This site analyzes your browser history and guesses your sex. I thought it would have a hard time with me, since I spend so much time on political and financial sites . . . but apparently Bed, Bath and Beyond gave me away:
Likelihood of you being FEMALE is 99%
Likelihood of you being MALE is 1%
Weirdly, my various banks and the Bureau of Labor Statistics are also listed as female skewed sites. And apparently men never, ever read their evites.
Copyright © 2010 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
I'm 80% female, apparently, but the odd thing is that it appears to be caused by my recent series of visits to white pages/people finder sites. Of course, what I was trying to do was find defendants for service, but that is apparently a pretty girly thing to do.
The other odd thing is that I've been looking at a lot of model airplane and model rocket sites lately, which for whatever reason didn't seem to do anything for my manliness score.
Isn't it also possible that men simply receive fewer evites than women?
It pegged me appropriately as male. But why am I seeing Lane Bryant ads on every other website I go to?
I'm 94 percent male, which suits me just fine. I'm also mildly bemused at the ease with which this random website was able to access my entire browsing history. I mean, holy crap. I'm not doing anything illegal or even mildly bizarre, but - man - that was easy.
John
My results came up 99% male, but I was interested to see that apparently looking for apartments or real estate is apparently a decidedly feminine thing to do. As is attending my university, oddly enough.
What the heck does THIS mean?!?
Likelihood of you being FEMALE is 50%
Likelihood of you being MALE is 50%
Wow, it pegged me at 92% chance of being male. Drudge is apparently heavily male but the kicker is that I've visited web sites linked to World of Warcraft.
Likelihood of you being FEMALE is 50%
Likelihood of you being MALE is 50%
It means you've disabled browser history, either because you're browsing from a public site or because you're a security-conscious bastard like me.
67% probability of being female. I'm not, apparently must be blocking all the time I spend at ESPN and porn sites.
Is there a reason the asinine Amanda Marcotte comment from July 1st is still up on the right as "Comment of the Week"?
Javascript.History
It's easy, this link will make you go back 3 pages in your history.
For more advanced manipulation, this link should take you to your last Google search.
The links are href="javascript:history.go(-3)" and href="javascript:history.go('google.com') respectively.
Now, pull the values of those into a string instead of putting them in a browser command, and that's how the site works.
And javascript links are disabled by the board software, so ignore the "this link should do X" stuff.
I was 92% male. My most male site, a la CyndiF, was Drudge, and my most female site was beliefnet.
84% male - fantasy football websites game me away, but a recent visit to zappos.com pulled down my score
It give me 81% female (and I'm male)
Apparently travel sites skew female, but since I travel a lot for work, delta.com, continental.com, virginatlantic.com gave it the wrong impression.
I'm 73% female, which is fair, since I have a wife and three daughters who very occasionally use my computer. The algorithm does not weight by how often you visit, just by whether you visited. I myself never went to hotmail, continental (why is that female-biased?), or AOL. So I'm probably closer to 50-50 in my own browsing.
I showed up as 99% female (which I am not). It appears that websites used for paying bills skew heavily female, and that more than overwhelmed the World of Warcraft sites mentioned by CyndiF
Likelihood of you being FEMALE is 74%
Likelihood of you being MALE is 26%
Hmm... definately male. Bluefly (and travel sites) skewed it. Surprising as the only people I know who shop on bluefly are guys. I hate the mall but still want to dress well and can wear off the rack just fine.
78% male but only 3 sites actually showed up in the report. It seems that educational websites do not make the top 10k so my work history isn't very useful for this.
We really don't! Evites are deeply annoying, the mails hide critical information behind a link so that you are forced to go to the website and wait half a minute for it grind advertisements into your eyeballs before you get to see the address for the place you're going to which you'll immediately forget about completely and then be unable to get to again because the evite was sent to your work address but the party is on a weekend when you're not in the office and can't get to the evite email any more.
Javascript.History
I would imagine it's based on cookies, most browsers allow third party cookies by default.
Those Javascript tricks only work client-side. Without the UniversalBrowserRead privilege you can't use the history object.
73% Male (which I am). However, very few of my regularly read websites showed up in my examination, and the small list actually included some that I don't even remember visiting.
Without Drudge and RearClearPolitics, I would have been a girl.
Yancy, how does the 27% of you that's female feel about Obama?
We are going to vote for him even though we don't agree with any of his stated policies whatsoever.
That formula skews female. The more popular sites you visit, the more likely the tool is to think that you are female. See:
http://not-that-sane.blogspot.com/2008/08/script-that-analyzes-your-browser.html
100% Male, which I am. That's interesting, because if you looked at my TiVo you'd think there was a female in the house.
What sites on your list have the highest male and female ratio's?
Male: Mr. Skin = 2.23 (shocking!)
Female: Television without Pity = .32
if you looked at my TiVo you'd think there was a female in the house.
I'm picturing a bright pink knit TiVo cozy.
It got me somewhere in the middle - FEMALE 54%, MALE 46% - which is usual for me. (I'm male, incidentally.)
I, for one, never look at my evites, or my ecards, or any flashy (or Flash-y) Webbernets stuff like that.
I'm pissed. I'd be more of a male if I didn't visit a recipe site.
98% male (and yes, I'm a guy) - it looks like politics and financial sites are heavily "male". The most "male" site was pricegrabber.com, an electronics price comparison site; I was looking for a motherboard recently.
My most "female" sites were salary.com and safeway.com...
97% Male (I'm not, but got a little giggle out of it). I blame newegg, the most male skewed site at 2.33 male/female ratio (I built a new comp recently). What did surprise me was that most of the gaming sites (most but not all about world of warcraft) weren't *that* male: most around 1.1, 1.2.
"What did surprise me was that most of the gaming sites (most but not all about world of warcraft) weren't *that* male: most around 1.1, 1.2."
The official warcraft site wasn't too heavily male but curse.com was: apparently, not many girls download addons.
I also visited political sites and mountain bike sites, all very boyish.
I was 58% male; oddly, the most female skewing site* was TWOP, where I was reading Battlestar Galactica recaps--not usually an estrogen heavy choice.
*On the family room computer, which I share with my children.
69% male - I'm practically a metrosexual. Lots of chicks pulling their credit reports apparently.
63% male.
Only site mentioned was Slashdot, which apparently has a larger female readership than I would have ever guessed. (I would have guessed near zero.)
I guess the other websites in my history aren't the most popular ones, so they didn't have info.
Plus, my browser cleans up after itself, so they couldn't go too far back.
The flaw in this methodology for gender classification is that it implicitly assumes that males and females surf the web with equal frequency, but just visit different sites. If, for example, men generally have a larger than 50% presence on the web, then the gender classification will have a male bias. As a simplistic example, suppose the male/female surf frequency were 51/49, but that there was no further gender preference among web sites, then everyone would come up as about 40% female, 50% male, that is, prob(female)=1/(1+(51/49)^10) based on their methodology of looking at the gender breakdown of the top 10 web sites visited.
The flaw in this methodology for gender classification is that it implicitly assumes that males and females surf the web with equal frequency, but just visit different sites. If, for example, men generally have a larger than 50% presence on the web, then the gender classification will have a male bias. As a simplistic example, suppose the male/female surf frequency were 51/49, but that there was no further gender preference among web sites, then everyone would come up as about 40% female, 50% male, that is, prob(female)=1/(1+(51/49)^10) based on their methodology of looking at the gender breakdown of the top 10 web sites visited.
Whoops, sorry for the double post (dangerous to refresh the comment page), but while I'm at it the male percentage in the hypothetical example should 60%, not 50%.