Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google+ Loses 60% of Active Users

samzenpus posted about 3 years ago | from the grass-isn't-always-greener dept.

Facebook 519

First time accepted submitter tech4 writes "Despite users' curiosity around Google+, it seems like most Google+ users just wanted to see the platform before returning to Facebook. 'Google has lost over 60 per cent of its active users on its social network Google+, according to a report by Chitika Insights, raising questions about how well it is doing against its rival, Facebook. Despite the clear interest in an alternative to Facebook, it does not appear that the people joining are staying around and actively using the web site. Google's problem is not getting users in the first place, it seems, but rather keeping them after they have arrived. For now it appears that a lot of users are merely curious about Google+, but return to the tried and tested format of Facebook when the lustre fades. The problem is that Facebook is not going to rest on its laurels while Google attempts to get the advantage. Already it has added features inspired by Google+, particularly in terms of improving the transparency of its privacy options.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Is this thing on? Hello? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37665746)

The remaining 40% are people who talk to themselves.

We want something new but the same. (3, Interesting)

jellomizer (103300) | about 3 years ago | (#37665754)

Well whenever there is something new people try it out and realize it isn't like what they are use to and go back to the old way. Confident that they are not a close minded individual.

Re:We want something new but the same. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37665954)

Well whenever there is something new people try it out and realize it isn't like what they are use to and go back to the old way. Confident that they are not a close minded individual.

Nonetheless, Facebook is constantly changing the layout and features. This has nothing to do with what people are used to. Everybody's on Facebook already.

Re:We want something new but the same. (2)

TriZz (941893) | about 3 years ago | (#37666434)

This. If you need any indication of how much people hate change...just check the statuses after FB makes a change. People go nuts! People want what they're used to. The way FB made it simple was looping them in young and bright (college students). They became the evangelists of FB then spreading to the mainstream. Until everyone is on Google, nobody's going to Google - Even though I find it to be a superior product...I find myself using FB because that's where the people I care about are.

Re:We want something new but the same. (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about 3 years ago | (#37666058)

Well whenever there is something new people try it out and realize it isn't like what they are use to and go back to the old way. Confident that they are not a close minded individual.

It's an expected reaction. I'm certain the migration from MySpace to Facebook took time, too. Give Google+ time. Facebook is so idiotic I'm looking forward to not going there if I can help it, which is about the way I felt about MySpace.

Re:We want something new but the same. (2)

l_bratch (865693) | about 3 years ago | (#37666202)

My problem with Google+ is that it signs me in to all other Google pages too. I don't want to be logged into my search engine with my social network account, and it's too much hassle to sign in and out of Google+ each time I want to use it.

Re:We want something new but the same. (2)

asdf7890 (1518587) | about 3 years ago | (#37666410)

Also stories of being blocked from other Google services for doing something against policy on G+ puts quite a few people off.

Re:We want something new but the same. (2)

skids (119237) | about 3 years ago | (#37666430)

I hear that. Google's contagious login across different services is what discourages me from using most of their services (and I won't touch facebook with a 10 foot pole) But then, they probably do not care about people like me who aren't going to voluntarily provide them with a dossier on themselves.

Facebook has the users and the games. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37665768)

It's that simple. The value of a social network lies in having all your friends on it too, and that's true for Facebook but it isn't true for G+. Also, Facebook has the games people want to play, while G+ doesn't, so there just isn't much to attract anybody to G+ other than curiosity.

Re:Facebook has the users and the games. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37665946)

Facebook is also starting to get better games too. It isn't just like the stupid FarmVille stuff anymore, for example the recently launched The Sims Social [facebook.com] and Civilization World [facebook.com] are great games on their own. The best part of course being that they're solely designed to be played with other people. CivWorld is at least fresh in a way and allows up to ~200 players in the same game. All the civilizations are made of many players and the interaction within your civ is fun. It's in beta now, so they just need to iron out the interface issues. Sim Social seems to work good, and you can run it in full screen too.

The game companies are just now starting to understand how to make great social networking games, and of course all of them will be on Facebook as that is used by 99% of people and you can actually publish your game there (you can't on Google+ yet if you don't have deal with Google, which many don't).

Re:Facebook has the users and the games. (1)

Daetrin (576516) | about 3 years ago | (#37666148)

Actually the games on G+ are the main reasons i still visit the site regularly. I'm currently playing City of Wonder, Edgeworld, Dragons of Atlantis, and occasionally Zombie Lane. There are a couple more games that look interesting but that i haven't tried out because i can't afford any more time sucks of the same nature. A lot of my "friends" (ie City of Wonder allies) also play Cityville, but i am thoroughly sick of hearing about Zynga and don't really want to try any of their games.

