The whole idea of Klout gives me the creeps with its horrible talk of “unlocking and “leveraging influence.
Klout大谈如何“释放和“利用影响力,这套思路令我毛骨悚然。
It is also hard to respect a system in which Justin Bieber (whose moronic Twitter page says: “you are always there for me and I will always be there for you. MUCH LOVE) is the only human to have briefly reached a perfect score of 100. It is only a minor consolation that, following some recent tweaking of the algorithm, he has dropped a few points in order to allow Barack Obama to squeeze in ahead of him.
这样一个评分体系也很难赢得尊重。按照这个体系的评分,唯一曾短暂地达到过满分的人类是贾斯廷·比伯(Justin Bieber,他的Twitter主页上写着:“你们永远支持我,我也将永远支持你们。爱你们。简直弱智。)。尽管Klout最近调整了算法,比伯的评分下跌了几分,被巴拉克·奥巴马(Barack Obama)超过,但这也只能略微让人感到安慰。
But the main problem with Klout is that it is a nonsense to try to boil down something as qualitative as influence into a single number. It fails to distinguish between someone who is influential in the world of dog biscuits and someone who is influential in defence policy: both are ranked the same.
但Klout的主要问题在于,像影响力这样非定量的东西,是无法简化为一个分数的。这种打分无法区分一个在狗饼干领域有影响的人和一个在国防政策领域有影响的人:两个人的分数是相同的。
【没有Klout,生活更美好】相关文章:
最新
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15