This tool will give you three scores, telling you how easy text is to read. Simply enter the text you wish to check into the box below, and your scores will be calculated. More information about the Flesch-Kincaid readability scoring systems and the functions behind this tool can be found in the Flesch-Kincaid Reading Level article or the Gunning-Fog Index article.
Check Text Readability
Check Text Readability was posted July 7, 2004 in Tools and has been tagged with tools, writing, reference, usability, design, literature, language, webdesign, resources, tool and readability.
44 comments
As I said in the article about this, text readability is very difficult to gauge programatically (at least to any degree of accuracy). However, this type of quick test can help to point out to a writer when they are over-complicating things. Some of us are not lucky enough to always write perfectly, and need a little help making sure what we post to the web is easy to read.
BTW your intro text to the script didn't score very well, whereas the previous posters 'I find it really pointless' probably did very well... which i find strangely humourous... any how respect to you again, and where can i get my hands on this script? Theres some councilspeak out there I gotta deal with.
Paul
It always tells me when something I write is crap (of course I always have a high ego)
Just one correction: it's the Gunning-*Fog* Index. :)
Even if not totally accurate, I find the script quite useful. Thanks for providing it.
The trick is to write well, but still have good readability. That's an art!
(yes, I do realize this post is over a year old)
VG in other browsers.
CONGRATULATIONS for the site
Still strange though.
* have
* house
* hive
* base
* live
* leave
* brave
Here are a few 2 syllable words that the function counts as 2:
* behave
* release
* combine
Additionally, there are a few words in English (At least American English) that look very much like two syllables but are only one like the following:
* lived
* lives
* cares
* rates
Now for the real issue, we have all of those wordes the end with an "e" that should be counted a 1 syllable but then we have others that are supposed to be 2 syllables like the following:
* mile
* tile
* aisle
* isle
* style
One last thought, 'ses and 'ces!
bases and faces are both 2 syllable words but lives and cares are only one syllable.
Any ideas of how we might write a few more rules for these types of words?
Thanks.
There are plenty of words that are exceptions to the rules in the function - it's English, after all. Many of the words you mention are tricky ones to add rules for - in many ways, better to hard-code exceptions into to the function to handle these.
Thanks for the reply. The only reason I bring up this particular issue is doue to the very large number of words in English that end with an 'e'. I don't think that it is important to try to come up with rules for every single situation that a word ends with "e" but it would be nice to get the top 80% which is about what is being missed. The other 20% would work isself out in the averages much like your name:
Dave = 2 syllables
Child = 1 syllable
3 syllables is correct but that was because the script got lucky. ;)
But all things considered, I think that the readability scripts you have put together work very well. There only real weakness from what I can tell is the syllable rocognition system which is difficult to fix since in English, the exception is the rule. lol
I was just wondering if anyone has considered expanding the list of rules to account for a greater number of situations.
vujsa
-----
Assuming you have MS Office on your computer, this scale as well as many others can be activated via "Tools > Options > Spelling & Grammer > Readability Statistics".
so thanks dave and keep up the great work
Nice idea though.
I'd like to add a request: could the results include Total # of Words? And while I'm asking, how about a recommended minimum text to submit?
I think some of my students are trying to use samples that are too small. Thanks again.
Would never 'ave thunk it....
In short, I don't know. I don't have access to Microsoft's source code so can't tell you how they calculate these scores. Differences, though, are likely to be caused primarily by differences in the function that calculates the number of syllables in a word.
In the "count_syllables" function there is two lists of syllables. One for adding to the count, one for subtracting.
If you look at the values in those lists, they appear to be Regular Expressions.
However the function those values are being passed too "strpos" takes a literal string argument, not a regular expression.
I'm getting expected results for syllables using the following loops instead of the "strpos" loops in that function.
foreach ($subsyl as &$syl) {
$syllables -= preg_match('~'.$syl.'~', $word);
}
foreach ($addsyl as &$syl) {
$syllables += preg_match('~'.$syl.'~', $word);
}
Note that in PHP < 5 "as &$syl" needs to be "as $syl" because PHP < 5 doesn't support byref in foreach loops.
Like Flesch readability formula:
ReadingEase = 206.835− (1.015 * ASL) − (0.846 *AWL)
Also, Can we apply it to other language like French ?
I have a question. I am trying to find the readability of questions ona reading test. I am typing each writing prompt into readability checkers such as yours. I get a different level for the Flesch Kincaid and Gunning-Fog depending on the checker I use. There are trends that show a common relationship among the increasing and decreasing difficulties from one question to another, but each question checks in at a different level. Can you explain why this may be?
AddedBytes.com is the online playground of
on a sidenote, the comment form looks a bit weird as well -- but it's cool :-) // rck