Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Facebook Google Social Networks Technology

Google+ Loses 60% of Active Users 519

Posted by samzenpus
from the grass-isn't-always-greener dept.
First time accepted submitter tech4 writes "Despite users' curiosity around Google+, it seems like most Google+ users just wanted to see the platform before returning to Facebook. 'Google has lost over 60 per cent of its active users on its social network Google+, according to a report by Chitika Insights, raising questions about how well it is doing against its rival, Facebook. Despite the clear interest in an alternative to Facebook, it does not appear that the people joining are staying around and actively using the web site. Google's problem is not getting users in the first place, it seems, but rather keeping them after they have arrived. For now it appears that a lot of users are merely curious about Google+, but return to the tried and tested format of Facebook when the lustre fades. The problem is that Facebook is not going to rest on its laurels while Google attempts to get the advantage. Already it has added features inspired by Google+, particularly in terms of improving the transparency of its privacy options.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google+ Loses 60% of Active Users

Comments Filter:
  • by jellomizer (103300) on Monday October 10, 2011 @12:11PM (#37665754)

    Well whenever there is something new people try it out and realize it isn't like what they are use to and go back to the old way. Confident that they are not a close minded individual.

    • by ackthpt (218170)

      Well whenever there is something new people try it out and realize it isn't like what they are use to and go back to the old way. Confident that they are not a close minded individual.

      It's an expected reaction. I'm certain the migration from MySpace to Facebook took time, too. Give Google+ time. Facebook is so idiotic I'm looking forward to not going there if I can help it, which is about the way I felt about MySpace.

      • "Facebook is so idiotic I'm looking forward to not going there if I can help it" Exactly where I am right now. I deleted my facebook page, but the only reason I went back was to keep in touch with some local friends so I know when/where the party is at on the weekends! haha I do otherwise use G+ and will continue to use it, and I look forward to canning facebook entirely at some point.
    • by l_bratch (865693)

      My problem with Google+ is that it signs me in to all other Google pages too. I don't want to be logged into my search engine with my social network account, and it's too much hassle to sign in and out of Google+ each time I want to use it.

      • by asdf7890 (1518587)
        Also stories of being blocked from other Google services for doing something against policy on G+ puts quite a few people off.
        • by TheLink (130905) on Monday October 10, 2011 @01:47PM (#37667688) Journal
          That's why I use facebook and not Google+.

          If I ever get blocked from facebook for whatever stupid reason, nothing happens to the Google stuff.

          Seems Google's philosophy is one account for everything. I tried before to keep my youtube and google accounts separate, but Google forced me to merge them. I didn't like that. Many buildings aren't just "one big room" for good reasons, similarly there are good reasons to have more than one account for different things.

          If Google want more data about me they can go ask Facebook for it ;).
      • by skids (119237)

        I hear that. Google's contagious login across different services is what discourages me from using most of their services (and I won't touch facebook with a 10 foot pole) But then, they probably do not care about people like me who aren't going to voluntarily provide them with a dossier on themselves.

      • by Sancho (17056) *

        Interesting viewpoint. Personally, I assume that Google already knows pretty much everything about me, so G+ is one of the few social networking sites I don't mind using.

      • by belg4mit (152620) on Monday October 10, 2011 @12:53PM (#37666608) Homepage

        Multifox lets you keep multiple windows with different sets of cookies open in FF.

    • by hairyfeet (841228) <bassbeast1968@@@gmail...com> on Monday October 10, 2011 @01:00PM (#37666776) Journal

      As someone who works with and for the common man six days a week I can sum up why the go back in a single word....Zynga. Folks are addicted to those damned FB games like they are crack. I swear i've even had people come in and base their new PCs on how well it will play Farmville!

