3 ms·

(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 cre

(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.
- jmillikin 14y ago
  > However, I do not want to be forced into a single, > worldwide identity. Either personally, or admixed with > various professional responsibilities and relationships. Have you considered using the "Pages" feature? Pages allow users can create an arbitrary number of anonymous identities, and they can be used for any (legal) purpose. The only significant restriction is that a Page identity can't initiate contact with other identities, as an anti-spam mechanism. > I also don't want to feel an excessive risk of being "unplugged" from > Google's services. > [...] > 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. While the risk of being banned from Google+ is still unfortunately real, this does not extend to other Google products. Even if your account is banned from Google+ for using a non-government identity, other products will still work fine. To my knowledge, nobody has ever lost access to GMail or YouTube just because they used their own identity.
  - pasbesoin 14y ago
    Thank you for taking the time to read and respond. From an admittedly perhaps poorly informed outside perspective, there still seems to be fear and uncertainty (FUD?) around the deactivation of access to Google services and whether and what the side-effects may be. This may merge somewhat with some of the comments that appear regarding Adsense, et al. Different services, but the outsider observes (and perhaps incorrectly comingles) that when there is a dis-continuation, a clear description of the nature of the problem and/or any communication to resolve it, can seem nearly impossible to get. Nothing I'm sure you haven't heard/read before -- and, no, I am not qualified to speak to it with any authority, not anecdotally much less from any professional perspective. I do think there continues to be a... "missing element", from some of Google's current perspective. Or from whatever warped version of that is currently being presented in the media. Google, users, and advertisers used to be pretty much, for lack of a better perspective, "on the same page". (Yeah, that might also be a pun.) Without being able to fully evaluate why, there seems to be more arguing going on now, amongst those factions. Perhaps that is really, at core, what is going wrong. (To extent there is something wrong; I mean, Google's not exactly hurting for business.) I'll stop now. If you've read through this, I've chewed up more than enough of your time. Regards P.S. I haven't looked at Pages (I'm approaching feature overload -- taken across the Internet as a whole). I will say, to that, that sometimes the simplest approach to avoiding co-mingling is simply to establish and maintain separate entities. The old, "no one knows your are a dog" situation and approach. Some people just want to KISS. Added: Perhaps I am contradicting myself, in this last. And I've seen some of the gamesmanship that (ab)users can created out of unbridled anonymity. But, if I'm going to investing in learning and curating a complex, private-party-platform identity, I guess I need some reassurance going in that the features I need -- e.g. control of scope and identity -- are both present and inviolate. Rightly or wrongly, some of the initial controversy around Plus and identities there did some real damage to this.
am2012 14y ago
fair point.
webwanderings 14y ago
So as a Google employee and by using private posts, you prove that people use Google+ I am no Google employee and with the same logic, I can prove that people don't use Google+. Private Google+ posts are what people call Emails. I have not yet received a single Google+ private post, nor have I sent any.
- Spakman 14y ago
  Well, I guess there are multiple ways to use Google+ and your way certainly differs from mine. I use private posts (limited posts, really) to post to, say, my "developers" circle. My non-techy friends don't want to read about Ruby interpreter bugs or the like and it's a way for me not to spam them. Likewise, my "developers" circle probably aren't interested in reading in-jokes/links/whatever between my friends and I. It's definitely not like email for me.

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.

jmillikin 14y ago
> However, I do not want to be forced into a single, > worldwide identity. Either personally, or admixed with > various professional responsibilities and relationships. Have you considered using the "Pages" feature? Pages allow users can create an arbitrary number of anonymous identities, and they can be used for any (legal) purpose. The only significant restriction is that a Page identity can't initiate contact with other identities, as an anti-spam mechanism. > I also don't want to feel an excessive risk of being "unplugged" from > Google's services. > [...] > 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. While the risk of being banned from Google+ is still unfortunately real, this does not extend to other Google products. Even if your account is banned from Google+ for using a non-government identity, other products will still work fine. To my knowledge, nobody has ever lost access to GMail or YouTube just because they used their own identity.
- pasbesoin 14y ago
  Thank you for taking the time to read and respond. From an admittedly perhaps poorly informed outside perspective, there still seems to be fear and uncertainty (FUD?) around the deactivation of access to Google services and whether and what the side-effects may be. This may merge somewhat with some of the comments that appear regarding Adsense, et al. Different services, but the outsider observes (and perhaps incorrectly comingles) that when there is a dis-continuation, a clear description of the nature of the problem and/or any communication to resolve it, can seem nearly impossible to get. Nothing I'm sure you haven't heard/read before -- and, no, I am not qualified to speak to it with any authority, not anecdotally much less from any professional perspective. I do think there continues to be a... "missing element", from some of Google's current perspective. Or from whatever warped version of that is currently being presented in the media. Google, users, and advertisers used to be pretty much, for lack of a better perspective, "on the same page". (Yeah, that might also be a pun.) Without being able to fully evaluate why, there seems to be more arguing going on now, amongst those factions. Perhaps that is really, at core, what is going wrong. (To extent there is something wrong; I mean, Google's not exactly hurting for business.) I'll stop now. If you've read through this, I've chewed up more than enough of your time. Regards P.S. I haven't looked at Pages (I'm approaching feature overload -- taken across the Internet as a whole). I will say, to that, that sometimes the simplest approach to avoiding co-mingling is simply to establish and maintain separate entities. The old, "no one knows your are a dog" situation and approach. Some people just want to KISS. Added: Perhaps I am contradicting myself, in this last. And I've seen some of the gamesmanship that (ab)users can created out of unbridled anonymity. But, if I'm going to investing in learning and curating a complex, private-party-platform identity, I guess I need some reassurance going in that the features I need -- e.g. control of scope and identity -- are both present and inviolate. Rightly or wrongly, some of the initial controversy around Plus and identities there did some real damage to this.

am2012 14y ago

fair point.

webwanderings 14y ago

So as a Google employee and by using private posts, you prove that people use Google+ I am no Google employee and with the same logic, I can prove that people don't use Google+. Private Google+ posts are what people call Emails. I have not yet received a single Google+ private post, nor have I sent any.

Spakman 14y ago
Well, I guess there are multiple ways to use Google+ and your way certainly differs from mine. I use private posts (limited posts, really) to post to, say, my "developers" circle. My non-techy friends don't want to read about Ruby interpreter bugs or the like and it's a way for me not to spam them. Likewise, my "developers" circle probably aren't interested in reading in-jokes/links/whatever between my friends and I. It's definitely not like email for me.