Re:What's wrong with OKCupid's matching algorithm.
by crasshopper on Friday November 25, 2011 @02:26AM
(#3276494)
OK, so -- the point of the article is not (1) whether astrology is a science, (2) that there are 7 continents, (3) whether the sun is bigger than the Earth, or (4) whether any of those are good filters on dates.
It's about the general principle that (a) OKC should make Mandatory questions only count as negatives, and (b) unless they do that, users shouldn't make "factual" questions including (1, 2, 3) mandatory.
Maybe they shouldn't have been mandatory in the first place because you can love someone who believes wrong facts, that's a valid point as well but doesn't relate to the algorithm design issues.
It's about the general principle that (a) OKC should make Mandatory questions only count as negatives, and (b) unless they do that, users shouldn't make "factual" questions including (1, 2, 3) mandatory.
Maybe they shouldn't have been mandatory in the first place because you can love someone who believes wrong facts, that's a valid point as well but doesn't relate to the algorithm design issues.