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!

Users Spend More Time On Myspace Than Google+

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the never-underestimate-the-power-of-shiny-flashing-objects dept.

Social Networks 310

pigrabbitbear writes "Google is boasting that more than 90 million people have signed up for its Google+. Those are pretty impressive numbers. I mean, if you had 90 million people at your disposal, you could do anything. You'd rule the Internet. Except there's one little problem: No one is using the site. The Wall Street Journal has the hard, unfiltered truth: According to comScore numbers, users spent an average of 3 minutes on G+ in the entire month of January. Facebook users spent 405 minutes, or nearly 7 hours, on the site. People managed to find 17 minutes to spare to add connections on LinkedIn. Heck, even Myspace users — many of whom are probably ghost accounts — surfed for eight minutes over the month."

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

LOL ... (3, Interesting)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 2 years ago | (#39188597)

Wow, nobody has posted yet. Apparently nobody cares about Google + enough to even try for a first post.

I know I've seen no incentive whatsoever to use Google+, and I have a gmail account that I've had for years which doesn't correspond to a real name -- so their whole "thou shalt have a real name" as an ID thing is a non-starter for me.

In all honesty, I'm not even sure of what Google + is meant to be used for, or why I'd even care.

Re:LOL ... (5, Funny)

WillgasM (1646719) | more than 2 years ago | (#39188675)

G+ is used solely for following Wil Wheaton and Felicia Day when they have something to say beyond Twitter's 140 characters. They both have FB accounts now, however, so I imagine G+ will soon fade out of existence.

Re:LOL ... (1, Insightful)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 2 years ago | (#39188709)

Google isn't going to let its foray into the most profitable market... possibly ever (sales of personal information of others), just fade off into obscurity.

Personally, I wish they'd all go away. Failing that, the more competition the better.

Re:LOL ... (5, Funny)

WillgasM (1646719) | more than 2 years ago | (#39188751)

You should add me on Google Wave then.

Re:LOL ... (1)

Spiridios (2406474) | more than 2 years ago | (#39188917)

I'll just Buzz [wikipedia.org] about it.

Re:LOL ... (5, Interesting)

dward90 (1813520) | more than 2 years ago | (#39188809)

Google isn't going to let its foray into the most profitable market... possibly ever (sales of personal information of others), just fade off into obscurity.

Can you provide a single example where Google has ever sold personal information to any third party ever? I get that privacy is important and Google might be pushing the boundaries on it, but spreading FUD like this isn't helping your cause.

Re:LOL ... (4, Interesting)

SomePgmr (2021234) | more than 2 years ago | (#39189021)

Of course not, and neither does Facebook or they wouldn't be worth anything.

Which brings it all back to the merits of the two services to the end users. I'm sorry to say it, but Facebook is very well done and already has everyone you know, while G+ brings nothing to the table.

On rare occasions I pull G+ up, and it's the same thing... people I don't know saying crap I don't care about, and no obvious way to change that. I'd wager that's where the 3 minute figure comes from... people occasionally looking to see if it sucks less.

So why would I use it? And why isn't anyone at Google asking themselves that question?

evil and EVIL (5, Insightful)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 2 years ago | (#39189199)

Which brings it all back to the merits of the two services to the end users.

Well, that's about a zero for G+, by the looks of things. However, FB is unequivocally heavily into negative territory in terms of merit to end users (even attempting to track non-users?). This is one reason why my router blocks all access to all of FB's IP ranges, thus rendering all those "like" buttons polluting other pages utterly harmless. These stupid "like" buttons are shown, but it's actually impressive or astonishing how much other stuff around the web is replaced by "denied" messages by the router.

I've an open mind about Google, but Facebook is definitely at the wrong end of the good-evil axis.

Re:LOL ... (4, Insightful)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 2 years ago | (#39189061)

Google and Facebook are more about renting your personal information - as in, here, let us send this ad to someone whose personal information matches your desired profile. No way they're going to sell their core business. :)

Re:LOL ... (2, Interesting)

samkass (174571) | more than 2 years ago | (#39189165)

Google isn't going to let its foray into the most profitable market... possibly ever (sales of personal information of others), just fade off into obscurity.

