TL;DR: Agreed on the “check the match questions, especially the ‘unacceptable’ ones” comment! The enemy rating can be a total lie.
Oh jeez, OKC match questions. I’m sometimes amazed that the site works as well as it does when the match questions (and their answers) are so terrible. Some very common problems I have with them:
1) Questions where the only possible answer is nuanced—“Would you date a person who ?” for some X that has a wide range of possible meanings—and the only possible answers are yes and no. No “maybe”, much less an “it depends”, never mind the chance to choose an answer specifying the thing it actually depends on. I just skip these, usually.
2) Questions/answers which presuppose an attitude on some subject. “If you discovered a first date was carrying condoms, would you tease them about it?” and all four possible answers indicate that this is a bad, or at best neutral, thing to do. My answer to this one is actually true—I probably wouldn’t say anything—but I’d approve and there’s no way (that is relevant to the algorithm; the “explain your answer” box is ignored for purposes of percentages) to indicate this approval.
3) Questions where, for example, there’s two acceptable answers, one unacceptable one, and one great one. Problem is, you can only specify that an answer is “acceptable” or not, and then rank how important it is that the other person’s answer is one of them. Do I mark all three that I’m OK with and say this is important, to strongly exclude the fourth, or rank it less important because two of them I’m not actually strongly in favor of are nonetheless acceptable? Or mark only the one great answer as acceptable, and then say it’s important because if you agree with me that’s great and should bump up our match percentages… or that it’s less important, because I’m excluding some options that would actually be OK?
4) Questions (or occasionally answers) where I want to give one answer based on what the question appears to be asking (if interpreted a little generously), but a more direct/literal interpretation requires a different (often opposite) answer. Do I accept the answer that I’d probably end up giving if I was asked this in person and gave the asker a chance to clarify, or do I actually answer the question as asked even though the way it’s asked is stupid and/or misleading? Am I actually being asked my view on the topic, or am I being asked whether it’s more important that a partner have good reading comprehension and basic decency/familiarity with well-known historical events and the ability to draw obvious parallels? Or maybe whether they answer things literally as asked, or are good at identifying the asker’s intent?
Not to derail this thread into a discussion of OKC’s amazingly-effective-despite-its-frequent-terribleness match question system, just pointing out that, despite my own suggestion of checking the enemy percentage, the enemy percentage can be a lot higher than is warranted. I have seen numerous cases where our answers were mutually unacceptable but, as explained in the “explain your answer” box, we actually have the same view on the topic. Sigh...
TL;DR: Agreed on the “check the match questions, especially the ‘unacceptable’ ones” comment! The enemy rating can be a total lie.
Oh jeez, OKC match questions. I’m sometimes amazed that the site works as well as it does when the match questions (and their answers) are so terrible. Some very common problems I have with them:
1) Questions where the only possible answer is nuanced—“Would you date a person who ?” for some X that has a wide range of possible meanings—and the only possible answers are yes and no. No “maybe”, much less an “it depends”, never mind the chance to choose an answer specifying the thing it actually depends on. I just skip these, usually.
2) Questions/answers which presuppose an attitude on some subject. “If you discovered a first date was carrying condoms, would you tease them about it?” and all four possible answers indicate that this is a bad, or at best neutral, thing to do. My answer to this one is actually true—I probably wouldn’t say anything—but I’d approve and there’s no way (that is relevant to the algorithm; the “explain your answer” box is ignored for purposes of percentages) to indicate this approval.
3) Questions where, for example, there’s two acceptable answers, one unacceptable one, and one great one. Problem is, you can only specify that an answer is “acceptable” or not, and then rank how important it is that the other person’s answer is one of them. Do I mark all three that I’m OK with and say this is important, to strongly exclude the fourth, or rank it less important because two of them I’m not actually strongly in favor of are nonetheless acceptable? Or mark only the one great answer as acceptable, and then say it’s important because if you agree with me that’s great and should bump up our match percentages… or that it’s less important, because I’m excluding some options that would actually be OK?
4) Questions (or occasionally answers) where I want to give one answer based on what the question appears to be asking (if interpreted a little generously), but a more direct/literal interpretation requires a different (often opposite) answer. Do I accept the answer that I’d probably end up giving if I was asked this in person and gave the asker a chance to clarify, or do I actually answer the question as asked even though the way it’s asked is stupid and/or misleading? Am I actually being asked my view on the topic, or am I being asked whether it’s more important that a partner have good reading comprehension and basic decency/familiarity with well-known historical events and the ability to draw obvious parallels? Or maybe whether they answer things literally as asked, or are good at identifying the asker’s intent?
Not to derail this thread into a discussion of OKC’s amazingly-effective-despite-its-frequent-terribleness match question system, just pointing out that, despite my own suggestion of checking the enemy percentage, the enemy percentage can be a lot higher than is warranted. I have seen numerous cases where our answers were mutually unacceptable but, as explained in the “explain your answer” box, we actually have the same view on the topic. Sigh...