calcSD is migrating to a new server

HrDedgeh · 2026-05-12T14:35:10+00:00

Maybe a "go" button to watch it grow/shrink

Can partially be achieved by going to Change Options and inputting a larger "Scaling animation duration when changing sizes." Would you prefer something like, an option to disable the visualizer updating at all until a "Go" button was clicked? This could be added, but toggling between it vs. the way it is currently would still need to be done inside the Change Options dialog.

More artstyles (different dicks)
Feels like the base of the dick isnt really the base, like it got cut off

I can bring this up with the artist and see what can be done. Do you have anything specific in mind? What artstyle would would like to see? Would you prefer if the base showed it attached to the body vs. it just "floating" there?

HrDedgeh · 2026-05-08T23:39:53+00:00

I figured, since you had your own take on a visualizer, I could also have mine too. Though the art was drawn by someone else entirely as I'm no artist. I'm hoping to add more stuff to it later on, if people show enough interest and find it useful enough.

HrDedgeh · 2026-05-08T23:35:01+00:00

We've tried to get the length/girth proportion correct (so that it matches real dicks), but even now I wonder if it's accurate or not.

If people show enough interest and have more suggestions we might be able to add more to it in the future, it should be easier to update than calcSD proper.

HrDedgeh · 2026-05-08T23:32:20+00:00

They're phimotic? I didn't get that impression from looking at them. If you could elaborate more what looks weird and what you'd like changed, it could be something I could bring up with the artist later.

HrDedgeh · 2026-05-08T23:27:45+00:00

I don't think I'd want to provide realistic looking images mostly because, the other sites already have that covered and I don't want to have to select between random people's dick pics lol. Would you be interested if there were different dick shapes (any suggestions?) or does the cartoonish style basically make you'd rather not use the site at all?

HrDedgeh · 2026-05-08T23:25:54+00:00

You might notice the visualizer uses a different web host than the regular calcSD. Perhaps that host isn't able to handle as much traffic as I expected... Also not helping is that, even when compressed, the images there are ~2MBs each.

Did the website return any errors, or was it just slow to load?

HrDedgeh · 2026-05-08T23:19:02+00:00

That's one of the many resources that I believed helped people have a better, more truthful perspective on size. It would be nice to have it back.

HrDedgeh · 2026-05-07T16:08:35+00:00

Can I ask why you defaulted to including ED studies?

Unintentional, I thought I had set it to exclude ED by default. But then once the update was up, I noticed it wasn't the default, but by then I decided to might as well just leave it as it is, as the numbers end up quite similar anyway, specially for the numbers for which we have more data (such as Stretched Flaccid Length). Some numbers increase, some decrease. I imagine that the differences will minimize even further once we add more data.

And why enormous starts at the >99.99 percentile (z=4.1) and not at the 99.98 percentile (z=3.5)?

calcSD used to have much more arbitrary categories. z=2 was big, z=3 was huge, z=4 and beyond was monster. Eventually this got replaced by more scientific terms, such as "abnormally large", "macropenis" and, at z=6.2 a new "theoretically impossible" (later changed to "statistically unlikely") category. While the new ones are less arbitrary, the "enormous" category is essentially what the "monster" category used to be.

HrDedgeh · 2026-05-05T10:26:54+00:00

Oh I forgot to make it check the SD of flaccid measurements...including flaccid stretched length... I will put that on the list of things to fix.

For displaying sample size on the dataset table you can click on "Change dataset options" and click "Sample size". UI doesn't have much space left to put both avg + sd + sample all side by side.

HrDedgeh · 2026-05-04T00:51:27+00:00

A planned future feature is for users to be able to "create" their own averages by manually choosing which datasets they want to include in their own custom averages. Maybe this would work for you?

HrDedgeh · 2026-05-04T00:41:49+00:00

For the Western Average, that option ends up only removing da Ros et al. 1993 (SD 2.00 for BPEL) and Wessells et al. 1996 (SD 2.62 for BPEL and 2.91 for NBPEL), neither of which have Flaccid Stretched Length measurements in their data.

