5 ms·

Agreed. While I really want Google+ to succeed, this means absolutely nothing. Google could come out with something silly, say an Interactive Sandwich Maker (wh

Agreed. While I really want Google+ to succeed, this means absolutely nothing. Google could come out with something silly, say an Interactive Sandwich Maker (where did that come from??), and it would probably get 10 million users within a few weeks.

cgarb 15y ago
While it means nothing with regards to the ultimate success of the platform, it is much better uptake than wave or buzz. Will be interesting to see if people find different use for it than FB/Twitter. I don't see it yet, but if they get the groups angle right could mirror how real life sharing works to some degree.
rokhayakebe 15y ago
As Tibbon pointed, you are wrong. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2793654 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2793654
- jsavimbi 15y ago
  A better base metric would be to measure how long it took to reach a specific number of items posted or shared per day. Those posts on Google+ about Google+ would be disqualified outright, which right now account for ~50% of my stream. Also, in reference to the quickie TC chart, those of number of users who opted-in to a feature their provider activated. In other words, it's a voluntary rollout versus their previous social offerings.
- Toady 15y ago
  What? Tibbon's post doesn't disprove anything. It just asks if Wave or Buzz achieved that many users so quickly, and the answer is yes--Buzz had millions of users after two days according to Google: http://gmailblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/millions-of-buzz-users-and-improvements.html http://gmailblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/millions-of-buzz-users...
- jhdavids8 15y ago
  Yeah, like Toady said, not quite. Simply saying you don't think Wave got to that many numbers is by no means proving me wrong. Besides, Wave and Buzz came out at a different time, when everyone was still in love with FB. Now, users are clamoring for another option besides FB, and Google's simply giving it to them. The timing is much, much better than before.
  - rokhayakebe 15y ago
    Ok, I stand corrected.

cgarb 15y ago

While it means nothing with regards to the ultimate success of the platform, it is much better uptake than wave or buzz. Will be interesting to see if people find different use for it than FB/Twitter. I don't see it yet, but if they get the groups angle right could mirror how real life sharing works to some degree.

rokhayakebe 15y ago

As Tibbon pointed, you are wrong. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2793654 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2793654

jsavimbi 15y ago
A better base metric would be to measure how long it took to reach a specific number of items posted or shared per day. Those posts on Google+ about Google+ would be disqualified outright, which right now account for ~50% of my stream. Also, in reference to the quickie TC chart, those of number of users who opted-in to a feature their provider activated. In other words, it's a voluntary rollout versus their previous social offerings.
Toady 15y ago
What? Tibbon's post doesn't disprove anything. It just asks if Wave or Buzz achieved that many users so quickly, and the answer is yes--Buzz had millions of users after two days according to Google: http://gmailblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/millions-of-buzz-users-and-improvements.html http://gmailblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/millions-of-buzz-users...
jhdavids8 15y ago
Yeah, like Toady said, not quite. Simply saying you don't think Wave got to that many numbers is by no means proving me wrong. Besides, Wave and Buzz came out at a different time, when everyone was still in love with FB. Now, users are clamoring for another option besides FB, and Google's simply giving it to them. The timing is much, much better than before.
- rokhayakebe 15y ago
  Ok, I stand corrected.