But this re-setting of the scoring dial and the fall out, really underscores the fundamental flaw in any attempt to measure “influence” so dependent on subjective context (a problem I noted back in May.) In fact, now I am beginning to wonder if ANY externally driven Influence scoring methodology is useful given the complexity in determining who has influence and in what areas, (more than once I was amused at how Klout thought I was expert on “Russia” or “Warfare” – maybe because my blog is called “Trenchwars”). So I also can’t help but question whether Klout would do well to not to recalibrate their “Influence” scoring model (which then disqualifies it as a “standard” by any measure) but to recalibrate exactly what they are REALLY measuring. Stripping away techno-buzz, isn’t it more accurate to say that Klout is really measuring a person’s content distribution capabilities – not their influence at all?
A great point. And why I wish Klout told you more about amplification and distribution of content, which is something that’s easily measurable and standardized.
(via ourmaninchicago)
That last sentence is interesting:
Stripping away techno-buzz, isn’t it more accurate to say that Klout is really measuring a person’s content distribution capabilities – not their influence at all?