Google+ traffic grew by 480% in one month so press reports a 60% decline.
1–10 of 60 posts
Re: Google+ traffic grew by 480% in one month so press reports a 60% decline.
#2http://insights.chitika.com/2011/failure-to-launch-google-gr... is the source article.
the 1200% number came from "Reportedly, Google+ saw a surge in traffic of over 1200% due to the additional publicity, but the increased user base was only temporary, as was projected in an earlier insights post." and the 60% drop came from "But, soon after, traffic fell by over 60% as it returned to its normal, underwhelming state."
but the graph right below that shows Google+ going back (in Chitika's "traffic index", whatever that is) to just about where it was before it was made public. as a result, I don't think those two numbers can be composed, and the "heh, guess 480% doesn't count for anything" smugness I've seen from a couple different places is based on everyone else's misconception of what the numbers mean.
Re: Google+ traffic grew by 480% in one month so press reports a 60% decline.
#3Vanity metrics much? A huge part of the reason why Google+ will fail is Google's encouraging spread of vanity metrics instead of just admitting that Google+ has a serious, serious challenge and is still on course to die(it's already pretty irrelevant in the made-up social networking wars).
Heck I'd venture to say that myspace.com has more engagement than Google+. And that is after Google shoving G+ onto its users.
Re: Google+ traffic grew by 480% in one month so press reports a 60% decline.
#4Tried to close my Google+ account and the choices it presents were confusing at best ( this will delete your Google+ and also/maybe your Gmail? )
So instead chose a fake last name and got banned. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED :)
Re: Google+ traffic grew by 480% in one month so press reports a 60% decline.
#5I assume there will be much tighter integration of Google+ into the next major release of Android which should help solve the 'ghost town' problem so many people are seeing with Google+ at this point. Ultimately they may have to give SmartPhone makers some incentive to stop bundling the Facebook app/integration on their devices. (or just make their own)
Re: Google+ traffic grew by 480% in one month so press reports a 60% decline.
#6http://insights.chitika.com/2011/failure-to-launch-google-gr... is the source article. the 1200% number came from "Reportedly, Google+ saw a surge in traffic of over 1200% due to the additional publicity, but the increased user base was only temporary, as was projected in an earlier insights post." and the 60% drop came from "But, soon after, traffic fell by over 60% as it returned to its normal, underwhelming state.…
The data in question is suspect as no hard data is shown nor are they saying on how many users the report is based on or how they were able to measure traffic at all. Chitikta is a Google competitor of sorts their business is ads and they do have a strong partnerships with Facebook.
Re: Google+ traffic grew by 480% in one month so press reports a 60% decline.
#7their double standard on real/fake names is a disgrace.
they ban people for using their internet handle that they have been using for the last 15 years and on the other hand celebrities like madonna or 50 cent are allowed to use their artist names
Re: Google+ traffic grew by 480% in one month so press reports a 60% decline.
#8Tried to close my Google+ account and the choices it presents were confusing at best ( this will delete your Google+ and also/maybe your Gmail? ) So instead chose a fake last name and got banned. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED :)
You got banned after changing your last name? Are those bans done by hand?
I know, that they have a real name policy but so has Facebook. A lot of my friends and family changed there real names into fake names on Fb. Nobody got ever baned.
Re: Google+ traffic grew by 480% in one month so press reports a 60% decline.
#9Google:Social::Microsoft:Search
Re: Google+ traffic grew by 480% in one month so press reports a 60% decline.
#10Being the size Google is, I sometimes wonder why it took them so long to come up with an alternative to Facebook. If they had of launched Google+ back in 2005 or 2006 I think they would have had a decent chance against Facebook but launching in 2011 was just a bad business move.