Can you provide a single example where Google has ever sold personal information to any third party ever? I get that privacy is important and Google might be pushing the boundaries on it, but spreading FUD like this isn't helping your cause.

They don't sell the data directly, they sell *you* as targets to advertisers (96% of their revenue). And when Google controls your search, email, IM, social, video, phone, map, documents, and site analytics, them "selling" the information to different business areas within Google is just as bad. Facebook may have had their privacy issues in the past, but they're just one company that does one site (and does it well). With Google's new anti-privacy policy, they are explicitly reserving the right to take all that information and do whatever they want with it internally.

Re:LOL ... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39188705)

This reminds me of an image my boss has taped to her desk. (http://www.geek.com/articles/geek-cetera/social-media-explained-with-donuts-20120210/)
If you don't wan to click, it says:
Social Media Explained
Twitter: I'm eating a #donut
Facebook: I Like donuts
Foursquare: This is where I eat donuts
Instagram: Here's a vintage photo of my donut
YouTube: Here I am eating a donut
Pinterest: Here's a donut recipe
Last FM: Now Listening to "Donuts"
G+: I'm a Google employee who eats donuts.

Re:LOL ... (1)

NeoNormal (594362) | more than 2 years ago | (#39188765)

I posted that image on Google+.

Re:LOL ... (2)

who_stole_my_kidneys (1956012) | more than 2 years ago | (#39189107)

yeah, but i saw it on facebook a week earlier :-P

Re:LOL ... (5, Interesting)

P-niiice (1703362) | more than 2 years ago | (#39188821)

I agreed, there was no reason to use Google + - but I clicked in this week and people are actually posting and they are people I care about because my list isn't bloated.

So I'm going to start looking at plus now. I stopped using Facebook months ago.

Re:LOL ... (5, Insightful)

Riceballsan (816702) | more than 2 years ago | (#39188889)

Seconded here. There is 1/8th as much content on my G+ then there ever was on facebook. However that 1/8th is actually things that I either find amusing, actual posts by the friends I give a darn about (compared to 80% of my facebook contacts... which were mostly people I barely knew in person that looked me up and added me, and it was less work to add them then to explain why I don't want to add someone.

Are you a shill? Re:LOL ... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39188931)

Your post was sent to this discussion 2 minutes after the story was posted.

That means that, unless you already had your post pre-written and ready to send, you've spent, at best, around a minute writing it. This means that you arrived at your inflamatory conclusion, at best, less than a minute after the story was shown to the world.

So, are you one of those shills employed to criticise google at every post?

Re:LOL ... (5, Interesting)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#39189007)

My friends and I use G+, but not the way people use Facebook. It's more like an enhanced group email. We always used to have these email chains where someone would send out something interesting to everyone on the list, and people would just reply-all to that, either chatting or planning a party or whatever. Now we do the same thing on G+ since it makes it a bit easier. But I'd never "hang out" on the site (nor do I understand why people hang out on Facebook). I just log in from my phone, see if anything's happening, maybe fire off a reply, and log back off.

Re:LOL ... (1)

forkfail (228161) | more than 2 years ago | (#39189043)

Does posting this count against my three minutes?

I *liked* G+... but they are driving me away (5, Interesting)

cybersquid (24605) | more than 2 years ago | (#39189087)

Specifically, google emailed me last night that they will suspend my account if I don't use me real name.

Apparently their desire for new users is less than their need to be dicks to the ones they have.

Too bad. I liked G+.

Re:LOL ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39189109)

'Wow, nobody has posted yet. Apparently nobody cares about Google + enough to even try for a first post.'

It's dead, Jim.

Sorry, we were busy on G+ (4, Insightful)

Kamiza Ikioi (893310) | more than 2 years ago | (#39189169)

Sorry, we were too busy on G+ to worry about first post....

"The Wall Street Journal has the hard, unfiltered truth"

Yeah, except it doesn't count mobile users. G+ is mostly cutting edge geeks who are using the app at least as much as the website. It doesn't define which users it is counting. Is this counting active users, signed up and never returned users, who? Considering anyone with a Google account now has a G+ account, the numbers can easily be far off what the active user numbers would be. If they were testing me, and testing mobile, I'd easily clock in about 8 hours average a day (always checking on phone, commenting in discussions, on tablet, on at work, etc.)

