
An Interview with Tom Quisel, Former CTO of OkCupid (2017) - imartin2k
https://logicmag.io/02-algorithmic-arrangements/
======
sundarurfriend
This is quite interesting.

> You might provide answers for how you feel that night, which may not be
> reflective of your larger perspective. [...] So that’s one of the big
> challenges: understanding what someone is really trying to say when they’re
> answering questions about their preferences.

> There could be two different interpretations for the question, and you just
> answered one of them. [...] Knowing this can happen, we use the algorithms
> to help us understand the statistics behind each question, and we’ll try to
> identify questions that are the most likely to be mistaken in this way so
> that we can remove them.

These are both issues with the question system that users have raised concerns
about, and generally assume that the question-matching data is just going to
be messed up by these. So, to learn that they were actually addressing these
issues in code with statistics and analyses, makes the whole system seem a lot
more sensible.

He also talks a lot about ethics and fairness and grassroots ideals - and with
OkC it did seem like those were more than just corporate talk, they realy were
a user-focused, transparent company for a long time. He seems to have left
before the Match.com acquisition (I'm assuming) though, and unfortunately
there have been complaints after that that the company is gradually moving
away from those ideals.

~~~
e40
_He seems to have left before the Match.com acquisition_

Oh, I didn't know that. Never used match.com but I've heard such terrible
things. Does this mean OkC has jumped the shark?

~~~
lr4444lr
OkCupid in their OkTrends blog where they discussed interesting findings on
their data once had a post about how the data showed that paid online dating
was a losing proposition for the customer. That post was quietly taken down
after the match.com acquisition.

~~~
purerandomness
Here's the cached article: [http://static.izs.me/why-you-should-never-pay-for-
online-dat...](http://static.izs.me/why-you-should-never-pay-for-online-
dating.html)

"Why You Should Never Pay For Online Dating".

A very interesting read, and one of two articles that were removed as part of
the Match.com acquisition. Does anyone remember the other one?

------
lumberjack
>But in general, we focus on making it an experience that doesn’t discriminate
and encourages people to be their best selves.

Well, you failed miserably. Not just OkCupid but online dating in general.

I think it is one of the few aspects of 21st century life where the
Internet/technology made us more close minded instead of more open minded. If
you are at a party and meet five different people, you will immediately notice
something that you don't like about them, but you will give them the benefit
of doubt and engage them in conversation for at least five minutes and allow
them the chance to show you their best selves.

No such thing in online dating.

~~~
meri_dian
But that sort of behavior makes sense in those two contexts.

At a typical party you have a finite number of people to interact with. So you
might as well work with who's available.

Online, the number of people available to us is practically infinite so we can
afford to discriminate.

~~~
toomuchtodo
This paradox/abundance of choice is artificial though. Dating apps could throw
up a counter of the total number of people you will be permitted to interact
with over a window of time, which creates scarcity that forces the user to
increase their efforts accordingly.

It’s entirely possible to encourage positive social behavior with technology.

~~~
meri_dian
Would that make sense to implement from the perspective of a dating app
though?

Users could just move to another platform without artificial scarcity and...
stay there, because there is no scarcity.

I'm not sure that coercing people to settle is positive behavior, but
regardless, enforcing artificial scarcity isn't a feasible strategy for a
dating app.

~~~
toomuchtodo
Everyone settles, realistically speaking, as you’re optimizing for a local
maximum when dating, not a global maximum.

You’re equating more choices with better outcomes. I argue that isn’t the
case. Unless we’re going to feed every data point we can into a ML black box,
and out will come your arranged ideal partnership (there’s even a black mirror
episode about this).

Getting to know people sounds more fun, but I’m old _shrug_

~~~
meri_dian
What you're saying is true, I just think users would feel they're being forced
to settle if their choices are limited.

To be fair though, if people could be convinced to buy into the platform with
its restrictions, it could make for an interesting experience.

While Tinder profiles are built for speed, with only a few pictures and
blurbs, profiles on your platform could have much more detailed biographies,
videos, etc...

It would be a more immersive experience.

If done right I think your idea does have potential.

------
aurelianito
How to use OKC matching questions in your favor:

1\. Answer a lot of them. Always answer very abruptly (all the questions are
very important).

2\. Look for interesting potential partners.

3\. Remove the questions where you disagree.

4\. Enjoy your 99% match and message him/her.

------
stevehiehn
Interesting. I often ponder how to approach creating a training set for a
match making AI. It seems like the most difficult part is getting long term
feedback. Analytics on first date compatibility would be easy, but metrics on
long term relationship success would be very difficult.

------
rowyourboat
> And in fact, for a very long time we resisted allowing people to filter by
> race—we felt it just wasn’t appropriate. > But then we learned about some
> use-cases from the other side—someone who is Filipino who wants to find
> other Filipinos easily. We found that that’s a pretty legit reason to search
> by race, so we added that feature.

I don't understand. What other side? And why are Filipinos special? How is
that fundamentally different from any other race-based selection?

~~~
alexandercrohde
I can't tell if you're playing devil's advocate here. I'll translate what the
CTO was saying;

"And in fact, for a very long time we resisted allowing people to filter by
race—we felt it just wasn’t appropriate." \--> A significant portion of our
users wanted to be able to filter by race, but we were afraid it'd create an
internet shitstorm.

"But then we learned about some use-cases from the other side—" \--> So here's
the semi-PC thing we invented to cover our ass, just to give our users the
feature they wanted anyways without being the target of a social activism
campaign.

Regardless, they have since removed the feature.

~~~
rowyourboat
Thank you. I wasn't playing devil's advocate. I am not from the US, and the
specific hangups and dos and donts Americans have around the issue of race are
a bit alien to me.

(That's not to say I am free of hangups, but mine are different)

------
mynameishere
I guess. But it seems like a lot of pretending. Maybe I'm too cynical, but men
have a pretty basic algorithm for choosing a mate:

1\. Is she acceptably attractive?

2\. Is she acceptably not crazy?

Match those two things and you are 99 percent of the way to the chapel. Women
have more complicated criteria mainly because what they really want (someone
at the top of social pyramid) is ineluctably scarce.

~~~
Udik
Well, let's say that those factors are the most immediate ones for attraction.
This doesn't translate much to "the chapel".

I've been thinking a bit about online dating (heh) and dating in general. My
latest idea is that a successful match is not much a matter of _state_ , but
rather a matter of _process_. Two people might be well suited for each other
but to get beyond the most superficial attraction you need time spent together
and meaningful experiences.

They could create a dating website that encourages "matches" to go through a
set of random activities, that would be fun (and, I guess, successful).

~~~
kelukelugames
The problem you have to solve is convincing people to invest time in a
stranger. And forgo safety. After a few online dates people learn that writing
skills don't always translate to personality. Stunning photos don't mean
stunning in person.

~~~
Udik
The safety aspect can be managed (much as it is already done in online
dating). But yes, you definitely have to invest a bit of time- it might be
worth it if it works better than tens of casual encounters that go nowhere.

