Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
Google Social Networks Stats

Tracking Down How Many (Or How Few) People Actively Use Google+ 210

BarbaraHudson writes Business Insider is reporting that despite billions of sign-ups, almost nobody is publicly active on Google+. Analytics and visualization blogger Kevin Anderson studied data compiled by Edward Morbius, who says that just 9% of Google+'s 2.2 billion users actively post public content. "We've got a grand spanking total of 24 profiles out of 7,875 whose 2015 post activity isn't YouTube comments but Google+ posts. That a 0.3% rate of all profile pages, going back to our 2.2 billion profiles. No wonder Dave Besbris (Google+ boss) doesn't want to talk about numbers," Morbius writes. For those interested both his methodology and the scripts used can be found here.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Tracking Down How Many (Or How Few) People Actively Use Google+

Comments Filter:
  • by TrollstonButterbeans ( 2914995 ) on Wednesday January 21, 2015 @07:52PM (#48871169)
    Google Plus started life as a hazard.

    The thing shoved in your face that might volunteer your private information on YouTube or elsewhere should you click the wrong button.

    Or the unwanted question when using Gmail.

    After negative momentum, no one listens.
    • by steveg ( 55825 ) on Wednesday January 21, 2015 @08:02PM (#48871253)

      That's pretty much it. Google was being pretty hard core about their real name policy on Google+, to the degree that people who Google determined had violated it ended up having their entire Google collection of services canceled.

      Since I *do* use lots of Google services, but don't really care about the social media part, I never signed up for Google+. I didn't want to take the chance of losing the services I did value.

      By the time they finally saw sense and dropped the requirement, I didn't care enough to sign up.

      • by popo ( 107611 ) on Wednesday January 21, 2015 @10:20PM (#48872145) Homepage

        This.

        Google+ wasn't ever *just* a social network. It was a real-name, real-identity service tied to the entire universe of Google products.

        This made Google+ decidedly dangerous for a vast majority of users who enjoy anonymity as one of the principal "features" of the web.

        Google had an opportunity to create a fantastic service but their extremely weird philosophical tirade to bring identity to the web, coupled with an overly aggressive "whoops, you just created a Google+ ID and revealed your identity on 5000 YouTube comments" rightfully turned off millions of users.

        They deserve this failure. Pursuing products that nobody wants, by ramming them down the throats of their existing customers, is a bad idea in any business.

        • by rtb61 ( 674572 )

          Well if Google finally manages to smarten up they will create a two level profile and public profile and a private profile. They can even go the popular Linux route where from the user perspective the private profile looks substantially different like the typical Linux root layout and the public profile with it's anonymising user name looks more social and interactive. Instead they made this idea as purposefully awkward as possible. So two linked but completely separate profiles a private and a public prof

          • What does Facebook do? I don't really understand the hatred for G+ given that this policy has already been changed for some time now, and that facebook had a similar policy.

            • by rtb61 ( 674572 )

              If you want comments about what Facebook does, go to the story about Facebook. This is about 'G-' (that is far more appropriate). I went through all the rigmarole to delete and clear my Facebook profile many years ago and had to do so because even a never used one complains and demands to be monitored. So yeah, Facebook sucks big time for many reasons, now what exactly does that to do with 'G-' and the changes it needs to make to become more usable and popular and actually be 'G+' rather than 'G-' ;P.

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward

          The privacy thing where websites constantly embed Google and Facebook references in their websites has really gotten out of hand.
          This below is the MINIMUM that you need to set in your hosts file to at least prevent some of the snooping that's going on.
          Yes, plus.google.com is one of them

          0.0.0.0 www.google-analytics.com
          0.0.0.0 googleadservices.com
          0.0.0.0 google-analytics.com
          0.0.0.0 plus.google.com
          0.0.0.0 yt3.ggpht.com
          0.0.0.0 doubleclick.net
          0.0.0.0 ad.doubleclick.net
          0.0.0.0 google-public-dns-a.google.com
          0.0.0.

      • by gl4ss ( 559668 )

        you sure you never signed on for google+ and use google services? because if you didn't, that's a feat!

        thing is, with tech circles, everyone knew already the reason why google forced every youtuber basically to join google+, through deceit at the end.. I had managed to avoid creating a google+ account for a quite long time but one click on youtube to make a comment got me in the end..