      While I don't mess with the social crap (lucky if I have time to sleep most weeks) if they don't have all the big Zynga games...Farm/Frontierville, Mafia Wars, etc they can give it up chuck, folks just aren't giving up their FB games. You'd be surprised how many hours some folks have sunk into those things! Hell that was one of the things that drove me nuts about my ex, she'd be staying over and no matter how much I wore her down, 7:00AM on the dot she'd be on the PC for her hour of Farmville. She simply refused to ever miss her one hour of Farmville no matter what.

      I swear that thing is like crack to large sections of the pop, so if G+ doesn't also have those games AND a way to transfer the hours they've already put in PLUS an easy way like FB has to get people to help you get items? No chance in hell friend, no chance in hell.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 10, 2011 @12:11PM (#37665768)

    It's that simple. The value of a social network lies in having all your friends on it too, and that's true for Facebook but it isn't true for G+. Also, Facebook has the games people want to play, while G+ doesn't, so there just isn't much to attract anybody to G+ other than curiosity.

    • by Daetrin (576516)
      Actually the games on G+ are the main reasons i still visit the site regularly. I'm currently playing City of Wonder, Edgeworld, Dragons of Atlantis, and occasionally Zombie Lane. There are a couple more games that look interesting but that i haven't tried out because i can't afford any more time sucks of the same nature. A lot of my "friends" (ie City of Wonder allies) also play Cityville, but i am thoroughly sick of hearing about Zynga and don't really want to try any of their games.
    • by Bucky24 (1943328)

      The value of a social network lies in having all your friends on it too, and that's true for Facebook but it isn't true for G+.

      Seconded. Hardly any of my friends have switched over to G+, and the few who have don't really have much to say there.

    • by vlm (69642) on Monday October 10, 2011 @12:52PM (#37666594)

      The value of a social network lies in having all your friends on it too, and that's true for Facebook but it isn't true for G+

      People keep blindly insisting that is true, but I disagree.

      G+ has 500 people in my ham radio circle, interesting reading every day.

      G+ has seemingly every debian developer there, admittedly not too talkative.

      G+ has every tech journalist / videoblogger / media type that I watch. Coincidence? Doesn't really matter.

      G+ has several small shop online retailers whom I've purchased from on. Ladyada, etc. Coincidence? Doesn't really matter.

      Supposedly more people are leaving every day, but I see more and more good stuff in my stream every day, so I'm not exactly a believer.

      I do agree, the professional graphics artist kid I sat next to at lunch in 8th grade isn't on G+. The kid I got a loitering ticket with back in 1991 when we skipped out of gym class and I haven't seen since is not on G+. Do I care? No..

    • It's about the people.

      I was able to get a maybe 10% of my triathlon team to join Google+, but facebook is where the conversations took place. If my team is on FB, my co-workers are on FB, my family is on FB, and the rest of my friends are on FB, it makes Google+ a lonely place.

      Of course in theory they are not mutually exclusive, but in reality they are.

      There was a chance early on to tie the two platforms together. But FB put the kibosh on that quickly by locking down FB even more. They altered the API,
  • Critical mass (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SQLGuru (980662) on Monday October 10, 2011 @12:12PM (#37665776) Journal

    The biggest problem is that those of us who want to move to Google+ can't convince enough of our less techy friends to move over. People go where people are. It isn't the best tech that wins but the largest market share. Had Google launched Plus before "everyone and their grandmother" were on Facebook, they would have had a shot, but it's sort of too late.

    • Re:Critical mass (Score:5, Informative)

      by rcb1974 (654474) <richardballantyneNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Monday October 10, 2011 @12:16PM (#37665848) Homepage
      It is called the "Network Effect" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect [wikipedia.org] . It is the same reason why so many people use eBay.
    • Re:Critical mass (Score:5, Interesting)

      by fastest fascist (1086001) on Monday October 10, 2011 @12:17PM (#37665874)
      There's simple inertia, for sure, but G+ also lacks basic features. Events stand out as the single biggest missing feature for me. I'd say being able to advertise and invite people to parties and events is the single biggest reason I use Facebook, and I can't see myself explaining why someone should use G+ as long as that is missing. Being able to post a link to Google Calendar just doesn't cut it.
      • This. My friends and I only use Facebook for that reason anymore. The rest of the time we're on Google+
      • by arth1 (260657) on Monday October 10, 2011 @12:30PM (#37666144) Homepage Journal

        There's simple inertia, for sure, but G+ also lacks basic features.