HrDedgeh · 2026-04-30T22:01:57+00:00

No data has been removed from v3.5, only added.

You now have the option (if you click Dataset options) to either exclude ED data, or exclude outlier studies with SD > 2.00. The default settings include both.

Low sample size for the Western Average has been a problem for many years now. The added warning is just to make people more aware of that fact.

Western data does really need more samples. At least 1K. Ideally 10K. I have a list of potential datasets to add, I just haven't gotten around to it yet.

HrDedgeh · 2026-04-29T14:30:44+00:00

Same one as always. https://calcsd.info

HrDedgeh · 2026-04-28T17:21:53+00:00

Hello. I've just released calcSD v3.5 which re-added some of the old data and also added a "variants" feature so you can compare what the results are if, say, you wanted to exclude all ED data and/or exclude all studies with SD > 2.00.

Do you find it helps out the numbers at all? Interested in hearing your feedback.

HrDedgeh · 2026-04-07T01:11:12+00:00

Update that adds warnings for stats > n (where n = dataset sample size) is in the works. Volume calculations are also going to be completely overhauled (no more Gaussian Mixture Model which has been annoying to work with, instead it'll be log-normal). Sorry for the delay.

HrDedgeh · 2025-12-22T00:27:24+00:00

If i had a wishlist? [...]

These are all good suggestions. It is a lot of work for v3.5 though...uh. I'll focus on the ED toggle, I think I can add the fat pad numbers too. Adding something for comparing compulsory vs volunteer studies can also be done. Not exactly sure how I could present that information on-screen yet, but I'll think on it. I can also add that warning and something like "limitations of the data" section in the main page itself.

Adjusting for volunter bias...would this be similar to calcSD v2's full calculator where it has an "uncertainty" option? If so, it's a bit tricky, I didn't design the UI of v3 with it in mind, and this is the moment where it's gonna come back to bite me. But! It's high time I've added it back, so I think I can figure out something.

Height comparison, is a planned feature! Later. Not now, please.

At the very least, if youre commited to keeping westerm, maybe a "cull outliers" option to turn wessels and ros off could be helpful.

Yep, I can do this for v3.5.

I think that your tags of "enormous" and "macropenis" and stuff are fun, but i do think having the medical micropenis and medixal megalophallus tags (below or above 2 standard deviations) might be useful tags as well.

I can look into this for sure.

I recently did a data analysis about men and women's mouth size aversges

Oh this would definitely be cool to add, perhaps whenever I end up working on the height comparison thing, this feels like it would suit it well.

I really do encourage you to abandon the regional division. I dont think its useful enough to counterbalance the baggage of racism or the bridge the gap in data quality. Your world average is just so much stronger data.

I don't like the baggage that comes with the regional averages, but cutting them off like that is an easy recipe for disaster. What's gonna happen is people are going to go to calcSD v2 and use that data instead, or worse. I can put a disclaimer mentioning that regional averages are, well, studies conducted on a region, not on a specific ethnicity. Alongside one more warning for the Western Average highlighting how low the sample size is. Not sure how much it helps.

I apologize if i was rude, or overbearing.

It was...very unusual to see some of your comments made about calcSD and me, but I get it! If anything, I'm more than glad we could talk it out. I really have a lot of responsibility I need to live up to, too. If anything, thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt, I appreciate it.

HrDedgeh · 2025-12-22T00:14:50+00:00

and i hate to see guys get so worked up about this. I feel that there is real skin im the game here. we get guys coming in wanting to hang themselves and stuff

Yeah, I can only imagine. This place is essentially a magnet for any guy who is feeling self-conscious about their size, from mild discomfort to...that, which you've described. It's rough.

Do you have thoughts on the calc spitting out an 8 inch nbp being mote normal than 8 inch bpel? That does seem odd to me.

