Klout has generated its fair share of controversy for a while now, but the idea of using Klout scores to determine hiring decisions has taken the debate to a new level.
It’s easy to see why Klout causes such a fuss. As John Koetsier writes in a post for VentureBeat, “When someone boils down our entire online existence into a single two-digit number, it’s hard not to feel judged.” Should Klout scores be taken as legitimate measurements of influence? The debate reached a fever pitch last week when Wired published an article featuring a VP whose job interview was cut short when it was discovered he had a low Klout score.
Critics argue that Klout’s metrics are limited and somewhat arbitrary, and a significant difference may be that whereas there’s a semblance of you earning your Facebook friends and Twitter followers, your Klout score is assigned to you. Despite the backlash, however, Koetsier throws his hat in Klout’s corner. It shouldn’t be the only criteria used to measure online influence, he argues, but it is a criteria that matters. For more on Koetsier’s take on the Klout controversy, read his full post here.
What’s your take? Is Klout a legitimate measurement of online influence? What role should it play in determining someone’s social value and reach?
Related Content from OpenView:
For another take on why your Klout score is in fact something you should care about, read this post from the OpenView Blog. Still not convinced? You’re not alone. This post points out what may in fact be Klout’s Achilles Heel.