        Yeah, like being able to sign up.

      • This is what I and my friends have found (most techies). We'd love to move to Google+ but Events it the one feature we really need to use. Google really needs to integrate an events portion into Google+ and connect it with Google Calendar. They're so close already as circles can already integrate people without Google+ accounts by email. They could do the same thing so that an events feature wouldn't even need an account, just email.
      • There's simple inertia, for sure, but G+ also lacks basic features. Events stand out as the single biggest missing feature for me.

        Not just events... G+ is also missing business pages, fan pages, and organization pages. Probably half of my activity on Facebook is in the page for the submarine I served on in the 80's. I know of guys in the group for whom that's nearly the whole of their Facebook activity.

        On top of that... G+ doesn't always link to other sites neatly. When I link to one of the pho

    • by OzPeter (195038)

      The biggest problem is that those of us who want to move to Google+ can't convince enough of our less techy friends to move over.

      This sounds very familiar to me. Perhaps if I made a few editing changes:

      The biggest problem is that those of us who want to move to Linux can't convince enough of our less techy friends to move over.

      The biggest problem is that those of us who want to move to OSS can't convince enough of our less techy friends to move over.

      The biggest problem is that those of us who want to move from Apple's walled garden can't convince enough of our less techy friends to move over.

      Etc.

      No matter what the subject, the argument/comments remain the same. While you can see why moving to google+ is a good idea, none of your less techy friends can see the perceived value of such a move, especially given that what they have now meets their needs (says me with an iMac and 2 ipods :-) ). To be successful Google+ needs to somehow get the message across that their service is what you need even though you don't kno

    • by Asic Eng (193332)

      those of us who want to move to Google+ can't convince enough of our less techy friends to move over

      Google+ would also need to convince these techy folks that they should evangelize for the service. They lost me with the real name policy and the way they reacted to users' complaints about it.

      Facebook has in principle the same policy, but they are relaxed about it, and if someone makes a page for their dog or uses their pen name, they aren't worried. Google should have learned that from them.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by bonch (38532)

      It isn't the best tech that wins but the largest market share.

      You can tell yourself this if you want, but the fact is that Google+ doesn't offer anything over Facebook that people want. After all, this story says people did try Google+ but that they didn't stick around.

      • by Snotman (767894)

        How did you arrive at the conclusion that Google+ doesn't offer anything over Facebook that people want? That is a pretty big conclusion for very little information. I think there is one thing above all others that people want - their friends. There does not need to be any other reason if that is reason enough and social networks sort of require people to be social. So, please explain your statement that "doesn't offer anything" and what you consider anything.

    • by rolfwind (528248)

      The biggest problem is that those of us who want to move to Google+ can't convince enough of our less techy friends to move over. People go where people are. It isn't the best tech that wins but the largest market share. Had Google launched Plus before "everyone and their grandmother" were on Facebook, they would have had a shot, but it's sort of too late.

      I don't have a large circle and it wouldn't be difficult to convince mine to move. But I'm stopped by the real name thing. Until that changes, I'm stayi

    • The biggest problem is that those of us who want to move to Google+ can't convince enough of our less techy friends to move over.

      I'm not sure that's the only problem. The people in my Google+ circles are largely my tech friends, but even they aren't posting on Google+ anymore - they're only posting stuff on Facebook. These guys did initially post on Google+ for a while, but the newness seems to have worn off.

      The bottom line seems to be Google+ doesn't offer anything unique that people actually care about.

