If you're struggling in the dating scene, it might not be your fault; blame it on your location, especially if you live in one of the worst cities for singles.
WalletHub compiled a list of 2017's best and worst cities for singles, through an analysis of 182 cities nationwide. Analysts compared the cities using a multitude of factors, including dating opportunities, fun and recreation, and economics.
Single on the west coast? You're probably enjoying your freedom and all of the prospective dates around you, with three of the top five cities for singles landing in California. San Francisco ranked as the overall best location, although it'll cost you — it was one of the lowest ranked in economics, for its high restaurant costs and overall high costs of living.
You'll never have to worry about finding an exciting date option if you're in the city that never sleeps, though that'll cost you, too. New York ranked number one for fun and recreation, but ranked dead last in economics, based off of the high prices of cocktails, meals, and movies.
The most affordable city for singles? Burlington, Vermont. But you won't be so lucky if you're single in nearby South Burlington, which came in as the worst city for singles overall. The city of around 18,000 had one of the lowest singles gender balances, and ranked in the bottom ten for fun and recreation. At least singles there will be able to numb their sorrows with some ice cream — the city is home to the Ben and Jerry's headquarters, and the famous ice cream company's factory is in neighboring Waterbury.
However, it might be best to take these rankings with a grain of salt. For one thing, the analysts heavily weighted the "singles gender balance," a ratio of single men to single women, in its findings, ignoring the fact that not all single people are seeking a partner of the opposite gender. So if you're single and queer, these rankings might not matter much after all.
Read these stories next: