6 ms·

Google+ Study Reveals Minimal Social Activity, Weak User Engagement

13 points by lleims 14y ago

RobAtticus 14y ago
This is just ridiculous. G+ may be a ghost town, but I know than for me and all of my friends, 99% of our activity is non-public. If Google's goal is to get a lot of public activity, then yeah, they're not doing so hot. But this article doesn't do much to convince me that it's actually a ghost town.
- ryanmolden 14y ago
  Google should release numbers around this then if they want to stop articles like this. I recently signed up for a new GMail account and it automatically enrolled me in Google+, so I am highly skeptical of their number of new users metric since they seem to be inflating it by tying unrelated things together. It may make sense for them to try and tie things together into one cohesive identity, but it is hard to deny it also conveniently inflates Google+ numbers, at least the only numbers they seem willing to talk about publicly.
  - RobAtticus 14y ago
    Sure, I can agree to that. I have a feeling that the numbers aren't good enough to release. Again, I don't want to imply that I think G+ is as active as Facebook/Twitter, just that I think the study is pretty much useless. After all, if I was using my friend group as a metric for how well a product was doing, Wave would still be alive...
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
bceagle 14y ago
I really like Google plus but the reality is that I use it less than Twitter or Facebook. I think it is only a matter of time, though before it takes off because they will continue to lower the barrier for entry and look for new ways to integrate to their other products. If nothing else, one day a lot of people may be communicating with each other on G+ without even realizing it.
ben1040 14y ago
It seems like the strategy (especially given the revised privacy policy) is to converge every other service so that you're using G+ no matter what. Google Contacts is now focused on circles, circles show up in Gmail, and you can control Google Voice activity based on circles. And I imagine this is just the start. I wonder if getting people to publicly post is really even on the critical path for them at all. If they change their services to be circle-centric and get enough people just to put people in circles, that gives them a ton of social graph data to mine even without posts.
lleims 14y ago
I submitted the story and I also think FastCompany's headline is bogus, but I wanted to leave it there for others to judge it. Publishing such a report (and those conclusions) by just looking at public posts makes no sense at all. No wonder according to the study very few of those posting public updates never came back. They were probably users trying the service for the first time and had no people in their circles at that moment.
kadabra9 14y ago
I'm always skeptical as to how you can truly, accurately measure engagement on something like G+ or Facebook. Sure enough, this study only measures "public" activity. If you're just measuring engagement by how frequently someone posts, I think that's a bit misleading. As cryptoz and RobAtticus alluded to, I rarely post to Facebook, but that doesn't at all say I'm not "engaged" through reading my friends updates, viewing photos, checking out articles they read, etc. Just because I'm not outspoken (or even narcissitic, ha) enough to post to Facebook every 5 minutes certainly doesn't mean I'm not engaged with it. What intrigues me more about the article, is the picture of "waning interest" in G+. My interest in G+ is certainly fading. I might log in one every week or two, and even then it's the same routine; I'll log in, see that it's still the same ghost town it was last week, and then move on. If I were Google, I'd be much more concerned about keeping people interested in G+, not focusing on how many posts people make or how many millions of people have "upgraded" to G+ only to never return.
jmillikin 14y ago
(disclaimer: I work at Google) It is impossible to make meaningful statements about Google+ user engagement by looking at only public posts. In 2012, I've created eighteen public posts, often spaced apart by weeks. According to my public history, I barely use Google+. In the same time frame, I've posted hundreds of private posts. My posts are for my friends, and I see no reason to let random internet people read my posts. Many of my friends have absolutely no public posts, or maybe one when they first join saying "well, I'm here". To an outside observer, it looks like they posted once and left. But if you're in their circles, you'll see that they're posting often, sometimes up to several times an hour. Unfortunately, the only entity that can provide concrete numbers of active users is Google itself, and they aren't telling.
- lleims 14y ago
  It's a shame Google won't disclose any official usage numbers in regards to Google+. It's the only way of putting these rumors to rest; if indeed user engagement is higher than what most reports/studies are suggesting.
- pasbesoin 14y ago
  I'm put in mind that this is more in line with the important personal communication I've experience on networks (including the Internet). Control of scope is essential. Facebook is once again feeling more like it's trying to force those social connections into the public domain -- well, let's say the public realm, for it certainly remains their domain. And I'm mindful of getting out of it, at this point. (The IPO seems to be a good event in their... erm, "Timeline", upon which to do so. [1] ) I don't want to lose those connections, though, so perhaps it is time to agitate amongst friends for Google+. However, I do not want to be forced into a single, worldwide identity. Either personally, or admixed with various professional responsibilities and relationships. I also don't want to feel an excessive risk of being "unplugged" from Google's services. If Google wants to "do social", they need to "look at what users want to do". I am surprised at how suddenly apropos my chance browsing of this HN thread -- with its perhaps for some somewhat discomfiting terms -- becomes: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3976791 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3976791 And, they need to be social, themselves. Enough to provide some real -- if, given scale, not always direct -- support. When enough people start saying that something is a problem, believe them. For now, I think I'll use a secondary identity -- not a false one, but a second account -- to participate in Google+. I already have one for casual business contacts. In case the feedback is worth anything, I still fear committing my primary Google identity to the product. I wonder to what extent Google can enable and protect social dialog where users set the scope and privacy [2], while successfully fostering the advertising revenue that pays for the service and for Google's efforts. The kind of networking for this level of connections still seems to need to supercede any particular, balkanized smaller-scale platform. All of us are continuing to look for the effective and ethical host. -- [1] Concurrent, I've observed, with another bump in the aggressiveness of their advertising. Not that I begrudge them "paying the bills", but perceived as perhaps a signal of more behind the scenes or to come. [2] As I think of this, more, I ask whether Google needs to advocate for more transparency, in certain areas some of which include its own participation. What is the relationship with the NSA? Perhaps not all can be revealed, but... well, even the NSA ostensibly works for "the people", for U.S. citizens. And some transparency might ultimately be in everyone's best interest. You can either assume that "the people" are morons, or that they are competent. Too many leaders seem to speak to the former, these days. Inherently, the Internet -- of which Google is currently an integral part -- speaks to the latter: Empower people by giving them knowledge they need and seek. What are the people trying to do? Perhaps it's time for Google to pause and really take a look at that. That's what got them to where they are.
DavidAmerland 14y ago
The study by RJM is fundamentally flawed. It has taken a metric without any point of reference, accumulated some raw data and made some pretty wild interpretations from there. I have rebutted it here: http://goo.gl/nDAVQ http://goo.gl/nDAVQ

