Let's see, there's Match, and OKC, right?

In her words, she wants to be with someone who is a "grown-up". I strongly suggest not putting anything in her profile about wanting to be with someone who has already worked out their crappy childhood or issues or is a grownup or not a man-child or whatever. Just in my short time of browsing profiles (I am your friend's age and have been doing what http://ask.metafilter.com/260169/Lets-see-theres-Match-and-OKC-right#3779303 suggests for a while), comments/criteria that talk about what you're not looking for (drama, bs, immature people, princesses, man-children, cheaters...) set off my flag-o-meter, sounding like the person isn't fully over their prior experience.

Another vote for OKCupid. I am 44, and while yes, the site does generally skew younger it is not some sort of wasteland for the 40+ set. Note: It's important to fill out not just the profile/about me section but to answer a meaningful amount of questions (100+). That's how their matching algorithm works. Also, it's free, so there is no downside to trying it out.

My dad and stepmom met on Match.com. It's better for older, divorced people looking for a second serious go than okcupid is, IMO. Okcupid is better for younger, more casual, less religious, and less mainstream dating.

I am currently the world's biggest OKC fan. I recently left a six-year marriage, and a friend convinced me to sign up. I am not looking for anything serious right now, which does mean my candidate pool is a little bit different. But so far my luck is great. I'm also only 34, but I date older, and a lot of the people I've gone out with have been in their early 40's. And, while there are obviously a lot of dreadful people on that site, as anywhere, there are also a lot of really great ones. I am incredibly glad I took my friend's advice, even though the idea of online dating seemed very strange at first. I live four blocks away from someone I recently started dating, but we never would have met if not for OKC, because our social circles are completely different. Let alone the ones I live farther away from. I find the match algorithm pretty helpful; though not, of course, infallible. It seems that a lot of what it looks at is one's general outlook on social and political matters, which is very important to me. I know when I get a high match/low enemy rating, I'm going to be talking to a guy who is not racist, not sexist, in favor of gay rights, and socially liberal in general. Also not especially religious, not looking explicitly for marriage, and friendly toward skinny tattooed 34-year-olds with unnatural hair colours. I've found it extremely helpful. And, yeah, I've used the "Do you think women are obligated to keep their legs shaved?" question as a dealbreaker before. (I do, but ain't nobody obligated to do nothin', buddy.) I also always note that it's worked very well for me not to do the optimize-for-general-appeal thing that seems to be the conventional wisdom. If you are very forthright about who you are in your profile, then you know, if the person messaging you has bothered to read it and is still saying hello, that he's actually interested in *you*, and has some idea what he's letting himself in for. I've gotten dozens of messages telling me that mine is the most honest and interesting profile they've seen on OKC. Some of those people explicitly say that they don't think we would be a good match, but they wanted to tell me they appreciated that. Apparently that's a good way to stand out. I do list a few things I don't want. And I'm sure some people don't like that. But that's fine. I don't want to get the most messages. I want to get the *right* messages. And I don't get the 50 messages a day that I guess a lot of women do this way. Which frankly makes the experience a lot nicer. I haven't tried any other sites, because I'm getting exactly what I want out of OKC. And what I want is different from what your friend wants, but I do see profiles sometimes of men who seem to be seeking the same thing she is. It's definitely worth a try. Tell her to have a glass of wine, sit down and make a profile and have fun with it. I love living in the Future.

Just don't do "plenty of fish". Not scientific at all, but friends have consistently found mentally unstable people from that site. I have no idea why.

I suggest creating a minimal, vague, photo-less, throwaway profile on multiple sites (don't break the bank) in order to browse. That way, your friend can see whether there is anyone who interests her currently on any site, and if so, does that person have the same profile photo on multiple sites. Also, she can get a sense of how many and what type of messages she gets when the only thing dudes know about her is that she is a female with a dating profile. She can get comfortable with the blocking and hiding features. Your friend will start to recognize cut-and-paste insincerity, so that when she eventually creates a real profile, she'll more easily be able to sift through the crap.

