Hello again, Codeforces. I'm back with the results. First, I want to say thank you to all 267 people who sent their reports. I was busy thinking about this for a while(smh), and finally, I think I finally concluded.
The results may or may not surprise you, but for me. It was more surprising.
So, I'll start with the general chart then move on to each chart of ranks one by one. By the way, colors represent the rank of the person. For the charts with no-trendlines, I prepared an interactive graph, so you can see the WPM, rating & accuracy of that person. Check the last line for the link. Also, you can find all of the charts in this blog as grouped through the links.
This is the plot of WPM vs. rating for all the respondents. Again, thank you for your participation. 
Now with the trendlines. 
From this chart, we can conclude that there is barely any correlation between WPM and CF rating. Both the $$$R^2$$$ is close to $$$0$$$ and the slope is relatively low.
Now we'll start with Newbies/Pupils. (24 Newbies & 23 Pupils)
Next is Specialists/Experts. (32 Specialists & 61 Experts) 
To the Candidate Masters/Masters. (39 Candidate Masters & 34 Masters)
Say hello to the International Masters/Grandmasters. (8 International Masters & 19 Grandmasters)
I don't want to talk about this.
At the end, we have International Grandmasters/Legendary Grandmasters. (12 International Grandmasters & 7 Legendary Grandmasters)
Because of the sheer amount of noise, the only conclusion that we can draw from this data is that there is no correlation at all! So, there you go my slow-typer friends, we can once again see that you don't have to be a fast typist to have more rating in Codeforces.
except if you want to beat neal, Geothermal or Maksim1744 in Div 3.'s
If you have any further questions or anything else you might want to add, please comment down below.
Note: The chart is interactive so if you move your cursor to a bubble, you can see the WPM, rating, accuracy, and consistency of that person.
Once again, special thanks to usuyus and adminreyiz for helping from the start. Thanks to Petremol for coloring idea, and at last, thanks to Nika_Tamliani for doing absolutely nothing but continously bugging me for posting the results blog.
finally
bedirhan results when
63 minutes ago
I am the slowest among the specialists and experts :(
Whenever someone bitches about this to me again I'll just link this blog and say "remember when I told you using rep(i, 10) instead of for(int i = 0; i < 10; i++) isn't the thing that's gonna save you time during contests?"
You are just participating in a "mistype i in one of the possible 3 places" lottery. For a small, but non-zero chance to win a significant waste of time when debugging this.
Exactly! I really gotta make a list of reasons like that to not use this macro. I think for most people the macro is really rep(number_of_repetitions) and you can end up shadowing i :D
btw I think you meant it in the other way, but if you're solving a problem that has more than 1 for and has more complex stopping conditions then it's better to have more control.
So I argue there's a higher chance of you being fucked due to the macro than not using the macro because of it making things implicit
What people use is actually rep(i,n) so you can specify the name of the variable that iterates, there is no problem of shadowing. Ive never seen rep(n), this would be somewhat silly.
Also mr Benq is the biggest macro addicted in the world and he does alright. But this is also the reason why his code is too hard to read for others.
On the other hand, not using namespace std is also a bit annoying for others to read and makes the code unnecessarily longer :)
But do you argue that writting a few std:: is going to make you lose significant time? No, anyone who says that is full of shit.
You also end up with cases where you want to iterate over a small range of long longs, but this ends up as a bug.
For a better thing that helps you avoid such bugs as well as the mistyping bugs, just use a custom templated range struct. Sample submission: 118017267
This is only half-serious, and I don't really recommend bloating your template.
I am slowest among pupils;-;...1338
Can the newbie with ~140 wpm and pupil with 160 wpm identify themselves?
Maybe I am skeptical but I really feel several participants have confused this experiment with long challenge ratings.
Lol, why is that hard to believe?
I was the newbie who got ~130wpm on the test, do you want to typeracer?
Why do you think a newbie is incapable of typing fast?
Correlation between contribution and rating when?
Contribution magnet orz
Nice Job!
No correlation.
Nice to have the no-correlation statement scientifically approved.
Thanks!
Anyone who thinks typing speed matters can perform a simple experiment:
And?
And (hopefully) observe that typing is a relatively small part of the overall solve time (if the solution is not immediately obvious).
ofcourse rewriting solution will be fast, its ridiculous
this experiment ignores that during contest you not writing perfectly line by line
some rethinking of code after paper-solving, deletions, thinking on how to write code part, is this code missing some cases and so on, its erasing time
The discussion here is about typing speed, not coding speed. The purpose of the experiment is to measure directly the time which can be saved by getting better at pressing keys on a keyboard. In fact the main point is that when coding, thinking and deciding what to type dominates the time actually spent typing.
In ICPC typing speed matters :)
You should do rating vs number of likes that person gets when he comments / posts a blog... lol