        • Plenty of folks have GMail and Youtube accounts that were opened pre-Google+. The workaround for commenting on YouTube, but keeping your channel without a Google+ account, was to port it off into a "Google+ Page". No real name needed and it remains separate from your GMail account and other services. Its the same feature used by businesses who want a Google+ presence (mostly for Maps).
        • Don't forget, Google forced Google+ users to join Youtube. From my view, Youtube was the stinky cheese we didn't order with our meal. A lot of us joined Google+ without having even on other Google service linked to it.

          Please stoop making Google+ your whipping boy when the fault is with "Google". If you hate Google+ but love Youtube, then maybe you're not seeing the common parent they both have?

      • Google was being pretty hard core about their real name policy on Google+, to the degree that people who Google determined had violated it ended up having their entire Google collection of services canceled.

        No, pretty sure that's a myth. The one person I heard about who did get obliterated from all google services, turned out to be an artist who had deliberately tried to push the boundaries for what constitutes child porn or not. That's the sort of thing they do to avoid complicity in crimes, not what they

    • ...The thing shoved in your face ...

      That's basically the reason why I never really ramped up my google+ usage.

      .
      google was so rude about making me use google+ in areas where I did not want to use it, that I stopped using it altogether.

      Now I notice that I cannot even reply to comments left on my youtube.com video channel, even though I am logged into my youtube.com account. I suspect the reason has something to do with the fact that I've all but abandoned my google+ account.

    • I signed up voluntarily, and at the time there was little to no push to force unwanted services like gmail or youtube on us. That came later, so it's hard to say that's how its life started. Maybe it's how you heard of it but that's a different story.

      And it pretty much is active there. I don't know what FB is like, probably never will, but it's certainly not dead. And I find troubling the idea that "9%" is equated to "almost nobody".

      Sure, I'll admit that a lot of the updates are coming from reposts from

  • I dunno (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ADRA ( 37398 ) on Wednesday January 21, 2015 @07:53PM (#48871183)

    I dip in and out, occasionally posting pictures and responding to stories, but typically I don't produce on it, just consume. Mind you, besides slashdot, I don't really produce anywhere, so that's not really saying much. The news and links are good. I'd rather they allowed their topics / posts / etc.. to be absorbed through RSS or the such, and I have definitely seen Google recently stepping back from standards (Gtalk for instance) and regardless of the why's of the matter, I'm not sold on Google 'winning the war', but it is a nice place to discover information that I would've otherwise missed from other sources, or apathy.

  • by Craig Cruden ( 3592465 ) on Wednesday January 21, 2015 @07:54PM (#48871197)
    I find the "communities" better on Google+, but all my friends post there normal stuff on facebook. I find the technical forums (the few that I am a member of) are asking a newbie question (nothing really interesting) like how do I print a number..... when it is facebook, but much more interesting communitie tech posts on google+.
    • I stopped using Facebook because it was making me strongly dislike people I have known for years. I found out they were deeply racist, or prejudiced against the poor, etc etc, and stopped wanting to talk to them.

      I do post "normal stuff" there, but only if it is exceptional. I don't post everything I cook. The bar was lower on Facebook. Another reason to shine it on.

  • Sign ups (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 21, 2015 @07:55PM (#48871201)

    I like google+, but these figures aren't all that surprising. The signups really are people activating their smart phones, using gmail, signing into youtube or any other google service. Without knowing it they have created their google+ account but in reality have no interest in the service.

    • Without knowing it they have created their google+ account but in reality have no interest in the service.

      I have a google+ profile pretty much solely because they made it mandatory. Matter of fact, I have 2 profiles, neither of them ever 'used' to make so much as a post.

  • by nathan s ( 719490 ) on Wednesday January 21, 2015 @07:57PM (#48871217) Homepage

    ...but almost all of the posts that hit it are private, posted by people who deliberately use G+ precisely because there's more plausible deniability about how active they are. It's anecdotal, but I've heard a lot of my G+ friends say that they've gone there either to avoid people they'd otherwise have to interact with on Facebook, or because circles are easy to use and they can pretend to be lurkers/have dead accounts there but they're really just not posting anything visible to you.

    That said, I freely admit there are a ton of people not on G+. It seems to mostly be a hit with the 25-45 crowd, if my feeds there are any indication. Older people don't get it, and younger people seem to care more about Instagram than either Facebook or G+ at this point.

