The source is the Daily Mail. Anyone familiar with that rag will know never to take whatever they say as truth.
Surprised they didn't run with 'Google+ gives you cancer'.
Google+ traffic grew by 480% in one month so press reports a 60% decline.
11–20 of 60 posts
Re: Google+ traffic grew by 480% in one month so press reports a 60% decline.
#12Tried 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 :)
going to my google account settings page, there are two options to shut down functionality, "Delete profile and social features" and "Delete account".
If the difference between "profile" and "account" is confusing, clicking on either explicitly lists the data and services you will be shutting down ("Delete account" even includes a checkbox by "gmail" that you have to click before it will allow you to actually delete your account).
It doesn't seem terribly confusing.
Re: Google+ traffic grew by 480% in one month so press reports a 60% decline.
#13http://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.
this link is some tech blogger's recapitulation of a Forbes tech blogger's expose of a Daily Mail article announcing Chitika's press release.
how is it any more trustworthy? at least Chitika's page has a graph on it (though they're tight-lipped about what that graph represents.)
Re: Google+ traffic grew by 480% in one month so press reports a 60% decline.
#14The Daily Mail (and Sunday Mail) is a right-wing, racist, anti-science paper which goes out of its way to seek out inflammatory and exaggerated headlines to scare the public and sell more papers. I wouldn't give them the time of day.
Re: Google+ traffic grew by 480% in one month so press reports a 60% decline.
#15http://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.…
Agreed. Here's my take on it: http://wegetplus.net/2011/10/10/google-traffic-down-60-or-up...
Re: Google+ traffic grew by 480% in one month so press reports a 60% decline.
#16well the argument of number is tricky since nobody has the number except Google. But another product of google's own, Google Trends, do help to see the decline. See here:
Re: Google+ traffic grew by 480% in one month so press reports a 60% decline.
#17> On the day they opened the floodgates to the public, traffic immediately spiked by 1,200%. These new people were mostly enthusiastic new users. But a minority was tire-kickers who didn't stick around.
> When the dust cleared, total traffic was nearly five times higher than before the doors opened.
A 1200% to <500% drop is categorized as a "minority" of users leaving?
Re: Google+ traffic grew by 480% in one month so press reports a 60% decline.
#18well the argument of number is tricky since nobody has the number except Google. But another product of google's own, Google Trends, do help to see the decline. See here: http://bit.ly/rlq9aR
And the even sadder thing is, even if "Google+ now opens to everyone", the search term of google+ has retreated to near the low level of post-launch. sigh ...
Re: Google+ traffic grew by 480% in one month so press reports a 60% decline.
#19Being 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.
orkut was released in 2004, although it wasn't promoted as heavily as Google+ is now and Google wasn't using it to create a social layer for the Internet.
Re: Google+ traffic grew by 480% in one month so press reports a 60% decline.
#20I 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)
> Ultimately they may have to give SmartPhone makers some incentive to stop bundling the Facebook app/integration on their devices.
Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft
I'm not trying to be snide either, Microsoft leveraged its relationships with OEMs to incentivize them to stop bundling netscape. I don't think that Google would play that dirty, but it's certainly thin ice.