    • Re:Critical mass (Score:5, Insightful)

      by nine-times (778537) <nine.times@gmail.com> on Monday October 10, 2011 @12:50PM (#37666544) Homepage

      I also think part of the problem is that Google bungled the launch. When it was first opened up to the public and it was as hyped as it was ever going to be, it was invitation-only and invitations were scarce. By the time they opened it a few weeks later, many people had already turned sour. In the mean time, Facebook has made improvements to counteract many of the selling points of Google+.

      With social networking sites, you have to go big at the start. Once you get people thinking, "My friends aren't on this," you're dead.

  • by derinax (93566) on Monday October 10, 2011 @12:12PM (#37665782)

    Google+ is "primarily an identity service."
    --Eric Schmidt

    I have no need for an identity service in my life. That's why I left.

  • by MrEricSir (398214) on Monday October 10, 2011 @12:13PM (#37665788) Homepage

    Gee, why wouldn't draconian policies, a confusingly half-baked interface and long load times be the path to a successful website?

    • by deinol (210478)

      Gee, why wouldn't draconian policies, a confusingly half-baked interface and long load times be the path to a successful website?

      That certainly is the secret to Facebook's success.

    • by gbjbaanb (229885)

      indeed. I wanted G+ to work, but when I get to it all I see is a 'stream' where people post notes about stuff I don't really care about.

      Meanwhile the stuff I do care about - communication between me and my friends and potential contacts - is pretty poor. I couldn't send an email from G+ to a friend on there, I had to post it as a private post, which is pretty pathetic all in all. When he sent me a private post, it did pop up in my email, but guess what - I had to return to G+ to reply. Useless.

      I worry now a

  • How many active users does Facebook have? 12%? They have 800'000'000 accounts, congratulations... While actual user count is below 200'000'000.
    • How many active users does Facebook have? 12%? They have 800'000'000 accounts, congratulations... While actual user count is below 200'000'000.

      Only 200 million at most... what a dismal failure.

      • by ArhcAngel (247594)
        Well once you figure in the ones who have an account for their dog/cat/parakeet/business/fraternity/WTF? it's not quite as rosy as all that.
  • by Baloroth (2370816) on Monday October 10, 2011 @12:14PM (#37665814)

    Social networks tend to accumulate momentum, and fairly slowly. Facebook has a ton of it right now, and Google+ has very little. It's not just in number of users, but in the habits of those users. People are used to Facebook. It'll probably take a year or so for Google+ to start taking off. And you don't really "lose" users, once signed up people always have the option of returning, especially with most of those people already having Gmail accounts.

    Also, many people were probably scared off by all the FUD surrounding the pseudonym issue. Once people calm down over that, usage will most likely rise. In any case, we won't know if G+ will succeed or not for at least a year, I would say. Anyone who thought Facebook would be abandoned overnight really needs to learn how the Internet works. It is fickle, yes, but it also has huge inertia, because of the number of people involved.

    • by rwa2 (4391) *

      I think Google+ is doing all right.

      I use Twitter (which crossposts to Facebook) when I have public announcements / spam to contribute and want maximum eyeballs.

      I use Google+ for more directed messages towards certain people. To me it's a benefit that I'm not (yet) connected to all my coworkers and friends-of-friends' grandmothers. I'm sure this feeling of "knowing who my intended audience is" will fade in the future, and we'll move to yet something else, hopefully more hushmail-inspired.

  • by aBaldrich (1692238) on Monday October 10, 2011 @12:16PM (#37665844)
    Gmail was very successful with it's invitation system: it was elitist, and everyone ached to get in. But putting an invitation system into G+ was devastating. If the objective of a Social Network is to get in touch with everyone at any time, it's a very idiot move to restrict the creation of new accounts for no reason. They basically released a product that was useless, because they made sure there would be nobody to communicate with.
    This could be understandable if it was their first shot at social networking; but Wave had the same problem and they did not learn from it.
    • by sweatyboatman (457800) <sweatyboatman&hotmail,com> on Monday October 10, 2011 @12:55PM (#37666656) Homepage Journal

      Gmail was very successful with it's invitation system: it was elitist, and everyone ached to get in...