    • +1. Google+ = social site voicemail. really, you don't want to actually interact with them, but you do want to leave a trace of concern.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      This is true for me too, all my serious content is privately available to curated circles on google plus, while all the meaningless social chit chat is done through my facebook account. I would create the equiv of a Facebook Circle if enough friends were also on google plus, but the network effect is such that its not viable yet. Facebook is the lowest common denominator, and most people dont have the time or mental space, to make a change, if they think the current system (Facebook) is good enough. As more
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by stalky14 ( 574130 )

      Yes, I think only looking at public posts skews the results. The G+ customer is more likely to be there for the purpose of fine tuning their audience, both incoming and outgoing. I know that only maybe one in 10 of my posts is done as public. People who want to spray their thoughts and opinions at the widest possible audience gravitate toward... the widest possible audience!

      If you want a bullhorn you go to Twitter, because that's not really what G+ is about. G+ is about friends and interest-communities, new

    • older people DO get it. I'm one of them and I've avoided FB, twitter and all social media since they all started. I never gave in. I never will, either. we all know the best way to avoid the hassles is to never join in.

      I do contribute to various tech forums, but I'm not sure I consider that 'social media' as they have a direct purpose (code or hardware or something that we all discuss and share info and insights on). the pure social bullshit sites offer me nothing of value and they never really did.

      is

  • Analytics and visualization blogger Kevin Anderson studied data compiled by Edward Morbius, who says that just 9% of Google+'s 2.2 billion users actively post public content.

    And of that "just 9%"... how much was activity on other Google properties where you have to jump through hoops NOT to have it cross-posted to Google+?

    I know they mentioned YouTube comments, but this was also an issue with YouTube videos. If you posted one on your channel, you had to take steps for it not to be crossposted to your Google+ page. And, of course, most people who post on YouTube were semi-forced to create a Google+ page simply to remove some artificial constraints Google added with the goal of a

    • The phrasing is wierd, but I figure the .3% that are actually 'google posts' is an accurate number, and youtube crossposts were mentioned because they're the vast majority.

      Of course, I was all irked when I wanted to comment on a youtube video and youtube wanted to act like I have a 'channel' with my own videos on it. No, I don't want or need a 'channel'. I'm not posting comment that's worth anything on it's own.

  • by lkcl ( 517947 ) <lkcl@lkcl.net> on Wednesday January 21, 2015 @08:08PM (#48871309) Homepage

    i pointed this out before, but google's policy of forcing people to give their *real* names is incredibly dangerous. google set themselves up as the *authority* - the guarantor - that the person you are contacting is exactly whom google *says* they are. now, given that it's possible under gmail to register very similar email addresses (with and without "." in them) we have the potential extremely litigous situation where someone could be deceived and then sue google - rightly - for damages based on google's guarantees - safety about identity - not being properly upheld.

    contrast that situation where *everyone knows* that you don't trust email. or any kind of unconfirmed interaction on the internet.

    and i think this is what people felt - subconsciously - both inside google as well as outside, that there was something very very badly wrong about forcing people to both disclose but also to allow google to "certify" their identity.

    the other thing is just that... google+ is... simply... devoid of excitement and interest. it feels like it's a single-track uninspiring place, with one direction that Thou Shalt Go: google's waaaay.

    contrast this to how facebook operates (or how myspace operated): i realise it's information-overload, but that's *precisely* what makes facebook (and made myspace) an interesting place to be. there are several ways to get to the same stuff.

    strange as it may be for someone who is alarmed at the ease by which it is possible on facebook to track someone down merely from their first name (yes i met someone at a party, couldn't remember their surname, but managed to guess their approximate age, guessed that they must live in the approximate nearby area, then used the advanced search on facebook to find them... took a couple of weeks to work out i have to admit, and no i am *not* going to describe here on slashdot how it's done...) ... ... despite that, i have to say that there is actually something useful, and just generally more... homely about facebook than their is about *any* google products. google products are just... sterile and functional. you use gmail to send mail. you use google search to... well... search. but you use *facebook* to tell everyone you know that you wiped your arse today, and that's hilarious.

    it also occurs to me: i wouldn't want to put personal stuff up on google: they might index it and let people search on it. and i think that's really the key, there. facebook is closed. you *have* to have a login. your personal stuff is *not* indexed publicly in search engines.

    so, sorry google: you got it wrong on this one, and you can't be trusted, even if you said you'd get it right.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 21, 2015 @08:15PM (#48871369)

      pointed this out before, but google's policy of forcing people to give their *real* names is incredibly dangerous.

