Kred.ly the new Klout? #influence #authority
Recently there was some discussion on Klout, their influence calculation is unclear. Many people were unhappy with the fact that their Klout Score is a moving target. People who actually use the numbers generated by Klout to find the influencers they want to contact also have the issue that they don’t see what the results are of their contacts.
There are other options like Kred.ly or PeerIndex although they have not yet got the klout of Klout.
Kred.ly is an interesting option as the scoring is extremely transparent, with this transparency the system could be gamed. This would need collusion on quite a large scale.
PeerIndex is less transparent, although it gives more statistics and information on the date it uses to calculate authority and score. Roughly your PeerIndex is an average of your Authority + Activity + Audience. Unlike Kred.ly it doesn’t give numbers on individual social actions, although it does give more direct feedback it can’t be used to directly game the system.
What all of them suffer from is that they see authority stemming from one account, and neglect to see that power users – who use different channels to curate content for different audiences – may have their klout spread thinly over places that aren’t included like multiple Twitter, Google+ or FaceBook pages.
Image source: me
2 Responses
Subscribe to comments with RSS.
Daniel, this is Shawn from Kred. Thanks for featuring us here.
It’s true that Transparency is (in part) meant to mitigate gaming. The other aspect is that we give multiple scores within each of a person’s main Communities in addition to a global network score. It will simply not be possible to game every single Community.
Let us know if you have any other questions or ideas.
Very best, Shawn
Shawn Roberts
January 19, 2012 at 2:21 am
Shawn,
Gaming the system would be difficult, and recent experiments by RAAK examining Klout and PeerIndex have shown that the bots currently running on Twitter are making it easier to game the system.[1][2] They showed a linear correlation between tweets and follower count, naturally as a function of the number of bots this is finite – I haven’t been able to find the exact number[3] it is fair to say it’s a good share of accounts.
I currently think you approach is good, and don’t have anything to share at the moment.
Thanks for taking the time to reply.
1. http://wewillraakyou.com/2010/12/klout-is-broken/
2. http://wewillraakyou.com/2010/12/peerindex-twitter-spam/
3. http://www.quora.com/How-many-Twitter-accounts-are-bots-and-spammers-i-e-not-real-people-or-company-accounts
Daniël W. Crompton (webhat)
January 19, 2012 at 8:41 am