The goal at first was to just see what numbers people gravitate toward. I've heard lots of conjecture about how people pick 7 or 3 or 4 more than others, and for a variety of reasons, but had a hard time finding actual demonstration of this. Then, while implementing a choosing system, the problem became: how do you present the information so as not to bias it? This is why there are four different ways of picking. There are also a couple other metrics being measured, including a difference in phrasing (Pick a number… vs Pick a random number…) which may be interesting.
Apologies for any bugs or general wonkiness. The whole thing was a ~2 hour impulse project.
PS: The data will absolutely be shared! Just need time to do a breakdown of all the different permutations.
Interesting idea, but the slider may not be a great interface. It stops the experiment being purely about numbers - I found I picked '5' because it was close to being nice and symmetrical.
Hey, so I submitted it to reddit thinking it might get you a few more responses. It kinda ended up being the number one link on the front page. Hope that didn't hurt too much.
I would imagine you would get a distribution favored to 3 and 7. We did similar research during a Cognitive Science class. We asked a number from 1 to 4, and got over 40% 3's.
We also did research to find favored Mastermind patterns. Bias was a large problem there too. When presented with colors, people would pick a single color more often or place the same colors next to each other. When presented with letters, people would try to spell out words.
Peculiar: In product pricing and conversion testing, prices with 7's and 9's seem to provide more favorable results. I believe this is akin to the favorite-color bias we happened upon (7 is my lucky number!), mixed with the slight confusing nature of calculating/rounding down a price ending in 7 or 9 (hey, it's still $2999, so just 2 grand and then some).
Whenever I see these sorts of things I try to psych them out. In this case I deliberately thought of a number, discarded it, and repeated this process several times (rather than putting down 7, which was my first thought). So, unless you're trying to measure frequency of picked numbers when the pickers are trying to game the system, I don't think this will prove much. Nice interface though.
This would drastically vary.
When A person tells B to pick a number there are various things going on in mind. Once its brought down to select from 1-10 the choices are narrowed down to a single digit number. Hardly anyone would choose 1 or 10. If someone's birthday comes in between those numbers, the choice becomes obvious, other wise its moves to the favorable number or a lucky number.
7 being the universal lucky number many believe in that. For numerlogy believers 3 comes to be a common lucky number amongst many. So the choice, not sure why 4.
Anyways the reasons vary alot.
Do keep us updated w/ the result want to know how mind works over numbers for all.
The only problem being, many would refresh and choose all numbers, why don't you add a simple cookie or ip restriction to allow to choose only once? This would reduce alot of fake entries.
I presume this is your site? Your design has a serious flaw: the number "1" is "selected" when you first view the page, which biases the results. You apparently tried to "fix" this by forcing the user to move the slider before the choice would be accepted, but that also biases the results.
The only way to really make it unbiased is with a text box. The next best thing would have been ten buttons in a row (but then you would have had to make sure that they didn't go off the right side of the screen).
I wonder if adjusting the the numbers would influence the choice. Instead of listing them 1-10, maybe try a run with the numbers not listed in sequential order.
An interesting extension of this could be to add a poll here on HN asking, "Which number did you pick?" and then comparing the poll results to the actual results.
Are you trying to estimate the bias depending on the type of selector used (slider, input, options, ...)?
Very interesting concept :)
EDIT, forgot to add: if this is the case, have you thought of storing the type of selector in a cookie, so that refreshing the page gives always the same type?
Yeah, I considered a more involved way of choosing the interfaces to present — the server attempts to even out the distribution of interfaces, use cookies to limit, etc — but I also just really wanted to get this made in a couple hours. The current implementation is about as simple as it gets.
On Refreshing, it changes the interface, every time you get a different input method. I guess its that way so as to avoid being biased over any number by default.
