Sometimes, I chance upon things that do not merit one of my lengthy posts, hence, this here diminutive post.
As I’m walking around — or even linearly — I’ll notice something and I snap a photo. Such was the case with the above. I liked the texture
The original of this is a big file . . . compiled from multiple shots, it comes in at 17MB and roughly 5700 x 7700 pixels. I’m not going to link it here because I set up a SmugMug Gallery HERE for all the photos I use in the Diminutive Posts. If you want to see the original, go there. Clicking on any of the photos opens a version roughly twice as big in a new tab or window.
I wanted to brighten the above photo before changing it to B&W . . . but forgot to defringe it before doing so. I’m referring to the bluish halo visible around the foliage of the tree in the background.
Well, when I enhanced the photo, it made the fringing more pronounced . . .
I’m very pleased I was able to bring out the texture of the tree stump but less than pleased about all the blue fringing. Still, the plan was to slowly shift to B&W, so on I went . . .
I could have done more B&W versions, but this being a diminutive post, I deemed these enough.
~ ~ ~ o o o ~ ~ ~
For the writing, I wanted to share the year-end stats I got from Grammarly (the plugin I use to proof my writing).
Productivity: 2,976,680 words checked
Accuracy:2,284 mistakes corrected
Mistakes per Words Written rate:0.07%
That’s a lot of words, Bob. Of course, it includes all my e-mails, documents I’ve written, and any browser entry (comments, tweets, facebook posts, etc.)
Now, that’s probably a little misleading since the plugin does not remember what I already checked. So, I’m going to conservatively say my actually written word count is likely in the order of a third of that total, or 992,226.56 words.
The mistakes are unique and likely accurate, so it gives me roughly a 0.21% error rate per words written. Still pretty good, I think.
Understand, the accuracy reflects mistakes corrected . . . there are things I don’t correct even though they get flagged. For instance, the use of the ellipses in the previous sentence; it generates three errors. One for an unnecessary ellipse, and two additional punctuation and capitalization errors.
I also get a weekly report. This past week I wrote more words than 95% of Grammarly users, I was more accurate than 85% of users, and my vocabulary (unique words) was larger than 99% of Grammarly users . . . all of which lowers my opinion of Grammarly users. Those numbers are typical for a normal week.
I don’t pay much attention to the numbers because I don’t know what algorithm they use to come up with them. Truthfully, even my estimate of nearly a million words for 2016 so far seems a bit high to me (my long posts notwithstanding). Had I a strong desire to know for sure, I would compose everything off-line and keep track of the number of words I write each day for one month and estimate my yearly output.
I’m not going to do that.
I used to check my readability scores . . . for those not interested, stop reading here.
Those curious about the above text, it scores like this:
Readability Grade Levels
A grade level (based on the USA education system) is equivalent to the number of years of education a person has had. A score of around 10-12 is roughly the reading level on completion of high school. Text to be read by the general public should aim for a grade level of around 8.
|Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level||7.1|
|Automated Readability Index||6.4|
|Average Grade Level||8.6|
These readability scoring algorithms do not provide grade levels. Please click on each score to find our more about what it represents and the ages it is appropriate for.
|Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease||70.1|
|New Dale-Chall Score||4.6|
|Sentences > 30 Syllables||7|
|Sentences > 20 Syllables||18|
|Words > 4 Syllables||5|
|Words > 12 Letters||3|
|Passive Voice Count||0|
Reading time is based on 225 words per minute, or 125 words per minute for speaking aloud.
Sentiment analysis gives an idea of whether the text uses mostly positive language, negative language, or neutral language. For longer pieces, the text is split into three to give sentiment analysis for the beginning, middle and end of the piece.
|Neutral (Slightly Positive)|
The site I use to get the above numbers (there are other sites) is HERE.
That’s it. This post has ended . . . except for the stuff below.
Note: if you are not reading this blog post at DisperserTracks.com, know that it has been copied without permission, and likely is being used by someone with nefarious intention, like attracting you to a malware-infested website. Could be they also torture small mammals.
Please, if you are considering bestowing me recognition beyond commenting below, refrain from doing so. I will decline blogger-to-blogger awards. I appreciate the intent behind it, but I prefer a comment thanking me for turning you away from a life of crime, religion, or making you a better person in some other way. That would mean something to me.
If you wish to know more, please read below.
Note: to those who may click on “like”, or rate the post; if you do not hear from me, know that I am sincerely appreciative, and I thank you for noticing what I do.
. . . my FP ward . . . chieken shit.
Finally, if you interpret anything on this blog as me asking or wanting pity, encouragement, or advice to better my life, know my subtle mix of irony, sarcasm, and humor is blowing right by you.