Does anyone else sometimes feel like social networks have two purposes: for idiots to post things that get them fired/arrested, and for marketers to give each other handjobs?

It's a thing I can do without...

\come on...

That unfortunate black guy on the left looks like he accidentally got stuck in a bra

t3knomanser: Does anyone else sometimes feel like social networks have two purposes: for idiots to post things that get them fired/arrested, and for marketers to give each other handjobs?

I see so many +K posts on my facebook and twitter feeds, they clog up my tumblr and linkedin screens, choking my google+ and blogspot that it drives me mad enough to go to wordpress and quote a few things.

I got a free Sony PSP mailed to me as a perk because of my klout. Also a DVD of some shiatty tv show for chicks. Free stuff is free stuff.

I have so little KLOUT that my state DMV added "organ donor" to my license even though I specifically said not to.

Klout is like a Twitter horoscope. It gives you no actual information at all, just the impression you've been given information.

Pretty interface but no substance underneath it. I've been told my influence has dropped when posts of mine have gone out to thousands of people more than usual and that my influence has grown when it hasn't. I've watched accounts game the system with no content and seen much inconsistency in scores between accounts.

Kred.ly and Peerindex are each substantially more credible than Klout but lack the slick interface.

/glad not to have a job with employers thick enough to think Klout should be used to rate candidates.

Well, my Klout is so low a girl phoned me the other day and said... 'Come on over, there's nobody home.' I went over. Nobody was home. I gotta tell ya, no Klout.

Klout...Klout...let it all out. These are the things I can do without.

farbles: Kred.ly and Peerindex are each substantially more credible than Klout but lack the slick interface.

Seriously? Because, on PeerIndex, I have the same rating as Comcast. I find that amusing, given that I don't use my Twitter profile (I just keep a membership to reserve the handle, just in case), my LinkedIn profile is actually used for work-related networking (and so I have a limited range), and I don't have a Facebook profile at all.

Klout, PeerIndex, and so on are metadata feeders, attempting to manufacture an industry by feeding off the detritus & aggregation of another industry. They're social networking remoras, and nothing more.

I can't be assed to find out, but how do they account for the fact that people use different pseudonyms on different sites? My fark handle isn't used anywhere else, my twitter name is only used on twitter, and my slashdot login is yet another name. The only page that actually has my real name is facebook. So I'm assuming they'd only rate me based on facebook?

FormlessOne:
Seriously? Because, on PeerIndex, I have the same rating as Comcast. I find that amusing, given that I don't use my Twitter profile (I just keep a membership to reserve the handle, just in case), my LinkedIn profile is actually used for work-related networking (and so I have a limited range), and I don't have a Facebook profile at all.

So, looking that up I find the following somewhat confusing profile info for Comcast's Twitter feed:

PeerIndex
48

Frank Eliason

My name is Bill Gerth also known as @comcastbill. We are here to Make it Right for our customers. Wil­liam_G­erthtsacmoc­com

Mine was 45 for an active popular Twitter account, dropped to 38 since I took the holidays off. Comcast's Peerindex score /does/ seem a little low but the analysis of the account content seems reasonable enough.

In your case, as you should already know, you would have to register your various social media accounts and authorize Peerindex to access each of your various social media accounts before it could do diddly with anything. FWIW a dummy Twitter account I have with no followers and a handful of posts scores 5.


Klout, PeerIndex, and so on are metadata feeders, attempting to manufacture an industry by feeding off the detritus & aggregation of another industry. They're social networking remoras, and nothing more.

I disagree, there's a need for a good metric for effectiveness of social media, especially for organizations and serious individuals. I just say it isn't Klout, despite the slick interface. And what's wrong with some remora action, anyways? It's all opt-in, they're not breaking into your computer for it.

What the hell is Klout?



/drtfa

farbles: In your case, as you should already know, you would have to register your various social media accounts and authorize Peerindex to access each of your various social media accounts before it could do diddly with anything. FWIW a dummy Twitter account I have with no followers and a handful of posts scores 5.

Yep, and that's kind of the point - it's a proprietary algorithm to compute a value that can be used to say "I'm popular." However, if you're popular enough to care about your Klout or PeerIndex score, the score itself becomes meaningless. The score's only useful if you're almost popular, and you're using the tool to actually manipulate your online presence for marketing purposes.

As far as I can tell, the only real use of that score is to have a pissing contest with the few other popular people that not only care about that score, but believe that using a social networking site should be competitive. Perhaps I'm being narrow-minded about it, but I can virtually guarantee that no one gives a rat's rectum about my Klout or PeerIndex score, and so it's basically irrelevant to me.

I don't have a brand. I'm not a product. I'm certainly not a product in competition with other products, and I couldn't care less about how many followers, sycophants, stalkers, acquaintances, and so on I have online. I'm not their target demographic, and I don't care much about their target demographic's whims, dreams, fripperies, or foolishness - certainly not enough to bother with quantitative analysis between two such chuckleheads.

/and you can kindly get the hell off my damned lawn.

farbles: I disagree, there's a need for a good metric for effectiveness of social media, especially for organizations and serious individuals.

The only people who need that metric are the ones who treat social media as a marketing tool - you know, the folks who have to fake it, who have to hit the right buzzwords, the right phrases, and don't want to get caught behind the next glib-tongued liar pushing a product or an idea. It's a tool for tools, basically.

Paul Christoforo would be your target demographic for that tool. He'd want to know if he was manipulating you appropriately, if his name was hitting the right feeds, if his depth of contact and sphere of influence were sufficient. And the fun part?

I'm betting Paul's score would be astronomical right now - I'm betting that this tool would be telling the rest of us that Paul was a friggin' success.

Just for laughs, I checked. Over the last four months, Paul Christoforo's PeerIndex score is 26, a respectable showing for a marketing small fry. With an Audience rating of 77, he's near the top of "the top 10% of the community". Sure, his Activity is 16 and his Authority is 11, but combined together, he'd happily quote his PeerIndex score as a reference.

So, yes, his Audience score is, indeed, astronomical - and his overall rating isn't too shabby, either. Neither tells you that he's a lying asshole, and such folk would be quite happy to include this contextless statistic to bolster claims for their "effectiveness of social media." It's why I have such contempt for it - data without context.