5 ms·

"he did win another typing competition using the CharaChorder to hit 267 WPM with 76% accuracy." 76% accuracy doesn't sound so great to me, no matter how fast

• thepete2 5y ago
  Yes, that's terrible. The finished text was not corrected in that time, was it?
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
• zeckalpha 5y ago
  It depends on how it is calculated. If that is one in four key presses vs one in four words it is very different
• bombcar 5y ago
  Interviewer: "I heard you were extremely quick at math" Me: "yes, as a matter of fact I am" Interviewer: "Whats 14x27" Me: "49" Interviewer: "that's not even close" me: "yeah, but it was fast" Shamelessly stolen, but yeah, 76% accuracy is only 3/4s of characters typed correctly; if that "works" you could probably just train yourself to not even type the lesser used parts of the alphabet ...
  • malshe 5y ago
    Thanks for the chuckle!
  • cafard 5y ago
    Back in the manual typewriter days, every typo subtracted 10 WPM from your score. (Source: my junior-high typing class.) It seems to me that 76% accuracy would put you into negative WPM by that reckoning.
    • bee_rider 5y ago
      Since WPM is a rate, and total typos is an accumulated values, it seems that whether this would bring you negative is a function of the test length. Seem like it would make test scores not very portable.
      • roelschroeven 5y ago
        The way it was explained to me years ago is that every error deducts an amount (probably 10, I don't remember exactly) from the running total of correct characters typed (WPM was calculated by dividing the number of characters by the time and by a fixed "average" word length (ISTR they used 6 (in Dutch)). So if you type 100 characters and 24 of them are incorrect, the counted total is 100 - 10*24 < 0, independent of the test length. This was in the time of typewriters; computerized text entry did exist but was certainly not ubiquitous. There was no real way to correct mistakes, so I can imagine typing correctly from the beginning was a bigger deal than it is now.
    • TehShrike 5y ago
      I like TypeRacer's approach – your time includes the time it takes you to backspace to fix your mistakes and re-type it correctly.
      • AQuantized 5y ago
        I don't think it's bad for 'competitive' typing but it's nothing like the real process where fixing mistakes at the end is almost a triviality instead of completely derailing your typing.
        • TehShrike 5y ago
          For most people, that involves relying on another service ("look to see what words have a red squiggly line under them"). It is not a good way to measure "typing speed".
      • masklinn 5y ago
  • obert 5y ago
    when taking notes a few typos are ok, e.g. "we got an avg of 14 complaints in our 27 stores" is "about 400 complaints" :-D
  • Yizahi 5y ago
    Lik zis: https://www.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/2o4rkq/english_to_become_official_language_of_the_eu/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/2o4rkq/english_to_be...
  • lowbloodsugar 5y ago
    idk, wrds nt lke mth.
• derefr 5y ago
  If software used for typing competitions is anything like a typing test in a typing tutor program (which give similar WPM + accuracy measures at the end), then it would track the number of incorrect inputs you make, but also wouldn't let you proceed (i.e. would ignore all further input) while any incorrect input remains in the buffer. With such software, you're expected to correct each word you type before moving on to the next; the moment that you submit the corrected word is the moment the word is acknowledged as "a word" counting toward your WPM. With such programs, the WPM score measures how many total times per minute you "finished" a correct word, including any time spent correcting the word; with the accuracy score measuring how much extra work was done, on average, doing those corrections.
  • Someone 5y ago
    This doesn’t work like that. It moves on to the next word the moment you type a space. Also, https://monkeytype.com/about https://monkeytype.com/about says: stats wpm - total amount of characters in the correctly typed words (including spaces), divided by 5 and normalised to 60 seconds. raw wpm - calculated just like wpm, but also includes incorrect words. acc - percentage of correctly pressed keys. char - correct characters / incorrect characters. Calculated after the test has ended. consistency - based on the variance of your raw wpm. Closer to 100% is better. Calculated using the coefficient of variation of raw wpm and mapped onto a scale from 0 to 100. So, they assume the average word has 5 characters. Makes sense for computing wpm in random text.
    • fragmede 5y ago
      You can go back and delete errors, and also the default corpus is random words which probably average out to close enough to 5 characters. There are other modes which include punctuation and capitalization, as well as longer quotes to type, as well as expert and master modes (which fails you on a wrong word or character, respectively). I've never heard about this site before but it's pretty full featured!
