A million years ago, when computers were slow, internal memory was "ferrite-core" and data was stored on reels of tape, I had a job where one of my responsibilities involved analyzing "warranty data" generated by a large automobile manufacturer. It was not uncommon for a single family or product to sell over a million units a year.
It only took a little while to realize that LARGE data pulls took a long time to process. The up-side was that the results showed better stability.
Another thing I learned was to front-end-load the most aggressive filter. You see, our software was extremely primitive. It simply wrote selected records to another file as each criteria was sorted.
Suppose I was looking at warranty work on the interior door-panel for the front-left doors on specific colors of 1980-through-1983 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme sedans.
Using the specific warranty codes for interior door-panels as the first filter might eliminate 97% of all of the claims while choosing "Oldsmobile" as the first filter might only eliminate 75% of the claims while sorting first on interior colors might only eliminate 60% of the claims.
In the first case, the second "pass" would only have to process 3% of the original population while filtering first by "color" would result in the second pass having to process 40% of the original population.
That philosophy guides this discussion of "Efficient algorithms to find quality women"
Is the woman looking for a guy?
A quality woman who is actively looking for a guy is like a ripe banana on the grocery shelf. She won't be there for long.
If she has a guy and is looking for another, then she is a trader-upper and you are just a stepping-stone to greener pastures. If that is what you want...well, OK. But she doesn't meet my definition of a quality woman.
If she is a quality woman and recently ended a relationship, she might not be in the market...yet. Offer empathy. Be kind. It costs nothing. Don't push. You might have found your one-and-only before she is ready. Or maybe you will still be available.
It is likely that only 3% of the women you encounter are "actively looking" for a man at any one time. But don't fret if there is nobody in that 3% that tickles your fancy because that 3% has a high turn-over rate.
OK, I can already hear some of you grousing that the number is much, much higher than 3%, but how many of those girls are looking for a place-holder or an accessory and not a life-mate? They think they need a guy because all of their girlfriends seem to have one? Really, they are just another form of a trader-upper.
Those kinds of relationships do have a function. They give us a test-bed to convert hypotheticals to actual. How pretty does she actually have to be? Can you stand a younger brother who is a mooch? Do you really want a clinging-vine or a woman who wants to be in-control? Those "practice" relationships help us define the boundaries of the universe where the choices are acceptable.
Is she "Results Oriented" or "Process Oriented"?
Most of my readers are Results Oriented but I am not going to assume all of you are.
Some professions that are primarily RO are nurses, waitresses/cooks, business owners who make a profit, teachers who are pro-testing, cops, fire-fighters.
Some professions that are primarily PO are office workers, Human Resources, Social Workers, teachers who are anti-testing, public sector and businesses that are subsidized by outside funding (trust-fund babies).
It is worth noting that Results Oriented/Process Oriented is a spectrum. Even cops and nurses have standard processes and procedures (lists of questions to be asked in a specific order, flow-charts). The difference between an RO and a PO is that the RO OWNS the situation when it goes off-script. Arterial bleeding? The RO is not thinking about CYA. They are responding to the situation.
Hobbies that are RO are gardening, sports, running, hiking, fishing, fiber-arts, baking.
Hobbies that are PO are social media, social activism...
If you are strongly Results Oriented and your mate is strongly Process Oriented, there will be conflict. The primary motivator of the Results Oriented person is satisfying needs and what the job-site looks like after you clean up. The primary motivator of the Process Oriented person is to deflect potential responsibility blame. Those are two very different mindsets.
Attitudes about money
Most divorces are triggered by money, family priorities and sex in roughly that order.
All three are surrogates for control/dominance. All three share the characteristic that they are limited resources with many potential claims on them. Knowing a girl's attitudes about money gives you a pretty good handle on how they are likely to handle family and intimacy conflicts.
One way to get a feel for another person's attitudes about money is to ask "What would you do if you bought a lottery ticket and won a million dollars?"
If she isn't honest in her answer, then you are done with her.
If she says she will throw a huge party and post it on social media to impress people...you can do what you want but I would take a hard-pass.
If she is sophisticated enough to talk about splitting up the million dollars and putting a little here and a little there and maybe squirreling a little bit away just-in-case, then you probably have a keeper.
Summary:
Sort with most aggressive criteria first and I recommend "Is she looking for a long-term man" as the first sort.
Use "practice" relationships to learn your own, internal value map.
Results oriented/Process oriented is another early-sort.
Asking about a hypothetical lottery ticket is a non-threatening way to sound-out how sophisticated her thinking about money is and to learn about her need for approval from social-media.
Note to readers:
This post was going to be smooth and well honed but rabbit-holes emerged by the hundreds. So take it for what it is. It is a discussion about efficient search algorithms that uses "looking for a soul-mate" as a light-hearted example.
The Divine humor is that just after we get the tiniest bit good at looking for a gal, we get permanently taken off the market.