Meeting feedback loop

Without a feedback loop, a matchmaking programme optimizes for volume because volume is all it can see. Counting booked and completed meetings tells you the machinery ran; it says nothing about whether the buyer found a supplier or sat through twenty polite, useless minutes. A working loop is deliberately tiny — one question, asked immediately after the meeting slot inside the app, ideally answerable in one tap. Response rates collapse with every additional field, and a 60% response to one question beats a 10% response to five. The collected signal has two customers: the algorithm, which can learn that certain profile combinations rate poorly despite high match scores, and the organizer's post-event report, where "meetings rated valuable by both sides" is a far stronger renewal argument than raw meeting counts. The common mistake is asking for feedback two weeks after the event in a long survey; by then memory has blurred every meeting into one, and only the delighted and the furious respond. One honest nuance: feedback is systematically skewed positive — people rate politely, especially when they suspect the counterpart might see it — so treat the scores as relative signal between matches, not as absolute proof of quality.