Klout Adds Context to Automated Influence?

Bookmark and Share

Klout recently announced its latest feature: +K. Similar to Google’s +1, Klout asks that you give users a +K for each topic for which they have influenced you. In theory, Klout scores will now include context and topical relevance.

For example, if you look at my profile topics, you could give me a +K if I have influenced you on social media measurement or public relations. Each user gets five +K’s each day, which means you have to be registered to give others feedback and cannot give unlimited feedback. You can also give a +K to each topic for a person once each week. So if I give you a +K for social media on Monday, then I cannot give you another +K for social media until the following Monday. And +K’s will not last forever, they have an expiration date.

Klout explains that influence can change over time. While there are plenty of people who are influential about SXSW in the first few months of the year, there is hardly anyone talking about it right now. So I may give you a +K for SXSW in March, but a +K for summer beers in June. Influence can be fleeting, and it can grow and shift over time, and Klout is trying to account for that.

You can also remove words and phrases from your own profile if you do not think they are fitting. I have noticed some odd words in my own profile before, so this feature may be useful for finding true contextual influencers.

While this does seem to add a layer of validation to the automated algorithm, it also brings into question the validity of the technology in the first place. Klout claims to measure your online influence. As we know, it’s not perfect, but asking for validation from peers makes me wonder about how accurate the algorithm is. Also, if I am able to remove topics I think are not relevant, doesn’t that defeat the purpose?

There have been a few who expressed fears about this becoming a popularity contest, and I have already seen some folks asking for +K’s on a certain topic for which they want to have influence. That’s not really influence. I can ask you to give me +K on New York City, for example, but if you know that I’ve never lived there or visited for an extended period of time, do you really find me influential on NYC? Probably not.

At this point you cannot search for people based on keywords or topics. The topics can only be viewed when someone visits your profile to explore your influence.

I respect what Klout is attempting to do, but they are not adding context or topical relevance to influence. They are not measuring your influence at all. They are using numerous numbers like your Twitter followers, Facebook friends, retweets and so on to determine how often folks online interact with or share your content.

Beyond the high barrier to entry for using +K, I don’t think it adds enough value to be worthwhile. I doubt many people will sign up for Klout just to give someone a small boost to their “social media” score which will only last about 48 hours anyway.

What do you think? Will you use +K?

Share on Tumblr

Bookmark and Share
  • Anonymous

    I think this could be interesting. Klout needs something to build upon their metrics and scoring in a more reliable way. Hopefully they have some checks and balances  to prevent gaming. I can see it now, hey look I will +K for you if you do the same…

    • http://rebeccaadenison.com Rebecca Denison

      I’ve already seen a few folks asking for their Facebook friends to +K them on a topic. If you have to ask your friends to say you’re influential in something, are you really? Already seems like gaming to me.

      I do agree that checks and balances is needed, and this could be a step. If more people would join Klout and use it every day to vote for who is influencing them, this could be a pretty good system.

      • Anonymous

        I gave you 5 +K’s this morning. So don’t go asking me for any more ;)

  • http://twitter.com/JasMollica Jason Mollica

    I’m keeping an eye on Klout. I’m not a big fan of it because I think influence isn’t easily defined. But I do concur with Jeff, a system of checks and balances is definitely needed. I could see that “K for a K” mentality. Does that really prove influence? No. 
    That being said, nice job with this post Rebecca!

    • http://rebeccaadenison.com Rebecca Denison

      I agree with you all the way, Jason! Influence is not easily defined, and automation will never be accurate on its own.

      I’m keeping an eye on Klout, too. They have mentioned allowing folks to add custom topics. If I could add a custom topic saying you have influenced me on PRBC, for example, I think that adds some value. Still definitely not a perfect measure, but the more folks who join and give +K’s, the more accurate it could be.

  • http://twitter.com/PaigeHolden PaigeHolden

    Nice post! I am also concerned about this becoming yet another social media popularity contest. So, until its proved otherwise, Ill continue to do what I’ve always done with Klout – ignore it!

    • http://rebeccaadenison.com Rebecca Denison

      My thoughts, as well! If it proves useful, I’ll be all about it. Until then… :)