Scoop.it introduces the Scoop.it Score

“Quality is not an act, it’s a habit.” -Aristotle said.

What makes your topic more relevant than any filter or aggregator? Your insights, your point of view, your editorial choice. In short, your personal engagement in the content you curate.

Scoop.it was born from the strong belief that human curation is truly different from automated aggregation or algorithm-powered filtering and creates great value to the Internet.

Curators are becoming the gatekeepers controlling the overflow of online content.

We knew we were building a community when the expectations of our users met our vision: The Scoop.it community is relying more and more on qualitative criteria to explore and dig into topics. Curators know their mission is to go beyond collecting content on a specific subject and engage more and more in personal perspective and context. They want to offer a vision and intelligent content – they want to provide their audience with relevance and insights. That is what the “humanrithm” we have advocated since the beginning represents as well: Curators add quality.

Indeed, we have always encouraged our users to focus on quality: to select only the most relevant content from the web and edit it and give it a perspective.

The more qualitative your topic is, the more your audience will count on you, on what you curate and share. The quality of your topic contributes to making you a recognized expert and to the continuous growth of your audience; leading to the engagement of a virtuous circle- quality will no longer be an isolated act.

To go further in this valuable direction, we are introducing the Scoop.it Score, a new metric that indicates the excellence of your work (out of 100). It helps you, as a curator, to measure and increase your topic quality; and it helps to discriminate amongst various topics while searching, browsing or exploring topics.

This Score is calculated based on your activity as a curator (edition, tag, share, etc) and on your audience engagement (views, reactions, etc).


Your topic is a powerful resource, where transmitting what you know with passion creates more and more value everyday. Not only on Scoop.It but on the Internet.

  • Guest

    Great idea !
    Thanks

  • Guest

    Great idea !
    Thanks

  • Anonymous

    Excellent idea and initiative, it provides a critical view of his Scoop.it !
    Thanks

  • ALriXs

    Excellent idea and initiative, it provides a critical view of his Scoop.it !
    Thanks

  • Pingback: Scoop.it introduces the Scoop.it | Mídias Sociais | Scoop.it

  • Pingback: Scoop.it introduces the Scoop.it ScoreScoop.it | Social et Conservation | Scoop.it

  • Pingback: Scoop.it introduces the Scoop.it ScoreScoop.it | Informatics Technology in Education | Scoop.it

  • Pingback: Scoop.it introduces the Scoop.it Score | Scoop.it Blog | Social Media Content Curation | Scoop.it

  • Pingback: Scoop.it introduces the Scoop.it Score | Scoop.it Blog | Google+, Facebook, Twitter, tulalip, foursquare, empire avenue | Scoop.it

  • Pingback: Scoop.it Scores Curators Work: Introducing the Scoop.it Score | Real-Time News Curation | Scoop.it

  • http://about.me/danielwatson Daniel Watson

    I am excited by my 92/100 Scoop.it Score for my Business Improvement topic.
    Interested to know what more I can do to improve it and to find out who has higher scores.

    • Anonymous

      Hi Daniel,

      You’re currently at the top: http://www.scoop.it/topic/findmore

      Congrats! :-)

      We’ll publish more precise guidance to improve but right now, we want to check whether the algorithm works fine and collect feedback.

  • http://www.rhodan.com.au/principal-consultant Daniel Watson

    I am excited by my 92/100 Scoop.it Score for my Business Improvement topic.
    Interested to know what more I can do to improve it and to find out who has higher scores.

    • http://scoop.it Guillaume Decugis

      Hi Daniel,

      You’re currently at the top: http://www.scoop.it/topic/findmore

      Congrats! :-)

      We’ll publish more precise guidance to improve but right now, we want to check whether the algorithm works fine and collect feedback.

  • http://twitter.com/boasoprtnidades Boas Oportunidades

    Seems like a good idea, but I think there is some potential for abuse…

    • Anonymous

      We’ll be watching out! ;-)

  • http://twitter.com/boasoprtnidades Boas Oportunidades

    Seems like a good idea, but I think there is some potential for abuse…

    • http://scoop.it Guillaume Decugis

      We’ll be watching out! ;-)

  • Pingback: Scoop.it introduces the Scoop.it Score | Scoop.it Blog | B3 Social Marketing | Scoop.it

  • Pingback: Scoop.it Scores Curators Work: Introducing the Scoop.it Score | information analyst | Scoop.it

  • Pingback: Scoop.it Scores Curators Work: Introducing the Scoop.it Score | #cocura: Vom User generated Content zum kollaborativen Kuratieren | Scoop.it

  • http://wordgrrls.com Laura

    Not sure. Sounds like a popularity contest to me. The score is based on traffic more than the content in the topic. But, I think it would be tough to come up with a way to measure relevant content for each topic. Even basing it on keywords would only work partially. To me, basing a score on mainly on traffic doesn’t really say much about the quality of content being offered. 

