Google looks to measure ‘influence’ and the ‘influencers’

Dirk van Graver at “Record | Preserve | Share” has commented on a business week article that asks us to imagine one number that sums up how influential we are.  It is a subject I discussed some time ago, when I was craving a golden ratio in relation to social networking.

Back then I said;

It is pretty obvious Trust would be a great dimension for social networks to embrace. So would Influence or Buzz (or both). And when elements like this are developed I believe Social Networks will be onto something very significant indeed.

If you didn’t follow the link, according to the Business Week piece, Google has a patent pending “for ranking the most influential people on social networking sites like MySpace and Facebook.”

It is a great idea.  Clearly if this works, it would finally make adverts on social networks relevant and potentially profitable.

It would seem (if the report is to be believed) that Google is applying the same approach to social networks that it has used to dominate the online search business (it would be like a page rank).  Apparently the Google approach would take into account all manner of aspects of influence, from ‘how many’ people you know, to ‘how frequently’ you talk with them, to ‘how strongly’ they value your opinion.  So your ‘score’ could be compared with that of pretty much anyone in the world.  A personal Google ‘influence score’ if you like.

Hear are my hopes and fears:

FEAR #1: I worry that if an influence score is used to justify, or generate a monitization strategy for social networking sites, the emphasis on what constitutes ‘influence’ must start on a sound footing.  This is an area that I really don’t want to see messed up – as I’m not sure many social networking sites can withstand high profile failures at monitization.

FEAR # 2:  If influence is measured by Google, (or anyone else) surely everyone will be able to find their (or their companies, or their competitors) biggest advocates or doomsayers?  Yes?  Well I cannot see that happening accurately.  I would be very surprised if your biggest influencers are known by you (i.e connected to you) and so how do Google propose to measure or track that?  And in fact, surely influencers by definition are 3rd parties (i.e. are unconnected to you) in the first place?

Hey, maybe I missed something and that is the whole reason why Google is exploring this.

Which brings me on to my great hope.

Hope #1: I hope how ‘many’ people you know (‘follow’, ‘connect’ with, ‘add’ as a friend) is not closely related to your degree of influence.  Those fools who have adopted a strategy of following ‘en-masse’ in Twitter (in the hope that a high percentage will return the favour) must not be seen by advertising buyers and sellers as ‘influencial’.  They are not.  Bob with 1000 friends is not necessarily more influential than Susan with just 85.

Equally seniority isn’t the be-all either.  John the 46 year old bachelor & CEO is not necessarily more influential than Raphael the 28 year old IT Manager, who is a father of two.  And postcode xyz, doesn’t bear higher influencers than postcode 123, in the same way that an OxBridge student shouldn’t be seen as more influencial that a 2:2 student from a ‘lesser’ ranked university.  My hope is that an influence algorithm doesn’t arbitrarily look at volumes and a set of pre-determined values and rules.

Influence is, I believe, far more multi dimensional and complex than that.

If this becomes a reality what are your hopes and fears for ‘Influencer’ tracking?  I’d love to here your views.

Social Networks and a Golden Ratio

It’s bugged me for a while, and low and behold Seth Godin sums it up again. First. And that’s two posts in a row from me, with a Godin influence! Damn it that guy is good.

Anyway, Seth says “One of the mantras of networking (and the many social networking sites that people are flocking to) is that it matters who you know. The goal of having a thousand or more friends online is that you’re well known. Connected. A click away. I wonder if there’s a more useful measure: who trusts you?”

I really think that Godin is spot on. The plethora of social network sites will each raise the bar in 2008, particularly those supporting business professionals. Those that do a remarkable job will win and those that don’t will be bought – ironically for their members.

You see the way I see it, is that all the social networking sites want today is users, more users, more eyeballs, and more traffic. Their offerings are geared around this fact…….it’s an ethos based around getting users to create as many new users as possible.

That is why they create stuff like this:

And as a result, members of these sites are caught up in a fake narrative, “the larger the quantity of friends or contacts or watch lists you have – the more influence or connected you are.” Offcourse this can be right. But it’s not a rule. And it’s not the whole truth. I think continuous improvement of Social Networks will bear fruit.

It is pretty obvious Trust would be a great dimension for social networks to embrace. So would Influence or Buzz (or both). And when elements like this are developed I believe Social Networks will be onto something very significant indeed.

I hope when this concept is implemented however, it is more scientific (for example) than LinkedIn’s current ‘recommendations’, which is just a partial attempt to add intrinsic value; and is actually pretty valueless.

No, I am thinking Social Networks need some kind of ‘Golden Ratio’ that is both complex (like the actual Golden Ratio) that can be translated into something very simple and easily understood for network or community members. For instance if you park the equation elements of the Golden Ratio to one side for a moment, some very simple manifestations occur: like the distance from outstretched fingertip to fingertip equalling your height, or the length of your forearm equalling your foot size.

Suddenly it would be much easier to understand the value of connections, visualise them, interpret them and apply them appropriately. I’d really love some kind of ’sphere of Influence’ or Trust ‘rating’ to be applied to Social Networks.

Suddenly Digg, Technorati, Open Social and LinkedIn and Facebook bring on whole new dimensions – particularly for business users.

How would you like Social Networking sites to unfold or mature?

50 ‘Influencial’ Bloggers

This was so funny that I laughed out loud. And then, damn it I nearly turned the laptop off.

Was it tongue in cheek perhaps? No. I didn’t realise the list was quite so serious.

You see on the blog (a blog about blogging btw) they have listed their ‘Fifty Most Influential Bloggers‘. The Fifty Most Influential Bloggers?

Exactly who are the 50 blog authors influencing, and how are the league table authors measuring, or weighing up one set of influencers against another?

I think being ‘popular’ is very different to being ‘influential’. And a blog about blogging should realise that.

That said it is a great list of English language blogs, worth taking a look at. Maybe one or two will influence you? Then again so might one or two in a random list of 50?