[Suppafly]

>As other commenters here have noted, I found this interesting but a little frustrating. The second color it asks about is clearly cyan (or turquoise). For me, this is like showing an orange screen and asking if it is red or yellow.

This, it commonly gets reposted on reddit and the colorblind sub, but it's basically worthless because most people acknowledge that there is a color between blue and green and forcing them to choose one or the other doesn't give you any valuable information.

[guidopallemans]

> most people acknowledge that there is a color between blue and green

For many people, there is no difference between blue and green at all!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue%E2%80%93green_distinction...

[Suppafly]

>For many people, there is no difference between blue and green at all!

That's sorta not true, it's just a quirk of language development. If they only have one word that covers both, they use additional words to describe the actual shade they're talking about.

[ralferoo]

Of these, the only language that I know a bit about, in Chinese 青 (blue/green) is the older word and nowadays used less than the more modern 蓝 (blue) and 绿 (green), but actually 青 is still used a lot in specific phrases, and I prefer to think of it as the "colour of things in nature" - so a blue sky would be 青, a blue/green sea would be 青 and a field of lush grass would also be 青. That aspect also comes through in how it's used metaphorically, in the senses of youth or vitality.

This is the same character that's used for Japanese traffic lights when foreigners find it funny that they call obviously green lights "blue".

[StilesCrisis]

Fun fact: Japan's traffic lights actually do use a blue-green color; it's not the same green that most countries use. ("In 1973, the government mandated through a cabinet order that traffic lights use the bluest shade of green possible—still technically green, but noticeably blue enough to justifiably continue using the ao nomenclature.")

https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/japan-green-traffic-li...

[ralferoo]

The latter tests were all a bit pointless because they were just turquoise, and all looked much the same - a mix of blue and green, so I was pretty much answering based on whether it was bluer or greener than the previous image.

The results said "Your boundary is at hue 179, bluer than 82% of the population. For you, turquoise is green." and definitely if I was judging the boundary on a gradient, I'd have placed the line a bit further to the right.

[thaumasiotes]

Yes, the structure of the test is designed to produce a fake result based on a spurious premise.

It wants to do a binary search in the color space to find "The Boundary" between your personal concept of green and your personal concept of blue.

No such boundary exists. If you abandon the idea of binary search and just present a bunch of similar colors in no particular order, you'll get more realistic results, which look like "you called color x 'blue' x% of the time, and 'green' (1-x)% of the time". You could even display a grayscale histogram of the blue-green continuum according to the odds of any particular point on it being labeled "blue" or "green". That would be fun.

[D-Machine]

Yes, very annoying, we know from extensive work in psychometrics that single-item, binary / forced-choice items produce junk responses that are heavily contaminated with response styles (answer in most socially-desirable way, select closest response to mouse/finger, select same response as last time, select random response, etc). Just give people an out ("Diagree with the question / premises", "Prefer not to answer", "Unsure / Can't decide", etc) and make sure you have e.g. a 5-7 point Likert-type scale for multiple items, or up to an 11-point scale for single items.

This kind of site / demo does none of the above, and so can't even be trusted for directional effects (the direction of response may simple be due to the type of people responding, etc).