Microsoft Research has developed a tool to measure how butch is a web site. (Via Doug Tygar.) In Theory scores 54% male. It must be all those manly posts about math. (Although I have to agree with the first comment here.)
Advertisements
in theory
"Marge, I agree with you – in theory. In theory, communism works. In theory." — Homer Simpson
yeah, and think that this demo also claims that google is used only by women ๐
Well, my blog is 53% male. At least it predicted the age correctly (the correct age group is followed by 18-24, however).
I also recommend to test this: http://helger.livejournal.com/26429.html
My very standard-boring academic page is 64% female. The page of Vogue is 60% female.
The Berkeley computer science webpage (www.cs.berkeley.edu) is 89% female. I wish!
Estimated gender predictions for CS department home pages:
Washington CSE Female 98%
Berkeley CS Female 89%
MIT EECS Female 82%
UCLA CS Female 81%
UT Austin CS Female 80%
Wisconsin CS Female 80%
Harvard EECS Female 75%
MIT CSAIL Female 70%
Stanford CS Female 69%
Harvard CS Female 64%
CMU CS Dept Female 63%
UCSD CSE Female 59%
Berkeley EECS Female 57%
CMU CS School Female 53%
Georgia Tech College Male 53%
Georgia Tech CS Div Male 56%
Cornell CS Male 55%
Princeton CS Male 60%
Illinois CS Male 76%
Any theories?
The numbers from Princeton and Illinois, i.e. http://www.cs.princeton.edu/ and http://www.cs.uiuc.edu/ seem incorrect.
You mean, the other numbers seem correct?
no, in so far as the site actually says that Illinois is 54% female.
on the other hand, http://www.nra.org/ is 72% male. but oddly enough, the NAMBLA home page is 60% female.
Actually if you plug in
http:/www.cs.uic.edu/
and have URL rather than query clicked you do get 76% male for Illinois’ CS department website. Try it yourself.
The last comment is correct, but the original poster clearly intended UIUC (Urbana-Champagne) and not UIC (Chicago), given the caliber of departments they listed.
looks like the handy-work of Microsoft’s R&D group in Sigma in Beijng. the bad english in “Unknow with following probability” is a dead giveaway.