eHarmony is a site that bills itself as being geared specifically towards marriage. When I used it (at least jeez, six years ago, now?) it was a paid service. Their whole gimmick was a matching algorithm that keyed to "compatibility," rather than stated preferences or shared interests. Basically, users had very little agency in terms of browsing and contacting others on their own. eHarmony made a periodic list of people it thought you might vibe with, and was "wrong" more often than "right." So, you might go a week or more without any matches, only to get a handful, none of whom appealed. Even if you did like one of those pre-selected profiles, you were encouraged to go through a lengthy process of exchanging form questions -- again, chosen/written by eHarmony, not you -- that could be answered in an a, b, c, or none-of-the-above format. My overall experience was one of frustration and boredom, with an element of creepy hand-holding (the founder was also the site mascot, offering tips and suggestions as though he was overseeing the whole thing). Ironically, the only person I went on more than one date with (after almost six months of nothing) turned out to be fundamentally philosophically incompatible with me, totally un-ready to be dating (let alone marrying), and more than a bit crazy. I'm sure they've improved things since that time -- I can't see how they'd still be in business if they hadn't -- but my impression was very negative. Match is better, allowing a good degree of self-guided selection and interaction. I met a girlfriend of 2+ years on that site. It is (or was, several years back) also a paid service, although I think they offer a money-back guarantee if "love" isn't found within a certain time period. My feeling was that it skewed a bit older than say, OKC, but there were still a lot of people available who fit my age and cultural bracket. I really liked using OKC, and found it to be the best fit for the types of people I was personally looking for. I think it does tilt "artsy/alternative/liberal" (which is ideal for me), but I know from skimming profiles that there are all kinds of folks on there. As mentioned upthread, they put a lot of effort into trend analysis and helping users create effective profiles. The matching algorithm isn't perfect, but it's largely helpful. And, the service is free, so it's low-risk for someone new to online dating. I met the most possibly-compatible people on OKC relative to the other sites I've tried, although the amount of actual dates was about the same as on Match. The interface and process feels intuitive and comfortable, so even if things don't pan out after talking to a given person, there's more of a feeling of optimism and progress towards a goal. My guess is that OKC is best for larger metro areas (there were hundreds of thousands of positive matches available in my midsize Midwestern city), so LA should be a good pool. My current, 2+ years girlfriend met me on this site, and if I hadn't met her, I'm certain I would have met a different awesome person soon enough. Whatever your friend does, make sure to advise her not to pick one of the services that pop up on her facebook sidebar, or elsewhere on the web. I tried one that I'd seen advertised extensively (thus giving me the impression that it was legit), only to be met with robot profiles, inactive profiles, scammers, etc. And cancelling the "free trial" was a nightmare. Craigslist is also probably best avoided; I feel like I met more desperate/dishonest people on there than on other sites, and with the wealth of dedicated services now available, it's kind of unnecessary.

I enjoyed my time on match.com. Pay sites get a better quality of men than free sites like okcupid. Okcupid is fun but don't put a face picture on it or any personal information. If I were to do a paid site again, I would try howaboutwe.com because it looks like it would be fun. Some tips- Never give out any personal information other than a first name. Investigate your guy before you meet him in a public place of your choosing. Men like to talk about their accomplishments. Talk to him on the phone. Pay attention to google friendly facts and then google his name, his user name, and/or his email with one of those facts. Example: John Jones runner baton rouge. If you can't find confirm anything about him, don't meet him. Set up a meeting within the first few weeks of contact. There are men who will string you along for years, writing poetry for you and promising you forever, without ever committing to a date. Avoid these boy/men. Everyone is nervous on the first date and everyone puts on their best face. Do not tell him where you live or work until after the third date. Do not sleep with anyone until you have met someone in his real life and he has taken down his online profile.

Another OKC success story here - early 40s divorced professional woman. I went on OKC at 41. I was overwhelmed with messages from professional, degreed or multiply-degreed men - divorced, never-married, kids, no kids - in a tight range around my age (meaning not 60 year-olds, though I got a few of those). I found it an embarrassment of riches and wish I'd done it sooner. I live in a mid-size Southern city that is super family-oriented, so I had no idea how many single men were out there. I agree a photo(s) is crucial. No one will take you seriously otherwise. I never had a bad experience and I've been with my wonderful man for a year and I thought their matching was spot-on. I answered tons of questions and it really worked. All my high (90%+) matches were really great fits for me, at least for a few dates. I only went out with five guys, and they all seemed to be emotionally healthy-ish for our age. Of course, a few dates or a month or so of dating doesn't show all in that regard. I was totally surprised by the non-bias against over-40 women. I had many, many young (20's-30's) sincere, serious guys who wanted a serious relationship/marriage (i.e., not cougar-hunters) message me. My man is younger. My guy and I looked through each others' FB friend lists and we did not know ONE single person in common! We never would have met otherwise. Good luck to her, whichever one she decides! It's so fun (but can be overwhelming for women - so many messages). I agree to look at it as a fun experience to meet lots of people and to not get all het up about it.