Yes, you’re right. There’s probably others too.

There is a difference between the two sites, they’re not really comparable, although after only a brief look at Favstar I could be completely wrong and talking out my arse.

Favstar, if I’ve understood it correctly from their guff so it could be different in actual use, seems to be a way of tracking favourites and retweets. You can see who’s favourited your tweets stuff. Another bit of tracking that Twitter 3rd party apps have been providing for a while and Twitter itself has been doing over the last couple of redesigns.

It has leaderboards that show popular tweets and tweeters, because those tweets and people may be of interest to others, but (and this is where I’m expecting to be wrong) Favstar doesn’t set anybody up as an authority or give them various degrees of influential-ness.

Obviously people are naturally going to infer something from the leaderboards, but that’s their own conclusions from all Favstars’ guff, they don’t infer that sort of thing themselves and the language they use wouldn’t give anyone the impression they do either.

And you’re right the opt-out is in a better place.

Presumably, the profile is created on Favstar that mirrors ones’ twitter profile so that the tweets they mine can be attributed. I’m fairly ok with this. As I said earlier, Favstar do not confer themselves any influence or importance on the profiles, It isn’t a race, a competition, unless the active users want to make it into one.

Basically, it’s a tracking site, so you can get another metric on how your Twitter campaign is going.

Klout on the other hand, has set itself up as something you can use for leverage, something that people can refer to to tangibly see how much of an effect you have in social media. It is deliberate and it’s only purpose. This score Klout gives isn’t something it’s users are taking and using in this way off their own back like a Favstar user could do with being say, number 3 on the leaderboard.

To work properly Favstar need (and again, I’m guessing) to create profiles of tweeters to show tweets that people have favourited and retweeted to credit them. It’s internet ettiquette, credit the source.

Klout on the other hand, doesn’t need to create profiles (or public) of *everyone* on the internet to come up with their rating. It can still use all the public info that it mines, It just doesn’t need to make those profile that haven’t signed up public. If once you sign up you see all the various interactions and they need to be credited, that can still be done without rating publicly rating the people the user interacts with..

It isn’t fair to be rating people that don’t know they are being gamed/don’t want to be. In fact it’s downright wrong.

Anyway, I’ve just written another post here, so I’m gonna STFU.

hahaha! That’s sweet. I do like NTNOCN, and Lindathecat too now.

I shall have to change it.

I’m presuming you want me to help publicise something, but what, I cannot quite work out.

You contacted me. You tell me what the fuck you want without all the cloak and dagger or innuendo and I may see if I can help.

At the moment, you’re looking like a bit of a conspiracy nut, which ain’t good.

> ———- Forwarded message ———-
> From: David Amos
> Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 03:37:43 -0300
> Subject: Here the News Tip about you that the Guardian dropped like a
> hot potato EH Rupert?
> To: atlanticnews@ctv.ca, infomorning ,
> foreigneditor@independent.co.uk, jhenderson@newscorp.com
> Cc: newsroom@wnyc.org, news-tips@nytimes.com, newsonline@bbc.co.uk,
> “Rupert.Murdoch@fox.com”
>
> From: Ed Pilkington
> Subject: GUARDIAN
> To: David Amos
> Date: Wednesday, August 3, 2011, 11:42 AM
>
>
> hi
>
> here’s my email and my cell number is below
>
> all best
>
> Ed
>
> –
> Ed Pilkington
> New York bureau chief
> The Guardian
> http://www.guardian.co.uk
> twitter.com/Edpilkington
>
> Cell: 646 704 1264
> Please consider the environment before printing this email.
> ——————————————————————
> Visit guardian.co.uk – newspaper of the year
> http://www.guardian.co.uk http://www.observer.co.uk
>
> On your mobile, visit m.guardian.co.uk or download the Guardian
> iPhone app http://www.guardian.co.uk/iphone
>
> To save up to 30% when you subscribe to the Guardian and the Observer
> visit http://www.guardian.co.uk/subscriber
> ———————————————————————
> This e-mail and all attachments are confidential and may also
> be privileged. If you are not the named recipient, please notify
> the sender and delete the e-mail and all attachments immediately.
> Do not disclose the contents to another person. You may not use
> the information for any purpose, or store, or copy, it in any way.
>
> Guardian News & Media Limited is not liable for any computer
> viruses or other material transmitted with or as part of this
> e-mail. You should employ virus checking software.
>
> Guardian News & Media Limited
>
> A member of Guardian Media Group plc
> Registered Office
> PO Box 68164
> Kings Place
> 90 York Way
> London
> N1P 2AP
>
> Registered in England Number 908396
>
>
> — On Tue, 8/2/11, David Amos wrote:
>
>
> From: David Amos
> Subject: Re Rupert Murdoch and his associates Perhaps Ms Curtis should
> show this email to the actor Hugh Grant
> To: polly.curtis@guardian.co.uk
> Cc: jhenderson@newscorp.com, rnolte@newscorp.com,
> jdorrego@newscorp.com, “maritime_malaise”
> Date: Tuesday, August 2, 2011, 2:21 PM
>
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/12/hugh-grant-phone-hacking-inquiry
>
> ———- Forwarded message ———-
> From: OIG
> Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 16:29:48 -0400
> Subject: RE: I just called again and tried to speak with John Seeba
> and Cynthia Hogue of the FTC
> To: David Amos
>
> Mr Amos. I just talked to you. Our office only has jurisdiction over
> internal matters like if an FTC employee is involved in fraud. We
> also report to congress to notify them how the FTC utilizes funds.
>
> What can we do for you?
>
> Thanks. Zisa Walton