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."
.... what actual revenue can do for morale.
Facebook screws with actual settings all the time, which goes well beyond UI changes
There was a recent email replacement issue. And logging in today I realized that my facebook chat now shows my online status, even though I explicitly disabled it a couple of months ago.
Keeping your settings on Facebook where you want them (if that is even feasible) is a full time job.
1. Make it really easy to use and feature-full, to build a user base.
2. Attempt to monetize it by loading it with a ton of ads and other annoyances.
3. Sell to investors for big bucks.
4. Users get fed up and leave, leaving a hulking mess.
I am officially gone from
There are only so many people in the world who are interested in social networks; it's impossible to attain infinite growth.
Besides, a lot of folks at some point wake up to how much time they spend on FB and the like [a lot!].
If each mistake being made is a new one, then progress is being made.
The same site (siteanalytics.compete.com) that shows "dramatic" growth in Google+ usage (from 20.2 million in April to 31.8 million users presently) also shows considerable growth in facebook usage over the same time period (from 154.5 million to 158.5 million). If you're going to compare sites, use the same metrics for each site, otherwise you look like kind of an asshole.
I have to agree. I like it fine, but it's not a full-on Facebook replacement, and I'm not much interested in unique visitors as a useful metric when 800 trillion people already have google accounts. Show me big numbers for user engagement. Then I'll gladly accept that people are actually using it as a Facebook replacement.
I never will
For that, I was a smelly old geeky kook before.
But now, I am smelly old PRESCIENT geeky kook.
Yeah!
People are finally understanding they can do everything Facebook does for them without feeding an advertising and spying machine in other venues.
Not that Google is an improvement in that department, but eventually Fabebook's crass manipulation and even Google' subtle manipulation will make way to the realization: you own your data, and you control your data, and it's time everyone woke up and realized what they were giving away for free and what it was doing to their privacy and their integrity.
So what's the next hub? Diaspora?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
They will hit critical mass because Google is leveraging their other markets. Facebook doesn't have Google maps, YouTube, the Chrome browser, g-mail, etc. Google is going to integrate all of its technology and because the applications are there, people will use it. Google will surround Facebook, and then give an integrated alternative. People will move.
The only thing that doesn't make sense is why Google hasn't yet bought Twitter. Maybe Twitter refuses to sell?
I remember when "everyone" was on MySpace, "Everyone" was there and nobody used "Facebook". Until one day ... Nobody used MySpace and everyone was on Facebook.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
It sounds kind of obvious that Google+ would have higher satisfaction then Facebook. The only people using it are people who really want to use it, no one is there just because all there friends are there.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
Android is the only market that matters as far as their leverage goes. Everyone on android has gmail, and everyone on gmail has Google+. My family suddenly realized that everyone had a video chat app installed on their phones, imagine their shock! But how to organize it so the whole family can be on together? Oh wait, Google+ supports events now. And sharing pictures and video is about 2 taps on the screen? Oh, but my friends don't want to see yet another picture of my daughter doing something adorable, luckily it's about 2 more screen presses to only share it with my family then. The Google+ app has a remarkable amount of functionality, Google has been putting a lot of effort into getting it right because they know that mobile is where Facebook stumbles.
FB's failing is due to it's users, mostly. About 3-6 months ago, everyone decided that pictures with text on them is all they were going to post. Or food pictures, or Spotify playlists.
Facebook was never awesome, but it did have a lot of my friends and family posting interesting discussions and information. Then everyone ran out of things to say, so now they just post funny pictures.
A lot of this isn't just users fault though, many issues arise out of the lack of Grouping, which is something G+ fixes and is awesome at. I don't want my pictures of partying being shown to employers, or my neices and nephews which causes issues with my conservative siblings. Sorting what information I want to send to select groups easily is the main reason I wish people were using G+.
Whether or not there is some sort of god, I'm not supposed to say/god is a word and the argument ends there-Smog
... is not due much to the loss of users. It is due primarily to the fact that the investors realized facebook has no long-term business plan. The notion of "bring in users, sell their information" only works for so long. They don't have a good plan for getting users of mobile devices to pay attention to advertising. They don't have a plan to keep users interested. Eventually the novelty wears off.
