The Eyeballing Game

by Rick Beckman on February 13, 02009

I have always fancied myself a pretty good eyeballer, and now there’s a test to prove it one way or another: the eyeballing game. I amazed myself at how good I did on some of the tests, and utterly disappointed myself on others. Either way, I was ahead of the curve. Where do you fall?

The Eyeballing Game

Hattip: Natalie Jost via Tumblr.

{ 9 voices }

Hank February 14, 2009 at 21:59

7.6 here. Not good considering eyeballing things is a part of my job! (when I cant measure with tools that is)

Brandon February 15, 2009 at 22:52

4ish.

If I wanted to be a show-off I would attempt it a few more times.

Rick Beckman February 16, 2009 at 00:43

Someone should make a version of this game with optical illusion overlays on top of the tests. Try finding the point of convergence when the straightest of lines looks like its curving! (It’s times like these I wish I knew how to do Flash.)

Hilary February 16, 2009 at 18:06

This reminded me of gemoetry class…bisect the angle? I had forgotten what that meant! haha…Rick, I received a score of 11.17! I messed up a few times because I was trying to adjust it with the mouse to figure out where the lines should be and let go and clicked it accidentally. LOL But I never claimed to be a good eye-baller.

Rick Beckman February 17, 2009 at 04:06

Yeah, having to hold down the mouse button was a bit of a nuisance. I wish it was setup so that you can click it once to “grab” the movable bits, then to “lock in” where you want it, you click again.

Oh well, such is life. :)

Sandi February 18, 2009 at 07:26

I tried with the laptop and sucked with no mouse, but on the desktop I was a 7.51.

New home builders February 18, 2009 at 13:40

11. something… It was that darn find the edges part that messed me up, everything else was under 5! Good test and fun to do… Regards!

Senior February 18, 2009 at 21:28

I am very impressed with your 3.37.

I just did a 3.71. I’ve done this in the past and I’m sure the 3.71 is the best I’ve managed.

Ched February 23, 2009 at 19:38

Previous post:

Next post: