Image via CrunchBasePundit Comment: I just gave @dubash +k on media on @klout
Dubash: All I see is a number. Not sure what a "+k" implies. But I thank you : )
Pundit Comment: Haha. Do you at least know what @klout is or do I need to start at the very beginning? I'll be giving you more +k's in days to come.
Vidyut: it is a compliment, that the software can understand/record. @PunditComment is saying you are very good at what she +1'd you for.
Dubash: But if human's can "+k" or "-k" how objective is it? And now I want to know who all rated me! :)
Vidyut: right now, only @PunditComment has given you a +1. I've finished mine for today (only 5 per day). I will later. you should be able to see that on your profile under topics. it isn't objective. It is how you are seen by people.
Dubash: I am not sure I buy this klout business. Especially because I don't even get passing score :) It's like I've just been told I've failed an exam I didn't even take : ))
Pundit Comment: Muhahaha. Let me help you. The +K's increase your score. You should also consider following a few more people or increasing activity. Go sign into Klout. I think that's going to boost your score right away. Heard it happen to a girl. Helps them track you.
Dubash: It sounds like a racket. I get a higher score, then what? Is there a klout score based on # of female followers?
Pundit Comment: klout, peer index and newest kid on the block empire ave are metrics to measure your internet presence/influence/network. I like the +k's coz the +k's are a good way to demonstrate positivity, organic meritocracy, consideration on Twitter.
Dubash: Yeah but I don't want to be one of *those* influential people, you know, those with more than a 1000 followers. :-)) I think you should write a blog about this. As for me I prefer at least the appearance of a level playing field. : )
Pundit Comment: matlab? how is it not? Aur isme kya likhna hai? Or ask me questions and I'll answer and storify as a proper Q&A.
Dubash: Right now it is fine. No one knows about it. It just feels wrong to rank people. I like the "flatness" of twitter.
Pundit Comment: So...the thing is, twitter is not quite "flat". Kim Kardashian gets paid $10k for a single sponsored tweet. LiLo tweeted about gas.
Dubash: I wanted you to address the notion that giving people a score makes for better discourse. To put it another way, I am concerned that will to a hierarchical community.
Pundit Comment: Noooo. It's the other way round. I see the +k's as a way to reach out after a debate and show my appreciation for the other guy.
Dubash: There aren't quite that many prima donnas in the Indian twitteroshphere. Which is actually the cool part. I mean there aren't as many Kardashian type twitterers. I'd say 95% will engage in a two-way conversation. But if people are ranked, I could see, people may tend to engage with their 'peers" (in terms of ranking).
Pundit Comment: Your Klout score is made up from the number of ppl mentioning&RT you. Klout is a score, not a rank. For example, Vidyut's score is 74 because she's very engaging on Twitter and people talk back with her. A huge critique of Klout right now is that it does not take into account the Klout of the persons YOU influence (as far as i know). So, for example, if I influence xyz with 300k followers that should be more important than if I influence abc with 1k. Also, until recently BarackObama was not actually Barack Obama. Klout does not yet take into account whether a secy is running the acc.
Dubash: Yes but a score is sort of a rank. It formalizes what is (let's face it) unspoken up till now. Hierarchy :( I know hierarchy exists even now. But giving it a number will ossify it. I don't want to influence the popular people anyway.
Pundit Comment: I don't believe you can call social influence a "hierarchy". SRK left Delhi, worked his way up and won hearts. Same thing here. Klout measures public reaction to your twitter presence because it measures your *true* network and counts # mentions, RTs. So, for e.g. I have 1065 followers but my true reach is around 300+ acc to Klout. Do you see how it is an improvement as a metric? It is not correct to use the word "hierarchy". You'll find surprising results from Klout coz it measures true engagement and impact. re:"I don't want to influence the popular people" - I already said Klout does *NOT* currently measure the klout of ppl you engage.
Dubash: I get it. But I like to think the good tweets will spread no matter who they comes from.
Pundit Comment: This tweet of yours proves you don't get it. I am a 3 month old nobody. Yet my Klout score is 65. How? Because I've had some impact. The whole point of Klout is to find out just who is actually getting RT & mentioned. It is helpful but imperfect coz it's easy to game.
Dubash: But if it measured who you engaged with. You would probably only talk to the likes of Vidyut and not me : )
Pundit Comment: Nope. I'd be engaging with the ideas expressed no matter where they come from. Thus creating a conversation all want to get in on.
Vidyut: I agree with what you are saying, but without reach, they won't. not everyone following you is online / paying attn. often becomes a case of tree that fell unseen, unheard. though if ur tweeting well, consistently, that changes fast.
Dubash: Even when not many people knew me. Say a tweet about ahem Rahul Gandhi would get retweeted. As long as you have a minimum...
Vidyut: lol. that works only for "masala" tweets. more insightful ones, the percentage of those who "get it" drops rapidly.
Dubash: I have done scientific studies. Rahul Gandhi tweet will always get retweeted. : )
Vidyut: if you see http://bit.ly/pQ4cOT different people pick whatever they want to RT. my klout is 75. :) someone like @Jesus_M_Christ is http://bit.ly/pMDlQR His Klout is 84. So, there is some sense as a metric.
Pundit Comment: The thing about RTs is that it just depends on the style of your followers. Some a lot, others never. Me-it's my religion.
Dubash: Yeah but I can see others not being so open, especially if given an too easy way to know who is influential and who is not.
Pundit Comment: I understand. When we first join Twitter, we follow famous ppl we like or know from our fields. Everyday, we meet new folk. Move on. Similarly, if people started checking Klout scores (give it 1-2years), they would know whom to follow based on who actually talks. I would argue (assuming away current imperfections) Klout is a better way to learn who is using Twitter more skillfully than not. @Your_Say advises not to talk to yourself but instead to talk to other people on Twitter. If you're new, insert yourself in conversations. Klout also keeps track of the topics we all talk about. I picked "media" out of a list of 10 topics for you. Go take a look. :-) Stuff like Klout works only when we keep it real, organic, truthful. Sadly, @ChrisPirillo says it is really easy to game at present. With that, I'm back full circle to the +K's. I like them because we only get 5 per day. So I pick ppl who really influenced me.
Dubash: You give me +ks now. And then a day will come and I will ask you why you don't +k me anymore. Then you will call me a nag :(
Pundit Comment: HAHAHAHA Man, you worry a lot. First of all, you don't even follow me. You'll forget about me before I forget about you! LOL Secondly, if I stop giving you +k's it'll be because I've already given as many as I'm allowed until they re-set the topic list. Thirdly, people will stop giving +k's because it'll become a daily chore. It has nothing to do with YOU, has to do with THEIR laziness.
*1950s housewife commercial toothy smile* Go to www.klout.com to check your score TODAY!
*Ahem* I'd like some bloody Klout perks for this bloody post now, please.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Image via CrunchBasePundit Comment: I just gave @dubash +k on media on @klout
This work by Pundit Commentator is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.