Facebook wants people to believe they are the next google. They are more likely the next AOL.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
This is one of my pet peeves in websites today. It's not just FB that does this.
Attention web developers: PLEASE STOP forcing us to the mobile versions of your sites. Just stop it.
There's also the fact that a number of people (including me) only use Facebook because they feel "forced" to do so. Friends or family members they want to keep in touch with only use Facebook, or events they want to be notified of are only announced on Facebook, or some game or website or something forces people to use Facebook to participate.
That "forcing" is part of what keeps Facebook's numbers so high, but it also leads to discontent. No one likes being forced into something, and it tends to aggravate any negative feelings they already have. On the other hand no one (except possibly Google employees =) feels forced to use G+. If you're there, it's because you want to be there.
I have noticed some swings in G+ activity, at least amongst the people i follow. Sometimes it slows down to four or five dedicated people/groups posting on a somewhat regular basis, sometimes it swings up. Currently it seems to be in a bit of an upswing with about a dozen "regular" posters, but that's a _very_ small and biased bit of anecdotal data.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
I'm skeptical. I've tried to use Google + a couple times, but quite frankly, I can't figure out what it does or how I use it.
Most of the problem is I can't tell which communications are from real people and which are spam from Google. Someone wants to connect with me...is that the G+ equivalent of an fb friend request? Or is it just because I have someone with a gmail address in my address book? And if I (attempt) connect with someone, is it someone who is using G+? Or just someone with a gmail account?
I tried to connect with a few people (real friends I know in meat space) and there was no one on the other end. It seems like Google just created G+ accounts for everyone with a gmail address and then spammed me with messages to connect with everyone in my address with a gmail address.
Maybe it isn't a ghost town, but it's a ghost metropolis built around a very small settlement.
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.
As opposed to following someone's blog, watching their twitter feed, subscribing to their podcast, etc.
Ya know what? I have my own life. There are only so many hours in the day I can spend on what other people are doing.
They will both do grouping, the g+ version is just infinitely easier to deal with. I guess FB has been working on that, but honestly I only use it myself basically so I can actually see all the messages that people I know mysteriously seem to think that posting to FB will magically get to everyone. FB is OK, G+ is definitely nicer in most ways.
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
You don't HAVE to add them to your circles, if random guy I don't know adds me to their circles, I don't add them back (and I do have a couple of those... though I have no idea why) it is very explicit when you look at it who is following who. if random guy is following you without you following back, it makes them look like a stalker, doesn't make you look bad, in fact if anything it makes you look good because you must be interesting if you have fans like that. The only time it is awkward is when your real life friendship is also awkward (ie that creepy guy who somehow ends up at the same parties as you and just sits in the corner all night... you don't want to add him because he's not really a friend... but he's at all the same events you are, so you don't feel right excluding him either for fear of offending him and having to deal with it the next time you see him)
This allows famous people to interact more easilly, they can have millions of fans following them without needing to approve each and every one, and yet they can still have only their actual friends in their own circles, and share more personal stuff only with them, without having to share it with their millions of followers, and without having to have a seperate persona for their public selves from their private lives. Now famous people are somewhat of an extreme example, but it scales well for all levels.
I do have a fair number of complaints about a few things google has done, but the setup of their circles is not one of them, that's one place that I feel Google nailed it just right.
You know what? SO what. It's not for you. I know, your massive entitlement complex brought on by getting far too much attention as a child makes you think everything is for you and for you're approval.
It is not.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
... and that sounds like it is exactly as it should be.
The problem with facebook is not really facebook per-se—some people like it, it serves their needs, good for them.
The problem is when facebook becomes so overwhelmingly dominant that they are essentially the only viable choice for most people, meaning that people who don't like it (and they are legion) are basically goaded into using it anyway.
Ideally, there would be a range of services that are all popular, maybe even with content-transfer between them (I know, FB would royally freak, but ... from a user's point of view, this is ideal ... and the user's content does belong to the user, doesn't it ...?), allowing people to use the one they like best, and avoiding any one service from becoming too powerful.
Diversity is a good thing!
We live, as we dream -- alone....