      What your analysis misses is that Gmail actually addressed a pressing need in the free email marketplace: space. On top of offering an order of magnitude more storage than its competitors, GMail also brought distinct improvements to the email paradigm (tagging, search, spam filtering). That allowed it to attract users from Hotmail/Yahoo and even private web hosts.

      If I knew what the pressing need of the social networking marketplace was, I wouldn't post it on Slashdot. Facebook was weak in terms of privacy and controlling the spread of your information, but G+'s circles weren't a killer app. And everything else on G+ is just a Facebook clone.

      I wouldn't count G+ out just yet. It's Google after all. Those millions of inactive users could quickly become active if G+ somehow jumps ahead of the curve.

  • The fact remains that world + dog is still using Facebook. God knows why, but they seem to be willing to accept whatever Zuckerberg throws at them.

    I honestly like G+, especially the mobile app, but practicality says that I also stay on Facebook.
    • by slyrat (1143997)

      The fact remains that world + dog is still using Facebook. God knows why, but they seem to be willing to accept whatever Zuckerberg throws at them. I honestly like G+, especially the mobile app, but practicality says that I also stay on Facebook.

      I was the same way, then I eventually just dumped my facebook profile. I had realized that I had enough of the people that actually were interesting and/or good friends on G+ and the only thing keeping me on facebook were the events. Most people I talk to mention the events as the primary reason they are still there. Hopefully G+ will get that working soon.

  • They really need at least to implement groups and subscribable tags to posts if they want to compete.

    • How are group setups all that different from g+ circles? Not being argumentative, but rather, curious....
    • by slyrat (1143997)
      I agree, it will be nice when facebook does this in a good way.
  • by AngryDeuce (2205124) on Monday October 10, 2011 @12:16PM (#37665856)
    But in the end, I quit just like I did with Facebook a year ago. Social Networking is fucking boring when the people being the most social are retards.
  • by idealego (32141) on Monday October 10, 2011 @12:17PM (#37665866)

    Many of the early adopters out there are Google Apps users, and yet we still can't use our Google Apps accounts with Google+. I've heard many good things about Google+ but am still waiting for Google to allow me to use it.

    And I'm not interested in managing yet another account just to try out Google+.

    • That is my problem as well. I pay Google money every month for a business account and yet we are the only group that can't make a profile or use Google+. It is almost like they don't really want to succeed.

  • by jDeepbeep (913892) on Monday October 10, 2011 @12:18PM (#37665894)
    Is this another "study" that doesn't include any clicks to the service from the black Google bar, or from within the service itself, or from mobile devices, or based on counting only public posts? Meh. Next.
  • Why does it have to be an "either or" situation here? Wouldn't there be a point in the two providing interoperability, so people can use whatever they choose?

    I mean, in the early days of telephony there were separate networks that didn't interoperate, and you had to have two or more phones on your wall to reach everyone who had a phone. Then they wisened up and figured out that they lost more on competing the hard way than they did on cooperating and competing at the same time.

    Anyhow, Google+ wasn't even

  • The main complaints I see from people about Google+ has nothing to do with the site itself. It is that there aren't enough of their contacts on it.

    Facebook is long past the early adopter stage. It has managed to capture the market of the vast majority, who are not like the early adopters, aren't looking for the next best thing, and are resistant to change. They are an anchor that keep many people on Facebook who would prefer to go to Google+ and take everyone with them.

    They have to either appeal to the ma

  • by ZorinLynx (31751) on Monday October 10, 2011 @12:23PM (#37665994) Homepage

    My friends and I joined G+ rather quickly upon its inception. We started having fun on it. It was great.

