31–40 of 60 posts
well 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
a more accurate graph is:
http://www.google.com/trends?q=plus.google.com&ctab=0...
and that only shows up until the end of Sep and doesn't include the few days last week that google+ was linked to from the homepage of google.com
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'.
Funny. True in general. But in this case The Daily Mail aren't necessarily being deliberately disingenuous.* What the original post is saying as that when the doors opened to the public, Google+ traffic went up nearly 5-fold in a month from a private Google-staff-and-their-freinds beta. Even if we ignore the fact that it went up 1200% and then dropped back again, 5-fold seems a little disappointing. Also, surely it i…
There were millions of people with no close connection to Google already using G+ by the time the floodgates were fully opened on September 20th, which is the magic day DM chooses for their laughable reporting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Funny. True in general. But in this case The Daily Mail aren't necessarily being deliberately disingenuous.* What the original post is saying as that when the doors opened to the public, Google+ traffic went up nearly 5-fold in a month from a private Google-staff-and-their-freinds beta. Even if we ignore the fact that it went up 1200% and then dropped back again, 5-fold seems a little disappointing. Also, surely it i…
Um, no. It wasn't "from a private Google-staff-and-their-friends" beta, it was from the modestly-controlled semi-open beta that ran along the same lines as the earlier gmail "beta" with "invite codes" given fairly plentifully to everyone already using the service. There were millions of people with no close connection to Google already using G+ by the time the floodgates were fully opened on September 20th, which is…
But enough of a difference between the "modestly-controlled semi-open beta" and "fully opened" to see a a 1200% increase.
The floodgates opened, the tide rushed in, the tide ran out. How is this a success for Google+?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Um, no. It wasn't "from a private Google-staff-and-their-friends" beta, it was from the modestly-controlled semi-open beta that ran along the same lines as the earlier gmail "beta" with "invite codes" given fairly plentifully to everyone already using the service. There were millions of people with no close connection to Google already using G+ by the time the floodgates were fully opened on September 20th, which is…
"Floodgates fully open" But enough of a difference between the "modestly-controlled semi-open beta" and "fully opened" to see a a 1200% increase. The floodgates opened, the tide rushed in, the tide ran out. How is this a success for Google+?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Um, no. It wasn't "from a private Google-staff-and-their-friends" beta, it was from the modestly-controlled semi-open beta that ran along the same lines as the earlier gmail "beta" with "invite codes" given fairly plentifully to everyone already using the service. There were millions of people with no close connection to Google already using G+ by the time the floodgates were fully opened on September 20th, which is…
"Floodgates fully open" But enough of a difference between the "modestly-controlled semi-open beta" and "fully opened" to see a a 1200% increase. The floodgates opened, the tide rushed in, the tide ran out. How is this a success for Google+?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.)
As a Forbes employee, it bothers me that it appears that Forbes is the source of the misleading statistic rather than the outlet that published the analysis of its incoherence. We have a lot of really smart non-staff contributors (like Tim here, or my personal favorite Timothy Lee) and they never get enough credit for the independent thinking and analysis
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.)
As a Forbes employee, it bothers me that it appears that Forbes is the source of the misleading statistic rather than the outlet that published the analysis of its incoherence. We have a lot of really smart non-staff contributors (like Tim here, or my personal favorite Timothy Lee) and they never get enough credit for the independent thinking and analysis
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Floodgates fully open" But enough of a difference between the "modestly-controlled semi-open beta" and "fully opened" to see a a 1200% increase. The floodgates opened, the tide rushed in, the tide ran out. How is this a success for Google+?
Five times more users, that stayed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Floodgates fully open" But enough of a difference between the "modestly-controlled semi-open beta" and "fully opened" to see a a 1200% increase. The floodgates opened, the tide rushed in, the tide ran out. How is this a success for Google+?
Five times more users, that stayed.
http://socialstatistics.com/top/people/followers/0
G+ has no hope unless they can somehow break into the mainstream. It's not looking good right now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Five times more users, that stayed.
And yet still a decidedly non-mainstream audience: http://socialstatistics.com/top/people/followers/0 G+ has no hope unless they can somehow break into the mainstream. It's not looking good right now.