I think I know what the gang at Edelman are up to with their Social Media Index. I fancy they’re just showing us the framework, the point zero, the point-of-departure. Right now it’s useless shit you already knew. But who knows… it’s not finished yet.
Currently, the index is based 100% on “blog” and has yet to fill out “multi-format,” “mini-updates,” “business cards,” “visual,” or “favorites data.” I think the problem here is that not everyone has the time so see that this index is a work-in-progress. We’re also a little leery as to how you’re going to sort out the LinkedIn stuff, etc, because a single collaborative blog may have lots of members on LinkedIn, Facebook, etc. I am intrigued but currently agree with Naked PR that Edelman’s Social Media Index is a Joke.
The thing about Edelman, though, is that they’re shamelessly willing to smash their head against the wall until they sort it out, using vast fortunes and client money. You have to applaud them for that. I give points to anyone who tries out cockamamie shit just to see what happens, so I will withhold judgment until some of these numbers get all filled out.
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
I wouldn’t be surprised if Edelman were at least attempting to do something good here. But the fact remains that no amount of tweaking of their current proposed plan will make it even remotely valid, because not a single factor they’ve mentioned legitimately demonstrates “influence,” which is what they’re supposedly trying to measure. You can add all the faulty measurements in the world together, and you’ll never get a meaningful result.
Jenn Mattern
NakedPR.com
Thanks . . . I think. We are going to have another round on this, but we are still puzzling how. As you can see from the comments, and Jen at Naked has made some great ones, there is no shortage of interest from people and so I think we will be involving some other parties next time. It is work in progress that is for sure.
As an SEO guy, what I am concerned about is that most of these attributes, “multi-format,” “mini-updates,” “business cards,” “visual,” or “favorites data,” are all game-able.
None of these are really “organic” and lots and lots of shameless promotion could work this list up pretty well.
I don’t trust the metrics, either, Jenn.
Thanks for visiting, David.
Abraha
You are right – the purpose of David’s blog was purely to show our thinking. At no stage did we want this to be a standard – our way of thinking was that the current ‘Technorati’ method of looking at influence/popularity is outdated now that there are so many alternative channels by which people can converse online. I am hoping that David’s post acts as a catalyst for the community to suggest a better way of working (which I am glad to see has already happened.).
I would like to point out though, that where you state:
“Currently, the index is based 100% on “blog” and has yet to fill out “multi-format,” “mini-updates,” “business cards,” “visual,” or “favorites data.”
This is incorrect. If you read down David’s post you will see that we applied the SMI methodology to the recognised top 30 bloggers to see how their results changed (see table 2) and then applied it to a much broader range to see what people would then turn up into a top 30 list (see table 3). What was interesting, is that a new group of people who would normally have been missed by Technorati showed up as having great influence.