Seems like it'd be a little more honest to plot the range rather than the average, and report the range of ages you likely are rather than the "exact" age you are. I have aged between 23 and 55 so I suspect that the data aren't quite as neat as they're presented.
It's fun and looks to be designed to go viral, but seems pretty useless. I got anywhere from "We're not sure you're an actual human being" to being a 47 year old.
I may be off here but, I found that when I had the window fullscreen the graphics were rendering very slowly and my reaction times were very slow. I then made the window smaller and the graphics were much smoother time and my reaction times were much better.
This is definitely the case. I went from it guessing I'm 35+ with a reaction time of 450+ms to alternating "We're not even sure if you're human" and a 19 year old, averaging near 250ms.
I sure hope I remember to turn down graphics settings next time I'm out for a drive.
Same for me. Full screen I'm consistently in the 21-25 range, but shrinking the window down to about 400x400 I'm consistently not human! This is with a powerful gaming computer too...
Monitor refresh rate also makes a difference. I have a monitor that I use for video editing work which is locked at 24Hz. My "age" is consistently older when putting the window on that monitor than my main monitor at 60hz.
The animation was very jerky, and I had to press the keys about three times for it to even register. Maybe a better title would be "How laggy is this website based on your reactions?"
It would be nice to know something about the accuracy of the age estimate (stdev? or 66% of 29-year old's trials are between blaah and blaah?), and also, how many tries did the test subjects get. I got a couple of "we are not sure you are human" ratings after a few tries (around ten tries total).
I really like the idea but it's completely off. What it should do is measure your reaction time: the time between the sign appearing on screen and the user pressing the mouse or tapping the screen. What it does is include frame rendering time. I apparently have the reaction speed of a 80-year-old at 22 (900ms), while I'm sure my reaction time on computers is around 225ms (measured on different occasions).
Also, you compare with the average, but what's your error margin? Were there 25 year olds that got 350ms and 200ms or did everyone consistently get between, say, 240 and 250?
This. There's a reason many reactiontime experiments in e.g. neuroscience use a photo sensor on the screen to figure out when exactly the stimulus comes, and then compare that with reactions like keypresses by sampling both signals on the same AD card.
> We're not sure if you're an actual human being With the reaction time of (271) milliseconds.
Really? That is like two deaths by a railgun in quake III. And lets not go into the real twitch games like Ninja Gaiden or DMC III royal guard. Or random bulletstorms ...
Edit - couple of more trys - consistenly under 300 ms. The majority of time is lost in the click itself. With Type M ior cherry red could probably shave to 200-sh. Also getting better results with keyboard (cherry blue) vs mouse (DeathAdder)
If you get anything under 295 ms it gives you the "not sure if you're an actual human being" message. If you get a score of 295-305 ms it claims you have the reaction time of an 18-year-old, which seems weird as I would've guessed reaction time peaked later in life.
"You have the reaction of a 23 year old". Since I'm 45, I guess I should take that well, but I would guess it has more to do with spending my 45 (one way) mile daily commute watching for animals on the road.
The Macbook I took it on is by no means fast. I do take the point about judging hand-eye by methods with such a potential for variance. I do wonder how one overcomes that on the web?
Being told that I have the reaction time of an 18 year old at age 52 means that I believe this website dispenses the gods'-honest truth. I'm even inclined to ignore that the steering wheel is where none of the gods wanted it.
Interesting, I get a decade younger with each try...
Doubt there is much behind the conversion between reaction time and age, but it's a nice setting to test your reaction time :-)
My reaction time is 25 years worse than my actual age according to this. I am not particularly surprised although I question the variance in their methodology.
This is a silly knickknack intended to promote justpark.com. It doesn't work, and even if you account for differences in other variables (mouse vs keyboard, rendering speed, etc.), it probably can't work reliably given the variation in reaction times between members of the same cohort.
With my wireless mouse, I was getting anywhere from 37 - 55 years old. Using the touchpad on my laptop, I was getting 50 - 60. Using my keyboard, most often I got "we're not sure you're an actual human being" but sometimes it said I was 18 or 19. The lowest one I had was 241 ms.
Unfortunately not a great experiment. The first time through I expected to see a 'stop' sign, so I was doing what I do when I drive, scanning the road, looking at signs, making sure the deer on the sides aren't going to jump out. When the 'STOP' flashed on the screen it took me by surprise because I was looking for a stop sign, not for what's essentially a pop-up to come out of nowhere.
My reaction time was initially scored as '42 year old' (I'm 37). The next time through it was a 20 year old. The third time it told me I might not be human.
51 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 162 ms ] threadIf anything, their model suffers from omitted variable bias--the power of your computer!
I sure hope I remember to turn down graphics settings next time I'm out for a drive.
Also, you compare with the average, but what's your error margin? Were there 25 year olds that got 350ms and 200ms or did everyone consistently get between, say, 240 and 250?
Really? That is like two deaths by a railgun in quake III. And lets not go into the real twitch games like Ninja Gaiden or DMC III royal guard. Or random bulletstorms ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VCX4p3Iw3M
Edit - couple of more trys - consistenly under 300 ms. The majority of time is lost in the click itself. With Type M ior cherry red could probably shave to 200-sh. Also getting better results with keyboard (cherry blue) vs mouse (DeathAdder)
That it consistently underestimates my age by a couple of decades certainly makes me want to link to it and boast.
Meow.
I was 57 the first time though.
It might be a good idea to standardise just on keyboard or mouse.
update: when you actually know what will happen it skews in other direction. I got 312 ms (20-year-old) after several tries.
My reaction time was initially scored as '42 year old' (I'm 37). The next time through it was a 20 year old. The third time it told me I might not be human.