6 ms·

The source is the Daily Mail. Anyone familiar with that rag will know never to take whatever they say as truth. Surprised they didn't run with 'Google+ gives y

The source is the Daily Mail. Anyone familiar with that rag will know never to take whatever they say as truth. Surprised they didn't run with 'Google+ gives you cancer'.

sambeau 15y ago
Funny. True in general. But in this case The Daily Mail aren't necessarily being deliberately disingenuous.* What the original post is saying as that when the doors opened to the public, Google+ traffic went up nearly 5-fold in a month from a private Google-staff-and-their-freinds beta. Even if we ignore the fact that it went up 1200% and then dropped back again, 5-fold seems a little disappointing. Also, surely it is correct reporting to point out that there was a massive drop-off effect. People signed up in their droves, tried it and then left. No matter how Google try to spin this, it can't be good. If Google+ continues to slowly build back over the next few months then maybe they will be fine. But, based on a small biased sample of my 'social graph' it doesn't look like it. *—I can't believe I'm defending The Daily Mail.
- nknight 15y ago
  Um, no. It wasn't "from a private Google-staff-and-their-friends" beta, it was from the modestly-controlled semi-open beta that ran along the same lines as the earlier gmail "beta" with "invite codes" given fairly plentifully to everyone already using the service. There were millions of people with no close connection to Google already using G+ by the time the floodgates were fully opened on September 20th, which is the magic day DM chooses for their laughable reporting.
  - sambeau 15y ago
    "Floodgates fully open" But enough of a difference between the "modestly-controlled semi-open beta" and "fully opened" to see a a 1200% increase. The floodgates opened, the tide rushed in, the tide ran out. How is this a success for Google+?
    - wnight 15y ago
      Five times more users, that stayed.
      - sambeau 15y ago
        No. 5x more traffic.
        wnight 15y ago
        Oh, thanks.
      - potatolicious 15y ago
        And yet still a decidedly non-mainstream audience: http://socialstatistics.com/top/people/followers/0 http://socialstatistics.com/top/people/followers/0 G+ has no hope unless they can somehow break into the mainstream. It's not looking good right now.
        wnight 15y ago
        Quit changing the topic. You asked "How is this a success for Google+?" What's the bar now? Suddenly being #1? Anyways, whatever. I'm not on G+ because I'm not a fan of their real-name policy and I certainly don't care if they win or lose. I was just pointing out that you were playing the same game the newspaper was - asking a crazy question given the nearly five-times increase in traffic over a single month.
        potatolicious 15y ago
        No topic was ever changed - we all know Google is in this game to beat (or at least, take a significant minority share) of Facebook's traffic. The number of users it gained need not be relevant to this goal - they need to gain the right users, and so far that's just not happening. They've won over the technorati, and puzzlingly enough, the photography community. But how many of your non-tech friends are actually on G+? Much less using it? > ""How is this a success for Google+?"" For one thing, that wasn't me. But let's say it