By the criteria mentioned in this post here's my DM ability scores as determined by a survey of players I've DM'd for lately:
what I said about myself in an earlier post:
Here's my analysis
STR: players 13 and myself 12, so the players feel I describe the setting around them more then adequately. That makes me happy I could certainly do better in my estimate but what I do typically seems to do the job.
CON: player 12 and myself 16, pretty big difference there but still a favorable result from the players. Maybe they don't realize how much crap I have to deal with. I do know all my players well and expect them not to be asses so maybe my occasional flustered response lowers my score in their estimation.
DEX: players 16, me 17. I've been doing it for over 30 years and half my group has been gaming with me for over 20 years so nice to see they think I'm good and fair.
INT: players 16, me 14. I'm flattered. If the players knew how much I didn't bother paying attention to most of the time they might be horrified or maybe they are happy with what i do keep track of.
WIS: players 15, me 16. I've run the game from a map and a handful of index cards for a year or more at a time now and again, some of the players know this and are happy with it.
CHA: players 11, me 12. I could be better at the acting but I don't spend a lot of time and effort on it because it would be wasted on one of my veteran regulars, another would sit back and enjoy it but interact poorly (i want to interact not put on a show) and a third is prone to really get into the role- part so much we'd never get much at all done and would spend most of a session on one or two exchanges it'd be great improv-theater but a slow game.
Except for one area I wasn't too far off in estimating my own abilities as the players see them and the players perception and experience is really what Dming is about. So I've got to deal with the crap a bit better and throw in a little more of my acting skills to lift the game up more for the players and myself.