    Then some of our accounts started getting suspended because of violations of a questionable "names policy". The policy said to use the name that people know you by, and those are the names we all used. Apparently that wasn't good enough for Google, though; they suspended accounts anyway, even some with "real looking" Western style names. Once enough people got suspended, the remaining batch of folks that didn't got pissed off that their friends were kicked off the service, and they left voluntarily.

    Their name policy was unclear, and people would even get their names approved only to get suspended again later on by a different overzealous admin. It was chaos.

    I think the lesson to be learned here is don't alienate your users, ESPECIALLY early adopters. We can make or break a social network.

    Facebook may require real names, but at least they were absolutely clear about this from the start. They were not wishy-washy, and didn't mass-suspend new accounts like G+ did.

  • I was annoyed when they took away the +Hoyt option from my gmail.com interface and moved it to google.com.

    And how to use some of the features is not obvious, at least to me.

    A friend has commented that it appears to him that G+ is populated by Linux users and photography enthusiasts. Perhaps G+ is better targeted to specialty communities than grandmothers and the unwashed masses.

  • Don't use either Facebook or Google+, and wait just a wee bit longer for Diaspora to exit beta.

  • by brunes69 (86786) <slashdot@NospAm.keirstead.org> on Monday October 10, 2011 @12:24PM (#37666020) Homepage

    The biggest problem Google+ has right now is how they have been dragging the ball on commercial accounts, meanwhile enforcing the real-name policy. It is an incredibly braindead move because you are effectively locking all companies out of participating on Google+, and thus they are unable to bring any users over with them.

    A follow a lot of brands on twitter and simply can not do the same on G+. If everyone I followed on Twitter existed on G+ I probably would not use Twitter anymore, but sadly Google is ACTIVELY PREVENTING that from being the case due to this braindead policy enforcement.

  • by swb (14022) on Monday October 10, 2011 @12:25PM (#37666040)

    I'd stick to Google+ instead of Facebook if I could read and respond to Facebook from Google+.

    As it stands, nobody is active on Google+, so you go to Facebook to read everything and if you want to be active on Google+ you are essentially doing twice the work, three times the work if you are active on Twitter, which seems to have some kind of cross-posting feature for Facebook.

    • by nomel (244635)

      >As it stands, nobody is active on Google+

      This is one of my biggest problems with G+...you don't know if your friends are active! Visibility is posting or + mentions only. With facebook, I can see what my friends are talking about. In the very rare case that it's something interesting, I can get involved!

      I'm always finding discussions that a few friends might find interesting, but, the only way to get a group in on an existing conversation is a post that's just a list of +John Doe names. There's tooo muc

  • by Spad (470073)

    And as someone with an Apps account I *still* can't use the fucking thing. Frankly by the time Google bother to provide support for it, the service will be dead.

  • Methodology? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Todd Knarr (15451) on Monday October 10, 2011 @12:27PM (#37666082) Homepage

    What methodology is this company using to measure activity on Google+? If it's public posts, they may have a serious systemic problem: people who use G+ specifically because it's so easy to not post publicly. My guess is the majority of G+ users are posting only to their circles, in which case there'd be a plethora of stuff that Chitika Insights simply won't see.

  • I've suspected this for a while and I'm now comfortable saying that tech4 is another Microsoft shill doing mostly negative marketing, similar to ge7, but he learned to post a better balance of personal stuff to throw off suspicion.

  • Lack of obvious working text chat integration kills it for me, that has become the primary reason I use fb since MSN Messenger became increasingly unreliable in alternate clients like Pidgin (I've refused to use the abomination that is the official client for that IM network since they successfully blocked the tool that let me take all the junk off the interface). Yes there is a chat box there but no display of who is online right now and when a couple of us tried while we were definitely online it didn't s
    • What am I missing? The chat box on my G+ page shows who is online currently, it's the exact same chat box available on Gmail.

