Misleading Google Plus statistics

loganabbott:

People have been amazed at the growth trends of Google+, and yes, they are remarkable. Just look at this graph created by Leon Haland, based upon data produced by Paul Allen which shows the time it took Google+ to reach 20 million users when compared to its closest competitors Facebook and Twitter. I don’t think its fair to draw definitive conclusions from this data this early.

I agree with Logan. These graphs are bullshit. Facebook and Twitter acquired their users from scratch. Google has an existing user base and, as far as I can tell, most (if not all) Google Plus users are existing Google account holders. It also tried, and failed, with Wave and Buzz, and both those efforts’ times need to be factored in. This is the sort of Google Kool-Aid-drinking crap I’ve been seeing by some in the tech media.

compwoman: (via Google Chart Worth A Thousand Words) More from the Google Kool-Aid drinkers Not that accurate. You’d have to take into account the time Google took to amass a following, considering most Plus users were already Google users. Twitter and Facebook took 700-plus days to get to that point because they had to acquire their users from scratch. Even if you don’t want to start counting from the late 1990s, the Kool-Aid drinkers conveniently forget the flops that were Buzz and Wave. At the very least, fairness should dictate that their poor starts need to be factored in to this graph. If Google had not learned from either, it would have not got Plus to where it is.
Pop-upView Separately

compwoman:

(via Google Chart Worth A Thousand Words)

More from the Google Kool-Aid drinkers Not that accurate. You’d have to take into account the time Google took to amass a following, considering most Plus users were already Google users. Twitter and Facebook took 700-plus days to get to that point because they had to acquire their users from scratch.

Even if you don’t want to start counting from the late 1990s, the Kool-Aid drinkers conveniently forget the flops that were Buzz and Wave. At the very least, fairness should dictate that their poor starts need to be factored in to this graph. If Google had not learned from either, it would have not got Plus to where it is.

(via stoweboyd)

Source: marketingpilgrim.com

Facebook and Twitter are broadcast design models; Google Plus is a sharing design model

stoweboyd:

John Tropea takes a pass at explaining how sharing works on Google+ (Google Plus):

John Tropea

How is it different to Facebook and Twitter?

As an online relationship model; Facebook is symmetric, Twitter is asymmetric, and Google Plus is asymmetric

Twitter

  • Follow (asymmetric) - enables you to follow people (those people don’t have to follow you back in order for you to see their content in your stream…you are basically their fan)
  • Public - your posts are shared in the public

Facebook

  • Friend (symmetric) - you cannot read and send each other updates unless you both follow each other (this is called “friend”)
  • Private - you posts are not shared in the public, instead they are shared with all your friends only (this is called a “walled garden”)
  • Selective Reading & Sharing - you can also read and share with just a selection of people (this is called “Lists”…this isn’t a primary design feature and isn’t used that much as far as sharing goes)
Google Plus
  • Follow (asymmetric) - enables you to follow people, just like Twitter, where those people don’t have to follow you back
  • Public and/or Private - your posts can be shared in the Public, or just shared with All Circles or a selection of Circles
  • Selective Reading - you can also read posts in a stream from just a selection of people you follow (this is called “Circles”)
  • Selective Sharing - you can also share posts with just a selection of people (this is called “Circles”)…BUT unlike Facebook, unless “those people you follow in your circle” follow you back, they won’t see your post in their stream, instead they will see it in an alternative stream called “Incoming”.

This is the sort of bias I see when people talk about Google Plus positively. Read it closely, and you’ll see Google Plus’s two last bullet points are condensed into one under the Facebook listing. I admit I like the way Circles works and it’s a lot more human, but I’ve always had that functionality on Facebook. It’s not as well designed but to claim that it wasn’t a ‘primary design feature’ is not altogether true. I remember a Limited Profile class in Facebook since I joined (2006).

You can say the Google design is better, and few would disagree, but I would argue that Facebook has made this part of its offering from nearly the start. And soon after that, it allowed you to create more than one class, or circle, of friends—just like Google has—and publicized it quite widely. I still see it as a primary design feature, and use my different Facebook circles regularly.