Eastwick, Finkel, and Simpson (2018) advanced recommendations for “best practices” in testing the predictive validity of ideal-partner matching. We respond to their article, including new analyses of existing data, to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of different tests, and set out conclusions that differ from those offered by Eastwick et al. We (a) argue that correlations between ideal standards and partner perceptions are relevant to the Ideal Standards Model (ISM), (b) show that important methodological and statistical issues qualify their interpretations of prior research, (c) illustrate a new analytic approach used in the accuracy literature that tests (and controls for) confounds highlighted by Eastwick et al., and (d) provide evidence that the direct-estimation measure of ideal-partner matching is a valid and useful method. We conclude with a cautionary note on the concept of best practices.