Slashdot Mirror
Online Loneliness At Google+
An anonymous reader writes "Google+ is a lonely place. At least according to a new study that paints the social networking site as a virtual tumbleweed town. Using information culled from the public timelines of 40,000 randomly selected members, data analysis firm RJMetrics found that the Google+ population, which currently numbers 170 million, is largely disengaged, with user activity rapidly decaying—at least when it comes to public posts. According to RJMetrics, 30 percent of first-time Google+ public posters don't post again. Of those who make five public posts, only 15 percent post again. The average time lapse between posts is 12 days, and RJMetrics cites a cohort analysis showing that members tend to make fewer public posts with each successive month. And the response to public posts on Google+ is extremely weak. The average post receives fewer than one reply, fewer than one '+1' (the equivalent to Facebook's 'Like'), and fewer than one re-share — basically most posts in the study did not garner any response."
I use google + daily, always open in a tab.
And each time i go look at the tab, there's something new up on my stream.
So I guess some people do post. If you're not following anyone, no wonder it seems barren.
I think it might be the reason that critical mass wasn't achieved. I was really hoping that this would trump facebook.
Google + was seen as a "Facebook that isn't Facebook", so sure, I made an account and looked around.
But then I remembered something, it's still a pointlessly boring social media site, and abandoned it.
Most people don't post publicly, if that is your only gauge of success, it will show up as not being that active. That's the wonderful this about circles
1) You can put your whole life online and it still doesn't mean you're famous.
2) People you know will post snarky crap on your page and shrug their shoulder when you meet them face to face.
3) Everything you've ever been told to safegaurd your privacy is out the window at Facebook. If you don't post it, someone you know already posted about you.
4) A website is automatically uncool the moment your parents join.
5) Facebook is just an ugly background away from being Myspace.
There's a reason those of us that switched did so. If they turned Google+ into another facebook I'd leave. I don't want to be part of a virtual hen-hizzy where everyone is telling me the size of their poop every morning. When I have an update on Google+ I know it's work looking at... where-as with facebook I was so flooded with nonsense I couldn't stand it anymore and deleted my account.
The large majority of the people in my circles with whom I keep active contact with, post almost exclusively Limited, as do I.
Frankly, those who post exclusively Public seem a bit like show-offs and/or "social media consultants" (or "experts"), and who wants to stay in touch with such people?
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
Every single one of these articles is completely without merit. They all poll Google+ for public information. Guess what, the majority of users on G+ do not post publicly, that is why they choose to be there instead of Facebook. I know personally I moved over to G+ with an already formed circle of Twitter friends. The vast majority of us only end up sharing among the 500 or so members of that loose community. But within that group, the discussion is constant. There are tons of these loosely affiliated circles on the service.
The type of user attracted to Google+ generally is someone looking to discuss things, not necessarily vapidly post about what they had for dinner. It is a different dynamic, and as such needs a different metric to determine participation. Then again at the end of the day I am completely happy with Quality over Quantity.
Bullshit. Their primary business is information collection, with their primary revenue being advertising. If they don't have relevant information to offer to their users, their core business is withering on the vine. If the users decide that they're better off looking for info elsewhere, their advertising revenue dries up.
Google needs an active G+. They're just fighting a losing battle against the network effect.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
second AC I read that says this. I'd be cool if you provided examples so as to validate your anonymous claims a bit better.
"Science can amuse and fascinate us all, but it is engineering that changes the world. " - Asimov.
Google Plus+ the Zune of Social Media.
There is a really popular product out there, the big company comes in much to late in the game, offers a product that isn't that much better, and not much cheaper. In hopes that you big name will oust the already well known name.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
It's funny that the summary and article quote 170 million users too. This is not the actual Google+ user count, it's just the user count of Google accounts that have been tricked to join it along using other Google services. And by active, they mean active if you use any Google products like search, youtube, etc.
The whole premise of G+ is that it's built around private sharing with your circles. There's a lot of public sharing, sure -- but it's INTENDED to be private. That was the whole selling point for why people chose to use it over Facebook. My G+ feed is constantly being updated in a very lively manner with both public and limited posts by a variety of people.
The study is based on a flawed premise. They should find some other metric aside from "public posts" for determining how engaged the userbase is.
Posting is information. Why do you think Facebook is so hot on wallstreet?
Because no one really knows what their books look like? Because they spent $1B on a shitty company like Instagram just to see if anyone would flinch, and when no one did, they knew they could basically write a blank check and investors would sign it? Or maybe (the simplest explanation) it's been like 5 years since there has been an interesting IPO and institutional investors are desperate to make mutual funds look appealing again?
They had a decent enough buzz. They had a decent enough product. They utterly failed on the delivery.