    • Anonymous

      Hi Laura.

      Trafic doesn’t affect the score.

      You can have a low view count and a high scoop.it score. The point was exactly to avoid a popularity bias and have a score indépendant from it as popularity is already covered by the Views count. Of course, ideally, quality topics will gain traction and end up having both. But our point was really to create a different metric.

      So as we explained, we’re looking at whether the topic is updated frequently or not, the depth it has, whether or not posts generate reactions (but a lot of reactions on 1 post don’t give you as much as few reactions on every post – no popularity contest ;-) ,amount of editing work made by the curator, and other criteria which don’t depend on popularity.

      Of course we can’t make a judgement on how relevant the topic is but that’s why we check how frequently the posts generate reactions, as this is a sign users found content relevant.

      Hope that clarifies but do let me know if not. Thanks!

      • http://wordgrrls.com Laura

        There is no perfect format for measuring sites/ topics. If there were Google would buy them/ it. Going by reactions will work well for topics which are trending in the news or seasonal. For myself, I am not the chatty type. I work at keeping the topics active with fresh content but I will never be successful at getting a lot of reactions. I will see how the scoring goes and evolves. Kind of discouraging right now. Don’t take this as complaining. I’m choosing to be here and put in the work because I really like research and finding unique spins and fresh ideas for the topics I enjoy. I like Scoop.it’s system for adding the content, the bookmarklet makes it very easy. Though I wish the keywords would be automatic instead of having to be typed in each time. 

        • Anonymous

          Thanks for all the feedback. 

          Reactions are just one element of the scoring and you don’t need a lot to start impacting. 

          But as you pointing every system will have its limits. We’re going to see how this one works out and if need be, we’ll adjust. 

  • http://thatgrrl.ca/ Laura Brown

    Not sure. Sounds like a popularity contest to me. The score is based on traffic more than the content in the topic. But, I think it would be tough to come up with a way to measure relevant content for each topic. Even basing it on keywords would only work partially. To me, basing a score on mainly on traffic doesn’t really say much about the quality of content being offered. 

    • http://scoop.it Guillaume Decugis

      Hi Laura.

      Trafic doesn’t affect the score.

      You can have a low view count and a high scoop.it score. The point was exactly to avoid a popularity bias and have a score indépendant from it as popularity is already covered by the Views count. Of course, ideally, quality topics will gain traction and end up having both. But our point was really to create a different metric.

      So as we explained, we’re looking at whether the topic is updated frequently or not, the depth it has, whether or not posts generate reactions (but a lot of reactions on 1 post don’t give you as much as few reactions on every post – no popularity contest ;-) ,amount of editing work made by the curator, and other criteria which don’t depend on popularity.

      Of course we can’t make a judgement on how relevant the topic is but that’s why we check how frequently the posts generate reactions, as this is a sign users found content relevant.

      Hope that clarifies but do let me know if not. Thanks!

      • http://thatgrrl.ca/ Laura Brown

        There is no perfect format for measuring sites/ topics. If there were Google would buy them/ it. Going by reactions will work well for topics which are trending in the news or seasonal. For myself, I am not the chatty type. I work at keeping the topics active with fresh content but I will never be successful at getting a lot of reactions. I will see how the scoring goes and evolves. Kind of discouraging right now. Don’t take this as complaining. I’m choosing to be here and put in the work because I really like research and finding unique spins and fresh ideas for the topics I enjoy. I like Scoop.it’s system for adding the content, the bookmarklet makes it very easy. Though I wish the keywords would be automatic instead of having to be typed in each time. 

        • http://scoop.it Guillaume Decugis

          Thanks for all the feedback. 

          Reactions are just one element of the scoring and you don’t need a lot to start impacting. 

          But as you pointing every system will have its limits. We’re going to see how this one works out and if need be, we’ll adjust. 