  • nosianu 5y ago
    In addition to the other reply, if they did that the test would be so far from real world typing to be meaningless and nothing but an inconsequential curiosity. Only in tests is there an option to check against what is expected. In the real world you could at most apply some dictionary and grammar checks, and we know those can go either way. Those tools don't know what you actually wanted to write after all, and still suggest without comprehension.
• badlucklottery 5y ago
  Yeah, way too low for programming but I wonder how low the bar is for modern autocorrect systems when writing English sentences.
  • oolonthegreat 5y ago
    one would think that programming requires especially low accuracy, since most of the things you type are either language-specific or previously defined.
• bluejellybean 5y ago
  I've been active in my typing practice since I was about 4, and once I'm warmed up I can usually hit high 120s with 100% accuracy on unseen MonkeyType using a qwerty keyboard with red Cherry switches. If I ignore accuracy and go for 'raw' speed, I am able to achieve significantly faster WPM, typically between the range of 140s-180s. The issue I run into with programs like these is that I have to read/match the expected words. Even if I can see the words ahead of time and have a moment to try and memorize, I just go so slow trying to get the correct words. To contrast this, when I write for fun, and know what I want to say ahead of time, I'm fairly certain I'm able to burst into the low 200s (don't have a solid way to test to be sure unfortunately). Depending on the complexity of the error, Grammarly usually spits out correct solutions when I'm around that 75% error rate. The vast majority of the time I'm able to auto-correct everything with a single click. The only exception is when my hands drift and I end up typing something like 'gppnst' instead of 'foobar'. What I mean to get at is that it's somewhat dependent on the types of errors that are made. If it's easily auto-correctable errors at 75%, awesome, the person is hitting an incredible WPM, if instead it needs to be corrected by human thought, then I would completely agree with you. The real benefit to this speed/accuracy is that when writing long-form text, rather than say programming, the speed of typing can either match or exceed the thought process. There is a huge amount of utility in this approach and the keyboard becomes a true extension of the mind. I'm still waiting to find a good real-time auto-correct that doesn't screw with my flow at high WPM, I'd pay pretty good money to have something that just works out of the box. On a practical note, I've considered trying to hit the numbers that the author claims, but I'm already so limited by my own train of thought. With the additional finger/wrist strain (And yes, there is _significant_ strain when these levels are approached for any length of time) I just don't see the costs making sense when everything can be fixed in just a few clicks after typing a great many paragraphs of text.
  • Sebb767 5y ago
    > An activity that it is easy to learn the basics of, but difficulty to gain proficiency in, may be described as having "a steep learning curve". It's the same for me. I doubt I can hit 200 WPM, but when I'm typing what I'm thinking (like right now) I'm significantly faster than when I type something I've never read, especially if it's just random words. On the other hand, I've never been much into measuring my WPM (I can type sufficiently fast for everything I need), so I just assumed this was a skill one can train to actually get those insane scores.
• nawgz 5y ago
  I just went on 10fastfingers and got 124WPM with 100% accuracy on the 60 second test. Can't say I'm impressed either - 2x as fast in exchange for far worse accuracy and use of a predictive layer is pretty bad overall.
• aphit 5y ago
  It's not 76% accuracy of the final text--it's 100% accurate, it's just that the way you get there using the CharaChorder is recognized by Monkeytype as inaccurate. If I type the word "hello" on my CharaChorder, I type the keys `helo` which Monkeytype will recognize as an inaccuracy. The CC's internal firmware then recognizes I typed helo and wanted hello and will backspace the word and replace it, much as if you did the same thing. Do this on enough words where the chord trigger doesn't line up with the chord and you get the ~75% number. But the final text is 100% accurate
  • ec109685 5y ago
    How does it know you weren’t intending for hole?
    • aphit 5y ago
      Every chord is explicit. I think someone else in comment thread mentioned that it comes preconfigured with 500 chords--these cover the 300 most common English word (some duplicate chords in case you prefer to hit them one way or the other). It's up to you (or someone else if you import their library) to setup and configure different chords. This is one of my least favorite parts about the product--it's advertised such that it seems like it is magical but really it is just like have a bunch of macros. So in this case, you might have h+l to indicate hole, or h+o, or h+e--whatever is most comfortable for you. Hole is not configured out of the box so there is no way to chord it...but it is just like a keyboard in that you can just type it. You can type h, o, l, then e just like you would on a keyboard. It's this mixing and matching of character entry + chording which makes the device pretty interesting.
      • ec109685 5y ago
        Thanks. That’s definitely the missing piece that wasn’t explained in their TikTok videos. He talks about creating custom cords for odd words, but not something like hole.