was. Your claim that traffic jumped by 5x is supposed to imply that this was a success for Google - but it's nothing of the sort. Without breaking into the mainstream, Google has no hope of capturing the type of market share, ever, that they are clearly after. Google is not in this to build a niche social network for the techno-elite. > "What's the bar now? Suddenly being #1" What a ridiculous straw man. Nobody says G+ needs to be #1 overnight. But at least movement in the right direction (i.e., mainstream appeal) is necessary if one is to reasonably claim that G+ is succeeding. That's simply not happening. > "I was just pointing out that you were playing the same game the newspaper was - asking a crazy question given the nearly five-times increase in traffic over a single month." The newspaper asked a relevant question. Are we supposed to just blindly swallow any number and interpret it in the default manner? By your logic, Groupon is smashingly successful company with strong growth numbers - but we know it's not playing well into their end-game. Neither is this playing into G+'s desired endgame.
- redthrowaway 15y ago
  Whatever happens with G+, I hope it stays around. It's twitter with longer posts, and facebook without the idiots. Aside from the network effect not having kicked in yet, it really is an ideal service for me.
  - bergie 15y ago
    We had a service like that in Finland, called Qaiku. Now quite a lot of the users seem to have migrated to Google+
simonsarris 15y ago
I hate to post trite things on HN but if you haven't heard of the Daily Mail there is a good (and humorous) summary of the paper made into a song using only their headlines: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI
- FuzzyDunlop 15y ago
  There's also this spectacular database of what causes and cures cancer (as reported by the DM): http://kill-or-cure.heroku.com/ http://kill-or-cure.heroku.com/ (also applies to reply below... and has been linked already! oops)
wgx 15y ago
True, it's not known as "The Daily Fail" for nothing.
carlio 15y ago
So far there isn't a definitive decision on whether Google+ gives you cancer or not - http://kill-or-cure.heroku.com/a-z/g http://kill-or-cure.heroku.com/a-z/g
Tyrannosaurs 15y ago
I assume that this is a reference to their excellent "Facebook gives you cancer" piece: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1149207/How-using-Facebook-raise-risk-cancer.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1149207/How-using-... Always worth another look if you want a reminder how far the press has fallen.
- maushu 15y ago
  I thought this was a reference to Ted's "Node is Cancer": http://teddziuba.com/2011/10/node-js-is-cancer.html http://teddziuba.com/2011/10/node-js-is-cancer.html Seems that nowadays lots of things are cancer.
  - Tyrannosaurs 15y ago
    The Daily Mail (the paper in question here) often seems to be on a quest to divide everything in the world into two groups - things that cause cancer and things that cure cancer.
mpclark 15y ago
I was disappointed to see this story pop up in my Techmeme feed yesterday. IMHO getting tech stories from the Daily Mail is dangerously close to jumping the shark...
FuzzyDunlop 15y ago
Non-UK readers are missing a hell of a lot when it comes to the Daily Mail and the Express. Not even Fox News could top it. Give it a few weeks and Princess Diana will be found alive on G+.