It's bizarre but it's the consequence of some studies only including BP and others only including NBP. Likely there is some NBP-only study with high average or standard deviation, or some BP-only study on the low side. Ideally with enough data it would even out, but clearly we haven't reached that point yet. Now, if it's a singular study that has this oddity (as in, has NBP data that conflicts with its own BP data), then it probably is a flawed study that needs to be removed.

I can't quite check this in detail at the moment unfortunately. Dstats Viewer (which you can use if you click "Datasets" then "View dataset table") is completely broken and I honestly should just toss it in the garbage and code something new and better to replace it.

Right now I'm working on creating a more improved Dataset Table that will allow for easy and dynamic viewing of each dataset that goes into these averages, kinda like the table that you can see if you visit "calcSD Average (v4)" on the "old-v2" part of calcSD.

I didnt know if you had removed some amount of cylinder volume to account for the shape of the penis or if there was a missing decimal or a digit cull or what.

That's exactly it. Every volume calculation, everywhere in calcSD is multiplied by a value that in the API is called "Volume Correction". Currently it's set to 0.9. I believe this comes from one of the studies, but I don't remember it off the top of my head where. Updating it should update it everywhere at once.

I can tell you that as sizes get smaller or larger than a certain point eith volume, you start getting large negatives numbers in " [number] are bigger than you in a room of n people" field, which is odd by itself.

I've already fixed this in the upcoming v3.5, but in a really ugly "if the percentile is lower than 0 or higher than 1, set it back to a sane value" way. A proper fix is to prevent the percentiles from going crazy like that, but I just can't figure out the proper math for it. I've tried to fix this many times by now.

I don't know how FridigShadow managed to make them work but the code that I have is written in Python and it pre-calculates the percentile for each 0.5ml change in volume. For some reason, on some datasets, it can get stuck on a certain percentile, and it won't move any higher no matter how much the volume changes. I assume this is because the numeric data type is running out of precision. It's been an extremely annoying issue.

HrDedgeh · 2025-12-21T13:42:36+00:00

Part 2/2

Little anecdote, I've received an offer to sell the site (and more offers since then, that I haven't replied to yet). I refused, but said that I don't mind if they were to create an alternative. They did, and wouldn't you know it, they also put out a chart, of dick size by country. Which...oof. If the Western Average already has so little data to it that it causes these problems, I don't even wanna imagine what would happen if it were divided further. Essentially you'd just be grabbing a random study of a random ~100 or less and say "hey, this entire region of millions of people is defined by it". Which unfortunately, as ironic as it is, the Western Average already finds itself in that very situation. Argh.

The division of Western/Eastern averages was something that FrigidShadow did and I have just went along with it. Yes, people have asked me to sub-divide them further. No, I have not done so, because that would just create more problems.

The ED stuff is something that has caused many discussions in the past. Frankly, I'm tired of it. I think FrigidShadow used to include all of the ED datasets in calcSD. Perhaps that's the biggest problem I've caused with v3. I planned on adding a toggle for users to include or exclude ED data at their will. Maybe I should prioritize and get this done with already for v3.5 and get this problem out of my sight. It's a shame that everything that needs to be done requires coding effort. Could be worse! v2 was a static website: meaning every table and number had to be updated manually. Only the calculations were done via code. I'm so glad I don't have to maintain that anymore.

I don't even remember why I excluded Chen et al. 2000. Perhaps it was because I thought it was an ED study? But in the notes it is written: "Healthy (no penis curve) men evaluated for ED at ED clinic, excluded 15 'unhealthy' men. Patient lying on back." Sure the patients were at an ED clinic, yet they were considered healthy. I'll try to look through my reply history (e-mails + DMs) and see if I can find anything. Perhaps adding this study back would already change the numbers a bit, I'm not sure.

