4 ms·

Claims of G+'s amazing growth always looks silly when I run this bookmarked Insights: http://www.google.com/insights/search/#q=Google%20Plus%2CInstagram%2CFlic

• bsphil 14y ago
  Does "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 ago
    It 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 ago
      All 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 ago
        That 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 ago
          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. 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 ago
            Uh, yes they have. Have you seem Facebook's press page?
            • nl 14y ago
              Do 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?
            • nl 14y ago
              Do 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?
          • Steko 14y ago
            "Google+ mobile traffic is now larger than the desktop traffic" All this does is confirm that G+ isn't growing organically, it's growing only because it's default on for most new Android and Gmail users. Claiming all these people as G+ users is only slightly less disingenuous then say if Apple came out tomorrow claiming that iCloud was the hottest new social network.
            • jordanthoms 14y ago
  • Retric 14y ago
    No, 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 ago
  Very useful, thank you.
• xxbondsxx 14y ago
  Try 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 ago
  isn't is a bit redundant to search for google+ on google? i'm not sure how accurate this is, for this reason.