Re:Facebook has the users and the games. (1)

Bucky24 (1943328) | about 3 years ago | (#37666386)

The value of a social network lies in having all your friends on it too, and that's true for Facebook but it isn't true for G+.

Seconded. Hardly any of my friends have switched over to G+, and the few who have don't really have much to say there.

Critical mass (5, Insightful)

SQLGuru (980662) | about 3 years ago | (#37665776)

The biggest problem is that those of us who want to move to Google+ can't convince enough of our less techy friends to move over. People go where people are. It isn't the best tech that wins but the largest market share. Had Google launched Plus before "everyone and their grandmother" were on Facebook, they would have had a shot, but it's sort of too late.

Re:Critical mass (1)

eyecorporations (1401035) | about 3 years ago | (#37665846)

Truth. Only one of my friends has completely ditched Facebook to move to G+, and he works for Google. Nobody else can be bothered to move since we are so entrenched in Facebook, and Facebook really isn't as bad as people try and make it out to be. When the big migration from Myspace to Facebook happened it was because Myspace was already terrible and getting worse.

Re:Critical mass (1)

jimpop (27817) | about 3 years ago | (#37666010)

I dumped FB months ago and I don't work for Google. Google+ is built around privacy. It means nothing when some analyst can't see what my friends and I are communicating about.

Re:Critical mass (4, Informative)

rcb1974 (654474) | about 3 years ago | (#37665848)

It is called the "Network Effect" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect [wikipedia.org] . It is the same reason why so many people use eBay.

Re:Critical mass (1)

rwa2 (4391) | about 3 years ago | (#37666316)

It is called the "Network Effect" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect [wikipedia.org] . It is the same reason why so many people use eBay.

... instead of ... ?

Amazon? Craiglist?

I would have attributed it to marketing / social consciousness penetration ("eBay" being the reference or punchline of jokes and the like).

Re:Critical mass (5, Interesting)

fastest fascist (1086001) | about 3 years ago | (#37665874)

There's simple inertia, for sure, but G+ also lacks basic features. Events stand out as the single biggest missing feature for me. I'd say being able to advertise and invite people to parties and events is the single biggest reason I use Facebook, and I can't see myself explaining why someone should use G+ as long as that is missing. Being able to post a link to Google Calendar just doesn't cut it.

Re:Critical mass (1)

bananaquackmoo (1204116) | about 3 years ago | (#37665942)

This. My friends and I only use Facebook for that reason anymore. The rest of the time we're on Google+

Re:Critical mass (4, Funny)

arth1 (260657) | about 3 years ago | (#37666144)

There's simple inertia, for sure, but G+ also lacks basic features.

Yeah, like being able to sign up.

Re:Critical mass (1)

OzPeter (195038) | about 3 years ago | (#37666198)

The biggest problem is that those of us who want to move to Google+ can't convince enough of our less techy friends to move over.

This sounds very familiar to me. Perhaps if I made a few editing changes:

The biggest problem is that those of us who want to move to Linux can't convince enough of our less techy friends to move over.

The biggest problem is that those of us who want to move to OSS can't convince enough of our less techy friends to move over.

The biggest problem is that those of us who want to move from Apple's walled garden can't convince enough of our less techy friends to move over.

Etc.
 
No matter what the subject, the argument/comments remain the same. While you can see why moving to google+ is a good idea, none of your less techy friends can see the perceived value of such a move, especially given that what they have now meets their needs (says me with an iMac and 2 ipods :-) ). To be successful Google+ needs to somehow get the message across that their service is what you need even though you don't know that yet. To carry on with the Apple meme, in the same way that Steve Jobs convinced an awful lot of people that they wanted Apple's products - even before they were released to the market. But I don't know how you do that with software.

Re:Critical mass (1)

Asic Eng (193332) | about 3 years ago | (#37666294)

those of us who want to move to Google+ can't convince enough of our less techy friends to move over

Google+ would also need to convince these techy folks that they should evangelize for the service. They lost me with the real name policy and the way they reacted to users' complaints about it.

Facebook has in principle the same policy, but they are relaxed about it, and if someone makes a page for their dog or uses their pen name, they aren't worried. Google should have learned that from them.

Re:Critical mass (1, Insightful)

bonch (38532) | about 3 years ago | (#37666384)

It isn't the best tech that wins but the largest market share.

You can tell yourself this if you want, but the fact is that Google+ doesn't offer anything over Facebook that people want. After all, this story says people did try Google+ but that they didn't stick around.

Re:Critical mass (1)

rolfwind (528248) | about 3 years ago | (#37666440)

The biggest problem is that those of us who want to move to Google+ can't convince enough of our less techy friends to move over. People go where people are. It isn't the best tech that wins but the largest market share. Had Google launched Plus before "everyone and their grandmother" were on Facebook, they would have had a shot, but it's sort of too late.

