My colleague - Rohit Bhargava, super smart guy - has a great post on measuring "influence" - something we try to do everyday. He highlights the concern/observation about the volume of content generated vs. the ability to find the meaningful stuff and voices. Here is what he pines for (me too):
"Inbound links (in order of importance):
- From blogs in the Top 1000 as listed by sources like Technorati
- In blogroll of Top 1000 as listed by sources like Technorati
- From blogs or sites that also reprint some body text from a blog post (full text reprints, however, do not count as they are likely to be spam blogs)
- From tagging sites like del.icio.us or Digg.com to blog homepage
- From tagging sites like del.icio.us or Digg.com to blog homepage to individual blog posts)
- From blogs or sites referring to blog homepage
- From blogs or sites referring to a blog post
To complete the picture, below is my own list of other criteria that I also look at beyond a blog's links in order to determine influence (in no particular order):
- Age of blog (how long has it been live?)
- Affliation/employer of blogger
- Number of blog posts on the blog
- Average number of comments
- Distribution of syndication of site (through RSS or email subscription)"
Each of these would round out an image of influence or, at least, potential influence. But what if you could also document the quality of the ideas and voice in the blog? I realize that some of the above measures should be indicative of that. But each one of us tries to read and judge for ourselves whether a particular voice has strong relevance for us. Is there a way to measure or document that heuristically?