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.
Is this like some sort of Google ad? I dunno. I like G+ too, but it is a little hard to use in the ways that you can use FB when people just don't do a lot with it. Maybe they'll hit some sort of critical mass? I'd like that, but...
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
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.
My brother dropped his at the start of the year. I was six months later. Just last night a friend said hey why can't I find you on Facebook? I gave them my phone number.
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.
They keep redirecting my tablet from www.facebook to m.facebook. That's like me telling my taxi driver to take me to Baltimore, and instead they take me to the tiny town of Columbia. I can't figure-out why the programmers would arbitrarily decide to overrule my desire to vist the full WWW page.
As for google, none of my friends are over there, so I have no interest. It would be like standing in a room by myself.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
'nuff said!
Except I don't see Google pawning off their service. They ARE the conglomo-corp. And historically their ads are not terribly invasive in their services, because the ads are so much better targeted at the users that they don't have to pepper the page with a dozen ads.
Google can really stick it (gymnastics term, weird of me) if they don't force the UI changes on the user. Develop new stuff, absolutely, don't force it.
No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
-insert pic of Fry from Futurama-
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
(Seriously... FB can't die soon enough for me; I'm getting tired of holding out.)
-1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
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...
Of course MySpace REALLY just went noplace in terms of creating features. They piddled around but it was like everything was user interface nuclear disaster. It was the ugliest site in history. I guess FB COULD screw up that bad. I think they probably won't. They'll screw up a little bit, but so will Google.
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
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.
... 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.
Get with the times, man - there are THREE now.
#DeleteChrome
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.
That's not even a sentence.
( :P )
Are you sure that Facebook has not created a "ghost" account for you with information they have gleaned from people who are actual Facebook users, just waiting for you to create a user account to link it to?
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
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
G+ is less designed around getting everyone to join and more around actually communicating. You can put people in your circles that are just email contacts. They'll get invited of course, but you can happily post things to them. I get what you're saying though. FB is conceptually easier to wrap your head around in a sense.
"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.
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
Let's see...I don't recall G+ ever playing with my privacy settings behind my back.
If I hadn't gotten my naive fingers caught in facebook's "too late we already have your data and we're not giving it up" mousetrap I'd have deleted my account there a long time ago.
And this stupid "2 week of no access" didn't work. I deleted my account there and then had facebook completely firewalled from my computer, and I waited a *month* for my "deleted" facebook account to disappear.
Not a god damned fucking thing happened.
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
You can change this: go to your profile, click on edit. People in your circles appear on the right hand side - notice that it highlights in blue when you mouse over it - click that area and you can change the visibility. Uncheck the box to turn visibility completely off, or you can choose to just show them to people in your circles.
.. but still uses losers.
It looks like a steady rate of visits with one unexplained giant spike for a month near the beginning, rather than a downward trend. I wonder what caused the traffic to double a year ago. I don't remember anything particular than happened then.
(1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
It's amazing that you're so new to this site that you don't understand that putting part of the comment in the subject line is meant to grab attention..
BAH. REAL INTERNET USERS KNOW THAT THE BEST WAY TO GRAB ATTENTION IS TO TYPE EVERYTHING IN CAPS AND BOLD.
FUCKIN NEWBS WITH THEIR DUMB-ASS SPLITTING THE COMMENT OUT - TOTALLY INEFFECTIVE
besides, exactly how does splitting the comment attract attention? i don't even know someone's done it until after i start reading their comment....
i spent five minutes thinking and all i got was this crappy sig