Thanks for posting Mark – very interesting. I am loving this whole shift from web-centric to people-centric. Long overdue, but fascinating. I wrote a post recently on why video was over-hyped as a tool, simply because it cannot be scanned, which means people then rely on its credibility/authorship. I think it’s part of the same deal. It’s becoming more important where information comes from and what level of trust you are prepared to put into it – because with more content around, we need a quick, intuitive way of filtering that is currently not available. Sounds like the search guys – assisted by people like Joe – are addressing this gap. Fascinating stuff.

Agree. I think all of our content and eventually all our of our search results will be tuned that way.

I think Danny and Sam are smart and passionate. I generally agree with them but I think they overestimate the general impact of gaming the system and underestimate the practical usefulness of the tools, especially as the field progresses and becomes more refined. It would be the same as saying Google was dumb in 1997 because it was inaccurate and could be gamed. That statement is true but it does not preclude the fact that it was a technology that should be understood and considered as a legitimate trend.

Hi Mark,

I wouldn’t say we “overestimate” it. As the quote from @twitter-167432870:disqus’s interview says, “Some people abuse more than others”. We recognize that anything that can be gamed, will be. However, many people don’t. The conversation online (and on blogs) has changed, though, and people that are aware of scoring and its “rewards” do often play up to that with their language. Not all the time, but often.

Both @SamFiorella and I give these platforms credit for starting the conversation around digital influence, but they are still limited. As we conversed over on my blog, when there’s limited data available, the metrics of influence will be skewed. And when that data is being used to help make decisions about jobs, then it needs to be far more accurate.

The bigger question though, which I don’t think Joe answered, is the business value (though that may be because Klout is consumer-centric, while platforms like Appinions, Traackr, Tellagence, Salorix et al are business-centric). Scoring platforms (so far) have shared very little in success stories for their promotions. This is why brands are still confused about the value of influence as a marketing tactic.

As Chuck shares in his comment, conversations are beginning to move beyond scoring and into true actionable measurement, results and where the relationship factor offers more than simple social shares. It’ll be interesting to see if the scoring platforms can adapt and keep up to the platforms that started out providing more effective influence solutions in the first place.

Great interview! Your interviews grant me access to the thoughts of influencers that I don’t normally interface with. Keep them coming.