I don't have a large circle and it wouldn't be difficult to convince mine to move. But I'm stopped by the real name thing. Until that changes, I'm staying with FB.

Re:Critical mass (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 3 years ago | (#37666496)

The biggest problem is that those of us who want to move to Google+ can't convince enough of our less techy friends to move over.

I'm not sure that's the only problem. The people in my Google+ circles are largely my tech friends, but even they aren't posting on Google+ anymore - they're only posting stuff on Facebook. These guys did initially post on Google+ for a while, but the newness seems to have worn off.

The bottom line seems to be Google+ doesn't offer anything unique that people actually care about.

Google+ is not a social network. (5, Insightful)

derinax (93566) | about 3 years ago | (#37665782)

Google+ is "primarily an identity service."
--Eric Schmidt

I have no need for an identity service in my life. That's why I left.

Re:Google+ is not a social network. (1)

xiao_haozi (668360) | about 3 years ago | (#37665958)

So is most of the internet these days.

Re:Google+ is not a social network. (1)

mounthood (993037) | about 3 years ago | (#37666096)

Facebook is "primarily a market research tool." --me

Imagine if the phone companies or post office were allowed to listen/record/data mine all the conversations they had access to.

Re:Google+ is not a social network. (2)

TangoMargarine (1617195) | about 3 years ago | (#37666188)

And Google+ isn't? Hell, it tracks your "+1" whatever-it-is, which they seem to make no effort to hide is meant to profile you into a demographic, er, I mean, "enhance your search experience."

Re:Google+ is not a social network. (4, Insightful)

asdf7890 (1518587) | about 3 years ago | (#37666236)

... and why some people I know changed their minds about even looking. They want to socialise, not join a service specifically to be identified.

Duh. (2)

MrEricSir (398214) | about 3 years ago | (#37665788)

Gee, why wouldn't draconian policies, a confusingly half-baked interface and long load times be the path to a successful website?

Re:Duh. (1)

deinol (210478) | about 3 years ago | (#37665858)

Gee, why wouldn't draconian policies, a confusingly half-baked interface and long load times be the path to a successful website?

That certainly is the secret to Facebook's success.

And facebook has how many (1)

JAlexoi (1085785) | about 3 years ago | (#37665804)

How many active users does Facebook have? 12%? They have 800'000'000 accounts, congratulations... While actual user count is below 200'000'000.

Re:And facebook has how many (2)

onefriedrice (1171917) | about 3 years ago | (#37665890)

How many active users does Facebook have? 12%? They have 800'000'000 accounts, congratulations... While actual user count is below 200'000'000.

Only 200 million at most... what a dismal failure.

Re:And facebook has how many (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37665926)

In what country do they use apostrophes for the unit grouping?

Re:And facebook has how many (1)

swanzilla (1458281) | about 3 years ago | (#37666186)

In what country do they use apostrophes for the unit grouping?

Apapuastrophe New Guinea.

Re:And facebook has how many (1)

geogob (569250) | about 3 years ago | (#37666260)

The Americas, circa 1875.

Re:And facebook has how many (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37665968)

How many active users does Facebook have? 12%? They have 800'000'000 accounts, congratulations... While actual user count is below 200'000'000.

news flash: Facebook's published numbers are always active users.

Re:And facebook has how many (3, Interesting)

arth1 (260657) | about 3 years ago | (#37666100)

news flash: Facebook's published numbers are always active users.

With "active users" including those who have tried to deactivate their account but failed, because just accessing a site that sends your cookie to Facebook will stop the two week deactivation counter before they actually deactivate it.

It's harder to opt out of Facebook than it is to opt out of the Catholic Church. At least the RCC strikes you from their records when you die.

Re:And facebook has how many (1)

TangoMargarine (1617195) | about 3 years ago | (#37666238)

Call me an idiot (because I don't remember the specifics of the article) but do the "affiliate sites" or whatever that have the "facebook this" applets still track you if you logout and clear all your Internet cache & settings? (plus maybe one of those flash privacy plugins or three)

Not terribly surprising (5, Insightful)

Baloroth (2370816) | about 3 years ago | (#37665814)

Social networks tend to accumulate momentum, and fairly slowly. Facebook has a ton of it right now, and Google+ has very little. It's not just in number of users, but in the habits of those users. People are used to Facebook. It'll probably take a year or so for Google+ to start taking off. And you don't really "lose" users, once signed up people always have the option of returning, especially with most of those people already having Gmail accounts.