      So I'm going to try to respond with "both sides" of this issue--

      1. Google's real name policy [wikipedia.org] was horrific.

      2. Still, they abandoned it months ago, with a pseudo-apology [google.com].

      3. Still, it was too late for me, and I still refuse to sign up. In part this is because they have a no-opt-out "real location contact" address policy for developers [phandroid.com] which I find just as dangerous as their Google Plus real name policy.

      4. Yes, I've sacrificed the ability to review Youtube videos and Play store apps/movies.

      5. That said, 9% of 2.2 billion users is 198000000 users. Had the article been titled "198 million active users use Google Plus" regularly, this phrasing would have sounded to me like a success story.

    • I am not sure about that name policy statement. I mean, I have this guy in my circles:
      https://plus.google.com/+Whatw... [google.com]
      He's registered under "Jesus H. Christ", but I somehow doubt that that's his real name.

    • by Solandri ( 704621 ) on Wednesday January 21, 2015 @09:43PM (#48871931)

      i pointed this out before, but google's policy of forcing people to give their *real* names is incredibly dangerous.

      I know you young people might find this hard to believe, but being forced to use your *real* name on the Internet was the norm until the mid-1990s. Don't believe me? Go to Google Groups (where old USENET posts are archived) and browse anything from the early 1990s or before. It has everyone's real names, and *gasp* sometimes even their contact info. School, company, and government sysadmins voluntarily enforced an unwritten rule that you could not be anonymous on the Internet. When a method of doing something anonymously on the Internet was discovered, it was reported as a bug [google.com], and quashed at the earliest opportunity.

      What brought anonymity to the Internet was, ironically, AOL joining USENET in 1993. See, AOL required you to use your real name when signing up (so they could bill your credit card). But they also allowed you to make up to 5 sub-accounts for free, ostensibly so your family members could use AOL services under their own name. Of course people immediately took advantage of this to create alter-egos which could make USENET posts anonymously.

      So while I do think anonymity is better for the Internet (not that we could do anything about it if it were bad - that horse has long since fled the stable), don't make up stuff like real names being "incredibly dangerous." The Internet worked just fine for ~2 decades with everyone using their real names.

      • by cheesybagel ( 670288 ) on Wednesday January 21, 2015 @10:12PM (#48872075)

        You're wrong of course. Most people used their names because they couldn't change them. The UNIX sysadmins picked them. But there were plenty of anonymous names back then like Kibo.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 22, 2015 @12:54AM (#48872861)
        I was on the Internet in the late 80s, back when there was Bitnet, when USENET was king, even before IRC took off... when you had to write the path your emails would take to get to their destination. You couldn't be more wrong about anonymity and Internet culture. Most of us non-scientists had come from BBSs [youtube.com], where nicknames and handles were de rigueur. Sure you'd sometimes see real names in email addresses much as you do today, because they were assigned en masse by universities... student and faculties first initial + lsat name or whatever... but of course you didn't have to include your real name if you didn't want to for most online services at the time. When IRC did gain ground around 1990, I don't remember ANYONE using their real names on it. I don't remember AOL [wikipedia.org] having any effect on anonymity, just on the amount of idiotic commenting.
      • by houghi ( 78078 )

        Real names are irrelevant on the Internet. I know people who in real life are not even known by their real name. I know a LOT of people who are not known by their real name in real life.

        And having an alias does not mean you are anonymous, so please do not mix that up. Just like using a name does not always identify the real you.

        Something that also added to using an alias is the fact that with more people there will be more people who have the same name. So using an alias solves this.

        I believe that using an

      • I had someone else's real name because they weren't using their account, and I was.

        • The last time I googled my real name, I didn't even see my FB account. I saw several FB & Linkedin accounts with my name, but they weren't me. I did find a dumb question I asked on some mailing list, but nobody can prove that that was really me.

    • by quenda ( 644621 )

      it's possible under gmail to register very similar email addresses (with and without "." in them)

      But [johnsmith@gmail] and [john.smith@gmail] are the same thing. Dots are not significant. Perhaps I misunderstood?