The other methods don't have a default. Sliders don't really present a good way of doing a "non-choice" default. I decided to leave it fixed at 1 to start to see if that particular method skews because of the default. (Not exactly precise and thorough, unfortunately. There could be more metrics, like starting position, but I wanted to keep it simple so I could get it up and running quickly.)
I am interested in finding out how many people decided not to choose a number at all, and if that fact could help mitigate the experiment's inherent bias.
As for people making multiple entries into the experiment, a simple IP filter could help reduce overall error.
I think it would be neat to offer an option to not choose a number, but rather a number to help offset selector's bias (in participating in the number choosing experiment knowingly). It's similar to the multiple choosing UIs.
Nonetheless, I can only appreciate simple things like this that lead to a spirited and educated read.
Cheers and can't wait to see "final" results and accompanying analysis.
Interesting project. I'm looking forward to see the results. This reminds me some of the mental algorithms I was thinking about: How do you generate a random number without electronic devices? How do you generate a random permutation without electronic devices? How do you generate a hash without electronic devices? How do you do the above most efficiently? How about without any pen, pencil or paper?
It will be cool if you can master mental cryptography.
A more in depth breakdown is coming. The number of responses has been far, far beyond what I expected — several orders of magnitude more. Once I get together a good way to efficiently track and display the graphs, I'll make them live.
Upon being shown a circle and asked to pick a random number, I thought for a bit and realized that no matter what I picked I wouldn't believe I had chosen it randomly. Then I wrote a one-line script to generate a random number from 1 to 10 and I put its output as my answer. Perhaps this defeated the purpose of the site, but I find it so hard to choose when I know my response is being measured.
Can't wait to hear how many people picked 10 (as I did). If it hadn't been for science, I would probably have picked 7 like everybody else.
Once I thought it would be good to play the numbers "1 2 3 4 5 6" in the lottery because they are as likely as other numbers, and I thought people would not pick them. Turns out lots of people play "1 2 3 4 5 6".
In fact the only advantage you can have in the lottery is of decreasing the chances of hitting a winning number that was also chosen by someone else and thus having to split the Jackpot. Many people let the computer choose, which helps limit duplicates, but if you want to choose numbers then be sure to select numbers over 31. Many people select important dates and so don't have any "lucky numbers" over 31.
That said, if you really want to increase your return for playing the lottery, sticking your money in a cookie jar is a far better investment, provided you already ate all the cookies in the jar.
Brilliant idea, but haven't you built in bias by unblinding the experiment? I followed the link, got one implementation and keyed in '5'. Then I read your write-up and realised that there are more implementations, reloaded the page and thought deeply about the number I would/should choose on the slider.
yesterday i was improving my excel skills about statistics, instead of use the random funcion i thought to ask a number from 1 to 10 to some friend and see the histogram. just after some question i was surprised about the results and so i asked more people. up to now i asked 24 people(46 number in total,the first 2 was just one question), i also asked a second number after recived the first. my result are: that 7 win with 31% of answer followed by 5 with 17% the last are 10 (zero answer), 1 with 1 answer and 2 and 6 with 2 answer each. you have to note that 83% say a odd number as a first one.noone told me a number that wasnt integer. whats going on? the majority of people was italian, some spanish and some german.Guido
After you've entered your unbiased data, make sure to refresh the page and see what else you could have been confronted with. You'll notice the different variables in the experiment - just make sure to do this after in order for it to not influence your decision.
[+] [-] alecperkins|15 years ago|reply
The goal at first was to just see what numbers people gravitate toward. I've heard lots of conjecture about how people pick 7 or 3 or 4 more than others, and for a variety of reasons, but had a hard time finding actual demonstration of this. Then, while implementing a choosing system, the problem became: how do you present the information so as not to bias it? This is why there are four different ways of picking. There are also a couple other metrics being measured, including a difference in phrasing (Pick a number… vs Pick a random number…) which may be interesting.
Apologies for any bugs or general wonkiness. The whole thing was a ~2 hour impulse project.
