The question is worded "Do you consider astrology to be a legitimate science?". So if you answered "Yes", you're an idiot in my book.

Many, many years ago I had a girlfriend who I adored because she was a wonderful musician. She had loads of conflicting crackpot spiritual opinions that we argued about, but I didn't care. It was fun whilst it lasted. It wasn't going to last, and I knew that and didn't mind because I liked being with her in the meantime.

I still have the astrology chart she drew for me.

I didn't know I didn't care about the nutty side until I met her.

I wouldn't have met her via this algorithm.

Just saying.

OK, so -- the point of the article is not (1) whether astrology is a science, (2) that there are 7 continents, (3) whether the sun is bigger than the Earth, or (4) whether any of those are good filters on dates.

It's about the general principle that (a) OKC should make Mandatory questions only count as negatives, and (b) unless they do that, users shouldn't make "factual" questions including (1, 2, 3) mandatory.

Maybe they shouldn't have been mandatory in the first place because you can love someone who believes wrong facts, that's a valid point as well but doesn't relate to the algorithm design issues.

I wouldn't consider somebody an idiot if they misunderstood the word as astronomy. That seems like the kind of mistake normal people might make occasionally.