Also, many people were probably scared off by all the FUD surrounding the pseudonym issue. Once people calm down over that, usage will most likely rise. In any case, we won't know if G+ will succeed or not for at least a year, I would say. Anyone who thought Facebook would be abandoned overnight really needs to learn how the Internet works. It is fickle, yes, but it also has huge inertia, because of the number of people involved.

Re:Not terribly surprising (1)

rwa2 (4391) | about 3 years ago | (#37666420)

I think Google+ is doing all right.

I use Twitter (which crossposts to Facebook) when I have public announcements / spam to contribute and want maximum eyeballs.

I use Google+ for more directed messages towards certain people. To me it's a benefit that I'm not (yet) connected to all my coworkers and friends-of-friends' grandmothers. I'm sure this feeling of "knowing who my intended audience is" will fade in the future, and we'll move to yet something else, hopefully more hushmail-inspired.

Facebook paid me $5 to switch back. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37665816)

As part of their 'loyalty' program. Little do they know, I now have an account at each place.

Google+'s #1 problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37665818)

Sausagefest.

Re:Google+'s #1 problem (1)

Moheeheeko (1682914) | about 3 years ago | (#37665992)

What like in Vienna?

Idiot marketing scheme (5, Insightful)

aBaldrich (1692238) | about 3 years ago | (#37665844)

Gmail was very successful with it's invitation system: it was elitist, and everyone ached to get in. But putting an invitation system into G+ was devastating. If the objective of a Social Network is to get in touch with everyone at any time, it's a very idiot move to restrict the creation of new accounts for no reason. They basically released a product that was useless, because they made sure there would be nobody to communicate with.
This could be understandable if it was their first shot at social networking; but Wave had the same problem and they did not learn from it.

Re:Idiot marketing scheme (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37666122)

Gmail was very successful with it's invitation system: it was elitist, and everyone ached to get in. But putting an invitation system into G+ was devastating. If the objective of a Social Network is to get in touch with everyone at any time, it's a very idiot move to restrict the creation of new accounts for no reason. They basically released a product that was useless, because they made sure there would be nobody to communicate with.

This could be understandable if it was their first shot at social networking; but Wave had the same problem and they did not learn from it.

This is true. I happened to get an invite some months ago, yet there was no real reason for me to be there since nobody else I knew was there. I haven't really logged in since. Who even knew they opened it to the public?

Touting Google+ as an "identity service" was another blunder. I feel stalked and spied on enough on the net - I don't need even more reasons to feel uncomfortable.

Google+ for Apps (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37665850)

Still no Google+ for Apps users either... they should have just kept their mouths shut and waited until that was fixed because people who migrated to Google Apps are commonly influential people when it comes to this sort of thing. Business, schools and "tech-geek cousins" are out in the cold so far, and with that group of people not getting behind this effort I don't see Google+ working out... it's just like Wave basically.

I've been eager to try it out, but have been shut out since the start - and now my first hyped-up reaction to it all has just faded.
As it has for so many others...

It's Lonely Here (1)

rueger (210566) | about 3 years ago | (#37665852)

The fact remains that world + dog is still using Facebook. God knows why, but they seem to be willing to accept whatever Zuckerberg throws at them.

I honestly like G+, especially the mobile app, but practicality says that I also stay on Facebook.

needs improvement (1)

Improv (2467) | about 3 years ago | (#37665854)

They really need at least to implement groups and subscribable tags to posts if they want to compete.

Re:needs improvement (1)

xiao_haozi (668360) | about 3 years ago | (#37666046)

How are group setups all that different from g+ circles? Not being argumentative, but rather, curious....

Re:needs improvement (1)

Merk42 (1906718) | about 3 years ago | (#37666224)

If I make a Facebook group of "Slashdot posters" then everyone sees who is in that group and one member can message all the other members.
If I make a Google+ circle of "Slashdot posters" there isn't any inter communication between the people I put in there unless they make the connections themselves.

Re:needs improvement (1)

TangoMargarine (1617195) | about 3 years ago | (#37666372)

Google+ circles are rather one-way. You'd have to "circle" everybody in the "group" to be able to see updates from them, I think? And they'd have to "circle" you back.

I admit to trying it out... (3, Interesting)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | about 3 years ago | (#37665856)

But in the end, I quit just like I did with Facebook a year ago. Social Networking is fucking boring when the people being the most social are retards.

Re:I admit to trying it out... (1)

hduff (570443) | about 3 years ago | (#37666018)

But in the end, I quit just like I did with Facebook a year ago. Social Networking is fucking boring when the people being the most social are retards.

You are being too kind to many of them and too harsh on the truly retarded.