  • Pingback: Scoop.it Scores Curators Work: Introducing the Scoop.it Score | Blogs | Scoop.it

  • Pingback: Scoop.it Scores Curators Work: Introducing the Scoop.it Score | Science News | Scoop.it

  • Pingback: Scoop.it introduces the Scoop.it ScoreScoop.it | Du bon usage des réseaux | Scoop.it

  • Pingback: Scoop.it introduces the Scoop.it ScoreScoop.it | Digital Curator or Content Curator | Scoop.it

  • Pingback: Scoop.it Scores Curators Work: Introducing the Scoop.it Score | mediaclub | Scoop.it

  • Pingback: Scoop.it Scores Curators Work: Introducing the Scoop.it Score | A New Society, a new education! | Scoop.it

  • Pingback: Scoop.it Scores Curators Work: Introducing the Scoop.it Score | Content and Curation for Nonprofits | Scoop.it

  • Alejandromeloflorian

    Hi, First of all, congratulations for this excellent tool. A question: I have seen an “arched” disposition of the contents: How is the away to get it?
    Thanks.
    Alejandro Melo

    • Anonymous

      Thanks! Glad you like Scoop.it. 

      Not sure I understand what you mean by “arched’”. Could you link an example maybe?

  • Alejandromeloflorian

    Hi, First of all, congratulations for this excellent tool. A question: I have seen an “arched” disposition of the contents: How is the away to get it?
    Thanks.
    Alejandro Melo

    • http://scoop.it Guillaume Decugis

      Thanks! Glad you like Scoop.it. 

      Not sure I understand what you mean by “arched’”. Could you link an example maybe?

  • Pingback: Scoop.it introduces the Scoop.it Score | New Technology | Scoop.it

  • Pingback: Scoop.it introduces the Scoop.it Score | El Aula Virtual | Scoop.it

  • Pingback: Scoop.it introduces the Scoop.it Score « El Aula Virtual

  • Pingback: Scoop.it Scores Curators Work: Introducing the Scoop.it Score | cult | Scoop.it

  • Holdground

    Great insight and useful criticism. Thank you.

  • Holdground

    Great insight and useful criticism. Thank you.

  • Francis Tierney

    Nice idea,  need to improve on my score of 56 though :-)

  • Francis Tierney

    Nice idea,  need to improve on my score of 56 though :-)

  • Tanguy Mignot

    Keep the good work on ! I really enjoy to use your tool :) Thank you

  • Tanguy Mignot

    Keep the good work on ! I really enjoy to use your tool :) Thank you

  • Petercan88

    So as we explained, we’re looking at whether the topic is updated
    frequently or not, the depth it has, whether or not posts generate [url=http://www.tuntravel.com/asia/vietnam/hotels-in-danang.html]hotels in da nang[/url] 
    reactions (but a lot of reactions on 1 post don’t give you as much as
    few reactions on every post – no popularity contest ;-) ,amount of
    editing work made by the curator, and other criteria which don’t depend
    on popularity

  • Petercan88

    So as we explained, we’re looking at whether the topic is updated
    frequently or not, the depth it has, whether or not posts generate [url=http://www.tuntravel.com/asia/vietnam/hotels-in-danang.html]hotels in da nang[/url] 
    reactions (but a lot of reactions on 1 post don’t give you as much as
    few reactions on every post – no popularity contest ;-) ,amount of
    editing work made by the curator, and other criteria which don’t depend
    on popularity

  • http://twitter.com/erwanlescop Erwan Lescop

    Dear G. Decugis,I read carefully this blog post & your comments, and tried to understand as far as I could (N.B. my English is not native, which is btw a problem for my fellow French Scoop.it curators).

    You wrote :
    1. “This Score is calculated based on your activity as a curator (edition, tag, share, etc) and on your audience engagement (views, reactions, etc).” : I really doubt atm…2. “Trafic doesn’t affect the score” : easy to understand why & how.
    3. “We’ll publish more precise guidance to improve but right now, we want to check whether the algorithm works fine and collect feedback.” (1 month ago) : see hereafter.

    Like many, I’m very surprised by my low 56 score, considering for instance I edit, tag, share (FB, Twitter) most of my posts, compared with topics between 70-80 curated in a way very far from your “official criterias” … ! Honestly, your algorithm is frequently compared in France to the one used by Klout for “automatic topics”, that is impossible to understand & totally “wrong”… I was probably one of the first beta users in France, do love Scoop.it,  promoted it within a community of influential social media / blogging / curation French people, but my low score could conduct me & others to abandon (“Come on, your score is so low we can’t trust your work !”) which is a real pain for me :( And  I/we’ll obviously never go premium if this score algorithm is not clarified.

