Despite the proliferation of digital humanities projects, varying greatly in form and media, there remain anxieties about the evaluation of digital work. Digital humanists find, time and time again, that they are expected to perform twice the labour of traditional scholars; once for the work itself and once again for its evaluation. At the same time, traditional humanists often experience a sensation of threat from the digital arena, believing that it is easy to gain employment, grants, and tenure if one is a digital humanist.\ud \ud In this chapter, I ask how we can understand a double logic in which digital-humanities work is at once so powerful as to crowd out the traditional humanists while at the same time so poorly understood as to need supplementation by traditional publication. Classifying the existing mechanisms of evaluation into a three-fold typology of 1.) a desired scarcity correlation; 2.) a set of media-specific denoting frames; and 3.) a set of disciplinary understandings, I show how and why DH remains radical in its work yet traditional in its outputs.