[quote]bushidobadboy wrote:
I am left handed, yet my right hand average was 184 and my left hand ave was 206.
I’m guessing that since I have to use my right hand to norm,ally operate the mouse, I am ‘trained’ in my right to click more efficiently.Bushy[/quote]
I’m left handed, yet my right hand is stronger. It would be interesting to practice clicking with the left hand and see the results after that. I mean, I would like to see the results, if you can take a hint 
[quote]Doug Adams wrote:
pookie wrote:
Different kind of test: http://iqtest.dk/main.swf
Well, I got 104. Probably should’ve gotten more but I always rush on tests like this.[/quote]
hah same but only took 10 min on it because it was really boring
I am lately getting consistent hits in the 170s ms.
Before it was around 185 ms on average.
Fastest hits are around 160-165 ms.
Hete is another reaction test,yet a little bit different.
First time I tried,I averaged 0.224 s.
In this test you get penalty for clicking too early.Cool!
You also have to have sharper eye,cause only small dot changes colour.
I wonder how fast as other people.
0.207 on Fechfido test.
Hope to hit under 0.2 s
0.196 s.It says thats FAST!!!
Its nice to see that those years wasted at boxing not only contributed to brain damage ,but also to some sharp reflexes!
Here is another cool reflex test with cartoon sheeps.
Give it a try.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/sleep/sheep/reaction_version5.swf
I have to agree w/ dragonslayer about the timing thing. I averaged about 206 but had one that was 85 and my lowest was 63. Of course there were a few that surprised me and were in the high 200’s. 
[quote]shizen wrote:
Well, I got 104. Probably should’ve gotten more but I always rush on tests like this.[/quote]
10 mns? Boy, you must be good.
Anyone could beat 105?
I sucked, was 48 out of onle 57. I blinked at the wrong time on one and was in the 300’s. If not for that one I would have had an average of about 220.
Best was 170
I was pissed so when I got back from lunch I did it again and got 104ave. Saved some face.
I started hitting low 170s consistently with some rare hits in the 160s.
I struggle to get to at least 150 ms.
250ms looking at the screen
180 looking at the screen in peripheral vision
err?
[quote]TKL wrote:
250ms looking at the screen
180 looking at the screen in peripheral vision
err?[/quote]
I noticed the same thing,but also if you focus on one spot in the center of the screen,you will be even faster.
Also,holding my breath enables me to react quicker.
Keep practising.
Whenever I go on the net,I spend a few minutes on this test.As I get bored,my results suffer,so I quit after a few minutes.Keep consistent.
My problem is also wireless mouse that is slower than wired one.
My training method for this reflex test is to keep pencil and a piece of paper near me,so I go for the fastest time and write it down.Then I try to beat that time.
Today
193 ms
192
183
177
175
173
169
169
161
So you write down November the 11 2007.=161 ms
Cheers!
From a technical point of view, this clicking game may be skewed depending on the hardware it operates on. Assuming the designers aren’t silly enough to make the app phone home and record the time on their server, the only solution would then be to rely on the local system clock. The responsiveness of your system, the scheduling scheme of the kernel you’re running, and a myriad of other elements can affect the results by quite a lot.
If you want something reliable, do the same on a dedicated piece of hardware (microcontroller, FPGA, etc…), a stripped down system (BIOS, low runlevel, etc…). Else, the recorded times are very likely to be rubbish. Of course, you could just get a life…
[quote]lixy wrote:
From a technical point of view, this clicking game may be skewed depending on the hardware it operates on. Assuming the designers aren’t silly enough to make the app phone home and record the time on their server, the only solution would then be to rely on the local system clock. The responsiveness of your system, the scheduling scheme of the kernel you’re running, and a myriad of other elements can affect the results by quite a lot.
If you want something reliable, do the same on a dedicated piece of hardware (microcontroller, FPGA, etc…), a stripped down system (BIOS, low runlevel, etc…). Else, the recorded times are very likely to be rubbish. Of course, you could just get a life…[/quote]
There is life outside of Internet???!!!
I’m #19 with 170ms