What is the correct number of words for a critique of a photograph? Is it 6? 60? 600? Why? Are some photographs more complicated than others to critique? Does every photographer want the same thing from a critique?
I think the complaint here boils down to a handful of people who are incensed to rage that anyone would write more than a handful of words about a photograph. Maybe it is a recognition that "nice shot Joe" isn't a critique? Maybe it is a standard too high to actually have to put some content into a critique? Maybe it is resentment that an outsider is daring to comment on 'club' photos? Maybe it is that people have been shielded from the normal world of criticism in their photography? Whatever the reasons are, they are confined to a small group which accounts themselves the control faction of this forum. But in fact, taking aside that small group, pretty much all the others which I have commented to, have been appreciative of my comments. And why wouldn't they be? A critique consisting of no analysis is a pat on the back, or in the many cases of no comments at all, it is a simple rejection letter. How is that useful to a photographer? Why bother posting the photo?
Of course I use a lot of words. That's how ideas are constructed - with words. The more ideas you want to express, the more words you will need. I don't see the title of this forum as "pat on the back club." Start one of those, if you hate words. Make a simple check box for thumbs up and down and you can reduce it to no words. Nothing wrong with that. But this isn't that. One of the longest critiques I made here was 500 words. And knowing it would be that, I even provided a single sentence summary at the beginning for people whose eyes cross at the idea of reading 500 words. And that proved to me that it wasn't the length of my commentary that was objectionable, it was the content of it. For evidence, look to the long battles over the simple concept that a photograph reveals something of the photographer. Oddly, people will write at great length to attempt to discredit that idea.
Yes, my view of photography goes beyond the views of most here, because I view it as a larger more important art than many of these here. That's the conflict - not the length of my critique, but the idea I would dare touch on more than what was customary and comfortable. Which I will continue to do.
The attempts to chase me away with gutter level crudity didn't work, and won't work. Keep trying if you like, but it's a reflection on you, not me.