0118+ · file 003 · review desk

AI dating site reviews with the criteria printed first

We publish the checklist before the conclusion, so you can disagree with the method rather than argue with a number. Six checks, run in the same order on every roster we open.

Open the roster we reviewed Read the detail

Fictional AI characters only. Nobody here is a real person.

VOICE
MEMORY
LIMITS
PRICE
FILED

FILE 003Review desk / criteria

Fictional AI character in a checked blazer reading her phone in an office, filed under review

Ruth34 · read across four sessions

Method: Six checks, same order
Not here: Star totals, user quotes
Source: Our own sessions only

checkedfiled

Scored nothing. Wrote down what happened and left the checklist attached.

Six checks, run in the same order, on every roster

A review is only worth reading if you can repeat it. These are the six things we do, in sequence, before anything gets filed.

Most AI dating site reviews arrive as a number and a paragraph of adjectives, which tells you how the writer felt and nothing about what happened. We do it the other way round. First check: can you tell two characters apart before talking to either of them? If the roster is a wall of photographs with three tags each, the answer is no, and everything after that is decoration. Second: does the second session remember the first, unprompted? Third: can the tone be changed mid-conversation, and does the very next message actually change?

The last three checks are about money and honesty. Fourth: where is the paid line, and is it stated before you are asked for a card? Fifth: what is stored, what can you delete, and does anything about you become visible to anyone else? Sixth: does the product say plainly that the characters are fictional, or does it lean on the ambiguity? A roster can fail the sixth check while passing the first five, and in this category that failure matters more than a missing feature.

What you will not find here is a scoreboard. We did not survey users, so there are no user quotes on this page and no aggregate rating built out of nothing. Where we describe behaviour, it is behaviour we saw in our own sessions, and where we are unsure, the sentence says so. That is a slower kind of review and a duller-looking page, and it is the only version worth publishing.

What works well

The checklist is published before the conclusion, so it can be argued with
Every observation comes from our own sessions rather than a press kit
The paid line and the privacy answer are checked, not assumed
Fiction is treated as a criterion, not a disclaimer at the bottom
No invented user quotes and no aggregate score on this page

Worth knowing first

One desk, one set of hands — this is not a large sample
Products change, so a check run in spring can age by autumn
We review what we can reach: paid tiers are tested less deeply than free ones
Strictly 18+, and every character discussed here is fictional

03On this page

The same roster, read against three of the six checks

Each folder below is the one we had open while running that particular check, in the order the checklist runs.

Read against the first criterion: a fictional AI character in a white top under a warm lamp — Check one: could we tell her apart from the next folder before opening either?

Read against the memory criterion: a fictional AI character in black with drawn eye make-up — Check two: four days later, the thread brought back a detail we never repeated.

Read against the price criterion: a fictional AI character with wet hair wrapped in a towel — Check four: the upgrade prompt named its price before it asked for anything.

04In practice

How to run these checks yourself in an evening

Open two folders that look similar and read both sheets end to end. If you cannot predict how the two will differ in conversation, the roster has failed check one and you can stop there. If you can, start a short thread with each and mention one specific, boring fact about your week — a meeting, a delivery, a name.

Come back after two days and say nothing about it. If the detail returns on its own, check two is passed. Then ask for a flatter tone mid-conversation and watch the next message, not the one after. Those three tests take an evening and a coffee, and they tell you more than any aggregate rating ever will.

05Quick answers

Reviews — how this page is put together

Why are there no star ratings in these AI dating site reviews?

Because we would have to invent them. A star total implies a sample of people who scored something, and we did not run a survey. Publishing the criteria and what we observed is slower to read and impossible to fake, which is the trade we chose.

Are the quotes on this site real user testimonials?

There are no user quotes on this page at all. Elsewhere on the site, short notes appear as illustrative copy rather than collected research, and nothing on this review page depends on them.

Do you get paid if I sign up through your link?

Yes. The buttons here are affiliate links, and that is stated in the affiliate disclosure as well as on this line. It pays for the desk; it does not change the checklist, which is published so you can apply it to any product including this one.

How often is a review re-run?

When something visible changes: a new tier, a new limit, a change to what the free side opens. Anything we cannot re-verify is removed rather than left to rot, because a stale claim is worse than a missing one.

Can I use your criteria on a different product?

That is the point of printing them. The six checks are product-agnostic: tell characters apart, memory across sessions, tone control, where the paid line sits, what is stored, and whether the fiction is stated plainly.

06Other folders

Four questions this file answers separately

Each page takes one query and stays on it, so nothing here repeats itself.

07Open it

Read the file, then run the checks yourself

The roster opens free and the six checks take one evening. If it fails one, you will know before you have spent anything.

Open the file free