5 ms·
First, the OA's comparison is meaningless. It focuses on vanity metrics rather than engagement or retention. A lot is written on that topic, so I won't repeat
by vm 14y ago
First, the OA's comparison is meaningless.
It focuses on vanity metrics rather than engagement or retention. A lot is written on that topic, so I won't repeat (see Tim Ferris: http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2009/05/19/vanity-metrics-vs-actionable-metrics/ http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2009/05/19/vanity-metri...). This article is excellent optimization for link baiting.
And it doesn't matter because most of these sites don't compete against each other. Each of these media sites has a different value prop, target demo and potential ARPU. For example, the value of a unique visitor on LinkedIn is way higher than on Tumblr, but it's a moot point because they aren't going after the same users (sure there will be some overlap, but that's in the same way that I visit HN and FB).
Second, these stats are utterly wrong.
Tumblr had 133M global uniques in that time, according to quantcast [1]. Pinterest had 45.8M US uniques around then [2].
And this completely ignores their quickly growing mobile traffic. Quantcast directly measures traffic by pixeling sites, so I trust their data over Compete in this case.
[1] http://www.quantcast.com/p-19UtqE8ngoZbM http://www.quantcast.com/p-19UtqE8ngoZbM
[2] http://www.quantcast.com/pinterest.com http://www.quantcast.com/pinterest.com
- Steko 14y agoClaims of G+'s amazing growth always looks silly when I run this bookmarked Insights: http://www.google.com/insights/search/#q=Google%20Plus%2CInstagram%2CFlickr%2CLinkedIn%2CPinterest&date=today%2012-m&cmpt=q http://www.google.com/insights/search/#q=Google%20Plus%2CIns...
- bsphil 14y agoDoes "Google Plus" also cover "G+" and "Google+" and whatever other variation of the name there is? That's probably the last way I'd think of searching for statistics on it. Everything else you listed doesn't have any common aliases.
- Steko 14y agoIt doesn't appear to and I'm not exactly sure when + becomes viable in trends/insights although looking at it it looks like it's there for the last year or so. However if you double the result volume to account for Google Plus and Google+ it's still unimpressive. More importantly the curve is flat for both. http://www.google.com/insights/search/#q=Google%20Plus%2CGoogle%2B%2CG%2B%2CLinkedIn%2CPinterest&date=today%2012-m&cmpt=q http://www.google.com/insights/search/#q=Google%20Plus%2CGoo...
- ars 14y agoAll the shows is that people aren't searching for G+ on google - which would make sense, since there is a link to it right at the top of the search page. Page views is a much better metric for this kind of thing - anyone who is engaged is not going to search for it more than once.
- Steko 14y agoThat link hasn't always been there and isn't there in your browser search box and doesn't even say "Google+" or "Google Plus" at least from where I'm sitting. Page view data we have is, frankly, terrible. If Google wants to prove to the world what a huge success G+ they could do this in 10 seconds by giving us some pageview, photo, post, etc stats. The fact that they don't do this is telling. "anyone who is engaged is not going to search for it more than once." That's equally true or many other services and yet they trounce G+ both in absolute and trend.
- nl 14y agoIf Google wants to prove to the world what a huge success G+ they could do this in 10 seconds by giving us some pageview, photo, post, etc stats. From the linked article: During the Google I/O Conference in June, Google’s Vic Gundotra announced that the Google+ mobile traffic is now larger than the desktop traffic. Gundotra also announced that Google+ has 250 million accounts, 150 million active users during a month and 75 million active daily users. So there is that. The fact that they don't do this is telling Facebook has never given number any more detailed than the ones Gundotra gave.
- ryanmerket 14y agoUh, yes they have. Have you seem Facebook's press page?
- nl 14y agoDo you mean http://newsroom.fb.com/ http://newsroom.fb.com/? I'm not seeing any detailed statistics - actually I can't even see the known publicly available numbers. Do you have a direct link?
- Retric 14y agoNo, just try it: http://www.google.com/insights/search/#q=Google%20Plus%2CG%2B%2CGoogle%2B%2CLinkedIn%2CPinterest&date=today%2012-m&cmpt=q http://www.google.com/insights/search/#q=Google%20Plus%2CG%2...
- wamatt 14y agoVery useful, thank you.
- xxbondsxx 14y agoTry adding Facebook to the mix too: http://www.google.com/insights/search/#q=Google%20Plus%2CInstagram%2CFacebook%2CLinkedIn%2CPinterest&date=today%2012-m&cmpt=q http://www.google.com/insights/search/#q=Google%20Plus%2CIns... Absolutely dwarfs everything else. I'm not buying that G+ has 1/5 of the MAU's of Facebook
- ditojim 14y agoisn't is a bit redundant to search for google+ on google? i'm not sure how accurate this is, for this reason.
- garazy 14y agoI agree with this. The implementation of Google+ Platform on websites seems to have plateaued recently, meaning, if these stats are correct, the visitors are probably not coming in from the web, they may be being coerced in from other Google products. http://trends.builtwith.com/widgets/Google-Plus-One-Platform http://trends.builtwith.com/widgets/Google-Plus-One-Platform Disclaimer I run BuiltWith.