Ask any modern media strategist what the best metric to gauge success is for political candidates and you'll get a whole host of different answers. For example, some most people likely think money raised online is the most important indicator, while others point to success in places like YouTube and other socnets (social networks) and socuts (social utilities) or website traffic.

If you'd ask me, I think you have to look at the whole package to gauge success. That's likely why I'm digging the Spartan Internet Political Performance Index.

From the release:

The Spartan Internet Political Performance (SIPP) Index utilizes 650 quantitative factors focused on accurately determining the level of interest a candidate is generating across the Internet. Each of the factors is derived from numeric values across the Internet such as social network outreach, Web site traffic, blog presence and search engine utilization. The resulting score is indicative of each candidate’s overall ability to reach individuals online and connect on key issues.

While the validity of the SPP is yet to be determined:

* Where's the transparency on what the 650 factors were?
* Who decided what the factors were?
* How are they measured? and
* What weight do they have and how was that determined?

...It's good to see that people are starting to realize that there's really no one metric to point to for success. Success in the modern world is very much a bouquet. (A really pretty one.)