  • I post moblog pics to pixelpipe which reposts them to several other sites.I also use it to post status updates to several sites. They have no Google+ integration. They claim Google hasn't published the API to allow that yet. In short, that's a deal killer.
  • At least for me anyways. I have no interest in going on about my life on the internet in a way that's easily traceable to my real life identity. So i signed my "real" name account up for G+ when it became available and ended up using it for nothing other than playing games.

    When they made G+ open to everyone i signed up the gmail account i use in association with my LJ and am currently using it to cross-post stuff from there so my friends who use G+ but don't read LJ anymore can stay in touch more easily.
  • Dishonest as fuck (Score:5, Insightful)

    by artor3 (1344997) on Monday October 10, 2011 @12:43PM (#37666404)

    Google+ had its numbers go up by 1200% upon opening to the public. Of those new users, 40% stuck around, for a net increase of 480%. Slashdot's headline? "Google+ user base down 60%! It must be dying!" I've seen powerdrills with less spin.

  • I have used a shortened version of my real name in the past, including on Facebook, but generally use pseudonyms for random sites. I simply refuse to be forced to use my full name, especially when it comes to personally identifiable information.

    The reasoning is very simple. If I have a FB or G+ account under a pseudonym, a potential employer or a business partner will never find the potentially questionable material associated with my profile. However my friends will know it really is me, and the social net

  • Is the Facebook one of those social people thingies? Nope, not using it.

  • I like having fewer people on +; right now its the geeks and my friends. As every fucking associate I have in the universe.

  • Here in /. we know that there are lots of dumb people (trolls, agitators, provocateurs, xenophobes, misogynists, racists, etc) hiding behind pseudonyms or anonimity (which /. manages elegantly by means of the moderation system).

    The compensation, and why this website survives against all the odds, is that people with real insight in all manner of topics can come here, talk to their heart's content safe in the relative security of a nickname that will protect them from the nastiest aspects of the net, and the

  • by joocemann (1273720) on Monday October 10, 2011 @12:49PM (#37666524)

    This is what happened for many people:

    Google+ had a restricted/limited test phase, but the public thought they might get to be part of it. The public is already on facebook.
    -The public tried to get in, only to be told "you're not invited yet.. go dig around for a while in your friends to see if one of them can invite you"
    -The public then either tried really hard to find someone to invite them, only to discover nobody else is on G+ because of the limited entry... or they never got into the 'club' and said "Meh, this isn't worth my effort, I'm already of facebook and all my friends are there anyway".

    One should note that the shift from myspace to facebook was largely due to how myspace mismanaged its changes/upgrades and became a horrid, error-prone, piece of crap full of spam, fake accounts, and outright trashy implementation. And while facebook is beginning to make those same mistakes, it is not nearly as bad and the difference between facebook and G+ is minimal.

    I'm on G+, and I would use it if I had friends on there. Nobody uses it because it was hard to get into, and so I don't use it but maybe once a month, only to find that hardly anything has been posted there. And the friends I do have on G+, just like me, are waiting for the big exodus from FB to occur, while keeping their primary foot still on FB territory.

    FB will have to make a bigtime mistake to drive people away, or G+ will have to make a bigtime promotional drive to get people in (and not make the mistake of acting like its a secret club and blocking entry... if your servers can't handle everyone, then don't hope everyone comes or upgrade your server dedication)

  • How many "Google+" users are just Gmail users who were migrated?

    Remember Yahoo 360? Me either. [youtube.com]

    Google does really well at search and search ads. Everything else they try, not so much.

  • Is this a plug on slashdot to gather criticism about Google+ for the benefit of Google? Come on, there are better ways to get direct feedback than to shroud your research in the form of a controversial article pitting Facebook versus Google+ to solicit criticism.

  • I check it out and it's like an app that isn't sure what it wants to be. I don't do Facebook, I don't do blogs, I do lurk around twitter. Google+ for me was too much like a blog. It's okay for following a big name person like Linus, but for the occasional post and what happening I'll stick to my tweets.

You might have mail.

Working...