Our Methodology
Evidence, Not Opinion
The Reputation Scorecard scoring system is built on academic reputation theory, validated against real hiring data, and updated continuously as new research emerges. No black boxes.
Grounded in academic reputation theory
The 8-pillar framework draws on established research in corporate reputation management (Fombrun & van Riel), personal branding theory (Montoya & Vandehey), and digital identity research (Palfrey & Gasser).
The weighting model was developed through primary research with hundreds of professionals and validated against real-world outcomes: hiring decisions, background check results, and peer trust assessments.
We update the methodology annually based on new research and accumulating validation data from our community.
Scoring formula overview
# Overall Score (0-100)
score = sum(pillar_score[i] * weight[i])
# Pillar Score Components
pillar = evidence_quality
* recency_factor
* source_authority
* sentiment_weight
* industry_multiplier
Simplified representation. Full implementation uses normalised scoring across 40+ sub-metrics.
The reputation dimensions we measure
Each pillar is scored independently, then weighted and combined into your overall 0-100 score.
Measures the depth and breadth of demonstrated expertise. Evidence includes publications, conference speaking, professional awards, expert citations, and peer endorsements.
Sub-metrics
- Published content volume and quality
- Speaking engagements and event participation
- Professional awards and recognition
- Expert citations and references
Measures community standing and peer endorsement across professional and social networks. Reflects the degree to which others publicly vouch for your expertise and character.
Sub-metrics
- LinkedIn connection quality and endorsements
- Community engagement and responses
- Peer recommendation patterns
- Network reach and relevance
Measures the completeness and consistency of your verifiable professional identity online. Incomplete or contradictory profiles reduce this pillar score.
Sub-metrics
- Profile completeness across platforms
- Consistency of professional information
- Verified identity signals
- Contact information accessibility
Measures the absence of adverse findings in legal, regulatory, and professional records. A clean background is a strong positive signal. Adverse findings reduce this pillar significantly.
Sub-metrics
- Legal record and court findings
- Regulatory sanctions or disqualifications
- Professional misconduct records
- Media reporting on professional conduct
Measures the overall emotional tone of content published about you online. Positive media coverage, favourable reviews, and constructive commentary improve this pillar's score.
Sub-metrics
- News media sentiment analysis
- Social media mentions tone
- Review platform ratings
- Comment and response quality
Measures the strength and relevance of your professional connections. Quality outweighs quantity: 50 highly relevant connections matter more than 5,000 irrelevant ones.
Sub-metrics
- Connection seniority and relevance
- Mutual connections with influential figures
- Alumni and professional group membership
- Cross-industry connection diversity
Measures the alignment of your professional claims, dates, credentials, and biographical details across all platforms. Inconsistencies are a red flag in background checks.
Sub-metrics
- Employment history consistency
- Qualification claim verification
- Date and timeline coherence
- Cross-platform narrative alignment
Measures the diversity and depth of your positive reputation assets, the buffer that protects your score when adverse events occur. Strong readiness means a crisis causes less damage.
Sub-metrics
- Positive evidence diversity across sources
- Recency and freshness of positive evidence
- Geographic and platform distribution
- Positive-to-negative evidence ratio
Not all evidence is equal
Each piece of evidence is weighted by four quality factors before contributing to your pillar scores.
Source authority
Reuters > regional newspaper > personal blog. Source credibility is scored on a 1-10 scale.
Recency
Evidence from the last 12 months is weighted at full value. Older evidence decays on a logarithmic curve.
Sentiment weight
Positive evidence adds to your score; negative evidence subtracts. Neutral is scored near zero.
Relevance score
Evidence directly about you outweighs tangential mentions. The AI scores relevance on a 0-1 scale.
Methodology questions
Put the methodology to work
See your own score calculated against this framework. Free assessment, results the same day.