Re:I admit to trying it out... (5, Funny)

Stormthirst (66538) | about 3 years ago | (#37666454)

You need new friends

Still no Google+ for Google Apps users (3, Insightful)

idealego (32141) | about 3 years ago | (#37665866)

Many of the early adopters out there are Google Apps users, and yet we still can't use our Google Apps accounts with Google+. I've heard many good things about Google+ but am still waiting for Google to allow me to use it.

And I'm not interested in managing yet another account just to try out Google+.

Re:Still no Google+ for Google Apps users (2)

Ectospheno (724239) | about 3 years ago | (#37666446)

That is my problem as well. I pay Google money every month for a business account and yet we are the only group that can't make a profile or use Google+. It is almost like they don't really want to succeed.

How did they get these numbers? (2)

jDeepbeep (913892) | about 3 years ago | (#37665894)

Is this another "study" that doesn't include any clicks to the service from the black Google bar, or from within the service itself, or from mobile devices, or based on counting only public posts? Meh. Next.

I like Google+ (1)

nerdcodegeode (2368700) | about 3 years ago | (#37665920)

..But maybe I'm mistaken in thinking it actually allows me to control some amount of how the information I send to them gets used. Facebook has bothered me enough with their, "hey, guys! You can now turn off your own privacy protections in this shiny new way! It's so awesome, we will do it for you by default! All you have to do, if you don't like this, is reactivate your privacy protections after we've turned them off for you. It's that easy!" ..I could never trust them with the sorts of things I would only trust to closer friends.

vantage. Already it has added features inspired by (1)

unity100 (970058) | about 3 years ago | (#37665940)

Google+..... and i still understand shit. i am still using facebook but its privacy, setting options are nowhere near and understandable as google. and im a programmer that programs interfaces myself. go figure what the mom in idaho can do with those privacy options..

Google + is lacking (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37665960)

I think the biggest problem is Google expecting they can release a social network that has 60% of the features of facebook and expect people to stay. I think it is very promising, but my non tech friends continue to stick with facebook.

I just think its going to be super hard for google to win this battle without a blazing fast innovation. However they seem to have done this with Chrome. So maybe they can do this with Google+ ITs going to take focus and vision on their part to do this. Not a see what sticks approach.

I don't get it (1)

arth1 (260657) | about 3 years ago | (#37665974)

Why does it have to be an "either or" situation here? Wouldn't there be a point in the two providing interoperability, so people can use whatever they choose?

I mean, in the early days of telephony there were separate networks that didn't interoperate, and you had to have two or more phones on your wall to reach everyone who had a phone. Then they wisened up and figured out that they lost more on competing the hard way than they did on cooperating and competing at the same time.

Anyhow, Google+ wasn't even an option for me. I have gotten rid of my cell phone, so no TXT messages, and I'm too deaf to use a regular phone. So I can't even sign up. Fsck them.
Facebook, I tried twice, for a few weeks each time. Not my cup of tea. Friends of friends are people I don't give a fsck about; the perfect length for a chain in a network is one, not two.

It's the people... (1)

N0Man74 (1620447) | about 3 years ago | (#37665978)

The main complaints I see from people about Google+ has nothing to do with the site itself. It is that there aren't enough of their contacts on it.

Facebook is long past the early adopter stage. It has managed to capture the market of the vast majority, who are not like the early adopters, aren't looking for the next best thing, and are resistant to change. They are an anchor that keep many people on Facebook who would prefer to go to Google+ and take everyone with them.

They have to either appeal to the masses, or they have to convince the early adopters that there is value in using both for long enough that the more resistant users begin to slowly trickle in.

Don't piss off early adopters. (4, Insightful)

ZorinLynx (31751) | about 3 years ago | (#37665994)

My friends and I joined G+ rather quickly upon its inception. We started having fun on it. It was great.

Then some of our accounts started getting suspended because of violations of a questionable "names policy". The policy said to use the name that people know you by, and those are the names we all used. Apparently that wasn't good enough for Google, though; they suspended accounts anyway, even some with "real looking" Western style names. Once enough people got suspended, the remaining batch of folks that didn't got pissed off that their friends were kicked off the service, and they left voluntarily.

Their name policy was unclear, and people would even get their names approved only to get suspended again later on by a different overzealous admin. It was chaos.

I think the lesson to be learned here is don't alienate your users, ESPECIALLY early adopters. We can make or break a social network.

Facebook may require real names, but at least they were absolutely clear about this from the start. They were not wishy-washy, and didn't mass-suspend new accounts like G+ did.

I was annoyed (1)

hduff (570443) | about 3 years ago | (#37665998)

I was annoyed when they took away the +Hoyt option from my gmail.com interface and moved it to google.com.

And how to use some of the features is not obvious, at least to me.

