Blog Note

[UPDATE 6:36 p.m.—the backlog of comments are all posted. Please take a look at the posts going back to Sunday for new ones. Apologies again for my tardiness—I know that being late with posting the comments has the effect of suppressing the conversation, which robs this site of one of its best features. —MJ]

I'm very behind on comment moderation suddenly (it always seems to happen suddenly) and I want to apologize to both commenters and readers for being tardy. In the old days I was at the computer all day long and at all hours of the day and night, which is really what it takes to stay on top of things. Get lazy or distracted for a day or two and things get "apparently hopeless" with amazing rapidity. That's no excuse at all—this is my job—but I have to acknowledge that, sadly, it is no longer a rarely occurrence; I allow it to happen from time to time these days, sometimes several times in a short stretch. And that's really not good. I know it.

I'm more of an old dog now and move more slowly. I have to admit that I now typically work only about half as fast as I used to—just the fact that names come up more slowly now costs a surprisingly amount of time in the workflow. (I still remember photographs I saw 10, 20 and 30 years ago, however.)

Anyway, I'll work today to get the comments for the last four days groomed completely and then go on to the new Print Crit, which might not be done till the weekend.

—Mike the abashed Ed.

P.S. Also wanted to float the notion that I'm toying—just toying—with the idea of assigning a "Mike Score" to the Print Crits. One of the online content providers I admire now (there have been many over the years) is Doug Demuro, a YouTube car reviewer who earns somewhere between $1,000 and $5,000 a day, 365 days a year, from his YouTube channel. (Here's a sample video.) This is far in excess of anything I've ever dreamed of, although he's a poor cousin compared to gaming vloggers*.

Anyway, one of the nice features of Doug's car review videos is that he assigns a "Doug Score" to the cars he reviews, and, really, no one can rationally argue with his judgments...because he calls it a "Doug Score." That is, it's not meant to be objective; it's just his scorecard as he sees it.

To reach a perfect total of 100, Doug divides 10 scores of 1–10 each into two categories, one called "Weekend," which covers the fun and status-oriented aspects of cars—Styling, Acceleration, Handling, Fun Factor, and Cool Factor—and the other called "Daily," which are the more pragmatic aspects—Features, Comfort, Quality, Practicality, and Value. Some scores are purely subjective, but others are based on metrics he applies by rote—for example, Acceleration is just how the car's 0–60 number matches up to a predetermined scale, and a two-seater car can't get more than a 2 for Practicality.

It would at least be fun come up with similar categories as a way to think about prints. Just something I've been thinking about.

I still wish I could somehow do videos for the Print Crits, but I'm afraid it's beyond my technical skills and doesn't align with my aptitudes. I yam what I yam, as the great Popeye says, and what I yam is a writer, for better or worse. Gotta be who you are; gotta go with your strengths.  —M.

*That is, they post videos about video games for video gamers. Exemplars include Fernanfloo of El Salvador, PewDiePie of Sweden, or Jacksepticeye of Ireland. There are gaming YouTubers who earn in excess of a million dollars a year, and the top ones earn up to $15 million a year. "Nice work if you can get it" as the old saying goes. (The top YouTube channel in the world is T-Series, an Indian music channel in the Hindi language that features Bollywood soundtracks and Indian pop music. It's part of a multifaceted enterprise with many spinoff channels, but the main channel has an estimate 141 million subscribers. It was started by a guy who used to be a fruit-juice seller in Delhi.

See what you learn when you read TOP?)

Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

Support The Online Photographer through Patreon

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Martin D: "Scores are artificial, soulless, closed. Your elegant Print Crit essays are dialogical, full of empathy, open. Scores judge, your essays elevate. Scores are boring, your essays are fun. Scores would demean the entire exercise and all who take part in it. Don't."

Comments

[Jnny]

Doug is in turns hilarious and annoying. Just the right amount of each to keep the clicks coming for his channel.

[Chris Y.]

I dunno Mike, a car can't get offended by a "score," a photographer might. And it shouldn't be a competition either. Love Doug Demuro.... he does do videos though.....

[MikeR]

It seems that, like a lot of other things, getting behind on comment moderation is echoed in this thought:

“At first you go bankrupt slowly, then all at once.”

[Peter Baglole]

Scores are for those folks who need someone to tell them what to like. No need for scores here.

[Daniel Speyer]

Art by the numbers, is not something I would consider. Ever!

[John Merlin Williams]

What Martin said! Please don't go there : -)

[Mark Sampson]

Agree entirely with Martin D. 'Scores' reek of the old-time camera clubs.
Don't worry too much about the occasional comment backup either; you're a one-man shop and can only do what you can do.
Your readers are intelligent, loyal, and they will understand should their comments not instantly appear.

[Stan B.]

Good thing too- was just about to gather a posse and topple the Michael Johnston statue in our local square!

[Bear.]

