Diminutive Disperser Post No. 3 – Tree Stump and Writing

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
2,284 mistakes corrected
Mistakes per Words Written rate:

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.

Readability Formula Grade
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level 7.1
Gunning-Fog Score 9.7
Coleman-Liau Index 9.8
SMOG Index 10.1
Automated Readability Index 6.4
Average Grade Level 8.6

Readability Scores

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.

Readability Formula Score
Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease 70.1
Spache Score 4.3
New Dale-Chall Score 4.6

Text Quality

Sentences > 30 Syllables 7
Sentences > 20 Syllables 18
Words > 4 Syllables 5
Words > 12 Letters 3
Passive Voice Count 0
Adverb Count 38
Cliché Count 0

Reading Time

Reading time is based on 225 words per minute, or 125 words per minute for speaking aloud.

Item Time
Reading Time 2:13
Speaking Time 4:00


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.

About awards: Blogger Awards
About “likes”:   Of “Likes”, Subscriptions, and Stuff

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.

About disperser

Odd guy with odd views living an odd life during odd times.
This entry was posted in Hawaii, Musings Stuff, Personal, Photography, Photography Stuff, Scenery, The Big Island, Writing Stuff and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Diminutive Disperser Post No. 3 – Tree Stump and Writing

  1. Eddy Winko says:

    That’s a lot of words.


  2. mvschulze says:

    Like the color stump image especially in Smugmug. As for the writting word analysis…i need to reach for an aspirin. M :-0


    • disperser says:

      SmugMug does a much better job of rendering the photos on screen, although WP has improved from a few years ago when it was working hard at frustrating my efforts for even a passable image to make it on screen.

      . . . aspirins are good for you . . .

      Liked by 1 person

  3. oneowner says:

    I like the last version of the tree trunk best. I usually try to get the best color version I can before making a B&W conversion, too. I like the simple approach using just the sliders in Lightroom but I also like the On1 Black and White plug-in (v9). This plug-in, and Silver Efex (v2) have some controls that can produce a look that is more difficult to achieve in LR alone. Of course, Photoshop does a fine job, too, but there’s no presets. I can remember the days when I had a lot more work to do to get a black and white print from a Kodachrome.


    • disperser says:

      These are not straight up B&W conversions. All of them have some glow and other stuff I threw in there.

      For pretty good conversions mimicking film emulsions of old, I use DxO’s Filmpack. They have both color and B&W presets that attempt to duplicate the looks of various films.


  4. That tree stump looks a bit like how I’ve been feeling of late!


  5. OOH! Your tree stump is beautiful, with great texture and character!
    The 1st and 4th photos are my favs!

    That is cool to read your year end writing/word stats!

    I am verbose, so I appreciate reading other people’s lots-of-words!
    HUGS!!! :-)


  6. AnnMarie says:

    Really LIKE that last B&W shot!

    Very interesting stats.


Voice your opinion

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.