Allow me to sum up, on behalf of the rest of the oilom. Nice, good looking, compatible. These three are on virtually everybody’s list, just use a thesaurus.
Any mention of middos, nature, kind-hearted, etc, all fall neatly into the category ‘nice’.
Attractiveness, commonly agreed to be in the eye of the beholder, fits nicely with ‘good-looking’, i.e. what the other is looking for in terms of looks, be that good looking enough or some more stringent qualification.
And ‘compatible’ is also, as is everything else, subjective, but it encompasses common list items such as ‘intelligent’, ‘funny’, ‘aims’, ‘ideals’. I know that may be a bit too non-specific, but consider this. When people write ‘funny’, for example, or ‘intelligent’, both of which are mentioned above, they mean somebody who shares their level of intelligence or sense of humour. I am sure that if the one who wrote ‘intelligence’ met somebody with far superior intelligence, they would not be happy with that, as the two of them would not be on the same page.
Which leads me on to my main point regarding ‘compatibility’. A large number of the items on lists are purely subjective, meaning there is very little measuring point. In the same way somebody who writes ‘funny’ wishes someone not necessarily with an amazing, but with a similar sense of humour, many values are really just ‘compatible’ in a different term. However, I don’t believe ‘nice’ or ‘good-looking’ necessarily fall into this camp, at least not completely, because virtually everybody agrees on standards of attractiveness, meaning it is not just an issue of compatibility but a separate issue of appeal, what they look for, as opposed to how they match up. And the wish for somebody who is good-natured, i.e. ‘nice’, is also universal, and does not fall into the ‘compatibility’ camp.
Just sayin’.