13 points by lleims 14y ago

This is just ridiculous. G+ may be a ghost town, but I know than for me and all of my friends, 99% of our activity is non-public. If Google's goal is to get a lot of public activity, then yeah, they're not doing so hot. But this article doesn't do much to convince me that it's actually a ghost town.

ryanmolden 14y ago
Google should release numbers around this then if they want to stop articles like this. I recently signed up for a new GMail account and it automatically enrolled me in Google+, so I am highly skeptical of their number of new users metric since they seem to be inflating it by tying unrelated things together. It may make sense for them to try and tie things together into one cohesive identity, but it is hard to deny it also conveniently inflates Google+ numbers, at least the only numbers they seem willing to talk about publicly.
- RobAtticus 14y ago
  Sure, I can agree to that. I have a feeling that the numbers aren't good enough to release. Again, I don't want to imply that I think G+ is as active as Facebook/Twitter, just that I think the study is pretty much useless. After all, if I was using my friend group as a metric for how well a product was doing, Wave would still be alive...

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

bceagle 14y ago

I really like Google plus but the reality is that I use it less than Twitter or Facebook. I think it is only a matter of time, though before it takes off because they will continue to lower the barrier for entry and look for new ways to integrate to their other products. If nothing else, one day a lot of people may be communicating with each other on G+ without even realizing it.

ben1040 14y ago

It seems like the strategy (especially given the revised privacy policy) is to converge every other service so that you're using G+ no matter what. Google Contacts is now focused on circles, circles show up in Gmail, and you can control Google Voice activity based on circles. And I imagine this is just the start. I wonder if getting people to publicly post is really even on the critical path for them at all. If they change their services to be circle-centric and get enough people just to put people in circles, that gives them a ton of social graph data to mine even without posts.

lleims 14y ago

I submitted the story and I also think FastCompany's headline is bogus, but I wanted to leave it there for others to judge it. Publishing such a report (and those conclusions) by just looking at public posts makes no sense at all. No wonder according to the study very few of those posting public updates never came back. They were probably users trying the service for the first time and had no people in their circles at that moment.

