Shared publicly  - 
Ian Nethercott's profile photoOmar Peralta's profile photoLaura stinar's profile photoMario Tovar's profile photo
I am getting a free HD sony cam from Klout so I couldn't care less, as long as I keep getting free shit. lol
So, the point of the rather lengthy article is to say that the current models of influence tracking are inaccurate, invalidated and are easily gamed. Perhaps.  But it is a large leap to consider that a preponderance of users are intentionally gaming their score. There are outliers, but on the whole, influence scores can be fairly reliable.

To say that you can't spot a big fish online, but you know if someone is a heavy hitter offline is a bit laughable. It comes down to audience size, audience loyalty, audience engagement, audience affinity with similar topics and ultimately the results of traffic.

However, I do agree with the premise that current scoring models are imperfect, but it's a stretch to say, "_An influence score is really just a measure of how well people game the influence scoring algorithm."_
Hands down.. one of the best articles I've read about a scientific look at social media influence... 

"behaviors that game the system are typically a lot simpler than behaviors that are truly influential,....(it) changes people’s behavior in a way that pushes them further away from being truly influential. Ironic isn’t it? That’s why I call this the influence irony."

I don't know how many people I know on the internet... who are "social media power users" who fall into this category.
Add a comment...