Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Loses Users, Satisfaction Higher at Google+
benfrog writes "Facebook has lost what (by the standards of their userbase) is a modest number of users over the last six months, which is perhaps one of the causes of a fall in their stock price. In the meantime, a study shows that Google+ users are more satisfied with the site than Facebook users, who are (understandably) upset about the number of recent UI changes, the amount of advertising, and other elements, according to a statement accompanying the study. Figures also show dramatic growth in Google+ usage."
In absolute numbers, that's G+ increasing by 11.6 M and Facebook increasing by 4 M - or G+ increasing 2.9X as fast as Facebook. In percentages, that's G+ increasing by 57% and Facebook increasing by 2.6%. So I'd say that's dramatic growth at G+, and mild growth at Facebook. Mind you, part of that is because Facebook is practically saturated.
Why try to use it as a Facebook replacement? It isn't designed to directly compete. Facebook has a "two way" model (where two people have to agree to be 'friends'). This fosters a community of people who "post to each other"; sort of a friends keeping in touch type of model. Google+ is a one way thing. You put a person in your circles. Then, if they post to public, you get their content in your feed. (Google+ also has the concept of private posts where you can post just to your circles instead of public). However, just circling someone gets you their public content. So Google+ is a great place to get content from content producers, interesting people, etc. For example circle Mike Elgin, Wil Wheaton, Robert Scoble, etc. and you'll get lots of content (I can't vouch for whether you'll like said content). Circle LifeHacker, ArsTechnica, etc. and you get notified of their posts - and can engage with people on Google+ about them without registering accounts on Gawker, Ars, etc. It really is a different model and a different target. I don't view it as a replacement at all.
Oh, and Google Instant (where photos you take automatically upload to a private area) is the killer feature there - just that alone can be so helpful even if you don't circle anyone or use the other features.
Anyone can add you to their circles, but unless you either a) post everything as public for EVERYONE to see, or b) add them to one of your circles in return, they won't see anything you post anyway, so what's it matter?
This is one thing Google Plus has done right. The default for posting is to only show your posts to people in your own circles, but you can show stuff to the entire world if you want.
If you want to talk about what's "mean" the only thing I don't like is that people can see who you have in your circles, so sometimes you feel pressure to add someone just to be polite, of course you can always have a circle for those people and not share anything with them... They can't see WHICH circle you put them in...
Well, the visibility of the things you publish is based on who you have in your circles, so it doesn't really matter who adds you. That's kind of the point of the circles. You don't need a separate "fan" page, for instance, in order to publish different things for public/private consumption.
Hardly surprising really that just after the IPO the numbers start flatling. It seemed obvious to me that the IPO was simply to cash in while the going was good, rather than to move on from there.
There's no sustainability in social networking, and I imagine the smart money knew that already. I imagine the people who invested in it were the same ones who thought that the housing market would never crash.
It's amazing how difficult it is to read your entire comment, when half of it is in the subject.
Slashdot Valentines Beta Massacre: iT WORKED! The boycotts killed Beta!!
I swear in the past they had a setting to stop people from tagging me in photos that others post on Facebook. Just recently, I got a notification that I had been tagged in a photo. Big surprise that when I logged in to look, the setting hadn't been changed, it was gone. I found no way to stop this tagging of photos now. I guess I just can't let tagging types take pictures of me now.
Facebook's mobile app is mediocre at best. If you believe even half the hype, that will be enough to seriously hurt them in the long run, especially considering they've admitted it themselves that they don't know how to do mobile well.
The actual problem for FB is that 1.6 billion shares could be dumped by insiders in the next several months. I don't expect it to happen, but a bunch will. But, but, but... didn't they only sell 421 million shares at the IPO. Yeah, but, insiders have been granted 1.6 billion shares beforehand. See http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/columnist/krantz/story/2012-05-25/facebook-insider-lockup-period/55208546/1
> The onslaught of Facebook stock looks like an avalanche. At the 91-day point after
> the IPO, insiders are able to sell 268 million shares of stock. Between 91 and
> 181 days after the IPO, insiders can sell an additional 137 million shares. And
> then after 181 days following the IPO, another 1.2 billion shares are free to be sold.
I don't think that every insider will cash out (e.g. Mark Z wants to retain control) but obviously a bunch of "paper millionaires" will want to get out while the getting out is still good. For a country-by-country breakdown of Facebook's numbers, over various timeranges, check out http://www.socialbakers.com/facebook-statistics/?interval=last-month#chart-intervals
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
That's a fair point, and it was admittedly uncharitable of me to put "dramatic" in sarcasm quotes. It's objectively a pretty big leap for them. It also detracts from the point I was going for, which is that if a social network has 154 million people and 4 million people join, that is not a decline. The problem I had was just that the OP presents one set of statistics for facebook, and another that uses a different site and a different methodology for google+. Using his own google+ site as a reference, both facebook and google+ grew over the same time frame.
That's why some of my friends call it "FazeBook" (or worse .. F**Book). I have no opinion, I don't use it.
Just like LiveJournal before MySpace, the social medium is fad-based. Same with clothes / fashion.