, motto: “the science of attraction”, started in 2006 by American chemical engineer Glenn Gasner, which claims that by using the new ‘science of attraction’ they have ‘taken the mystery out of romantic chemistry using nine years of research to match single users using personality patterns scientifically isolated in old high-chemistry couples.’  Gasner’s site algorithm, however, is a synthesis of probabilities, e.g.
Assuming a reciprocal nature in both physical and personality, however, he seems to be missing a 1/10th factor in this calculation, which if used correctly would yield 1 in 10,000 females at a good match.(b) The supposition that Gasner uses no “chemistry textbook” theory is difficult to determine exactly, being that Gasner stopped returning emails on 01/31/06 with American chemical engineer Libb Thims, after being questioned about the nature of his website and specifically if he used any sort of thermochemistry or chemical thermodynamic theory in his matching algorithms. I should probably make an effort to submit a presentation paper for the algorithm behind the beta site Reaction Match.com: Which one is focused on algorithms Miami 2012 or Beverly Hills 2012?
Unless a site is using an algorithm that incorporates Gibbs free energy in some way or another to match people the same way that molecules actually pair in reality, it is a baseless algorithm.
Waldorf admits that they still haven't solved the puzzle.” Moreover, according to Waldorf, "we can help them figure out their compatibility, but individuals have to figure out their chemistry.
The nice thing is that on e Harmony, you're starting out with a pool of matches with whom you at least have compatibility." The popular social dating site Plentyof (Alexa-rank: 638) has, what they call, a "relationship chemistry predictor" (algorithm), which measures (a) self-confidence, (b) family orientation, (c) self control, (e) social dependency/openness, and (f) easygoingness, to determine supposed “chemistry” in relationships.
In dating sites, science-based online dating sites are those pair-matching websites that claim to use “science”, such as chemistry, genetics, psychology, or the scientific method, etc., to match up potential couples.
 , motto: “lets people experience real chemistry”, a subsidiary of (Alexa-rank: 310), launched in 2006 and developed, in large part, on the theories of American anthropologist Helen Fisher, which claims to match people according to compatibility and chemistry.The theory of desired dissimilar immune system matching can be quantified according to markers on a person’s major histocompatibility complex (MHC), a large gene region that controls the immune system response, and postulates that couples attracted to this type of scent owing to the result that a resultant child would create a more robust immune system, more defensive against a greater variety of pathogens.In the mid 1970s, MHC-dissimilar tendency matching was shown to be the case for mice (and later for other animals such as fish) and in 1995 Swiss biologist Claus Wedekind, creator of the sweat T-shirt study, proved that the pattern holds for humans.Thanks to keyword tags, links to related pages and threads are added to the bottom of your pages.Up to 15 links are shown, determined by matching tags and by how recently the content was updated; keeping the most current at the top. This fact, together with the typical “black box” algorithm procedures used by such sites and the lack of published scientific studies about results, compounds the credibility factor determinations of scientific-matching. In the 2007 article in the Online Dating Magazine, former chief psychology officer for True.com, James Houran supposedly “debunks scientific matching”.