Also, many of us geeks got family to join. We all but boycott Facebook, so they have to log in every once in a while just to check on us, but never interact.

From personal experience, I have 1000+ followers, follow 200+, and it take me more than 3 minutes a day just to get through the first page of posts. Also, I hyper share with G+, because it's people I share interests, not genes, with.

Compared to Slashdot: I've posted more interesting stories than Slashdot had today. I've read more interesting stories separately as well. I've had better discussions that on Slashdot. Millions of users, only a couple thousand posts per day... Maybe the Slashdot crowd shouldn't be throwing stones. Reading all the blurbs, I could easily fit Slashdot into 3 minutes a day or less.

Besides, many posted this story before it was on Slashdot. Became old news quick, already fully parsed, dissected, and discussed. Glad to see /. catch up to G+, and then poo-poo it, lol.

Re:LOL ... (1)

samkass (174571) | more than 2 years ago | (#39189211)

I cancelled my G+ account today. The few things that get posted there aren't worth Google's new privacy policy.

First (0)

CTU (1844100) | more than 2 years ago | (#39188599)

Someone had to and I got one in

Re:First (1)

CSMoran (1577071) | more than 2 years ago | (#39188623)

One what?

Re:First (1)

Whalou (721698) | more than 2 years ago | (#39188869)

One what?

Failed attempt at a first post.

No reason to use it? (5, Insightful)

Immostlyharmless (1311531) | more than 2 years ago | (#39188611)

Simple reason is that facebook is already a working hub for all of my friends, there are those who have switched to google plus, but as long as all my friends, all my co-workers and all of my family, is already in one place? Why go someplace else? Google needs to blow some capital to get people to move. Offer incentives to switch, that's how business works.

Re:No reason to use it? (4, Interesting)

Tharsman (1364603) | more than 2 years ago | (#39188677)

Only reason I find to use a social network other than Facebook is privacy concerns. But lets be honest, Google is not the first company you look at when you ask yourself "who will take my privacy more seriously?"

Only alternative for social networking, in my eyes, is Twitter since (to my knowledge, they may be very good at hiding it) they only care about my posts and hash tags, not about tracking my every move in the web.

Re:No reason to use it? (1)

madison_hotel (2466834) | more than 2 years ago | (#39189045)

Perhaps not moves in the web, but apparently G. Van Rossum has had some privacy problems [twitter.com] related to his contacts.

Re:No reason to use it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39188707)

Additionally I believe they started forcing people to sign up for Google+ when they sign up for gmail etc didn't they?

If so, congrats. That's why they have such a high number of people officially signed up for the service. I'd have to wonder if even half of them know what Google+ is.

Re:No reason to use it? (3, Interesting)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#39188713)

Yep, users are locked into Facebook nice and tight, tighter than any lock-in any OS ever had because there is zero compatibility of any kind between Facebook and G+...or anything else for that matter. At least most of your files would work with different apps on different OSes.

Users will get off of Facebook once something much better comes along and Facebook stagnates, the same thing that got people off of MySpace and onto Facebook in the first place, and the same with Geocities before that...

Re:No reason to use it? (3, Interesting)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#39188853)

I've been to MySpace more in the last week than G+. Actually it's been a while since I went to G+, although I may use it for video conferencing with my daughter in Ohio if she ever gets her smartphone to work with it.

Why have I been to MySpace? I've been re-ripping CDs, and quite a few are from local indie bands that aren't on wikipedia or Amazon, and the only place I can find cover art for the rips is MySpace.

Re:No reason to use it? (4, Insightful)

Riceballsan (816702) | more than 2 years ago | (#39188967)

Actually i think the myspace stagnation isn't quite as true as people think. Facebook overtook myspace, because they competed in a different arena and gathered a different crowd. Facebook timed it so that they didn't have to focus on converting myspace's X million users, they grabbed a few million people that did not use social networking and pulled them in first, then once facebooks userbase outgrew myspace, then they got people to switch.