I don't like either idea. First, scores are polarising, however explicitly subjective you try to make them, because a numerical ranking is intrinsically judgemental and not critical. Secondly, your critiques are enjoyable largely because they are both positive and non-judgmental, so a scoring system would simply defeat the purpose. Thirdly, I absolutely guarantee that you would be creating a rod for your own back; giving positive criticism comprises most of the joy of teaching, marking work is the ugly bit; why voluntarily detract from the joy? Fourthly, your critiques ultimately work because you are a writer and write well. I presume that you have other readers whom, as I, read your blog because we enjoy the written word. There are plenty of web-sites which do video well and many excellent audio pod-casts; yet I'm not watching or listening to them, I'm reading TOP. And, trust me, when it comes to written blogs, you don't have too much competition. Finally, if you want to make a lot of money, you will need to recommend stuff to us so that we (your readers) buy it from the vendors of the stuff so that you can claim your share; sad perhaps, but that's just how it works. And if you want a critique - which I am now going to give you irregardless (I've always wanted to use that word, if it's a word) - um - you don't do it very well. But I think you have recently said it yourself, you are not a salesman. Ultimately, Mike, you are a writer making a living from writing about something you enjoy doing; which is not too shabby. If you want to make yourself wealthy from doing it- now that's an entirely different can of worms.

[Christopher May]

As one of the photographers who has had a print critiqued, I can tell you that I valued your wonderful, diverse commentary far more than the fixed constraints that a rating system would have imposed. Art does better in limitless realms. I’d hate to walk up to Nighthawks and see an “8.7 out of 10” next to the painting.

[Inkphot]

I give your thought bubble a score of 1 out of 10

[Rusty]

+++ on scoring comments. your critiques are thoughtful and a joy to read

[hugh crawford]

I don’t know whether I’d be offended more by a high or low score.

And that Quirks & Features guy is pretty awful, I give him the benefit of the doubt as to whether it’s all an act, and where else are you going to see someone flip through a Lagonda owners manual, but still if he’s playing a character, the character is an idiot. The

I used to know a guy who had the full of himself small town culture critic gig who was actually a pretty smart and cool guy who said that as soon as he stopped being an ass he’d get fired. I hope Quirks & Features guy is like that in real life but wouldn’t bet on it.

[Ilkka]

No. No scores. No.

[Allan Graham]

I'm absolutely in agreement with Martin D, and could hardly have expressed it better.

[Richard Alan Fox]

Score cameras not photos.

[louis mccullagh]

Scores are not appropriate for ARt.

I do find it most irritating if I make a comment and it doesnt get posted for several days but in the meantime the site has more posts from you.

Getting people to engage and comeback is what the web is about and from an advertisers point of view essential.

Its your choice as always but the comments seem to be a rod you have created to beat your own back. Is there no way to change the moderation. Is there a way of allowing readers to flag comments for your attention?

[Speed]

Expecting little, operating under the idea that "you don't know 'til you try it" and encouraged by Mike's suggestion that we wait and see how he does it, I submitted a print.

After reading two Print Crit posts I see that my expectations were too low and the quality of the submissions and the resulting Print Crits are terrific. In any case, if mine is never a subject that's probably good. I'm learning a lot anyway.

If I were to make a submission knowing what I know now it would be very different. More adventurous.

In any case, thanks Mike. I'm learning.

[JohnW]

The moment you begin hanging numbers on images you will put a huge signpost on what YOU like and turn the process into a competition to get the biggest and baddest "Mike Score". Not something I would want to participate in.

[Bob G.]

Scores? Seriously? Sounds like a cop out for a descriptive effort...

[Roger]

Would your scoring system be a quirk or a feature?

[Frank Gorga]

Can't say it any better than Martin D did... don't!

[Kenneth Tanaka]

Nix the scoring idea for me, too.

Further, having now seen your first few reviews my suspicions have been confirmed. Your thoughts and impressions may be meaningful to the print makers but much less so to the rest of your viewers, who have not had the benefit of actually seeing and experiencing the subject prints. Photos of prints don’t work at all for the type of exposition you seem to want.

Consider brief videos. It can be done without having to buy hip t-shirts and farmers caps. Consider a format like some book reviews or art conservation presentations that largely lock the camera down downward.

[Ross Attix]

Mike-My two cents. The score thing is okay or not depending on your own choice, but Doug Demuro is a poor comparison. Personally, I find him and his videos one of the most annoying things ever. His whole shtick is so overdone. Obviously I am swimming against the tide on that.
I just wanted to say that you are so far out in front of him there is no comparison. Yeah, maybe he is killing it monetarily-and since he bought himself a GT40 it appears so-but you are providing so much higher quality content.
He is several levels below you to me.

[Craig Beyers]

The Dean of my engineering school told a story about scores. Seems students wanted more than a letter grade; they wanted written comments about their work. So, as the story goes, the professor started writing those comments. But the workload was unsustainable, so he ended up telling his secretary that he would mark the work appropriately and she should type the comments. So, the secretary started following his guidance and typed up paragraph A for the best work, paragraph B for the good work....you get the point. Like the others, please no scores for print critiques. And keep up the good work writing; I like to read your blog!