kadabra9 14y ago

I'm always skeptical as to how you can truly, accurately measure engagement on something like G+ or Facebook. Sure enough, this study only measures "public" activity. If you're just measuring engagement by how frequently someone posts, I think that's a bit misleading. As cryptoz and RobAtticus alluded to, I rarely post to Facebook, but that doesn't at all say I'm not "engaged" through reading my friends updates, viewing photos, checking out articles they read, etc. Just because I'm not outspoken (or even narcissitic, ha) enough to post to Facebook every 5 minutes certainly doesn't mean I'm not engaged with it. What intrigues me more about the article, is the picture of "waning interest" in G+. My interest in G+ is certainly fading. I might log in one every week or two, and even then it's the same routine; I'll log in, see that it's still the same ghost town it was last week, and then move on. If I were Google, I'd be much more concerned about keeping people interested in G+, not focusing on how many posts people make or how many millions of people have "upgraded" to G+ only to never return.

jmillikin 14y ago

(disclaimer: I work at Google) It is impossible to make meaningful statements about Google+ user engagement by looking at only public posts. In 2012, I've created eighteen public posts, often spaced apart by weeks. According to my public history, I barely use Google+. In the same time frame, I've posted hundreds of private posts. My posts are for my friends, and I see no reason to let random internet people read my posts. Many of my friends have absolutely no public posts, or maybe one when they first join saying "well, I'm here". To an outside observer, it looks like they posted once and left. But if you're in their circles, you'll see that they're posting often, sometimes up to several times an hour. Unfortunately, the only entity that can provide concrete numbers of active users is Google itself, and they aren't telling.

lleims 14y ago
It's a shame Google won't disclose any official usage numbers in regards to Google+. It's the only way of putting these rumors to rest; if indeed user engagement is higher than what most reports/studies are suggesting.
pasbesoin 14y ago
I'm put in mind that this is more in line with the important personal communication I've experience on networks (including the Internet). Control of scope is essential. Facebook is once again feeling more like it's trying to force those social connections into the public domain -- well, let's say the public realm, for it certainly remains their domain. And I'm mindful of getting out of it, at this point. (The IPO seems to be a good event in their... erm, "Timeline", upon which to do so. [1] ) I don't want to lose those connections, though, so perhaps it is time to agitate amongst friends for Google+. However, I do not want to be forced into a single, worldwide identity. Either personally, or admixed with various professional responsibilities and relationships. I also don't want to feel an excessive risk of being "unplugged" from Google's services. If Google wants to "do social", they need to "look at what users want to do". I am surprised at how suddenly apropos my chance browsing of this HN thread -- with its perhaps for some somewhat discomfiting terms -- becomes: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3976791 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3976791 And, they need to be social, themselves. Enough to provide some real -- if, given scale, not always direct -- support. When enough people start saying that something is a problem, believe them. For now, I think I'll use a secondary identity -- not a false one, but a second account -- to participate in Google+. I already have one for casual business contacts. In case the feedback is worth anything, I still fear committing my primary Google identity to the product. I wonder to what extent Google can enable and protect social dialog where users set the scope and privacy [2], while successfully fostering the advertising revenue that pays for the service and for Google's efforts. The kind of networking for this level of connections still seems to need to supercede any particular, balkanized smaller-scale platform. All of us are continuing to look for the effective and ethical host. -- [1] Concurrent, I've observed, with another bump in the aggressiveness of their advertising. Not that I begrudge them "paying the bills", but perceived as perhaps a signal of more behind the scenes or to come. [2] As I think of this, more, I ask whether Google needs to advocate for more transparency, in certain areas some of which include its own participation. What is the relationship with the NSA? Perhaps not all can be revealed, but... well, even the NSA ostensibly works for "the people", for U.S. citizens. And some transparency might ultimately be in everyone's best interest. You can either assume that "the people" are morons, or that they are competent. Too many leaders seem to speak to the former, these days. Inherently, the Internet -- of which Google is currently an integral part -- speaks to the latter: Empower people by giving them knowledge they need and seek. What are the people trying to do? Perhaps it's time for Google to pause and really take a look at that. That's what got them to where they are.

DavidAmerland 14y ago

The study by RJM is fundamentally flawed. It has taken a metric without any point of reference, accumulated some raw data and made some pretty wild interpretations from there. I have rebutted it here: http://goo.gl/nDAVQ http://goo.gl/nDAVQ