Comments on: Measuring Influence and Reputation

By: Jake

Jake — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 13:42:33 +0000

I guess I'm not sure if/how FB tracks that type of metric. I suppose they could surface pageviews or clicks/impressions for items you share, but based on the gen pop of FB, would they invest in a feature that isn't very germane to their base users?

Somehow I doubt the average FB user cares about engagement as a metric. Probably just wants that old college buddy to see the funny drunk girl picture. I also think engagement doesn't apply well to FB b/c the network is closed by design, whereas Twitter and blogs have open networks. Tough to measure network vs. network.

By: ethan

ethan — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 21:24:17 +0000

Agree re: reputation from inside of Facebook. But having stats i.e. when I share a piece of content = this much engagement is powerful. This is more influence than rep. based.

Thoughts?

By: Jake

Jake — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 17:17:55 +0000

I think the project Ben Turner, who commented above, is working on is for FB, but I don't know if it's specifically meant for reputation.

I haven't seen much reputation applied to FB, and due to its origins, not sure reputation makes much sense. FB has never been a casual meet-new-people place, focusing on existing relationships instead. Therefore, reputation means virtually nil on FB.

There are some apps on FB that measure networks by depth, strong/weak ties, etc. but they are focused on individuals. So, unless you display your network analysis, no one can see it.

I think an outside source has to use FB data as part of a reputation engine. FB wouldn't see this as a core of their product, unless they move to a discovery model more like Twitters.

By: ethan

ethan — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 16:02:33 +0000

On the topic of measuring influence on Fbook, anyone see anything / tools / apps trying to do this? There's a ton for Twitter (makes sense with the liberal API and all), but have you seen anything re: measuring influence, reach and reputation on Facebook?

By: Jake

Jake — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 21:31:02 +0000

Thanks Paolo. Ben from Galapag also commented. I definitely think reputation and trust will be areas where enterprises can fully leverage all the social layers being added. Maybe this is the true differentiator for E 2.0.

By: paolo

paolo — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 18:50:04 +0000

Hi! Very interesting! I found your blog post from galapag.us
I'm totally for local trust metrics. See http://gnuband.org/papers

Paolo http://gnuband.org

By: Jake

Jake — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 19:00:20 +0000

Interesting point. I suspect con artists online will evolve over time as the low-hanging fruit disappears, e.g. 419 scammers, and social networks with trust built in will be a natural place to start.

By: InternetStrategist

InternetStrategist — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 06:13:16 +0000

I consistently find it curious that people feel more comfortably judging people they meet in the physical than they do getting a feel for people online whom they most likely know far more about (unless they're in the habit of having background checks done on people).

Con artists in person are far more difficult to detect offline than on because there is a record and inconsistencies are made more obvious.

By: Jake

Jake — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 20:25:30 +0000

Wish I could take credit for that. Alas, someone said it to me last week.

By: Jake

Jake — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 20:24:55 +0000

I'm all for a feedback-based component, but leaving it all to users creates inconsistency, doesn't it? Plus, generating reputation for people makes them care about it, whereas if it's all on the users, it's harder to get started.

Look at social networks for an example. Did you one day decide to join Friendster, MySpace, Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter or were you invited? The vast majority of people were invited to join.

So, I prefer an algorithm that factors in user-to-user kudos style points, but also uses other criteria with equal or higher weighting.

By: chet

chet — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 10:26:52 +0000

“…met in meat space”

I like it.

By: Ben Turner

Ben Turner — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 08:17:36 +0000

Why does there have to be one rating? Why not let the users manipulate their own data and create their own formulas (and, of course, share them) to see which metrics are most representative and productive?

I'm pushing that route for Galapag.us: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Galapagus/1003399...