Thursday, November 30, 2006

WORDS: How Readable Is Your Writing?

I'm floored with work today, including a segment I'm working on for Definitely Not the Opera, but I thought I'd pass along a nifty little tool, on the off chance that you've got a fraction more free time than I do.

According to the Juicy Readability Test, the writing on my site ranks somewhere between
Reader's Digest and Newsweek. with a score of 9.75 on the Gunning-Fog index. I'm still trying to figure out what the hell that means, but in the meantime, here -- why not try it for yourself? (And it goes without saying that the Internet Code of Honour requires you to tell me your results.)

21 comments:

jagosaurus said...

Looks like I'm in your range with a 9.88 Gunning Fog Index value.

Very interesting exercise.

Quillhill said...

Well I'm embarrassed to say I only made it up to 9.47. Hmmph!

Anonymous said...

i think i'd like to see a second one where they test your math skills, cause i can't get it anywhere near the right range (indidently, i calculated yours to 512, Doppelganger). alas.

--Deb said...

Interesting, I only made it to a 7.08 on the Gunning-Fogg . . . clearly, speaking mostly of knitting is bringing me down (grin)

velocibadgergirl said...

8.63. Not too bad, I guess!

Doppelganger said...

Oh, but I should've been clearer! I don't think a higher index value is necessarily a good thing. In fact, as someone who used to freelance edit legal texts, I can see where a high score could be a decidedly BAD thing. Someone once told me that it's easy for someone to explain a complex concept in complex terms; true genius lies in explaining a complex concept in simple terms.

Anonymous said...

7.78. Since I think like a middle schooler, I suppose it's appropriate that my writing is mostly readable to them.

August said...

11.21 on the Gunning Fog. I'm not too concerned, though. My blog started out as quasi-academic, and my style is deliberately baroque. The few readers I continue to have know what to expect by now.

Anonymous said...

Gunning Fog Index score: 9.71

I think that it's the excerpts I'm always pulling out of American Newspapers that brought me down...

Juliane said...

WhoHoo! 7 and change! I admitted I enjoy grade-school style humor and can handle no more conflict than that found in a G-rated movie, so who's surprise my writing would be the same?

Jess said...

I'm at 10.13 for what is essentially a collection of travel writing. Apparently, I become ever so erudite whilst trudging through the hot streets of unfamiliar countries.

I'm not sure that this is a good thing, however. What if I'm just verbose?

eninnej said...

I find it interesting that my Gunning Fog index was 7.65, but my Flesch-Kincaid score was about half that, at 4.77 since both tests are supposed to indicate how many years of school are necessary to understand your writing. After spending two years writing academic essays and my thesis, it's nice to know that I could still apparently get a point across to a middle school audience if I needed to. :)

CQ said...

6.99 and proud. my name gronk. my blog easy to read. me go eat food now.

Em said...

7.98 on the Gunning Fog.

Sarah said...

Gunning Fog, 6.88
Flesch, 76.78
Flesch-Kincaid, 3.72

I think I am managing to be both immature AND erudite. Which is a pretty accurate summation of me, actually. Go me!

Ali said...

6.35 for sugarandspite.com

Did I win? Is there candy?

Her Ladyship said...

Gunning Fog Index 8.31
Flesch Reading Ease 76.97
Flesch-Kincaid Grade 5.26

Yeah, something's fishy about this. How can there be such a difference between the two scores which indicate how many years of schooling are required to understand my writing? Still, um, I guess that means it's open to mostly everyone? Right? Not that I'm, well, a bit slow?

Udge said...

Gunning Fog 8.33
Flesch Reading Ease 73.47
Flesch-Kinkaid Grade 5.32

I'll have to think about what this actually means. I'm inclined to say that my relatively low score is a good thing, that George Orwell would approve of my high proportion of very simple words. Yes, that sounds about right.

Udge said...

Okay, I've figured out what it is that bothers me about this evaluation: it's measuring the words as abstract objects, not comprehension. The clue is in their list of examples, where the Bible is given to be more readable than Readers' Digest. I think most readers would agree that the Bible is significantly harder to understand than e.g. Danielle Steele.

And because I don't have a life, I ran it over my archive pages and got a surprisingly high variation:

Gunning Fog: 7.16 to 10.37
Flesch Reading: 66.51 to 77.91
Flesch-Kincaid Grade: 4.22 to 7.37

Cum grano bloody salis.

Anonymous said...

Thanks, that was fun. I scored a respectable 9.15. Doesn't mean much, though, as it can't judge creativity.

Like you blog, very fun.

SA Dave

Bybee said...

I scored an 8.21 on the gunning fog index.
The other readability test I scored a 74-something & it says to aim for a 60-70 range. That's something to be mindful of when I write future entries. Thanks for posting this quiz. I really enjoy your blog.