    Hence :a. Sorry in advance if I missed something, but when will you publish more precise guidance ? Especially about “other criteria which don’t depend on popularity”… ?b. Waiting for this, could you at least explain me/us what you exactly mean by “amount of editing work made by the curator”, as precisely as possible ?Many, many thanks in advance for your answer.

    Best regards.

  • erwanlescop

    Dear G. Decugis,I read carefully this blog post & your comments, and tried to understand as far as I could (N.B. my English is not native, which is btw a problem for my fellow French Scoop.it curators).

    You wrote :
    1. “This Score is calculated based on your activity as a curator (edition, tag, share, etc) and on your audience engagement (views, reactions, etc).” : I really doubt atm…2. “Trafic doesn’t affect the score” : easy to understand why & how.
    3. “We’ll publish more precise guidance to improve but right now, we want to check whether the algorithm works fine and collect feedback.” (1 month ago) : see hereafter.

    Like many, I’m very surprised by my low 56 score, considering for instance I edit, tag, share (FB, Twitter) most of my posts, compared with topics between 70-80 curated in a way very far from your “official criterias” … ! Honestly, your algorithm is frequently compared in France to the one used by Klout for “automatic topics”, that is impossible to understand & totally “wrong”… I was probably one of the first beta users in France, do love Scoop.it,  promoted it within a community of influential social media / blogging / curation French people, but my low score could conduct me & others to abandon (“Come on, your score is so low we can’t trust your work !”) which is a real pain for me :( And  I/we’ll obviously never go premium if this score algorithm is not clarified.

    Hence :a. Sorry in advance if I missed something, but when will you publish more precise guidance ? Especially about “other criteria which don’t depend on popularity”… ?b. Waiting for this, could you at least explain me/us what you exactly mean by “amount of editing work made by the curator”, as precisely as possible ?Many, many thanks in advance for your answer.

    Best regards.

  • Gary Hitching

    Dear Scoop.it Peeps,

    I am very disheartened by the Scoop.it scoring criteria. My score was growing slowly and reached 53 about 10-14 days ago, but has been going backwards since!  When I raised the issue via email I was told that it was probably due to a decrease in audience or not sharing any articles.  Both of these factors are not the case but my score is still dropping.

    I can understand a score not increasing if certain criteria isn’t met but dropping is a little alarming! I curate every day and beleive that my content is good and relevant to the subject matter.  I’ve sent two further emails to your help-desk asking for answers but I’m being ignored.

    Part of me is thinking that this shouldn’t matter that much to me but when you invest as much time as I do curating, it is very disappointing not to see a measure of progress.

    It would be quite nice to get a response to this post from you guys at Scoop.it, so that I can do what’s necessary to stop my score from dropping further!

    Thanks

    Gary

  • Gary Hitching

    Dear Scoop.it Peeps,

    I am very disheartened by the Scoop.it scoring criteria. My score was growing slowly and reached 53 about 10-14 days ago, but has been going backwards since!  When I raised the issue via email I was told that it was probably due to a decrease in audience or not sharing any articles.  Both of these factors are not the case but my score is still dropping.

    I can understand a score not increasing if certain criteria isn’t met but dropping is a little alarming! I curate every day and beleive that my content is good and relevant to the subject matter.  I’ve sent two further emails to your help-desk asking for answers but I’m being ignored.

    Part of me is thinking that this shouldn’t matter that much to me but when you invest as much time as I do curating, it is very disappointing not to see a measure of progress.

    It would be quite nice to get a response to this post from you guys at Scoop.it, so that I can do what’s necessary to stop my score from dropping further!

    Thanks

    Gary

  • Cooliosblog

    The more effort i put in raising quality, nothing happens … if you’re not popular, nothing happens … not happy with way of ‘scoring’.

  • Cooliosblog

    The more effort i put in raising quality, nothing happens … if you’re not popular, nothing happens … not happy with way of ‘scoring’.

  • http://twitter.com/MCharneyAuthor Michael Charney

    Can you please explain the scores under my profile pic? Thanks.

  • http://twitter.com/MCharneyAuthor Michael Charney

    Can you please explain the scores under my profile pic? Thanks.