Seriously, does anyone believe Klout?

I have a nice little Twitter account for Vinologue which serves its purposes well to broadcast Vinologue news and engage with the online wine community. According to Klout, you probably wouldn’t think so though given that it has a 31 rating or so. This is out of a possible 100, so yes Vinologue’s Twitter is ass according to Klout. Those who score higher are guys like this Melvin who I briefly followed but then had to stop as the amount of echoing of links was just too much to handle.

Then of course there’s the Klout rating above for Maneno. Yeah, the score is really low of 11, but the account is seen as a “top influencer” for Africa (this continent of a billion people in case you didn’t know). Yes, the account has nearly 5,000 followers, but here’s something important to note: it hasn’t posted a single tweet in two years. And so this, is “influential”?

What I’m basically getting at is that these metrics are crap. They’re analysis of raw numbers. Yeah, yeah, I’m sure the Klouters would rally around some press release to the effect of “we have an algorithm that charts yadda with yedda and cross checks it with yodda to give you a true rating of influence”. Life doesn’t work like this. Klout only gives rank based on those who get retweeted heavily or have a lot of followers. Sure, other things are taken in to consideration, but if you’re going to rely on this system to tell you who is an important Twitter user, you’re doomed and should just pay Kim or the Dogg to tweet up your shitz.