I had secretely reviewed Clicck some time ago:
It is based on 2 terrible mistakes.
"Clicck's current questionnaire based on Big Five theory and the Neo is being reworked to generate a more in-depth review into what makes a potential mate tick, providing users with a much clearer and potentially more successful match."
based on Big Five theory ???
The ENSEMBLE (whole set of different valid possibilities) of the primary domains of the Big5 is 10E5 (quantized from 1 to 10) and 10E10 (by percentile)
The ensemble of the 16PF5 is: 10E16, big number as All World Population is nearly 6.7 * 10E9
The Big 5 traits personality model is good for orientative purposes but not good enough for predictive purposes.
"Because the Big Five groups the more specific primary-level factors, feedback organized around the five Global Factor scales is more easily understood. For detailed feedback or predictive purposes, one should assess the more specific primary factors. Research has shown that more specific factors like the primary scales of the 16PF Questionnaire predict actual behavior better than the Big 5 Global Factors. For example, one extravert (a bold, fearless, high-energy type) may differ considerably from another (a sweet, warm, sensitive type), depending on the extraversion-related primary scale score patterns, so deeper analysis is typically warranted."
Extracted from the 16PF5 Manual
The 1st version of the 16PF test was invented in 1949 and no actual Online Dating site is using it. (Now in the 5th version, the 16PF5 actualized after year 2000)
MORE than 60 years of experience with the 16PF test!!!
"Clicck matches users through a combination of its patent-pending facial recognition software, compatibility test and cutting edge biochemical attraction analysis."
If they plan to use DNA matching for heterosexual couples, they are dead, because:
Basisnote, GenePartner, ScientificMatch and other proposals offering DNA matching are only based on the T_shirt Experiment that only proved:
normally cycling women (not pregnant and not taking contraceptive pills) are (temporarily) attracted by the perspiration scent of clothes used by men with a Major Histocompatibility Complex MHC more dissimilar to theirs,
and not proved: women attracted by those men for long term mating with commitment.
2 Scientific Papers debunk their claims.
1) "Human oestrus" Gangestad & Thornhill (2008)
"Only short-term but not long-term partner preferences tend to vary with the menstrual cycle"
2) "Does the contraceptive pill alter mate choice in humans?" Alvergne & Lummaa (2009)
".. whereas normally cycling women express a preference for MHC (Major Histocompatibility Complex) dissimilarity in mates, pill users prefer odours of MHC-SIMILAR men, indicating that pill use might eliminate adaptive preferences for genetic dissimilarity."
"Recently, Roberts et al. attempted to eliminate these potential confounds by adopting a within-subject design in which women's mate preferences were assessed before and after they began taking the pill. Women starting the pill showed a significant preference shift towards MHC SIMILARITY compared with three months before the pill was taken, a shift that was not observed in the control group of normally cycling women."
What is important in attracting people to one another may not be important in making couples happy.
Latest Research in Theories of Romantic Relationships Development outlines: compatibility is all about a high level on personality* similarity* between prospective mates for long term mating with commitment.
*personality measured with a normative test.
*similarity: there are different ways to calculate similarity, it depends on how mathematically is defined.