Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
"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.
Google+ grows 43% in June
181–190 of 190 posts
Re: Google+ grows 43% in June
#182Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure why you have been downvoted. What Google is doing is very much reminiscent of what got Microsoft into so much trouble. Using a monopoly in one area to extend into another.
what area does Google have a monopoly in? Surely not search, email, or the browser. MS wasn't just cross-marketing, it was bundling IE and setting it as default which was unfair competition given that getting netscape required a lot more work (knowledge of the alternative, pre-broadband download and install). That plus bullying OEMs into unfavorable contracts. It's a poor analogy because Google doesn't own the web pl…
Not when you have your entire team/company using gmail as a paid service. And when you factor in the part about the user being the product in social networking, basically you're forcing a paying customer of one product to become a revenue stream in another.
Monopolies find themselves in trouble over this all time, just like when a customer service agent from your credit card company or local energy conglomerate passes you onto a sales rep from a third party without your knowledge. It's how they scam the old, ignorant and uninformed.
tl;dr: you cannot change your bookmarks when you have no other options.
Re: Google+ grows 43% in June
#183Re: Google+ grows 43% in June
#184Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Wait, you have a G+ page, space, whatever automatically because you have a gmail account? No - you have to opt in. > Is there a way to get rid of that? If you want to disable G+ on your account (which will also remove your G+ profile), you can go to the "Google+" section of your Google account settings page ( https://www.google.com/settings/plus ). At the bottom there is a section labelled "Disable Google+".
Not for me. Nothing on that link even mentions google+. I have looked several times as I know I'm a dopey twit and often miss the blinding obvious, but I cant see it!! Regional difference?
To check - I just created a test gmail account and opted out of Google+. The Google+ section disappeared from my account settings page, which makes sense.
I don't work on the sign-up/opt-out flow side of things, but AFAIK the policy should be basically the same everywhere.
Re: Google+ grows 43% in June
#185Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Wait, you have a G+ page, space, whatever automatically because you have a gmail account? No - you have to opt in. > Is there a way to get rid of that? If you want to disable G+ on your account (which will also remove your G+ profile), you can go to the "Google+" section of your Google account settings page ( https://www.google.com/settings/plus ). At the bottom there is a section labelled "Disable Google+".
When the most obvious option for avoiding a popup each time one accesses Gmail is joining Google+, it's a bit misleading to call it opting in.
That is definitely not the behavior I see on my alternate Gmail account which is opted out of Google+.
Re: Google+ grows 43% in June
#186Earlier quoted context omitted.
The simplest answer: see work on abductive reasoning and hypothesis building. But, more fully, anecdotes aren't speculation. They're individual experience. They are not, of course, a statistically representative sample. That doesn't mean it's worthless – it's just not authoritative, but it is still some person's real experience (internet truthiness aside). The all-or nothing view of validity and knowledge is problema…
> Beyond that if it sparked discussion that either spurred the uncovering of real data or identified the requirement of further considerations, it's still of value. Which it didn't. We're not going to get better data until Google releases it, and Google is clearly not going to be doing so. > But, more fully, anecdotes aren't speculation. This claim would be okay if the anecdote was offered in a neutral environment. H…
Which it didn't. We're not going to get better data until Google releases it, and Google is clearly not going to be doing so.
It most certainly did spark discussion – I'd point out, somewhat ironically that you've been involved in one of them yourself – but there were a number of other replies. Some of which (mine included) addressed the data issue head-on.
> But, more fully, anecdotes aren't speculation. This claim would be okay if the anecdote was offered in a neutral environment.
There is no such thing as a neutral environment, so your premise fails from the start.
And, no, hits to a web page or unique visitor counts are not tantamount to real usage figures for a social media site. So the analogy to a TIOBE survey breaks down as well.
I disagree that they are useful here.
Well...
I said, explicitly that I was addressing the larger point of the other poster asking "Why is there the need to respond to data with anecdotes?" I started directly by pointing out the failing of "data" in this case – I find it to be an over-played trope to always say "anecdote BAD!" and yet people fall all over themselves if someone puts a shitty graph or table up, not stoping to consider what the "data" means and what possible failings it might have.
And that led me directly to the value of anecdotes in general terms – something you now say you agree with, so we'll call that point made.
Given that we agree about the general value, I think it's clear that in the face of crappy, blindly accepted data, a mere (and admittedly weak) piece of anecdotal observation does, in fact, point out that the emperor has no clothes – the data pointed to here is very, very lacking. The anecdote was weak, but sufficient for what should have been an obvious task of poking holes in questionable data.
Instead, you prove my point by digging in your heels even more because someone tossed out an anecdote.
Re: Google+ grows 43% in June
#187Re: Google+ grows 43% in June
#188Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lots of impressions and yet nobody but developers truly use it. MySpace isn't entirely dead are we forgetting that Justin Timberlake and Specific Media purchased the company not too long ago and have been working effortlessly in the background preparing to relaunch the website? If anyone should be worried it should be Google, Facebook, Tumblr and Pinterest because many seem to forget MySpace possess a pretty large ca…
I thought Myspace already relaunched? Or are they going to do a re-relaunch?
Re: Google+ grows 43% in June
#189Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lots of impressions and yet nobody but developers truly use it. MySpace isn't entirely dead are we forgetting that Justin Timberlake and Specific Media purchased the company not too long ago and have been working effortlessly in the background preparing to relaunch the website? If anyone should be worried it should be Google, Facebook, Tumblr and Pinterest because many seem to forget MySpace possess a pretty large ca…
working effortlessly in the background Not sure what you are trying to say here, but I'm pretty sure someone working effortlessly in the background isn't adding a lot of value. If anyone should be worried it should be Google, Facebook, Tumblr and Pinterest because many seem to forget MySpace Wow, there is a bold prediction. the landscape is going to be marginally different come 2013 A much less bold prediction, and s…
I don't get people like yourself who so easily criticise everything others say instead of asking questions.
Re: Google+ grows 43% in June
#190Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pinterest is totally not transferable to small screen mobile devices. Its main point is to offer many images at a glance, which is impossible on small screen.
Wow, and I always thought Pinterest was a smartphone app like Instagram. (Not interested in it so I never bothered checking)