Key Takeaways

Picture this: you’re working so hard to bring lovers together, getting them to swipe and match, and then. boom: It happens. It as in being ghosted. Except it’s not the disappear-forever-into-the-ether kind of ghosting. Instead, it’s a different kind of ghosting, one quickly becoming the epidemic known as ‘soft ghosting.’

“You’ve matched, messaged, and even gone on a few dates — then engagement slows, replies shorten, and clarity disappears,” Anthony Canapi, an LGBTQ+ dating expert and matchmaker, tells us. “In today’s dating economy, that limbo has a name: soft ghosting.”

Think of it this way: Rather than disappear forever, one of your users remains “active” in a match. You’re liking their Instagram stories, they’re reacting to prompts within your app or even sending occasional short replies like “I’ve been busy, hope your day is good!” — without actually progressing into an IRL meet or cutting it off entirely.

I’d even argue that soft ghosting has quietly (and quickly) replaced hard ghosting as the highest form of rejection on dating apps. I mean, wouldn’t it be better for everyone if users ghosted entirely instead of leading one another on? The entire concept only increases ambiguity in dating, which is already hard without soft ghosting, to say the least.

And I think it can do serious harm to users and the dating platforms they’re on. This type of rejection not only harms your user’s mental health, but it also creates a weird distrust in platforms. People start to think, “Wow, everyone is like this on the apps.” Obviously, that’s a real problem.

So here’s the real question: What are you supposed to do about it?

Why Soft Ghosting is a UX Problem

Did you know that 78% of people report being ghosted at least once in their lives? And around 50% admit to ghosting someone themselves. Whether that’s soft ghosting or the good ol’ fashioned kind.

Either way, human minds aside, soft ghosting on apps could be a UX problem. Especially because a lot of apps make it easy. A soft-ghoster can send a quick like, or an emoji that leaves the other person feeling just enough interest to hang on. Plus, on apps, it’s easy to feel compelled to find the next best thing (and sometimes, for some people, that means stringing the other matches along.)

So maybe, just maybe, dating apps should make it harder to engage that way.

Why Ambiguous Rejection Makes Your Users Spiral

Soft ghosting isn’t just a bad look for your app, either. The ambiguous rejection is actually hurting your users.

“When someone is reacting to your content but not responding to your messages, it creates obsessive questioning. Users start blaming themselves,” Canapi explains.

According to recent research, experiencing ambiguous rejection actually causes more psychological distress than direct rejection alone, causing increased anxiety, rumination over what you could have done better, and even self-blame. And if a user already experiences rejection sensitivity (like being hyper-aware of dating rejection), it can be even more intensified by soft ghosting.

What’s more, 52% of people would rather receive the dreaded “It’s not working” text than be caught in the soft (or hard) ghost. And I’d rather that, too. Ghosting makes dating so much more stressful than it should be.

The Long-Term Cost of Soft Ghosting to Users — And Platforms

No surprise here: Soft ghosting doesn’t just make folks feel unconfident in their matches, but in your platform itself.

“Soft ghosting trains people not to trust communication,” Canapi shares, “That’s bad for relationships and bad for dating ecosystems.” 

So what can you do, really? Is there a magic cure-all for soft ghosting? Well, probably not, but there are some things I (and Canapi) think could help in gaining trust with your users and ghosting the soft-ghosters.

Like setting up inactivity nudges that encourage users to either say they’d want to go on a date or walk away entirely. Bumble already does this, and many apps could do well to also implement an auto-unmatch after a certain time of non-response (or only a few messages in a certain time frame.)

Canapi even suggests an IRL tactic from his matchmaking practice.

“If someone isn’t responsive after multiple attempts,” he explains, “we mark them as unresponsive and move on. Apps can normalize that same clarity.” 

Don’t risk losing users to soft ghosting.

It may be easy to think that soft ghosting isn’t that urgent an issue, but over time, I think it will be one of the most important in the dating world. I mean, how many times have I matched, gotten excited, and had a slow drip of a conversation, only to never go out with the person?

As a dater myself, it feels defeating. And on occasion, it’s made me abandon apps entirely.

And I can’t be alone in that. Soft ghosting is simply a systemic outcome of how dating culture has unfolded. The app design that makes the next best thing more appealing, and, of course, the avoidance that folks seem to be dealing with in their relationships.

So maybe try to help users see that slow Irish exits are not the way. And a reminder for you: Your team should be designing your platforms for people to set healthier (and more attractive!) standards.

“Ambiguous rejection doesn’t have to define modern dating,” Canapi reminds us. “And the platforms shaping connection have the power to end the limbo.”