By lskrocki on Jul 17, 2007
They test drove their methodology by using the top 30 bloggers from the CNET Blog 100 list and scored them based on their presence in the following:
\* Blog - analysed Google Rank, inbound links, subscribers, alexa rank, content focus, frequency of updates, number of commentsBased on this index, how did our Chief rank?
\* Multi-format - analysed Facebook - number of friends
\* Mini-updates - analysed Twitter - number of friends, followers and updates
\* Business cards - analysed LinkedIn - number of contacts
\* Visual - analysed Flickr - number of photos uploaded from the person/s or about the person/s
\* Favourites - analysed Digg, del.icio.us
Each score out of 10 was the given the following weighting across the categories :
Blog - 30%; Multi-format - 20%; Mini-updates - 25%, Business cards - 7%, Visual - 3%; Favourites - 15% which created a total score for each category. The sum of each of these numbers created an individual’s Social Media Index. Clear as mud. And about as appetising for some I suspect, because the weighting system is massively subjective. I repeat, it is our first stab at it and we are interested in your take.
Not bad. The majority of his points were gained because of his blog (no surprise there). His overall index score took a hit because he apparently doesn't use Twitter or LinkedIn -- I'm thinking as a CEO of a Fortune 500, that may not be a bad thing.