PS: The data will absolutely be shared! Just need time to do a breakdown of all the different permutations.
[+] [-] DanI-S|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dalore|15 years ago|reply
Instead I got a message "Science thanks you."
How about if you want something from the user, you give something back.
[+] [-] jedberg|15 years ago|reply
http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/gclpv/pick_a_number...
[+] [-] blauwbilgorgel|15 years ago|reply
We also did research to find favored Mastermind patterns. Bias was a large problem there too. When presented with colors, people would pick a single color more often or place the same colors next to each other. When presented with letters, people would try to spell out words.
Peculiar: In product pricing and conversion testing, prices with 7's and 9's seem to provide more favorable results. I believe this is akin to the favorite-color bias we happened upon (7 is my lucky number!), mixed with the slight confusing nature of calculating/rounding down a price ending in 7 or 9 (hey, it's still $2999, so just 2 grand and then some).
[+] [-] perlgeek|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wzdd|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vidyesh|15 years ago|reply
7 being the universal lucky number many believe in that. For numerlogy believers 3 comes to be a common lucky number amongst many. So the choice, not sure why 4. Anyways the reasons vary alot.
Do keep us updated w/ the result want to know how mind works over numbers for all. The only problem being, many would refresh and choose all numbers, why don't you add a simple cookie or ip restriction to allow to choose only once? This would reduce alot of fake entries.
Simple small project, I liked it :)
[+] [-] lisper|15 years ago|reply
The only way to really make it unbiased is with a text box. The next best thing would have been ten buttons in a row (but then you would have had to make sure that they didn't go off the right side of the screen).
[+] [-] paolomaffei|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fady|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rubergly|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MichaelApproved|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] oniTony|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] scotty79|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] davidmathers|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joelhaasnoot|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] terhechte|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mikeryan|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mcorrientes|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] imran|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] teuobk|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ot|15 years ago|reply
Very interesting concept :)
EDIT, forgot to add: if this is the case, have you thought of storing the type of selector in a cookie, so that refreshing the page gives always the same type?
[+] [-] alecperkins|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|15 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Bolyuba|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] steipete|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wladimir|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] necro|15 years ago|reply
middle number: for the graphical choices as it's common/easier to get a valid first click in the middle of the slider.
high number: for the key entry as if most people are right handed it's easier to get to the high numbers instead of going across the keyboard.
all that is predicated on the fact that people are lazy instead of random when using this.
[+] [-] vidyesh|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joejohnson|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alecperkins|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rgbrgb|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] niketdesai|15 years ago|reply
As for people making multiple entries into the experiment, a simple IP filter could help reduce overall error.
I think it would be neat to offer an option to not choose a number, but rather a number to help offset selector's bias (in participating in the number choosing experiment knowingly). It's similar to the multiple choosing UIs.
Nonetheless, I can only appreciate simple things like this that lead to a spirited and educated read.
Cheers and can't wait to see "final" results and accompanying analysis.
[+] [-] clvv|15 years ago|reply
It will be cool if you can master mental cryptography.
[+] [-] alecperkins|15 years ago|reply
http://nfrom1to10.appspot.com/results/
A more in depth breakdown is coming. The number of responses has been far, far beyond what I expected — several orders of magnitude more. Once I get together a good way to efficiently track and display the graphs, I'll make them live.
[+] [-] roryokane|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Tichy|15 years ago|reply
Once I thought it would be good to play the numbers "1 2 3 4 5 6" in the lottery because they are as likely as other numbers, and I thought people would not pick them. Turns out lots of people play "1 2 3 4 5 6".
[+] [-] alanfalcon|15 years ago|reply
That said, if you really want to increase your return for playing the lottery, sticking your money in a cookie jar is a far better investment, provided you already ate all the cookies in the jar.
[+] [-] Natsu|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ilitirit|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] davidjagoe|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] coprolog|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] solipsist|15 years ago|reply