4 ms·
Honestly, I don't think it's that useful to eliminate candidates after one disagreeing stance. While ideal, there will never be a candidate with who I fully ag
by bcohen123 11y ago
Honestly, I don't think it's that useful to eliminate candidates after one disagreeing stance. While ideal, there will never be a candidate with who I fully agree with. It would be much more useful to ask multiple questions and report back with which candidate's views align most closely with mine.
- alexwebb2 11y agoAgreed - as it is currently, if you: - disagree with Candidate A on issue 1, but agree on issues 2-10, and - agree with Candidate B on issue 1, but disagree on issues 2-10, you'll be matched with Candidate B purely because Candidate A (a 90% match) was eliminated for a single disagreement. I applaud the idea, but this needs a bit more work before it can come anywhere close to www.isidewith.com.
- nanch 11y agoHey bcohen, understand your comment completely and I agree that a matching system based on partial matches is also a good way to do it. There are 2 reasons I eliminate candidates after disagreeing stance. 1) It was easier to code and I just wanted to get this site up. :) 2) You can always press the "skip" button to ignore the question. I think it's an interesting dynamic and really engages you when some candidates are eliminated, then you realize that issue might not be very important to you, click the "go back a question" button and "skip" that question. What you end up with is a personal list of important issues for you and you can say "I'm voting for this candidate for these specific reasons". Thank you for the feedback and trying the app out bcohen.