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) *

      I signed up soon after G+ started and didn't use my real name... The policy was not very well enforced. Since they removed all restrictions I just use my first name and a non-printing zero-width unicode space as my last name.

      There is a lot of good stuff on G+. Good technical content that you can't get elsewhere. People post their work-in-progress ideas and projects in an informal setting where they don't need to spend time making it pretty, and often this means you get a lot more insight and a view of the p

  • by bloodhawk ( 813939 ) on Wednesday January 21, 2015 @08:17PM (#48871377)

    If the numbers are accurate I am shocked. No way can I believe Google+ usage is that high.

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) *

      Just because you don't use it doesn't mean that nobody does. I like G+, there is a lot of good technical content on there. Unlike Facebook you don't get bombarded with pointless crap and inane updates, just a stream of interesting technical posts from people who know what they are talking about.

      There are plenty of them too, because it's a nice haven away from from the river or diarrhoea that is Facebook and the foul rage-fest that is YouTube and almost every other site these days.

  • I think I use Google+ because that's the default way of backing up your photos on Android.

    I don't hate Google+, but it's just not that useful. Facebook, on the other hand, is useful, and they're not doing much to Google+ to make it more useful.

  • by hawguy ( 1600213 ) on Wednesday January 21, 2015 @08:29PM (#48871469)

    Who wants to spend lots of time building a Google Plus network and posting there regularly when Google has a habit of shutting down services with little warning?

    At least you have some assurance that Facebook is not going to stop being Facebook, but Google could decide that Google Plus is not worth continuing and shut it down.

    • by jeek ( 37349 )

      This. A million times, this.

      I used to read about 80 webcomics. Most daily.

      I'd also read about another 30-40 pages whenever they updated.

      Google Reader made it so easy, all I had to do was click the Next button in my bookmark bar over and over until I ran out of Internet. My only whine was that it was always newest first, which sucked if I missed a day for whatever reason and would end up seeing today's comics before yesterday's. :(

      But then Google killed off Reader, and now I only read XKCD and Cyanide+Happin

      • by SpeZek ( 970136 )

        So roll your own RSS feed aggregator.

        Personally, I find that Selfoss [aditu.de] is a fantastic replacement for Google Reader.

  • by blind biker ( 1066130 ) on Wednesday January 21, 2015 @08:34PM (#48871513) Journal

    Seems pretty lively to me. Even too lively, at times. I have about a thousand people circled, and am circled by a few thousand. I do post public, but I post more private posts. People in my circles have a similar ration - maybe a bit more public than private, but very similar ratio to mine.

    My experience of G+ is that it's a buzzing, lively, chaotic place with the usual fun, or thoughtful, or sometimes dramatic posts. Interestingly enough, I don't have any member of my family posting on G+

    At times my experience of G+ can be a bit frenzied, but it's mostly fun. DEFINITELY not boring.

    • by SpuriousLogic ( 1183411 ) on Wednesday January 21, 2015 @09:02PM (#48871689)
      Same here. I almost never post publicly on G+. Why? Circles are why. Circles allow me to share my posts with ONLY the people I want. G+ has a HUGE RPG/Gaming community, which I am quite active in. I have never seen anything like it anywhere else. But - almost none of it is public. This is why I don't put much into the "Google + is dead" stories. On G+, you don't need to post publicly, and very few people do.
      • Echoing this thread.
        Assessing G+ activity by counting public posts is like assessing a community's sexual activity by looking at marriage licenses.

    • It goes up and down over time. Was more active last year than now, and much of what I see is communities or the "what's hot" (which I need to turn off, that political fight has gone non stop since the election, despite being nearly non-existent before the election). But at this point there is no alternative really.

    • by TyFoN ( 12980 )

      These posts are not for users of G+ that know how it actually works, but they are so that the ones that didn't sign up for G+ can feel snug about not missing out.
      When in fact they miss out on the (for me) best place to get in contact with like-minded and not friends from high-school that I don't want.

      I post to G+ a few times a day but I can't even remember last time I posted publicly.

