@khird My guess is that im much higher largely because I am typing as I think rather than transcribing from a piece of paper, where I'd expect ill be slower.

But yea ill be happy to, i never got lower than 140 on a test I took before (as a child i was at world record levels for the time).

@khird As expected when I transcribe using their tool im seeing lower numbers but I blame the test, as it doesnt allow you to do your corrections at the end, and in fact if you continue past an error with the intent of coming back to fix it at the end it just counts all future keystrokes as bad... so im going to count that as an invalid test myself, but you are right it severely decreases my Wpm (anything from 85wpm to 127 wpm depending on the test)

just to be clear when I test myself I do count the time it takes to make corrections, and in addition corrections penalize the WPM by the standard amount in official tests. But it allows me to correct test when and how is best for me, so it allows me to maximize my typing speed by leaving all corrections to the end and not loose focus.

@freemo yeah I'm not a huge fan of the error-catching process either. But it's at least measuring the same way across the board, whether that's by tokenizing words or a quarter of the letter rate or whatever. It's easier to interpret a number where I have that context than one like your keyboard's self-measurement where I don't.

I just did five and got 88, 76, 88, 80, 93. Your 127 would have been first in any of those races.

@khird I only got aas low as 85 in one trial, one of the first ones.. and it was largely cause im still getting used to my keyboards alignment in that case... took a few tries to get my home row down due to the new positioning.

@khird By the way I wrote the firmware to the keyboard myself (well modified existing code) ... So for wahtever it is worth the method that calculated WPM is fairly close to the official as far as I can tell (there is a specific number of characters a backspace is suppose to count as).