How to measure engagement

By | August 7, 2012
I'm very careful about resharing circles, but I'm resharing this because of the post attached to it. It's an interesting description on what it takes to be engaging, and one that can be quantified into an Engagement score more easily than most loose descriptions.

So I'd like to pose it another way: What else would you add to the list as an engagement indicator? If this turned into a metric – and it should – who comes up at the top?

/cc +CircleCount Looking your way, you know why – and it's because I think this sort of thing should be universal, not just something you can 'roll your own list' if you like. 😉

Warning: I would not recommend adding this circle unless you want to turn your stream into a lot of noisy banter. 😉

Reshared post from +John Fanavans

Of all the circles I am going to share from my Engager post ( http://goo.gl/x43tk ) this is my favourite.  I call it

ENGAGERS – THE WATCHLIST

These are people who are worth circling right now because there engagement is either on the way up, or I Suspect it will go up soon. Many of them have few followers, some have millions. 

I intened to publish three circles. This is the Watchlist, up and comers if you will. The next circle will be the Engagers. People who are engaging well and regularly. The last circle will be the superstars. I'd appreciate reshares, especially of this one, because these are people who should be invited into the community and encouraged to engage and hang out.

In many ways, this circle and the engagers circle are the hardest for me to develope. I suppose you are going to want to know how I decided how people got into this. The answer is, in short, subjectively.  Firstly, people had to be nominated on my post, and I went and had a look at some of the reshares with lots of comments on them and took nominations from there.

Secondly, I looked at peoples profiles. Some were obvious choices for inclusion into the three circles. Those who had lively discussions on their pages in which they participated tended to get in.  On the other hand, if you were effectively a reshare bot, you were out, unless you were really provocking discussions. As best I could, I tried not to consider content in terms of whether I liked it, so you will find #caterday post which i hate on some of these streams, but I did look at how well the posts were set out and whether content was repetitive. If you posted 10 posts in a row on Mars, for example, that's going against you. Other obvious metrics were considerd, how often you post, how varied, etc etc.

Third, I looked at circle counts. These worked both ways. If you have a million followers, but your posts don't get commented on, or you are glib, then that counts against you. On the other hand, its difficult to say that a person with 2000 followers is a top engager (though there are some in the engagers circle).

Next, I looked at who nominated you and how often you were nominated. If a known engager nominated you, that was obviously in your favour, and might have edged you in.

Fifth, You engagement on other peoples posts, best as I could, I understood through a variety of searches etc. I didn't do this for everyone, but if you were on the cusp, this was done.

Sixth, circlesharing and hangouts visible on your stream were taken into account. I know there are critics, but extended circles and public hangouts count for alot still, though not as much as they used to.  Similarly, if you share circles, you are helping the community. Targeted, small circle shares were given more credit than large ones.

Seveneth, I considerd if you engaged in one area or across subject areas. Of course a person who builds a community is going to be an engager, but if you cut across communities, you are necessarily better. See  http://goo.gl/a2G9Y  for an allegory about this.

There were many other factors, it is subjective and I will take the critisism. Some people were bumped up and down circles for various reasons. Say if you are a googler who posts only google, you're out. But if you post varied and comment varied, you go up.

Lastly, I'm including myself in these because it was a lot of work and I want to reach out to all you engagers!!!

THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS

Please feel free to suggest more people. You'll note, it's a tight circle.

jf

#sharedcircles  

One thought on “How to measure engagement

  1. Sophie Wrobel

    +John Fanavans I don't expect anything to be perfect. But I think that an 'engagement metric' would be extremely helpful in identifying people more than two degrees of separation, as you'd be able to search platform-wide for individuals in a particular field who engage with quality content or comments. An algorithmic 'suggested user list', if you will – and one that, like Google's search algorithm, is living and not just static to keep up with the nuances of social interaction.

    Of course, that last sentence about not making your stream noisy was irony.  I mean, we have to keep up that stereotype that G+ is a ghost town, so better not add too many engagers!

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.