I did want to take a minute to mention the Social Metrics plug in for you. It’s not a tool for deep metrics analysis but it is a great tool for quick content analysis – seeing what’s working for you as a social network, as well as what’s emerging as sharable topics on your blog. For example, you can see that Digg, as a whole, is not a social network where we see a lot of shares here at M2. You can also quickly see that our readers are very interested in changing the face of education right now (as they should be).

I haven’t tried the Social Metrics Pro version yet but it gives you some nice Excel like features that the free version doesn’t. However, the free version is adequate for Magnitude’s needs right now since we have such deep analytics running elsewhere.

What’s your favorite metrics tool for your blog?

Image from Wall Street Journal

As many of you know, I’m writing a book about metrics for John Wiley and Sons Publishing called Social Media Metrics for Dummies. What you may not know is the struggle I’ve had trying to figure out how to address the issue of services offering incomplete metrics that become some kind of standard for folks too lazy (or, to be fair, too pressed for time) to do much deep-diving on their own. Things like Klout, for example.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I know what Klout is trying to do, I think. And they have adjusted their algorithm a number of times. My score was a 79 in the beginning (until I spent less time online, when it dropped to 72). It hovered at 69 through several more algorithm changes until it now is resting in the 56 or 57 range after the latest one. What bugs me about Klout is that it isn’t a complete metric. It doesn’t tell you anything about the person except, conceivably, how noisy they are on various services.

I’ll use myself as an example. This morning I finally “hid” a topic that Klout has dubbed me as “influential” in for two+ months now: Waffle House. I like Waffle House and all, but I don’t live near one, and I don’t go visit them when I travel. How did I get “influential” about it? Doing a little digging, it seems it began when I shared a tweet from a WSJ article several weeks ago about the Waffle House disaster plan and Waffle House trailer offices – how they handle natural disasters and get their stores open quickly with limited menus where possible to be a local source of food and comfort, and also how they use their online presence to spread the word.

By a sheer coincidence of timing, that tweet got re-tweeted a gazillion times and picked up on several Tumblr blogs*, entering the Tumblr share network. Shortly after that, it emerged as a topic I’m influential on in Klout, never having discussed it before or since. Now you tell me: is that an accurate measurement? I should be influential in a variety of things, like hockey, music, food, wine, football, mma, film, NH, SC, politics, Santa Barbara and other things I discuss and have deep conversations about frequently (none of which show up) or in social media and emerging media and Boston (which do show up).

*To me, my “influence” in Waffle House was a better measurement of TUMBLR’s influence than mine. I don’t have a Tumblr blog, but those who did caused most of the impact. To not take into account deep conversation and conversions over noise indicates a failing on the part of Klout and narrow metrics like it. I’m sure they are working to address it – it’s plain they want to be the go-to metric source for measuring influence – but they have a long way to go (not to mention other problems with privacy and trust issues and some nefarious practices to solve first).

In the book, Klout gets a relatively positive mention, but with the double caveat of “use with caution” and “not intended as your sole metrics solution”. If the folks at Klout would like to have a conversation with me about this and discuss case studies or what they are working toward, I’d love to. I like to keep an open mind.

Meanwhile, if you want to put understanding your Klout on steroids, have a look at this nifty data set from always-insightful Chris Penn. It will rock your socks. Also, I’d love to hear what goofy thing Klout thinks you are influential in.

Aside: Single focus metrics options that show a more complete picture could include Smarterer, by the way. I really like where they are headed and hope they soon integrate with LinkedIn and other services. Disclosure: I wrote the bulk of their Twitter test and edited it during their private beta phase, though it’s now open to public edit.

What I mean by that is that aside from the annoyance factor of watching normally sane people grow ever more wacky about pseudo “milestones” on Twitter; there is the fact that by focusing on these false metrics, people are missing the chance to connect, to listen, to have fun, to learn. While tweeting about “what should I do for my 500th follower?”, “what should I say for my 10,000th tweet?” or “I am only 2 followers away from 200!! Help me out?” people are missing real conversations.

The only numbers that matter on Twitter (and on other social networks where you have followers and friends you connect with) are the number of good, worthy conversations you are having. These translate into real, valid metrics – conversions to sales, referrals from clients, better customer service ratings, better overall blog readership and more. Your number of followers does not matter in the big picture, not really!

It’s true that the larger your network grows, the more eyeballs you are potentially reaching. Here I stress “potentially”. If all you are talking about is your own links, or these fake milestones, or the latest bitchmeme, your network is tuning you out. I promise. It gets awfully old to follow someone who never says anything more substantial than what their latest tweet count or follower numbers are. Your network may not be unfollowing you in droves out of politeness, or in the hope that you may one day have value for them again. Eventually, they will tune you out to the point that you may as well be back at the beginning, with two followers, hoping someone would talk to you.

The flip side of that coin is that your time is valuable! @Replies may drive some people who have not figured out that Twitter is a la carte and personal crazy, but at least they signify involvement in a two way conversation. Whether you want to connect over something personal or something professional, you joined Twitter to connect, not to waste time taking into thin air. If all you spend your time on Twitter doing is counting tweets, watching fake stats and begging for followers to reach some imaginary milestone, I’d say that was time wasted, wouldn’t you?

If you never looked at your follower count or your number of tweets, how would that open your conversational possibilities? Would it challenge you to pay more attention? Would you listen more to the quieter voices in your stream to see if they had something to say? Would it make you think more about participating and being genuine? What do you think about these false metrics? I’m interested in your opinions on this theory of mine.