OTHER PLATFORMS | ginadoverjaques

Other Platforms

In which to share my work:

My question to ChatGPT: "is it worth me joining something like Scribehound"

For your particular goals, I think it's worth considering carefully rather than joining immediately.

Scribehound is a membership-based platform that allows writers to publish long-form work, build an audience, and receive support from readers through subscriptions. It sits somewhere between a blogging platform and a publication, with a focus on quality writing rather than rapid social media content.

For you, I see both strengths and limitations.

Where it aligns with your work

Your Reading Gardens project is not simply photography—it is documentary writing, observation and cultural interpretation. Long-form essays such as your Reading Rousham article would fit naturally on a platform that values thoughtful writing.

It could also:

provide a permanent home for essays that don't find a magazine outlet

demonstrate that you are an active writer, not just a photographer

allow editors to discover your work organically

build a small readership interested in gardens, heritage and landscape.

Where I think it is less valuable

Your primary objective, as we've discussed over recent weeks, isn't simply to publish more. It's to become known within the professional horticultural and garden media world.

That audience is relatively specialised.

The people you most want reading your work are those connected with organisations such as:

the Garden Media Guild

editors of The English Garden, Gardens Illustrated, The Garden, and similar publications

head gardeners

landscape architects

garden historians

trusts and historic gardens.

Those people are much more likely to encounter your work through:

your own Reading Gardens website

Garden Media Guild publications

LinkedIn

recommendations from people you've photographed

talks, tours and events.

I don't think many of them routinely browse Scribehound looking for new contributors.

Opportunity cost

Membership isn't hugely expensive, but every platform requires time.

You would need to:

publish regularly

interact with readers

build an audience

maintain another online presence.

Given everything you're already developing—your website, analogue photography, articles, GMG relationships, visits to Great Dixter, Burghley, Kew and other gardens—I suspect your time is currently your most valuable resource.

A strategy I think suits you better

I'd prioritise:

Building your own Reading Gardens website into the definitive archive of your work.

Publishing selected articles in respected garden publications where possible.

Using LinkedIn to share excerpts and behind-the-scenes observations.

Continuing to build relationships through the Garden Media Guild.

Eventually producing a collected body of work—a book or substantial publication—which I think is a very natural destination for your project.

When Scribehound would become attractive

I think it becomes much more compelling if, in a year or two, you have:

six to ten observational studies completed,

an established voice,

readers asking for more than magazines can publish.

At that point it could become a place for longer reflections, field notes and essays that don't fit elsewhere.

For where you are today, I would probably invest the same time in strengthening your own website and your visibility within the horticultural community rather than paying for another publishing platform. I think those efforts are more closely aligned with the audience you're trying to reach.

thank you. I did wonder, and do not wish to dilute my efforts. Can you assist with your thoughts on what to share on Linkedin

Thought for 4s

I actually think LinkedIn could become one of your strongest platforms.

The reason is that you're not trying to become an influencer. You're building a reputation as someone undertaking a serious, research-led documentary project about gardens. That is exactly the kind of work LinkedIn tends to reward when presented consistently.

What I would avoid is treating LinkedIn like Instagram. Don't simply post photographs with captions. Instead, position yourself as someone documenting and thinking about professional horticultural practice.

I'd aim for four broad types of posts.

1. Project updates (your most important content)

These let people follow the journey.

For example:

Last week I spent a day observing how a head gardener reads a historic landscape.

No interviews took place while we walked. Instead, I photographed moments of attention, pause and movement before reflecting together afterwards.

Every visit adds another perspective to the question that sits behind Reading Gardens:

How does professional expertise shape the experience of a garden?

This isn't revealing the finished work; it's inviting people into the process.

2. What you learned

Rather than saying "I visited X garden."

Instead write:

One thing I've begun to notice across every visit is that experienced horticulturists rarely look at an entire border first.

Their attention is drawn to individual plants, relationships, maintenance decisions and evidence of stewardship.

