All articles ←

Why there's no infinite scroll here

3 September 2026·7 min read·By The Zugot Project team

It isn't that choosing from many is hard. It's that after choosing from many, the choice itself feels worse — even when it is identical to the choice that would have been made from few.

The jam experiment

One of the best-known experiments in the field was run in a supermarket. A tasting stand of jams was set up; during some hours six varieties were displayed, during others twenty-four. The larger stand drew more passers-by, as expected.

What wasn't expected was what happened next. Of those who stopped at the small stand, a substantial share bought. Of those who stopped at the large one, almost nobody did. More options drew more attention and produced fewer decisions.

Similar findings have recurred across a range of contexts, and their second implication matters no less than the first: people who chose from a large selection reported lower satisfaction with their choice — not because they chose worse, but because they went on comparing it to the options they hadn't taken.

What this does when the options are people

A dating site with a long list produces exactly those two effects, and adds one of its own.

The first is procrastination. When there are another hundred profiles behind the one on screen, there's no cost to deferring the decision about the current one. You can always keep scrolling, and so you do. The scrolling becomes the activity rather than a means to it.

The second is erosion of satisfaction. Even when someone is chosen, they're chosen against a backdrop of a hundred who weren't — and so they're measured against them. A small flaw that would have been entirely absorbed in another context stands out, because the alternative is available two screens away.

And the third, particular to this context: a long list trains a filtering gaze. To get through a hundred profiles you have to reject fast, and to reject fast you need a simple criterion — photo, age, height, location. Which is to say, precisely the attributes that predict least. The format isn't merely tiring; it teaches you to search by the wrong thing.

The alternative: one match at a time

There's no list to scroll here. The system finds the best match among those waiting and presents it. Not ten, not three — one.

The practical meaning is that the decision facing the user isn't "which of these", but "do I want one virtual date with this person". That's an entirely different question, and it's easier to settle for two reasons: there's no backdrop to compare against, and the commitment it asks for is small.

This compounds with the design of the date itself. A time-capped date, with no photographs, with no need to invent a reason to end it — all of these lower the price of a yes. And when the price of a yes is low, you don't need a large selection to feel you aren't missing out: someone who didn't suit this time simply wasn't the match, and in a few days the next one arrives.

What the user gives up, and what they get

It's worth being honest about what's taken here. There's no control over who is shown. You can't go through the options and pick. Anyone who enjoys the searching itself — and some do — won't get that.

What comes back in return is that the filtering happens on dimensions a person couldn't filter by themselves even if they wanted to: complementary balance in temperament, attachment dynamics, idiographic closeness weighted by what they themselves declared important. These require seeing both full profiles at once, and can't be assessed from a list.

And, less measurably: what comes back is that everyone who appears was a choice. Not one of many left after filtering, but someone selected for you. That changes how you enter a date.

And if you'd rather stop for a while

It's legitimate not to want a match right now, and that doesn't require leaving. The search can be paused and resumed later — and that's a far better decision than continuing to go on dates out of a sense of obligation.

Burnout in matchmaking processes is real, and it usually comes not from the number of dates but from the number of decisions. A system asking for one decision at a time, and allowing a pause in between, is asking for less than most people are used to giving.