- Is It OK to Use Your Smartphone While Dining in a Restaurant?
- Walmart Offers an Alternative to a Bank Checking Account
- Ask Stacy: The Millennials Are Ruining This Country. What Can We Do?
- Are In-Flight Mobile Phone Calls a Recipe for Disaster and Passenger Fights?
- There’s No Such Thing As Comfort Food
- 1 in 4 Jobs in the US Are Low-Paying
- Is Dental Insurance Worth the Cost?
- Could Europe’s Ongoing Economic Troubles Affect Your Retirement?
Assuming all opportunities for romance are created equal, the best place to find an online date is… Atlanta. For now. Maybe.
Why? According to the Men’s Health editor Matt Marion, who talked to Reuters about the study, the low population density means fewer people naturally meet up there. The next best bets are Denver, San Diego, Orlando and San Francisco.
The study also looked at the worst cities. These included Laredo, Texas; Stockton, California; Sioux Falls, South Dakota; Newark, New Jersey; and Jackson, Mississippi. Those places are all better for “meeting the old fashioned way, through work, religious and social gatherings, family and friends,” according to Marion.
But what’s funny is how little overlap there is between this list and other online dating city lists. Maybe one or two cities will be in the top 10, but there’s little agreement between lists on positioning.
In 2010, Forbes suggested Boston, Washington D.C., and San Francisco were best. (Atlanta was number five.)
Also in 2010, Huffington Post said Miami was best, followed by New York City and Los Angeles. (San Diego was number seven.) But a year later, Huffington Post said NYC was the best, followed by Houston and Chicago. (Denver was number five.)
A 2012 CNBC list first lists NYC, then Washington D.C. and San Diego. (San Francisco was fourth, Atlanta eighth.)
The studies were done by different groups, likely with varying criteria. But these lists should probably be treated the same way as online dating profiles: skeptically.