The optimal outcome involves weighing the ongoing costs of search against the benefits of taking the best option currently available.
I recall this "37%"/Secretary rule (had to google the name, lol) that you should go through slightly more than a third and reject everything, and then pick the best you see thereafter. I can't grasp the logic behind it (@SimpleStacker or whoever needs needs to write up the rundown of this: https://statwizard.substack.com/p/when-you-should-marry-and-settle).
It's as good as any way to balance accumulating search cost with running out of time. (And, I posit: we also suck at knowing what is/isn't good for us or who we are, so just doing it will both teach you that and become good/good enough over time)
I recall this "37%"/Secretary rule (had to google the name, lol) that you should go through slightly more than a third and reject everything, and then pick the best you see thereafter. I can't grasp the logic behind it (@SimpleStacker or whoever needs needs to write up the rundown of this: https://statwizard.substack.com/p/when-you-should-marry-and-settle).
It's as good as any way to balance accumulating search cost with running out of time. (And, I posit: we also suck at knowing what is/isn't good for us or who we are, so just doing it will both teach you that and become good/good enough over time)