  • by grege1 ( 1065244 ) on Wednesday January 21, 2015 @08:40PM (#48871557)
    Google Plus is not Facebook. Facebook is an endless stream of drivel. On Google Plus you can seek out and follow writers and organizations that you are interested in - a tailored stream of the news you want. It can very easily be passive and for a lot of people I bet it is just that. So not posting is not a valid criterion. That is using Facebook's reason for existence as a measure of success. Google Plus is different to Facebook and I am very pleased that it is what it is. I do post from time to time when it is relevant to the discussion, which is usually technical in nature. There are almost no "OMG look at my lunch" posts and that is a very good thing. With a bit of effort you can make Google Plus your own Slashdot with control over the content.
  • by tlambert ( 566799 ) on Wednesday January 21, 2015 @08:40PM (#48871561)

    The conclusions are bogus. The numbers they run only examine public posting, because the data on private posting is inaccessible to them, and then they draw conclusions based on that. Most Google+ activity is private and/or takes place within groups.

    One of the people involved stated "just 9% of Google+'s 2.2 billion users actively post content", (emphasis added) and then from that the article concludes no one uses it.

    They also picked the first 18 days of the year to analyze the data; this is prime vacation time for most people for 7-14 of those days.

    His distribution assumptions are not evidence based, they are straight assumptions about uniform distributions, and they are all drawn from a single file of 45K profiles, which is the same thing as saying "If you want a straight line fit, only select a single data point".

    It'd be much more useful if he had verified the distribution uniformity through an analysis of other sitemap files, and even better if he'd just spun up an EC2 instance and looked at *all* of them.

    But I'm sure he got a lot of clicks out of this.

    • I totally agree. They are using an very incomplete set of data. Their methods and conclusions appear totally bogus. It's kind of like looking at a house from the outside. They can only see what people do outside of it, and somehow they are extrapolating that to explain what people do inside of it.
    • by gl4ss ( 559668 )

      it's not entirely bullshit.

      they forced g+ on every youtube commenter to drive up the usage statistics. I'm "active" on google plus and I know plenty of other "active" people too, while in reality we're just continuing to use youtube as we used before g+. and that's majority of g+ use. so if you take that out what you're left with is peanuts, almost everyone with a google+ account doesn't do anything non-youtube related with the google+ account and this is accurate! fuck, I would say that 1.5 billion of thos

  • by brunes69 ( 86786 )

    9% of 2.2 billion users means that there are over 220 million users posting content.

    That is an interesting definition of "almost nobody".

  • Never used it except for once or twice to confirm that it's a great place to post content that nobody will ever see . . . until Niantic Labs came along.

    Now I don't use it - but there's an outside chance somebody there may actually try to get in touch with me that way someday.

    • Ingress is by far the largest use case/best ad for G+ among people I know. The multi-continent operations people pull off are a testament to how useful G+ can be for sharing plans and coordinating with just the right people.

  • by lophophore ( 4087 ) on Wednesday January 21, 2015 @09:15PM (#48871781) Homepage

    Nobody is posting public content. That's exactly right. That is by design.

    This is why G+ is better than facebook. You can post content to specifically who you want to. This is a lot harder to do on Facebook.

    I /never/ post public content on either network. Never. But I do post a lot to my circles on G+, and the granularity of control is why I prefer it.

    The study is flawed, because the researcher does not understand what he is studying.

  • flawed methodology (Score:4, Informative)

    by atfrase ( 879806 ) on Wednesday January 21, 2015 @09:20PM (#48871811)

    This analysis (by necessity) only included *public* posts to Google+, which makes the conclusion completely meaningless.

    You can't just sweep that detail under the rug when comparing Google+ to something like Facebook. One of Google+'s biggest selling points is the ability to actually control exactly who can and cannot see everything you post, so the proportion of posts that are completely wide open to the public is going to be much, much lower than on Facebook.

    There's plenty of activity there, this guy just can't see it because it's being shared privately among friends and not with the entire internet. And rightly so.

    • Exactly. I know several people who's primary posts on google+ are to complain about their job. That's not the sort of thing smart people would want to make public.

  • The advantage of Google+ is that it's easy to limit posts to the circles that you want to see the posts. I expect that very little of the content is public.

  • by xtal ( 49134 ) on Wednesday January 21, 2015 @10:03PM (#48872029)

    Deal of the century.

    My 70 year old mother and all of her friends use Facebook instead of the phone now.

    You lose. Accept it. Write the cheque.

    • My 70 year old mother and all of her friends use Facebook instead of the phone now.