It makes me realise that gardens are read, not simply seen.

That sort of reflection is exactly what professionals engage with.

3. Behind the methodology

This is something that genuinely differentiates you.

Topics might include:

Why analogue photography?

Why work with limited exposures?

Why avoid directing participants?

Why conversations happen afterwards rather than during the walk.

What observational photography can reveal.

Very few photographers discuss methodology at this level.

4. Celebrating others

I think this may become surprisingly valuable.

When you attend a Garden Media Guild event or visit a garden, don't make the post about yourself.

Instead write about:

something a gardener said

an interesting maintenance decision

a planting detail

a conservation approach

why a particular person inspired you.

People appreciate being recognised thoughtfully.

A single observational study could easily generate months of thoughtful posts without revealing the finished article.

For example, imagine you're working with a Head Gardener over four months.

Month 1 – The invitation

Why you chose this person.
What question you're hoping to explore.
Why you're interested in stewardship as a way of reading gardens.

Month 2 – Preparing

A reflection on how you prepare for an observational study.
Why you deliberately avoid researching every detail beforehand.
Why you choose analogue film for this work.

Month 3 – The visit

One photograph.
One observation that surprised you.
No spoilers about the eventual article.

Month 4 – Reflection

What you're wrestling with while reviewing your notes.
A broader thought about stewardship or expertise.
Not "Here's what Joe said," but "This visit has made me rethink..."

Month 5 – Publication

Announce the article.
Thank everyone involved.
Share one image and a link.

Then the cycle begins again with the next study.

I also think your project naturally lends itself to "thinking aloud" rather than "reporting news."

For instance, I would be fascinated to read something like:

"During every observational study I've completed so far, I've noticed that the pace of walking changes dramatically.

Experienced horticulturists don't move through a garden at a constant speed. They slow almost unconsciously where management decisions become visible, then move on again.

I'm beginning to wonder whether pace itself is one way expertise is expressed."

That isn't tied to one article. It's a research insight emerging across several visits. It invites discussion without giving away your conclusions.

Another point is that you don't have to post every week.

Because your work is slow and deliberate, I think one substantial post every two or three weeks may suit both you and the project better. It reinforces the idea that each post is worth reading, rather than simply keeping your profile active.

One thing I'd encourage is to think of LinkedIn not as a place to promote outputs, but as a place to document the evolution of your thinking.

Your finished articles are the destination.

LinkedIn can be the research journal that shows how you arrived there.

That distinction is important because it mirrors the way researchers, authors and academics often communicate. They don't only announce publications; they share questions, observations and emerging ideas along the way. Given the research-led nature of Reading Gardens, I think that approach would feel authentic rather than manufactured.

The ratio I'd use

If you posted once a week/every 2-weeks say, I'd roughly aim for:

40% observations and ideas

30% project progress

20% celebrating other people

10% announcing publications or achievements

Notice what's missing...

Very little self-promotion.

Ironically, that's often what makes people appear more credible.

Your photographs

I also think your photographs should work differently on LinkedIn than on Instagram.

Rather than a gallery of ten images, I'd usually post:

one strong analogue photograph

perhaps a second image showing context

then a substantial piece of writing.

Let the writing carry the post. The photograph draws people in; the words establish your authority.

A long-term strategy

What excites me most is that, over several years, your LinkedIn profile could become a chronological record of the evolution of Reading Gardens.

Someone discovering you in 2029 wouldn't just see finished articles. They would see the thinking behind the project as it developed, from Reading Rousham, through studies with head gardeners, landscape architects and ecological stewards, to whatever comes next. That narrative itself becomes evidence of a sustained research practice.

There are many photographers on LinkedIn explaining cameras, lenses and editing. Far fewer people are writing about how horticultural expertise changes perception. That niche is distinctive, aligns with your project, and is likely to resonate with the editors, gardeners and landscape professionals you hope will follow your work.