It’s been interesting watching the Klout debate unfold. The last few weeks has seen a backlash from some users after Klout made changes to their scoring model. It’s understandable that those who have been taking Klout seriously are now upset that their scores were negatively affected. Of course, the scoring change was really just the spark for the privacy and transparency debate that has now erupted.

Klout has a real challenge, one that I think they are working very hard to solve. They are trying to build a public reputation system for people. In many respects their system will be far bigger and influential than the various credit rating systems that exist today already. People are naturally going to take any new rating system that threatens to impact their future prospects very seriously. I think there’s been a real awakening over the last few weeks that Klout is going to be big, and that if you have a bad score it could hurt you in the future. This was reinforced by the realization that scores can go down, and that what you do today to grow your ‘influence rank’ may not count the same in the future. There’s been some arguments put forward about how Klout is trying to derive profit, but I think these really need to focused around the transparency of revenue based services. No sensible person can propose that they shouldn’t seek profit, and the only fair discussion in this regard can be around how revenue based services integrate with the actual ranking system.

This has highlighted the very real concerns around transparency and oversight that now exist. Klout is a startup, this allows them to move fast, but it also allows them to make mistakes quicker. We see this with all startups, including industry leaders Google and Facebook. Only time can tell how these companies cross the threshold form young upstart, to responsible corporate citizen. There is always a lag between regulators realizing the need for regulation and them actually implementing it. If Klout scores do in fact start to influence employment opportunities, then they will of course need regulation. Klout I think realize this, and probably aren't too phased by it's possibility. What bigger flattery than the acknowledgement that the ranking system you have created for influence has become so important that it needs regulation. It would be a milestone in their history – probably both painful and positive at the same time.

They’re trying to respond to the transparency issue. Recent weeks has seen them publish more info about their scoring model. I think they acknowledge that more should have been published sooner, but I also understand their hesitation for sharing too. There’s no doubt that every little titbit of detail will be studied by gamers of the system. Publish too much and you give system abusers the info they need to cheat better. Publish too little and you’ll receive vocal protest when you impact your loyal user base negatively. It’s a very delicate balance, and my guess is they will oscillate between the two extremes for a long time. Only history can guide their progress on this one.

They will draw many parallels with Google, but at the end of the day Google is ranking websites and not people. They will have to tread far more carefully than Google as they scale up to size. Even Google encounters transparency issues around their ranking algorithms.  

I think it’s a fascinating case study. I’m not sure which side of the fence I sit on yet, but I certainly see both points of view. I think I might put a more detailed article up on this one in time…