4 ms·

The methodology offered in the comments, of googling for http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&biw=1366&bih=653&q=inurl%3Aplus.google.com%2F*about+site%3Aplus.googl

The methodology offered in the comments, of googling for http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&biw=1366&bih=653&q=inurl%3Aplus.google.com%2F*about+site%3Aplus.google.com&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq= http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&biw=1366&bih=653&#... and taking the number of results returned for the number of users, seems more direct. Currently that returns about 6.5 million users, which is in the same ballpark.

EricBurnett 15y ago
I see about 2.8 million results from that query, but I'm not surprised the number changes a lot. The result counts are a very rough approximation calculated on the fly, and shouldn't be relied on for more than order-of-magnitude estimates. The last name method is precise, but of questionable accuracy; the result count is probably more accurate, but very imprecise. Take your pick :).
- Estragon 15y ago
  That's interesting; if I anonymize by searching through Google Sharing, I also get 2.8 million results. Searching from my own IP address (though without being logged in) still gives 6.5 million.
  - esrauch 15y ago
    I think that they are reorganizing the results based on if you are signed in with an account that has plus or not. There was someone who posted that their Google+ was "already" in the top 10 results and twitter wasn't even shown, but it was only true if you were logged in. Hopefully they aren't doing something too drastic; there's allegedly already an ongoing antitrust investigation about how google orders its search results.
    - Estragon 15y ago
      Maybe, but it's worth noting that I wasn't signed in, and don't have a G+ account, yet.
karlzt 15y ago
that's wrong, two of the first results are posts by Tom Anderson and Dave Besbris.
MaysonL 15y ago
This returned about 6.5 million for me too. The strange, interesting tidbit I noted was that the user #s by no means conformed to Benford's law: I clicked through 5 pages of search results, and all of the user #s began with 11 or 10.

EricBurnett 15y ago

I see about 2.8 million results from that query, but I'm not surprised the number changes a lot. The result counts are a very rough approximation calculated on the fly, and shouldn't be relied on for more than order-of-magnitude estimates. The last name method is precise, but of questionable accuracy; the result count is probably more accurate, but very imprecise. Take your pick :).

Estragon 15y ago
That's interesting; if I anonymize by searching through Google Sharing, I also get 2.8 million results. Searching from my own IP address (though without being logged in) still gives 6.5 million.
- esrauch 15y ago
  I think that they are reorganizing the results based on if you are signed in with an account that has plus or not. There was someone who posted that their Google+ was "already" in the top 10 results and twitter wasn't even shown, but it was only true if you were logged in. Hopefully they aren't doing something too drastic; there's allegedly already an ongoing antitrust investigation about how google orders its search results.
  - Estragon 15y ago
    Maybe, but it's worth noting that I wasn't signed in, and don't have a G+ account, yet.

karlzt 15y ago

that's wrong, two of the first results are posts by Tom Anderson and Dave Besbris.

MaysonL 15y ago

This returned about 6.5 million for me too. The strange, interesting tidbit I noted was that the user #s by no means conformed to Benford's law: I clicked through 5 pages of search results, and all of the user #s began with 11 or 10.