Politics and Pucks

Something might be fishy about Klout scores I just looked up. Apparently, JT Eberhard (43) and Jonathan Weyer (47) are both lower in Klout scores than myself (55). This is peculiar, because both of them are much more established names than myself (who isn't even established at all).

For those who don't know what I'm talking about with Klout scores, let me fill you in. It measures social media presence by telling you how influential you are, and influential your audience is by giving you a score from 0-100 with 100 being the most influential. To give you an idea of how influential some people are on Twitter here's a quick list to give you a perspective:

Jesse Galef 30
Jessica Ahlquist 32
JT Eberhard 43
Mike Brownstein 55
Jen McCreight 61
Hemant Mehta 64
PZ Myers 69

To go a step further, this blog is only read by 50-100 people per day, which is much smaller than the readership on any of the other blogs mentioned. So this begs me to ask the question if Klout is broken? I mean I'm not known by any stretch of the imagination (that I'm aware of). I am active on Twitter, but so are all of these people. So is heavy Twitter use synonymous with influence? If this was the case, the blog should have hundreds if not thousands more views. Also putting me within 6 points of Jennifer McCreight and 9 points of Hemant Mehta is flattering, but their blogs attract people within the ten thousands (if not hundred thousands). So what do you think? Is Klout a stable metric of Internet activity?