4 ms·

Google+ is the fastest website to ever reach 25 Million visitors

15 points by trustfundbaby 15y ago

grovulent 15y ago
A lot of my friends have had a negative reaction to Google Plus because of the lack of their close friends being on there. So I wrote this: https://plus.google.com/117405082753493075236/posts/JG3LWfMfs7p https://plus.google.com/117405082753493075236/posts/JG3LWfMf...
BonoboBoner 15y ago
and also the fastest in losing them again? I dont see much activity in people's feeds.
- chrischen 15y ago
  Are you in their circles? It could be that they aren't sharing publicly.
jamesteow 15y ago
This stat would mean a lot more to me if it weren't such a sausage party. I'm doing my part to post as much interesting content as I can.
newobj 15y ago
I had a stretch of about 36 hours without any activity in my stream. A single friend is responsible for about 90% of the activity in my stream. So yeah, "visitors" might be a good word to describe the traffic, because "active users" sure isn't.
- jdelsman 15y ago
  Maybe for you, but I have an update about every hour or less -- during non-peak times, even! (I am in China; most of my friends are in the US)
oldstrangers 15y ago
"In contrast, it took Facebook about three years to attract 25 million visitors" What a stupid comparison. Facebook launched from nothing; Google+ launched from the world's largest web company with the world's largest web and mobile audience. Also, what a horrible article. To quote "according to data released on Tuesday by comScore. ... comScore noted in a presentation. ... according to comScore. ... comScore data show. ... the data show". Brilliant writing.
- Lol_Lolovici 15y ago
  The comparison is indeed useless. Also google+ isn't even launched yet. It's still "field trial" where "a small number of people" participate. For large values of small I guess.
  - aab1d 15y ago
    Google has the advantage of being Google. FB was the underdog at the time.
- grovulent 15y ago
  Well - it's not entirely stupid. It certainly doesn't mean that Google+ is more successful in any sense whatsoever (at least - not yet). But it's an important statistic if you are looking for data about how quickly large companies can take a slice of an established market if they have a decent product. How quickly? - well - compare how long it took a startup like Facebook to do it to Myspace to Google. It's still useful. I take it, however, that you see it as stupid because of the implication that by mentioning the comparison, the article contains an implicature of "Google is doing better than facebook". When of course - it's not there semantically at all. What's more, that sort of implicature seems to be cancelled by the article directly stating that the statistic does not imply success. It's just funny how people run with their own interpretations of a text. (I'm a bit aspie... can you tell?)
  - oldstrangers 15y ago
    > compare how long it took a startup like Facebook to do it to Myspace to Google. It's still useful. The original comparison still isn't entirely useful in that context. It's as useful as saying a car going 85mph will get to 90mph faster than a car at rest. Google+ came out at 85mph, Facebook started in neutral while parked in a private garage. A more useful comparison would be how quickly Microsoft took away market share from Sony with the X-Box. Or the Zune vs the iPod. Or Android vs the iPhone... etc.

15 points by trustfundbaby 15y ago

A lot of my friends have had a negative reaction to Google Plus because of the lack of their close friends being on there. So I wrote this: https://plus.google.com/117405082753493075236/posts/JG3LWfMfs7p https://plus.google.com/117405082753493075236/posts/JG3LWfMf...

BonoboBoner 15y ago

and also the fastest in losing them again? I dont see much activity in people's feeds.

chrischen 15y ago
Are you in their circles? It could be that they aren't sharing publicly.

jamesteow 15y ago

This stat would mean a lot more to me if it weren't such a sausage party. I'm doing my part to post as much interesting content as I can.

newobj 15y ago

I had a stretch of about 36 hours without any activity in my stream. A single friend is responsible for about 90% of the activity in my stream. So yeah, "visitors" might be a good word to describe the traffic, because "active users" sure isn't.

jdelsman 15y ago
Maybe for you, but I have an update about every hour or less -- during non-peak times, even! (I am in China; most of my friends are in the US)

oldstrangers 15y ago

"In contrast, it took Facebook about three years to attract 25 million visitors" What a stupid comparison. Facebook launched from nothing; Google+ launched from the world's largest web company with the world's largest web and mobile audience. Also, what a horrible article. To quote "according to data released on Tuesday by comScore. ... comScore noted in a presentation. ... according to comScore. ... comScore data show. ... the data show". Brilliant writing.

Lol_Lolovici 15y ago
The comparison is indeed useless. Also google+ isn't even launched yet. It's still "field trial" where "a small number of people" participate. For large values of small I guess.
- aab1d 15y ago
  Google has the advantage of being Google. FB was the underdog at the time.
grovulent 15y ago
Well - it's not entirely stupid. It certainly doesn't mean that Google+ is more successful in any sense whatsoever (at least - not yet). But it's an important statistic if you are looking for data about how quickly large companies can take a slice of an established market if they have a decent product. How quickly? - well - compare how long it took a startup like Facebook to do it to Myspace to Google. It's still useful. I take it, however, that you see it as stupid because of the implication that by mentioning the comparison, the article contains an implicature of "Google is doing better than facebook". When of course - it's not there semantically at all. What's more, that sort of implicature seems to be cancelled by the article directly stating that the statistic does not imply success. It's just funny how people run with their own interpretations of a text. (I'm a bit aspie... can you tell?)
- oldstrangers 15y ago
  > compare how long it took a startup like Facebook to do it to Myspace to Google. It's still useful. The original comparison still isn't entirely useful in that context. It's as useful as saying a car going 85mph will get to 90mph faster than a car at rest. Google+ came out at 85mph, Facebook started in neutral while parked in a private garage. A more useful comparison would be how quickly Microsoft took away market share from Sony with the X-Box. Or the Zune vs the iPod. Or Android vs the iPhone... etc.