Some background to illustrate the use case: I created a figshare dataset which is at https://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.3084727 - this duly got tweeted and blogged (by me, but excluding the author's own Twitter/blog is a whole other question) and has a lovely Altmetric score. However something about either the process I took or figshare in general meant that in addition to this DOI, another record with a version number added - https://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.3084727.v1 - also got sent to Datacite and thence ORCID; to Symplectic Elements; etc. And this one has no Altmetric score associated with it. Even though it's the same thing.
From your point of view this is understandable: you're dealing in unique identifiers. However in practice this is going to mean that whole swathes of figshare records in whole swathes of systems you want to be interoperable with won't have any Altmetric data associated with them.
So the question is, do you want to be dealing in unique identifiers *at the version level* like this? Because to me, even if this was actually version 23 instead of version 1, I'd still expect the Altmetric badge to show the impact of the item, not the impact of the particular version. After all, I'd never list every version of something on my CV but I'd still want to know the overall impact of the thing.
Or do you just not want to open this can of worms, and I should instead be contacting figshare and asking them to send out the plain DOI only and not the versioned one?
Thank you for reaching out with your question!
We understand that publications often have versioned DOIs associated with them and the hassle this can cause if multiple Altmetric details pages are created. We are currently working on a fix that will bring together all the versions of a paper, creating a single details page for all the attention. The fix should be completed and live in the next few weeks. I apologise for any inconvenience in the meantime.