New Klout scores are out and they still screw up real-world influence has a list of technology VIPs and their +Klout scores. All the scores changed today in order to better reflect offline influence. So Bill Gates moved up the list. 

But things are still pretty wacky.

My score of 86, for instance, still puts me ahead of lots of people. Here's just a small portion of the more deserving people of high Klout scores that are on that list:

+Jimmy Wales invented Wikipedia, but he only has 85.
+Steve Case came up with AOL and he's only 85.
+jack dorsey invented Twitter and runs +Square but he only has 85.
+Marissa Mayer runs Yahoo and gets paid tens of millions, yet she only has a score of 84.
+Kevin Rose has invested in half a dozen huge winners (me, none) and he has 84.
+Joichi Ito is the director of MIT's Media Lab and only has 84.
+Steve Wozniak cofounded Apple and only has 83.
+michael arrington started and sold Techcrunch. Me? I only linked to it. He only has 82.
+Matt Mullenweg started Automattic, the company that makes Wordpress, yet only has 81.
+Chris Anderson runs TED, which gets more views than my videos do, and he only has 81.
+Reid Hoffman started LinkedIn and he only has 81.
+Marc Benioff started and runs and he only has 81.
+Eric Schmidt ran Google for years, still is on its board, and he only has 81.
+David Sacks started Yammer and sold it to Microsoft for a billion dollars and he only has 80.
+Loic Le Meur started LeWeb, the most influential tech conference in Europe and he only has 79.
+John Doerr is one of the top VCs alive (invested in Google) and he has a score of only 78.
+Philip Schiller is a VP at Apple and only has 77.
+Chad Hurley started YouTube and only has 76.
+Tim Berners-Lee invented the Web and only has 73.
+Fred Davis started Wired Magazine and only has 72.

Shall I go on? There are lots of examples on this list of people who should have a higher real-world score than me, but that don't.

So, should we take Klout seriously?

Now, on the other side of the fence, I will defend Klout. If you are measuring online popularity AND activity AND ability to get other people to engage, ala click +1 on a post, then I guess I deserve to be higher than most, but what good is measuring just that? 

That said, if you compare someone with a score of, say, 60 or more, with someone with a score of 20 or less, you can see a HUGE difference in quality of content and engagement and influence and all that. So, there is some value when you compare the high end of the scale with the low end. But the numbers are just funny money in my book.

On the other hand, my number is 86 and that's pretty damn cool to my  overinflated ego. :-) All that means is my wife is gonna make me change more diapers and clean more dishes tonight. Sigh.

UPDATE: Klout CEO +Joe Fernandez commented and responded to this below in the comments.
Shared publiclyView activity