      Exactly, your kids are probably reconsidering their use of Facebook and are transitioning to other venues.

  • by BitZtream ( 692029 ) on Wednesday January 21, 2015 @10:11PM (#48872071)

    Perhaps the problem is that people who use G+ post things when they have something to of value say, not when they took a shit.

    My circles are pretty active, no, I don't know what they had for lunch though.

    • by mcvos ( 645701 )

      Absolutely. The quality of content is far better than on FB or Twitter. When G+ was a year old or so, an image was circulated comparing the most discussed people on 3 social networks. On Facebook and Twitter is was Rihanna and Justin Bieber, on Google+ it was Einstein. I'm regularly having interesting political, philosophical and ethical discussions there. And most importantly to me personally: it's probably the best RPG community on the Web.

      Looking only at the number of public posts is fairly meaningless;

  • The only reason I'm a member.
  • ... to store photos. They have a handy "share via link" function for entire albums, so you can easily share entire albums with friends (albeit without fine grained control of permissions... basically anyone with the link re-share it at will). There's no storage limit for images up to 2048px (longest side), and there's an easy way to download individual images as well as entire zipped albums.

    As a social network though? Hahaha, I only have a Facebook account for Messenger - wtf would I need another network fo

  • I am not the kind of person to stand up on a soap box at Hyde Park Corner. So why would I post to the public? I do it to promote my boat building web site, period. Everything else I have to say is reserved for "family" or "friends" or other special interest groups/comunities.

    Hey doesn't that sound a lot like "social media"?

  • Google made mistake by forcing usage of Google+, nobody wants to be forced - and nobody wants to make all things public. It can be a lesson to others.

  • I use it. Granted I'm not a daily poster, I never was on Facebook (deleted that account). I have friends and followers that will give me a + on many things. The communities are quite active actually.

    If you hop on + and then do nothing, it will do nothing. If you get on and follow a few folks (think following on twitter) you'll be amazed at how much is actually posted. Join a few communities of things you enjoy, and you're page will be filled faster than you can imagine.

    Some communities have hangouts /

  • by sjbe ( 173966 ) on Thursday January 22, 2015 @07:44AM (#48874037)

    I don't have a Facebook account. I don't have a Twitter account. I don't have accounts on these services because they don't provide me any services I need or want. Maybe they're valuable to you and that's fine but for me they are not useful. Google+ is pretty much in the same boat for me. There is no clear value proposition for me but there is a very clear value to Google. Hence I do not foresee me using Google+ in any social media capacity. All it seems to do is provide Google a way to track what I do and profit from it even better than the already creepy amount they do now. No thanks...

  • by mcvos ( 645701 ) on Thursday January 22, 2015 @08:16AM (#48874209)

    What sucks about Google+ is that Google tries to artificially inflate the numbers by forcing it on YouTube and other services, and they seem to be actively punishing people for using both Google+ and any other Google service, but on its own, Google+ is great. It was great during its early days before Google started to mess it up. The people who use G+ use it a lot and post far more interesting stuff on it than you're likely to see on FB or Twitter.

    Google should learn to be happy with having something good, rather than ruining it by forcing it on people and then punishing them for it. And they should work to improve it further, rather than adding crap. I mean, who ever asked for polls, of all things? We want better tools to manage our stream. That's Google+'s strength, but there's so much more that could be done here. Instead we get polls.

  • but I comment a lot

    The place is full of vertical groups - photographers, loads of technical (even iPhans), Political discussions from the US far right to the rest of the planets left, news about anything and everything from everywhere and no doubt stuff that I am not interested in and so have ignored...
    So this is yet another posting from someone who has not really checked out the system.

  • With the rise of social media sites that allow for the vast collection of data one people it was only natural that a company like Google that does just that wanted in on that game. So for them to want to establish G+ as a service is no surprise to anyone.

    They way they did it however was pretty terrible and they deserved to fail. First of all they had to address the fact that some people are not going to want to join such a service; period. They don't want Facebook, never wanted MySpace, delete those anno

  • I don't use the social media part of it, though I do use it to backup all my pics from my phone and via Picasa. Unlimited storage is great and easy to access online. Otherwise I'd still be using "picasawebalbums" before they moved it over to G+.

I'd rather just believe that it's done by little elves running around.

Working...