How realistic is this?

I understand it is possible, but in the realm of mate puzzles why focus on pinning the queen instead of mating the king?

They should categorize these puzzles so we know if the intent is to mate or "play chess".  I hate how chesstempo reverses the board so you have to insert the position upside down to analyze.  How realistic are their puzzles?

Chesstempo's puzzles are realistic because they are from real games. I'm sure you could find a site that only has checkmate puzzles if you wanted to, and this would help you get better, though to keep getting better at chess you'll have to improve at all kinds of tactics.

In normal chess games you don't have someone to whisper in your ear, "there's a mate here" or "look for a skewer now" so that aspect is very realstic. I'm not sure what you mean by "in the realm of mate puzzles." Is there a setting on chesstempo where you're only supposed to have checkmate puzzles?

As for the board being flipped, I think perhaps you changed your settings so that White is always on the bottom.

"Chesstempo's puzzles are realistic because they are from real games."

That wasn't the point.  I am not challenging the position as fake or real.  I am stating we should know if we are working for a mate or not. 

When you start from the beginning you choose the first moves, so you know you aren't going for an immediate mate.  If we are to do these puzzles, we are assuming we need to grow.  In addition we are not playing an opponent, so we don't know the intent of the position or when it occurred if in a real game.  These things should be mentioned.  In a real game you can follow the moves to a current position.  Chess puzzles should reflect real game play also.  That was my point.

"What made you think this was a mate puzzle?"

You obviously didn't understand my post then.  I wasn't claiming it was or wasn't a mate puzzle even though it is obviously not.  I was claiming ambiguity as to it being a mate puzzle or not.

It would be like giving a story problem, "You have one day to build a house, explain how you would do it."  then later give the solution as "Hire a contractor."  The premise of the game of chess is to put the king in a mating position, not just gain an advantage.  If the premise of building a house is to hammer in the last nail it should say it.  If it says you can get someone else to do it, then it should state that as well.

I have plenty of difficulty with mating problems, so I am not claiming any superiority in this.  In fact those are the problems I want to work on.  As far as these other puzzles, I want to see explanations not just move answers.

If I get a trade correct, I already know the reasoning.  I am none the wiser.

If I don't get a trade or other move correctly, then I most likely don't know why.  Again, I am none the wiser without some explanation.  So, I prefer to read theory books and talk with other players regarding puzzles like the above one.  I could see an advantage with the pin, but I was playing by the rules with the goal in mind to checkmate, not just get an advantage.

In a real game you can follow the moves to a current position.  Chess puzzles should reflect real game play also.

Such puzzles are called tactical puzzles for a reason; your task is to find one tactic that gives you the best position afterwards, be it to mate the opponent or just to gain a material advantage or even just to simplify things out. The exact same reason is why chess compositions spell out the exact stipulation (such as "mate in 2", "selfmate in 3", or "release the position") instead of just giving you a position without purpose. (An exception is endgame studies, where the stipulation is "White to play and win/draw".) If you want the stipulation spelled out for you, try chess compositions (which generally don't help you on OTB play).