This is not meant to be a flame piece and I am sorry if it comes across that way. The company has annoyed me twice so I shall not be using them again anytime soon, but I do understand what they are trying to do, even if it is slightly misguided.

I signed up for Garlik when they first began offering a free credit scoring service. Usually I am really suspicious of free lunches but it came on the recommendation of a good friend (at the time) so I signed up and was soon wishing I had not bothered.

After carefully entering all my information and being teased with a taster credit report, which in all fairness was new information for me and useful. I was told that my full credit report would be online in the next 24 hours. I had to wait three weeks for the full report to appear and then when it did appear it did not have much new information over the taster credit report so I was already disappointed.

I let my account lapse as I got annoyed of receiving emails from them warning me of changes to me credit report which then turned out to be some random spam which had infiltrated the system. I had companies I had never heard of offering me services on my credit report. I lost trust in the company and their information.

So this time round I was reticent to try anything by these guys. Unfortunately my opinion or experience has not changed. I am not going to repeat the issues that previous postings have raised. Suffice to say I totally agree with Jon Mountjoy and Jason in there postings above. And my account is either going to be deleted or allowed to lapse. The idea is a commendable one but unfortunately I think the execution is a bit flawed. For my two cents worth I would offer the following:

They should have thought about beginning this with a group who actually care about their digital status. Maybe bloggers or other people whose offline status is tied in some way to their online status.

I do not see the inherent value in my so called “digital status” (“We now have a means of measuring and therefore managing the way we look online, we call it digital status” ) the site/ concept has failed to demonstrate to me the value in knowing about and managing this status apart from the dubious pleasure of being able to compare my status to other people, a concept which In my opinion is flawed anyway as most of these people ( at the moment anyways ) are not real people but instead famous people.

You are inviting me to compare myself against individuals who have a defined need to measure and manage the way they look online. The 50 cent’s and Barack Obama’s of this world all have a need to manage their digital status, they are effectively brands. They have to ensure their digital status is in keeping with their projected off line brand persona's and they have slick marketing machines around them to make sure this happens.

I am an ordinary guy, you could argue I am my own mini brand, but in the vast scheme of “people brands” I am such a small brand that the demographic or audience I have to influence (friends, family, professional colleagues) is so small that I have no need to worry about my digital status not precisely correlating to my online status.

If I have a lot of influence and a massive reputation to safeguard, then this “digital status “concept is a good idea. Unfortunately in these circumstances I would have my own PR personnel or spin doctors who would certainly boast more sophisticated methods than a Qdos scale to keep my digital status in check.

Ordinary old me can happily manage my digital status using current tools at my disposal, (un-tagging my name from those embarrassing facebook pictures for starters). I have no real need to actively keep track of my digital status. I am not famous so I have a fair idea where 99% of pictures or videos of me would be online. And I have yet to attract any fan or flame sites.

In the end. I know the point of all this is information. But I personally usually make up one-time Hotmail email address and regularly lie on the application forms to join specific sites. So I am not too worried about who is making money off the bogus data I am supplying them with.

Thought this looked interesting so went to the home page. First thing they ask for is name and postcode. Wasn't comfortable with that and didn't go any further.

1. Okay, so I visited QDOS. According to their terms of services they "calculate your initial QDOS using our proprietary algorhythm." Well, it's hard to believe that their "algorhythm" is anything other than a random number generator. Come on. I gave various names and post codes, some laughable, some real, all yielding pretty much the same score. Much like the others commenting here, it's hard to believe. Anyone could whip up a google-based QDOS score in 10 minutes that is far better than anything they're (apparently) doing. I'm sure they're on to something, but I'm also sure it's broken right now. Maybe they're overwhelmed with load and generating false numbers? But they should know that too. So I can't help but feel uncomfortable. I don't believe the numbers they generate, so why should I register? It looks dodgy before I've even started...

2. Their terms of service say "By registering with us, you agree that we may provide you with marketing materials (whether by e-mail or any other medium) that we consider appropriate. You may opt-out of receiving these materials by writing to or e-mailing us at support@qdos.com to inform us that you wish to be removed from our marketing distribution list." Come on. I have to explicitly opt-out by emailing someone? All the sites I register for are opt-in, not opt-out. This is unacceptable to me, so I won't bother registering.

3. Their privacy statement states that I can delete my profile. I like that a lot. I don't believe you can do that on Facebook. Unfortunately, a) I can only do it via email, b) it looks like they keep it anyway. To quote, "We may retain certain data contributed by you where necessary to prevent fraud or future abuse, or for **legitimate business purposes**, ..." I believe they go on to say that they will only keep it for 6 months, but whether this is all or a subset I don't know.

Your post made me think about things like control over identity and information..I'm not convinced that signing up for something like this will give me much control. I imagine that they're not alone - I suspect many sites (some of which I may have registered for) are similar. Still, some of the statements above make me a little uncomfortable.

I'm also unsure of your premise: "Once you have checked your own score, you will be able to compare it to any other person, something that will be naturally irresistible" The score seems mostly arbitrary - it gives me no feeling of authenticity. Why would I want to register or even compare. It feels meaningless - and because of that there is no hook. I don't find it irresistible at all...

I'm a Brit but have lived in the US for >15 years. I have one lingering bank account in the UK, and nothing else. I've not filed taxes there for 10 years, I own no house there, I receive no mail there apart from monthly statements for this one bank account. I even had to use the post code of my parents.

My 'score' seems irrationally high. Perhaps it's picking up my parents because of the same last name?

My first observations were these:

1. Why should I give this site my name and postcode? :) Isn't that sensitive?
2. The scores:
Me: Q654
My wife: Q728
My 6 year old: Q892
My 3 year old: Q719
Roger, an entirely fictional person at my postcode: Q680

So something seems a bit wrong here, or maybe the error margins are so large they make the whole thing irrelevant. I blog (a bit), I've been online since 1994, I own domain names (which exposes me horrendously in the WHOIS databases around the world), I'm on Facebook, LinkedIn and various other social networking sites, etc. etc. My daughter outperforms me and my wife (who is a leading research scientist and has lots of publications in her name, not to mention that she's done lots of "public understanding of science" work and TV work).

Now I will admit to being quite careful about my exposure online, but I can't truly expect to be less than a made-up person. Or my 3 year old who has only just learned to spell his name..

I think the aim of QDOS (and Garlik) are extremely laudable. But they need to add value if they are going to avoid being dismissed as a gimmick.