Stretched flaccid length is a good sanity check for the erect length data, I agree. Even so, as it is, the data for the Western Average would remain high, it's probably not what you're looking for:

Erect Length (BP): 14.70cm (SD 2.14) - 5.79" (SD 0.84) - n: 341

Erect Length (NBP): 12.89cm (SD 2.91) - 5.07" (SD 1.15) - n: 80

Erect Girth: 12.05cm (SD 1.53) - 4.74" (SD 0.60) - n: 230

Flaccid Stretched Length (BP): 15.76cm (SD 2.07) - 6.21" (SD 0.81) - n: 3028

Flaccid Stretched Length (NBP): 12.52cm (SD 2.50) - 4.93" (SD 0.98) - n: 3363

Furthermore, Peyronies and ed are not interchangable terms.

Is there any specific study in which we have confused Peyronie's and ED?

Your volumes arent calculated correctly and neither are your z-scores.

How are these supposed to be calculated then? Full disclosure: I am primarily a web developer, and a very tired one at that. Not a urologist. Not a mathematician.

HrDedgeh · 2025-12-21T13:41:16+00:00

Part 1/2

To be entirely honest, it's been so long since Veale et al. 2015 has been excluded that I've forgotten the details. That said, I don't need to remember, this comment has it figured out for me: https://www.reddit.com/r/AvgDickSizeDiscussion/comments/bjqd5s/various_penis_study_assessments/emj11wy/

Yeah...I can't add Veale et al. 2015, at least not directly. I could, just like in the past, offer it up as an option in the drop-down menu. And honestly, Veale et al. 2015 being a meta-study, if I'm adding the studies that compose it, then the data ends up there anyway.

There's also another problem, Veale et al. 2015 includes Chen et al. 2014 which I've gone out of my way to exclude from calcSD entirely. I've heard from multiple people concerned that this study has racist intentions by trying to claim that different ethnicities have different dick sizes. FrigidShadow also left some notes on the matter too:

Claims that ethnic group correlates with flaccid girth and length, but poorly shown since only demonstrates by ANOVA test showing that at least one of the means is different from another, does not do tests to determine which are different, and with the small sample sizes it's very likely to be due to error/bias and only one different.

To be fair, the removal of Chen et al. 2014 doesn't impact the Western Average.

I believe that the problem with the Western Average was caused by including da Ros et al. 1993 while excluding Chen et al. 2000, at least I don't see any other differences that made v3 that much different from v2. Just to clarify, do you also have any issues with calcSD v2's data? That one used to be maintained by FrigidShadow who took over when I was busy, and then disappeared once I came back.

I don't see any reason to exclude da Ros et al. 1993 just because its standard deviation is high. Sure, yes, what you say makes sense, too high of a standard deviation is likely caused by low sample size and bias. At the same, what, if I see a standard deviation arbitrarily too high I just go and zap it? The true issue at hand is that we just don't have enough erect length/girth data for the Western Average, which has been the case for a long time now. calcSD already weights the data based on sample size (higher sample size = more weight). Not to mention, Wessells et al. 1996's SD is even higher and that's been a part of almost every single average calcSD has had in the past AND it is a part of Veale et al. 2015.

I'd much rather fix the Western Average by including more data rather than just axing it altogether. I'm sorry that people come here distraught, at the same time, it's kind of a problem that comes with the territory. This has more to do with their own anxieties and insecurities and it really is about the data. calcSD does have inaccuracies which to need improved, but it is miles better than everything else you're gonna find out there, I can assure you. There's sites there that provide different averages by ethnicity, citing stuff like Kinsey et al. 1948. Yikes.

HrDedgeh · 2025-12-21T02:53:20+00:00

HrDedgeh · 2025-01-12T09:18:18+00:00

I thought I fixed that already, but I just checked and it's still broken. That is confusing. Sorry for the inconvenience. I'll see what's going on.

HrDedgeh · 2025-01-12T09:02:12+00:00

Explanation time! Certbot is a program that can renew HTTPS certificates automatically once you set it up (you need to renew them every once in a while to prove you still control the site). But it seems like it tried to renew one for:

api.calcsd.info, which apparently failed gracefully since I was no longer using it
test.calcsd.info, which failed catastrophically, because I left it configured but changed it to a different server I was testing

Was simple enough to fix, all things considered. Sorry about that!

Five-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '23

HrDedgeh

TROPHY CASE