A friend has commented that it appears to him that G+ is populated by Linux users and photography enthusiasts. Perhaps G+ is better targeted to specialty communities than grandmothers and the unwashed masses.

Third option: (1)

macraig (621737) | about 3 years ago | (#37666004)

Don't use either Facebook or Google+, and wait just a wee bit longer for Diaspora to exit beta.

Re:Third option: (1)

fastest fascist (1086001) | about 3 years ago | (#37666062)

Don't you mean "enter beta"?

COMMERCIAL ACCOUNTS (5, Insightful)

brunes69 (86786) | about 3 years ago | (#37666020)

The biggest problem Google+ has right now is how they have been dragging the ball on commercial accounts, meanwhile enforcing the real-name policy. It is an incredibly braindead move because you are effectively locking all companies out of participating on Google+, and thus they are unable to bring any users over with them.

A follow a lot of brands on twitter and simply can not do the same on G+. If everyone I followed on Twitter existed on G+ I probably would not use Twitter anymore, but sadly Google is ACTIVELY PREVENTING that from being the case due to this braindead policy enforcement.

Re:COMMERCIAL ACCOUNTS (1)

Merk42 (1906718) | about 3 years ago | (#37666476)

  1. 1. Enable commercial accounts
  2. 2. Create contest where you +1 commercial account to win a prize
  3. 3. Watch people sign up for Google+ (and with enough contests continue using it too)

Cross-posting/cross-reading (2)

swb (14022) | about 3 years ago | (#37666040)

I'd stick to Google+ instead of Facebook if I could read and respond to Facebook from Google+.

As it stands, nobody is active on Google+, so you go to Facebook to read everything and if you want to be active on Google+ you are essentially doing twice the work, three times the work if you are active on Twitter, which seems to have some kind of cross-posting feature for Facebook.

Re:Cross-posting/cross-reading (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37666220)

Whose fault is it if you can't do that? Facebook will never help its competition that way.

Re:Cross-posting/cross-reading (1)

isaachulvey (964254) | about 3 years ago | (#37666388)

I'd stick to Google+ instead of Facebook if I could read and respond to Facebook from Google+.

That was primarily my issue. I enjoy posting photos/tweeting about various events but when I have to share this information on 2-3 separate services, it becomes a chore. The beauty of Twitter is its simplicity.

The barrier to Google+ was that people want to be noticed. Nobody wants to post something and see no "Likes" or "+1's". On Facebook, when you have 1000+ friends, you're bound to get a few comments or "Likes" on a post. On Google+ when you have 65 connections, it's far less likely (and nobody checks it regularly to begin with).

Google+ just wasn't revolutionary enough to draw a crowd.

This is the one... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37666042)

...they should have called Google Wave.

not sure what it's for (1)

tuffy (10202) | about 3 years ago | (#37666050)

Maybe I'm a luddite, but I simply couldn't figure out what problems Google+ solves. The main area is labeled "Stream" and invites me to "Share what's new...", and that's about it. I gather it's similar to the mailing lists of old where people can sign up and receive common messages, but what's the subject? Myself? What I had for lunch? Maybe it's aimed at Facebook people who know what these things are for. But for me, a few use cases would go a long way.

In the meantime, I'll go on ignoring it.

Well (1)

Spad (470073) | about 3 years ago | (#37666072)

And as someone with an Apps account I *still* can't use the fucking thing. Frankly by the time Google bother to provide support for it, the service will be dead.

Re:Well (1)

12345Doug (706366) | about 3 years ago | (#37666204)

This is the primary reason I haven't jumped on board. I don't understand google's product development efforts that automatically exclude the very people that google is try to capture and own everything about. I mean if your a google app customer you've got a large portion of your data with google already it's mind boggling that they don't want to capture the rest of it.

Methodology? (4, Insightful)

Todd Knarr (15451) | about 3 years ago | (#37666082)

What methodology is this company using to measure activity on Google+? If it's public posts, they may have a serious systemic problem: people who use G+ specifically because it's so easy to not post publicly. My guess is the majority of G+ users are posting only to their circles, in which case there'd be a plethora of stuff that Chitika Insights simply won't see.

Calling it (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 3 years ago | (#37666116)

I've suspected this for a while and I'm now comfortable saying that tech4 is another Microsoft shill doing mostly negative marketing, similar to ge7, but he learned to post a better balance of personal stuff to throw off suspicion.

Re:Calling it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37666468)

I'm calling it. You are a known neck beard who sucks on his mommy's tits and thinks that means that you got laid. When your daddy dribbles into your mouth, do keep it to yourself.

Same mechanics seen before: Minidisc vs. Walkman (2)

gentryx (759438) | about 3 years ago | (#37666154)

...or Windows vs. OS/2 or Betamax vs. VHS. To roll up a saturated market it's not enough to be /slightly/ better. You need something revolutionary.

