4 ms·
"I am inclined to agree with the conspiracy theory that if these secondary stats were any good, we would be hearing about them." I don't think it's that simple
by bishnu 15y ago
"I am inclined to agree with the conspiracy theory that if these secondary stats were any good, we would be hearing about them."
I don't think it's that simple. Google publishes very few figures that have to do with its core profitability. For example, number of searches a day is not reported. I doubt it's because that figure isn't any good.
- recoiledsnake 15y agoThat is because they have little to gain by announcing the number of searches because they're already way on top. On the other hand, if G+ numbers were good, they would definitely announce it to increase the hype and get more people to check it out, out of curiosity.
- lmkg 15y agoBut in this case, Google is publishing numbers. Numbers that by their own admission aren't even trying to measure the right thing, and which seem to over-count that wrong thing anyways. Given that they're publishing any numbers at all, why are they publishing those numbers in place of more relevant ones?
- vladd 15y agoAfter early-adopters, regular people will join only if their friends are already there. Any user metric going upwards says "look, it's not a ghost town anymore" and drives future adoption.
- abraxasz 15y agoWell, that's assuming people actually believe what Google. And even they believe what Google says, they don't have any compelling reason to switch from Facebook until their friends actually do switch. What I mean is that even assuming that people believe google's statement of "it's not a ghost town anymore", they are probably not going to move until it actually stops being a ghost town.