Re:No reason to use it? (5, Funny)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 2 years ago | (#39188729)

Google should advertise that if you switch to G+, your grandmother, talkative aunt, and your mother probably wont find you again for at least another year or two.

Re:No reason to use it? (4, Interesting)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#39188957)

Seriously that might work. The journalist / media assumption is social media is only grannie auntie and the creep from middle school talking about nothing. Its even embedded into the language as "friend" and "friending". G+ seems to be going another direction into something like world wide/online/hobby clubs...

Re:No reason to use it? (2)

swillden (191260) | more than 2 years ago | (#39189093)

Google should advertise that if you switch to G+, your grandmother, talkative aunt, and your mother probably wont find you again for at least another year or two.

Heh. Even better, when your grandmother, talkative aunt and mother do find Google+, you can add them to your "ignore" circle, which is one on which you've set the "how much to show" slider to "show nothing". Then they'll get a nice message saying that you've circled them but you'll never see any of their posts unless you specifically go look. Oh, and they'll never see your non-public posts, either.

Re:No reason to use it? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39188731)

Yeah. I even trust Facebook much, much less than I trust Google because I know they've made backdoor deals with companies to help each other invade my privacy from what were supposed to be trusted accounts (e.g., one of my email services), but I still just never use Google+ because there's no momentum to it at all and no compelling reason for friends to switch. (Zuckerberg and Facebook being only slightly less scummy than Zynga isn't that compelling to most people. They just want to post pictures 'n stuff.)

Re:No reason to use it? (1)

Danathar (267989) | more than 2 years ago | (#39188781)

There is an easy way to get people to move. When somebody asks and wants to see your photos, streams, etc and they ask you to stick it on facebook you simply say "sorry, I don't use facebook. I use Google Plus".

If they want to see your stuff then they will make the effort to see it.

This is how I got my family to use (or at least try) google plus. Sure, they use facebook. I don't.

If on the other hand it's IMPORTANT to GET people to see stuff they did not ask you to see then you have to go the other way.

Re:No reason to use it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39188839)

This is also why practically everyone is still using MSN in Canada. Nobody is going to stop using it when their friends and contacts are still using it.

Re:No reason to use it? (4, Interesting)

brunes69 (86786) | more than 2 years ago | (#39188881)

The incentive for me is to have proper control of my privacy settings and sane sharing defaults. Zuckerberg's whole "everyone should share their whole lives with the world" mantra just does not fit with me and that is why Facebook does not fit with me. I had 200+ friends on facebook and only a tiny fraction of that on G+ - yet I spend way more time on G+ than I ever did on Facebook.

Re:No reason to use it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39188893)

>> but as long as all my friends, all my co-workers and all of my family, is already in one place? Why go someplace else?

If all your friends, co-workers, and family all jumped off a bridge, would you do that too? I thought not deary.

Love, Mom

Re:No reason to use it? (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 2 years ago | (#39189145)

>> but as long as all my friends, all my co-workers and all of my family, is already in one place? Why go someplace else?

If all your friends, co-workers, and family all jumped off a bridge, would you do that too? I thought not deary.

Love, Mom

Frell yeah, Mom! [wikipedia.org]

Re:No reason to use it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39189099)

I switched to google plus because I was sick of fb. Then I realised I never used it because ... I was sick of fb.

Re:No reason to use it? (1)

Riceballsan (816702) | more than 2 years ago | (#39189125)

What capital or incentives can google throw? They did launch with several features that facebook lacked (or at least had buried so deep they may as well have lacked them for all practical purposes). The problem... google isn't a patent troll, virtually every feature they focused on, was mimiced by facebook within days. I do have to say though google's hangouts are extremely useful, 5 person video chats works wonders for my D&D games.

Music (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39188615)

Maybe because many inde group sitll uses myspace as a platform to stream music... ?

Re:Music (1)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 2 years ago | (#39188743)

Stream it to whom?

Wait (1)

eternaldoctorwho (2563923) | more than 2 years ago | (#39188621)

What is MySpace?