The source is the Daily Mail. Anyone familiar with that rag will know never to take whatever they say as truth. Surprised they didn't run with 'Google+ gives you cancer'.

sambeau 15y ago

Funny. True in general. But in this case The Daily Mail aren't necessarily being deliberately disingenuous.* What the original post is saying as that when the doors opened to the public, Google+ traffic went up nearly 5-fold in a month from a private Google-staff-and-their-freinds beta. Even if we ignore the fact that it went up 1200% and then dropped back again, 5-fold seems a little disappointing. Also, surely it is correct reporting to point out that there was a massive drop-off effect. People signed up in their droves, tried it and then left. No matter how Google try to spin this, it can't be good. If Google+ continues to slowly build back over the next few months then maybe they will be fine. But, based on a small biased sample of my 'social graph' it doesn't look like it. *—I can't believe I'm defending The Daily Mail.

nknight 15y ago
Um, no. It wasn't "from a private Google-staff-and-their-friends" beta, it was from the modestly-controlled semi-open beta that ran along the same lines as the earlier gmail "beta" with "invite codes" given fairly plentifully to everyone already using the service. There were millions of people with no close connection to Google already using G+ by the time the floodgates were fully opened on September 20th, which is the magic day DM chooses for their laughable reporting.
- sambeau 15y ago
  "Floodgates fully open" But enough of a difference between the "modestly-controlled semi-open beta" and "fully opened" to see a a 1200% increase. The floodgates opened, the tide rushed in, the tide ran out. How is this a success for Google+?
  - wnight 15y ago
    Five times more users, that stayed.
    - sambeau 15y ago
      No. 5x more traffic.
      - wnight 15y ago
        Oh, thanks.
    - potatolicious 15y ago
      And yet still a decidedly non-mainstream audience: http://socialstatistics.com/top/people/followers/0 http://socialstatistics.com/top/people/followers/0 G+ has no hope unless they can somehow break into the mainstream. It's not looking good right now.
      - wnight 15y ago
        Quit changing the topic. You asked "How is this a success for Google+?" What's the bar now? Suddenly being #1? Anyways, whatever. I'm not on G+ because I'm not a fan of their real-name policy and I certainly don't care if they win or lose. I was just pointing out that you were playing the same game the newspaper was - asking a crazy question given the nearly five-times increase in traffic over a single month.
        potatolicious 15y ago
        No topic was ever changed - we all know Google is in this game to beat (or at least, take a significant minority share) of Facebook's traffic. The number of users it gained need not be relevant to this goal - they need to gain the right users, and so far that's just not happening. They've won over the technorati, and puzzlingly enough, the photography community. But how many of your non-tech friends are actually on G+? Much less using it? > ""How is this a success for Google+?"" For one thing, that wasn't me. But let's say it was. Your claim that traffic jumped by 5x is supposed to imply that this was a success for Google - but it's nothing of the sort. Without breaking into the mainstream, Google has no hope of capturing the type of market share, ever, that they are clearly after. Google is not in this to build a niche social network for the techno-elite. > "What's the bar now? Suddenly being #1" What a ridiculous straw man. Nobody says G+ needs to be #1 overnight. But at least movement in the right direction (i.e., mainstream appeal) is necessary if one is to reasonably claim that G+ is succeeding. That's simply not happening. > "I was just pointing out that you were playing the same game the newspaper was - asking a crazy question given the nearly five-times increase in traffic over a single month." The newspaper asked a relevant question. Are we supposed to just blindly swallow any number and interpret it in the default manner? By your logic, Groupon is smashingly successful company with strong growth numbers - but we know it's not playing well into their end-game. Neither is this playing into G+'s desired endgame.
redthrowaway 15y ago
Whatever happens with G+, I hope it stays around. It's twitter with longer posts, and facebook without the idiots. Aside from the network effect not having kicked in yet, it really is an ideal service for me.
- bergie 15y ago
  We had a service like that in Finland, called Qaiku. Now quite a lot of the users seem to have migrated to Google+

simonsarris 15y ago

I hate to post trite things on HN but if you haven't heard of the Daily Mail there is a good (and humorous) summary of the paper made into a song using only their headlines: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI

FuzzyDunlop 15y ago
There's also this spectacular database of what causes and cures cancer (as reported by the DM): http://kill-or-cure.heroku.com/ http://kill-or-cure.heroku.com/ (also applies to reply below... and has been linked already! oops)

wgx 15y ago

True, it's not known as "The Daily Fail" for nothing.

carlio 15y ago

So far there isn't a definitive decision on whether Google+ gives you cancer or not - http://kill-or-cure.heroku.com/a-z/g http://kill-or-cure.heroku.com/a-z/g

Tyrannosaurs 15y ago

I assume that this is a reference to their excellent "Facebook gives you cancer" piece: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1149207/How-using-Facebook-raise-risk-cancer.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1149207/How-using-... Always worth another look if you want a reminder how far the press has fallen.

maushu 15y ago
I thought this was a reference to Ted's "Node is Cancer": http://teddziuba.com/2011/10/node-js-is-cancer.html http://teddziuba.com/2011/10/node-js-is-cancer.html Seems that nowadays lots of things are cancer.
- Tyrannosaurs 15y ago
  The Daily Mail (the paper in question here) often seems to be on a quest to divide everything in the world into two groups - things that cause cancer and things that cure cancer.

mpclark 15y ago

I was disappointed to see this story pop up in my Techmeme feed yesterday. IMHO getting tech stories from the Daily Mail is dangerously close to jumping the shark...

FuzzyDunlop 15y ago

Non-UK readers are missing a hell of a lot when it comes to the Daily Mail and the Express. Not even Fox News could top it. Give it a few weeks and Princess Diana will be found alive on G+.