Let's look at how Facebook (inadvertently!) succeeded with its introduction:
- release the product to a small number of people who all know each other and feel exclusive
- release the product to another small number of people who all know each other and feel exclusive
- release the product to still more people who all know each other and feel exclusive
- open it up to the world and let it grow organically
Now, here's what Google did:
- generate a lot of buzz about a promising new product
- allow a limited number of invites, but allow anyone to be invited, so new people who join know only the person who invited them, and can't even invite new people yet. But they do feel exclusive, and can't wait until they know someone.
- feed the anticipation of all the people who are clamoring to get an account
- open up invitations to anyone
- reject new sign-ups from people who were invited once they hit an unspecified threshold, so that only a small number of new people actually signed up, and the only person each knows is the one who invited him
- open up invitations to anyone
- reject new sign-ups from people who were invited once they hit an unspecified threshold, so that only a small number of new people actually signed up, and the only person each knows is the one who invited him
- open up invitations to anyone
- reject new sign-ups from people who were invited once they hit an unspecified threshold, so that only a small number of new people actually signed up, and the only person each knows is the one who invited him
- eventually, people got tired of being rejected and didn't sign up, or left because they didn't know many people when they first joined.
- open it up to the world.
Did Google really expect people to just "try again later" after receiving an invitation and being rejected? Twice? Three times?
Major introduction fail.
If you're not having a good time on Google+, then you're doing it wrong. Click on the explore button on the left, post to a few threads that you find interesting, and I've ended up with over 100 people following my posts, about a third of them I actually know. I don't spam a lot of my own posts, I put up stuff I do that I enjoy, and might post original content or share something once every 3 days. Still it's not a ghost town if you bother to look for someone you think does cool stuff and just put them in a followers circle so you see their public posts on your stream. If you're a geek I recommend Wil Wheaton, and Felicia Day. Leo LaPorte is good too, but he posts less than I do, which is surprising since he came out as a big supporter of G+ and he's a content author by trade. I also follow Wired Magazine, and Marissa Mayer. None of which give me more than I can keep up with, but that doesn't mean I read all of it either.
No, it is a good "product", and has features that top both facebook and twitter, but has some flaws that result in Stream overload, thus leading to the article's comments about not many people getting responses for public posts.
And the whole "Ghost Town" meme is such bullshit. Look, it's hardly a ghost town. My stream has tons of stuff in it today. The only "ghost" part is that mostly it's from people I don't know personally.
G+ is functioning more like an advanced version of Twitter. You "follow" lots of people by putting them in your circles. They post "publicly" and it shows in your stream. You get a ton of posts in your stream. You can comment on them and the poster sometimes comments back or you have a discussion with other commenters. Never could do this effectively on Twitter. But mostly it's working for larger names, bloggers, etc. William Shatner posted today that he has 1.4 million followers, and there were 74 comments to that post (Vic Gundotra of Google being the first poster).
So in a nut shell, the big names get lots of viewers and commenters. But yes, if I post I'm competing with a lot of big names and lots of posts for attention. That is why few people get +1s or comments on their posts. You have to really develop a following of dedicated readers.
If I post to a select group of friends, or a circle, they will not get notified unless I mention them by name or post just to them (and still have to have the right settings for this). And if they don't get notified then my post risks getting lost in the flood of their stream.
Anyway, the point of all this, is that there are some issues with the design of posts/circles/notifications that have lead to the exact condition we are seeing. I think some of these can be fixed, maybe not all.
Oh, also, Google+ Hangouts rock, so just use it for that if nothing else.
I'm pretty much the same camp. I don't use my normal browser when I need to do something in Facebook as Facebook have proven themselves very interested in playing the shell game with users' privacy settings. Not interested.
However I use/surf G+ pretty regularly. The people in my circles are mainly users I know from a web-based discussion forum (not /.) and the posts are decidedly more intellectually engaging. I prefer G+'s pace where posts come in at about the rate of a dozen or so per day. The people in my circles are more thoughtful in their posts and the posts are of greater topical interests (as opposed to "Here's a pic of my cat eating my adorable offspring").
If preferring G+ to Facebook is wrong I don't want to be right.
blog
By December 2010, Instagram had one million registered users. In June 2011 Instagram announced it had five million users and it passed ten million in September of the same year. In April 2012, it was announced that over 30 million accounts were set up on Instagram.
Instagram announced that 100 million photos had been uploaded to its service as of July 2011. This total reached 150 million in August 2011.
If that's a poor company in your view, how do you define a good company? It's pretty brazen to claim Facebook did this just to test reactions, when you consider what Facebook does and how neatly Instagram slots in to that user work flow.
And "no one really knows what their books look like"? Did you look at the SEC filing? Or their published balance sheets on their web site?
What do you want to see in terms of financial disclosures that's not out there and which is typical for a company to provide? Be specific.
Otherwise your whole post is just flamebait.