My advice (1)

koan (80826) | about 3 years ago | (#37666166)

Stay away from Facebook (frankly stay away from all social webs), if you can't do that at least give careful consideration to whom you friend and what you post or link to.
I look at people's post and I think "wow that's going to be harder to live down than a bad tattoo"

Lack of Good Text Chat Integration (1)

asdf7890 (1518587) | about 3 years ago | (#37666174)

Lack of obvious working text chat integration kills it for me, that has become the primary reason I use fb since MSN Messenger became increasingly unreliable in alternate clients like Pidgin (I've refused to use the abomination that is the official client for that IM network since they successfully blocked the tool that let me take all the junk off the interface). Yes there is a chat box there but no display of who is online right now and when a couple of us tried while we were definitely online it didn't seem to want to connect us that way. We don't care for web-cam and voice chat, face-to-face is what pubs are for, just working text chat. Yes there are plenty of other options, but as far as my non-techie contacts (i.e. most of my family, who are the main reason I'm willing to touch fb with a bargepole) fb is the "other option" of choice no matter how much they moan each time something changes.

No API apparently (1)

weave (48069) | about 3 years ago | (#37666258)

I post moblog pics to pixelpipe which reposts them to several other sites.I also use it to post status updates to several sites. They have no Google+ integration. They claim Google hasn't published the API to allow that yet. In short, that's a deal killer.

Google Businesses cannot use Google+ (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37666276)

Business users who use Google as a platform cannot use Google+. I mean if you have a gmail for business account, you cannot use Google+. It isn't surprising that it hasn't kicked off.

And remember! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37666286)

Remember too, ladies and gents, that there IS NO WAY to communicate with your friends online unless you use one of these privacy violating services like FB or G+. Seriously, there is no other way to do it - the internet just doesn't provide any forms of communication that are under your control, so without those companies, you cannot interact with your friends online.

If I could undo joining Facebook originally... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37666296)

I'd do it... Bottom line, I am highly resistant to allowing companies to use me for market research and analysis. I don't want to be fed ads, even if they're well targeted. After 15 years of being on the internet, I'm shocked at how sloppy I've been with my personal information, and it sickens me how unregulated information gathering is in the US.

I have already wiped personal info off of Facebook, and the only way I'd even consider joining Google+ is with a pseudonym.

oblij. (1)

Nocturnal Deviant (974688) | about 3 years ago | (#37666306)

Because it is bloody boring. Nobody joins, everybody is too ingrained into facebook, while i prefer google+ if none of my friends show any interest why should I? - an avid google user.

not a problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37666318)

> The problem is that Facebook is not going to rest on its laurels while Google attempts to get the advantage.

This is not a problem. This is why competition exists.

It's the damn nymwars (1)

Daetrin (576516) | about 3 years ago | (#37666362)

At least for me anyways. I have no interest in going on about my life on the internet in a way that's easily traceable to my real life identity. So i signed my "real" name account up for G+ when it became available and ended up using it for nothing other than playing games.

When they made G+ open to everyone i signed up the gmail account i use in association with my LJ and am currently using it to cross-post stuff from there so my friends who use G+ but don't read LJ anymore can stay in touch more easily. When and if Google's automated hunter bots crack down on me for having a "fake" name then i'll try to argue that the long history of my LJ and my use of the name on other sites make it a "real" identity. I've heard that's worked for a few people, but definitely not for everyone who tries it. If Google refuses to agree then i'll just close down G+ part of that profile and go back to posting stuff only on LJ and using G+ only for games.

Sure there are only a couple people who give a damn about what i've been doing, but i can't help but wonder if there's a cumulative effect. Google may have to decide at some point between having a niche product that acts as an "identity service" and having a more mainstream product where people can be who they want to be. Facebook already seems to have a lock on being the place to go when you want to find someone using their real name so Google may need to differentiate themselves.

checked out google+ (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37666400)

Umm... there was nothing there so I left. Everyone I know is on facebook but I don't think that's the problem. I think the problem is google+ is nothing special. I have a gmail account. I drooled over one before I got my first... why? because it was free and the amount of room was gigantic, unheard of. If google+ wants to compete with facebook they need a draw like that, something so unheard of in social networking that people drool over having an account. I stick with gmail now because I don't think google is going anywhere and the service works well for me so far. That's why I'd stick with google+ but not until they give me a reason that it's better than facebook.

Dishonest as fuck (5, Insightful)

artor3 (1344997) | about 3 years ago | (#37666404)

Google+ had its numbers go up by 1200% upon opening to the public. Of those new users, 40% stuck around, for a net increase of 480%. Slashdot's headline? "Google+ user base down 60%! It must be dying!" I've seen powerdrills with less spin.

