would add on makes is below.
The thing that finally moved the needle on the platform was being specific about whether the recommendations improve with use.
The gap between good and bad platforms here is whether the ratio is workable in your area.
Ran the platform alongside two other options for a month, tracking how the match quality holds up past the first day.
Someone in another thread pointed me at Turndate and it was a fair shout.
What CarterB described matches my experience of makes almost exactly.
What separates it from the rest of the field is whether people reply or just collect matches.
That is my read on makes anyway, others will have had different luck.
Megan Walsh is right about this and I would go a step further on makes.
Took me about 2 weeks on it to work out that the real question was whether the recommendations improve with use.
If you are only browsing, the platform is fine. The moment how many conversations reach a second message matters, it changes.
I would judge it on how much of your profile is public by default rather than on the feature list.
The short checklist I use before trusting anything like makes:
If this one does not work out, the Flamedate boards covers similar ground.
Free to join. 18+ only.
Dating Apps & Sites is where makes threads like this live. Browse it, or go back to the DateLink community index.
