182 comments

[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 239 ms ] thread
Heh. It scored the CloudFlare DDoS protection page that it hit before my site as 26, so I've got that going for me, which is nice.
Nice, I got a 26 for my test page as well. It's on the same level as google.com.
It assigns itself the same mediocre score of 60 as it does for Apple.com?
Interesting idea, but it says the first site I tried doesn't exist, so apparently there are some problems at the moment.

Edit: Actually, all of the small/personal sites I've tried are failing, though a couple of big names worked. Is this a spoof?

Mine worked fine and it is a small personal website.
I achieved 60 (72% of users will like it) with my side-project[1] which is mostly an artwork, I believe its colorfulness helped the score a lot. I'd love for the algorithm to give me clear indications on what it believes I should improve, e.g. make this button wider, make the image bigger.

[1]https://bonfiretabletop.com

Many thanks for your feedback. We will work on that. Very useful insight.
(comment deleted)
Amusingly, from the comments here, it seems like everyone wants some kind of "HotOrNot" service for websites. Crowdsource the ratings! Then you can drop the "A" from "AI" :)
A HotOrNot service for websites is exactly what this AI is claiming to replicate. It's claiming to predict how users will like your website.
"Your website is visually GOOD"

Well thank you dear AI!

Visual Mind summary report for http://news.ycombinator.com

56% of users are expected to like your site

Also:

Overall your site has good layout and visuals. You can further improve your score by using more vibrant images.

I'm getting visually stunning for https://msb.com but I'm confused does it look only above the fold or the whole site? The screenshots only seem to show the top of the website
At the moment only above the fold. That is the first impression on the user. Algo works on first impression basis.
(comment deleted)
I got score 42 and 60 on visual appearance. My site is just a black page with a content editable paragraph.

With only two likes of text, which looks something like

Notes

--------------------------------

Wtire your notes here

The results under "Here are few websites with similar visual scores as yours" were especially amusing for my site.

I've received a score of 26 and the similar websites were:

- Generic unstyled XML Access Denied document.

- Google account log in page.

- Generic unstyled "Your request has been blocked" text.

- "Please verify you're a human" HTML error message.

- Random JSON error message.

I entered my personal website, https://merely.xyz . That website is served with a single request; perhaps it's been classified as an error page because of that?

i absolutely love your website.
I also got a 26 for a site I entered. It was a bit confusing because 26 happens to be a fixed point, the site gives you a score (26% of users will like your site) and also ranks you among all the sites people have entered (you scored higher than 26% of all sites entered).
Doesn't work on my website: "The URL provided is not correct"
My default Apache 404 page got a 38% of users will like it, 26 points for visually average, 20 for visual and 30 for clarity. After a few different URLs, my fail2ban kicked in, and the site complained about the URL being invalid. Fair enough.
Hilariously my blog (kn100.me) also got 38 percent and the site provides screenshots of other sites with similar scores, which were all 404/500 error pages... I thought my blog looked nice :(
Using my somewhat powerful but also flawed neuro net trained on over 20 years of intensive web usage gives your blog design a thumbs up. One suggestion is adding padding-top: 1em to the "Posts" heading to make it more clearly separated from the quick summary above it and more clearly related to the content below it.
my site https://hackerspad.net scored a 26 while the tool itself scored a 60. Furthermore, for both scores it says and I quote

  You can further improve it by using better images and considering little denser layout.
So as far as I think, we all have been had by this well designed funnel.
its definitely just a handful of scores and a handful of comments that get picked rather randomly. Just count the amount of "72%" posts in the comments here
68% of users are expected to like https://geocode.xyz

Here are few websites with similar visual scores as yours Facebook.com Vogue.com Microsoft.com ... I think I'm in good company.

While my personal blog https://eruci.com is really ugly:

"38% of users are expected to like your site"

Same as "Google.com"

(comment deleted)
> Your site is visually VERY GOOD

> Your website is better than 72% of millions+ websites analysed by Visual MIND AI

for: http://doomlaser.com

What's it actually doing under the hood? Just taking a screen grab of the first few hundred vertical pixels x the full width? What's the actual resolution that it's grabbing, and how does the algorithm work and come up with scores? Is the system backed by some sort of data from a representative group of users?

Individual metrics 60/60 means u have fine balance...Algo keeps on refining as it processes more data..scores are just indicative not to taken as absolute basis. Thanks for trying.
(comment deleted)
offtopic: love your games!
Thanks! https://doomlaser.itch.io has a bunch of the free ones. It gets "better than 84% of millions+ websites analysed by Visual MIND AI", with a 90 in "Visual Appearance", whatever that might mean :)
I think I stumbled upon your itch.io page at some point because I remember Shit Game, but never got a chance to really play it, hopefully I can get to play some of these this time, nothing can go wrong with that 90 visual appearance score!
Ah, cool. I think it still holds up. I put some heart into it, anyway.

Of my free games, the most personal and artsy is probably Standard Bits. It premiered at Gamma 256 in Montreal next to Jason Rohrer's Passage, and people have said some nice things about it over the years: https://doomlaser.itch.io/standardbits It takes place on a 100x54 pixel field, blown up to full screen, and you control a single pixel on a journey. Named after the low-level pixel blitter in the original Macintosh toolbox API..

For some reason this one won't start up on my macOS, gave some error dialogs on first time but I didn't get a chance to see what's exactly said, looks like a wine issue though. However I really like what I saw from the short video, I can smell some alternative / interesting gameplay there, it reminds me of some of Michael Brough's games. (I'll try download the windows version and use the maybe newer version of Wind on my system)
More like generate a random number from 30 to 90 and show gibberish data, cool idea though to fool small businesses into improving their visual score and charging money, good gimmick though
I'm not very convinced of this AI. I got 96% for http://peppermind.com and only 68% for https://talumriel.de - I'm almost certain that most users would prefer talumriel, and both scores them seem overrated to me. I mean, I really have no clue about design...
Thanks for this really. I looked it and trust me AI has got this completely wrong ..we will include this as exception when we train again.. thanks for trying..
Wait, how do you know it got it completely wrong?
talumriel is unreadable for me because of overlong text width. Dunno maybe it's a factor, but overall it does look cleaner.
Mine is supposed to be good looking (score 90), but too complex (score 20). It’s a simple content in the middle + sidebar layouts. Indeed, very complex.
Input: http://dokimos.org/ajff Output: 50% of users are expected to like your site

Input: https://www.wikipedia.org/ Output: 38% of users are expected to like your site

I think dokimos is way cooler :-)
(comment deleted)
I’m sure it would suggest using better pictures on wikipedia.
Wikipedia is not that bad, but the first site is faster.
I think it lacks animated gifs.
got nauseated. still funny.
Does anyone else miss marquee text on the internet? Internet, you used to be cool.
Or blink. You can achieve the same effect with css and Js though
38% is also the same as a 403 Forbidden page.
68% would like brrr.money, so I'd wager it is well calibrated.
(comment deleted)
The site mentions:

> Visual Mind is an AI engine specifically designed for understanding and scoring visual appearance of a website. Visual Mind has analyzed over a million websites to achieve an accuracy rate of over 97%.

How does accuracy work in a project like this, where the result is subjective?