For me using my real name was a deal breaker (1)

c.r.o.c.o (123083) | about 3 years ago | (#37666406)

I have used a shortened version of my real name in the past, including on Facebook, but generally use pseudonyms for random sites. I simply refuse to be forced to use my full name, especially when it comes to personally identifiable information.

The reasoning is very simple. If I have a FB or G+ account under a pseudonym, a potential employer or a business partner will never find the potentially questionable material associated with my profile. However my friends will know it really is me, and the social networking continues unhindered.

It's not even a matter of being careful what you upload. Somebody, somewhere will have a picture or a video of you behaving like a jackass, they will post it, tag you in it, and the rest is history.

Another huge issue I had with the real name requirement is the banning of pseudonym accounts which leads to losing ALL access to google services associated with them. Getting banned from G+ is fine with me, but losing the gmail account will cause real issues.

The Facebook? (1)

tinkerton (199273) | about 3 years ago | (#37666408)

Is the Facebook one of those social people thingies? Nope, not using it.

I like having fewer people on + (1)

Fujisawa Sensei (207127) | about 3 years ago | (#37666448)

I like having fewer people on +; right now its the geeks and my friends. As every fucking associate I have in the universe.

Real name policy: harakiri Google style (1)

jotaeleemeese (303437) | about 3 years ago | (#37666490)

Here in /. we know that there are lots of dumb people (trolls, agitators, provocateurs, xenophobes, misogynists, racists, etc) hiding behind pseudonyms or anonimity (which /. manages elegantly by means of the moderation system).

The compensation, and why this website survives against all the odds, is that people with real insight in all manner of topics can come here, talk to their heart's content safe in the relative security of a nickname that will protect them from the nastiest aspects of the net, and the rest of us will be able to participate and reply to them.

But Google (I would say Schmidt, he is the guy that does not get the Internet after all) decided that they can bully users into open themselves to abuse and intrusion only to please the formerly "do no evil" juggernaut.

Well, guess what, that many early adopters, most of whom would not be ever caught close to their real names on the net for obvious reasons (most of them non malicious) decided that Google could keep their intrusive toy (ahem) all to themselves.

So in one quick stroke, Google scared away some of the most networked people in the planet and annoyed a good deal of them, who have been begging for a privacy respecting option to Facebook.

I am over googled, and now am starting a thorough de-googlefication program: they warned me my G+ account would be suspended, I decided to close it instead.

It is very easy to verify many people are annoyed by this, it is one of those blunders of Microsoftian proportions, the kind that earns you lots of bad will and people that vow to fight your influence at every step you take.

G+ created a problem Google didn't have: Google haters. I hope they enjoy it.

Location data (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37666494)

I tried to put a login for google+ onto my smartphone, but it seems you can't do that without checking a box that says I allow them to use my location data. I don't necessarily want my location data shared, even with my friends. So, no google+ on my smartphone.

The first social network to ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37666518)

Implement a system where people can share photos and HD video securely and privately with their friends and family members that they know in real life will win (without letting a company sell users private info).

Oh wait, I've heard this so often I actually did it, I made a site exactly like that.
truefriender [truefriender.com]

Google screwed up with the limited test phase... (2)

joocemann (1273720) | about 3 years ago | (#37666524)

This is what happened for many people:

Google+ had a restricted/limited test phase, but the public thought they might get to be part of it. The public is already on facebook.
-The public tried to get in, only to be told "you're not invited yet.. go dig around for a while in your friends to see if one of them can invite you"
-The public then either tried really hard to find someone to invite them, only to discover nobody else is on G+ because of the limited entry... or they never got into the 'club' and said "Meh, this isn't worth my effort, I'm already of facebook and all my friends are there anyway".

One should note that the shift from myspace to facebook was largely due to how myspace mismanaged its changes/upgrades and became a horrid, error-prone, piece of crap full of spam, fake accounts, and outright trashy implementation. And while facebook is beginning to make those same mistakes, it is not nearly as bad and the difference between facebook and G+ is minimal.

I'm on G+, and I would use it if I had friends on there. Nobody uses it because it was hard to get into, and so I don't use it but maybe once a month, only to find that hardly anything has been posted there. And the friends I do have on G+, just like me, are waiting for the big exodus from FB to occur, while keeping their primary foot still on FB territory.

FB will have to make a bigtime mistake to drive people away, or G+ will have to make a bigtime promotional drive to get people in (and not make the mistake of acting like its a secret club and blocking entry... if your servers can't handle everyone, then don't hope everyone comes or upgrade your server dedication)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?