Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Today The Stranger Suggests | More Violence at 14th and Aloh... »

Friday, August 1, 2008

The Internet Predicts Your Gender

posted by on August 1 at 11:00 AM

This website can allegedly predict whether you are a man or a woman based on your browsing history. Of course, these sorts of things can often be covers for horrendous computer-buggery, so I bravely volunteered my browsing history to see if something awful would happen. Nothing did, and the website seems on the up and up. I’m also pleased with my results—I came up 98% man, 2% woman, which is maybe the most masculine assessment that’s ever been made of me.

RSS icon Comments

1

At work, I'm 76% female and 24% male, which I think is accurate enough. I thought it would be higher, considering how much time I spend at work looking up football news, but it doesn't seem to get into specifics about what Guardian site I've been on.

Posted by Abby | August 1, 2008 11:18 AM
2

You'll always be 50/50 in my book, Paul.

Posted by Ziggity | August 1, 2008 11:26 AM
3

More interesting than the overall female / male rating is the ratio reported for specific URLs. I can understand, for example, why scienceblogs.com might have a ratio of 1.44 M/F but a 0.79 M/F ratio for irs.gov is a surprise. Among other feminine sites are: apple.com (0.89) and my bank (0.87). NHL.com has a seemingly low M/F of 1.35.

Posted by jebus h. xst | August 1, 2008 11:28 AM
4

Huh. I'm surprised my work browser history has me at 93% female, given how much time I spend on news sites, USS Mariner, istockphoto, etc. I guess, um, eonline.com and bravotv.com sort of sank me. The shame!


Posted by leek | August 1, 2008 11:29 AM
5

Likelihood of you being FEMALE is 93%
Likelihood of you being MALE is 7%

Not bad...

Posted by schnoodle | August 1, 2008 11:30 AM
6

What I find odd is how it pulled up sites in my browser history that I think I've visited only a few times in the past two months, like linkedin or Perez Hilton (or the King5 website, which I visit so rarely that I can actually remember the distinct reason for going there), while not touching the sites I spend the most time on, like the AV Club or NewsNow: Arsenal or something. Odd.

Posted by Abby | August 1, 2008 11:34 AM
7

I'm 97% female
3% male

And now my testicles are sad.

Posted by C | August 1, 2008 11:36 AM
8

Abby: It's only selecting sites from this Quantcast Top 10K sites thing, I guess, which I now realize is why something like USS Mariner clearly wouldn't be on there.

Posted by leek | August 1, 2008 11:37 AM
9

Ahhh. I wonder what it would look like if it actually analyzed my browser history? Most of the sites I visit probably aren't on there. Would I be more female or less?

Posted by Abby | August 1, 2008 11:40 AM
10

It does seem to miss out on things, maybe based on URL discrepancies. avclub.com, for instance, is in the top 10k sites, as is nwsource.com (the base domain for The Seattle Times, the P-I, and all their classified sites), which I go to a gajillion times a day but didn't pop up in my history.

Posted by leek | August 1, 2008 11:43 AM
11

I'm dumb. Never mind, nwsource.com is in there (skews male, too).

Posted by leek | August 1, 2008 11:44 AM
12

thestranger.com, however, is not. slog.thestranger.com must not register as part of the larger site. (thestranger.com is in the top 5k sites!)

Posted by leek | August 1, 2008 11:46 AM
13

Yeah, its limited site recognition can skew things.

It put me at 54% male (I'm a chick). Mostly because I was on mininova.org today; otherwise it would have had me at 50/50.

Which you'd find amusing if you knew me.

Posted by violet_dagrinder | August 1, 2008 11:47 AM
14

My results from work:
Likelihood of you being FEMALE is 38%
Likelihood of you being MALE is 62%

...but I'm female. Maybe it'll be different from home. It was surprising to learn that icanhascheezburger has a higher ratio of men visiting it than google.

Posted by Stacy in Austin | August 1, 2008 11:52 AM
15

Likelihood of you being FEMALE is 54%
Likelihood of you being MALE is 46%

Too close to call? (Mind, I was female the last time I looked.)

Site Male-Female Ratio
facebook.com 0.83
flickr.com 1.15
cafepress.com 0.8
icanhascheezburger.com 1.04
gutenberg.org 1.06

Posted by Tiram | August 1, 2008 11:54 AM
16

I'm a girl. I'm a hetero girl. I'm totally a girlie girl and I'll kick you in the ass with my 5 inch stilettos if you disagree. And yet:

Likelihood of you being FEMALE is 27%
Likelihood of you being MALE is 73%

Look, just because I go to Game FAQs and Urban Dictionary and the fucking Stranger doesn't mean I'm a guy. It means I cheat at video games and don't understand half the slang I read on Slog, which I have a compulsive need to read and post to. Stupid? Yes. A male? NO!

Posted by PopTart | August 1, 2008 11:56 AM
17

UPS skews male, but USPS skews female. That's amuses me.

Posted by Abby | August 1, 2008 12:03 PM
18

Good thing I cleared my browser history just now.

Posted by Will in Seattle | August 1, 2008 1:10 PM
19

I feel like I should win something for this...

Likelihood of you being FEMALE is 100%
Likelihood of you being MALE is 0%

Posted by The General | August 1, 2008 1:22 PM
20

i thought i was a female. too much shoe browsing i guess.

Posted by infrequent | August 1, 2008 2:49 PM
21

should be "it thought i ..." oops. well, that explains part of the problem. my typos...

Posted by infrequent | August 1, 2008 2:58 PM
22

But it doesn't calculate how much total time you spend on the sites....I spend an inordinate amount of time at Facebook (0.83) but only long enough on the Michael's website (0.47) to find out when they close. Also, I have wasted most of the last two days at Flickr (1.15) but that doesn't seem to skew my results at all.

Whatever. This at least makes more sense than that one site that could guess whether you were male or female based on your blog entries.

Posted by Sarah | August 1, 2008 5:16 PM
23

I'm 53% female? I guess it missed all that gay porn in my browser history.

Posted by Patrick | August 2, 2008 11:16 PM

Comments Closed

Comments are closed on this post.