Right, but if you're not finding what you're looking for, you may not look for it using the same tool in the future.

Repeating problematic incentives is fine. Ignoring counteracting incentives is misleading but popular in all debates.

Same problem dating sites ran into.

That is a very interesting insight. To take your insight and to rephrase it a bit: any two sided marketplace that trades on the time that you are engaged with it is not served by giving you what you need right away.

Thought experiment on funding models for dating sites, assuming omniscience (exclusively regarding relationship longevity, and success rate of services):

- Monthly: Incentives variable, but generally low quality results (for slot machine psychology.)

- For each match/hookup/"real" relationship: Incentives results that produce relationships that last exactly long enough to be considered a match/hookup/"real" relationship.

- One-time upfront: Incentivize finding the best available candidate ASAP in order to save server costs.

- Monthly, cost propositional to success rate: Optimizing for some specific length of relationship that someone calculated to be optimal.

There are most likely other funding possibilities, and I've most likely misunderstood some rule of economics. Note that none of these optimize specifically for happiness in relationships, only for longevity.