(j/k)

Re:Wait (1)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#39188635)

Don't they mean My________?

Re:Wait (1)

macraig (621737) | more than 2 years ago | (#39188717)

Nope.

My .

Re:Wait (3, Funny)

Allicorn (175921) | more than 2 years ago | (#39189153)

That can't be right. I used to use MySpace and it used to break all the time!

Re:Wait (1)

macraig (621737) | more than 2 years ago | (#39189231)

I should have ended with </sarcasm>, I guess?

nice. (5, Insightful)

jzuccaro (1234644) | more than 2 years ago | (#39188653)

Nice, now get rid of it and return the + operator to the search engine please.

Re:nice. (1)

game kid (805301) | more than 2 years ago | (#39188683)

+1

Re:nice. (5, Interesting)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 2 years ago | (#39189015)

Yes! I've had a damn hard time searching for stuff with google lately because it ignores Anthony but the first three search words, so I have to order my search terms in different ways. It's almost as bad as using five search engines back in the day. While we're at it, can there be a check box to allow searching with punctuation? That's actually important to some searches.

Re:nice. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39189195)

What did Anthony do to deserve such treatment?

Re:nice. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39189237)

duckduckgo is the new hotness for technical and precise search. It might not have the coverage and speed of Google, but saves you the query jujitsu you speak of.

  http:/duckduckgo.com/

Re:nice. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39189151)

You're looking for the "verbatim" option. On the search results page, click on "More search tools" on the left. Wait for the page to load. Then, click the "verbatim" option from the same area. Wait for the page to load. Now, view the search results.

This is the only way to get any useful results from google, if you have more than 3 words in your search query.

Re:nice. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39189167)

Agreed, those fucking idiots screwed with their biggest asset just so they can play the social networking game.

Bring back the + so we don't have to rely on the annoyance of speechmarks.

google does one thing... (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39188659)

...it leverages the dominant position it gained from its PageRank search system (which, like all good things, was done in an academic environment and then closed for profit) during the dotcom boom to sell eyeballs to increasingly desperate advertisers across the world.

Everything else is as any other company would achieve, if it had the cash to buy reasonable talent and buy out any company which might correspond to its interests. But there are no stars in Google.

Kinda reminds us of that M... place. You know, the one with the HILARIOUS borg icon on /. for so long, because MS was so interested in merging your knowledge with its o.. oh.

that's on purpose (5, Interesting)

Unordained (262962) | more than 2 years ago | (#39188661)

G+ fits my desire for social-networking perfectly: I hardly have to spend any time on it to get what I want out of it. I spend no time whatsoever on the other systems, because they're more cumbersome and demand my time in ways I'm not comfortable with. G+ is the only system that lets me contribute the little amount of time I'm willing to contribute, without being useless. So maybe its users *do* use it for fewer minutes a month -- but isn't that okay? Is there not a market for that? Lots of people probably watch crappy TV -- should we judge other channels based on the fact that they have a few, well-targeted shows, that a segment of the population watches (but nothing else)? Maybe it should be our goal to use these systems less, not more! In that respect, G+ represents an increase in efficiency -- which is a driver of GNP. So it's a good thing. Go G+!

Re:that's on purpose (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39188775)

I agree. I rarely use it, but when I do, it's indispensable. Top use: pushing out notifications to various circles. I know that the people in these circles get the information, and if it's important enough for them to comment, they do. Unlike most FB users I know, I'm not that terribly self-involved, and so don't feel the need to keep the world apprised of all of my actions. I see that G+ fits a completely different niche than FB, and that's completely fine with me.

Re:that's on purpose (3, Insightful)

Zemplar (764598) | more than 2 years ago | (#39188843)

G+ fits my desire for social-networking perfectly: I hardly have to spend any time on it to get what I want out of it. I spend no time whatsoever on the other systems, because they're more cumbersome and demand my time in ways I'm not comfortable with. G+ is the only system that lets me contribute the little amount of time I'm willing to contribute, without being useless. So maybe its users *do* use it for fewer minutes a month -- but isn't that okay? Is there not a market for that? Lots of people probably watch crappy TV -- should we judge other channels based on the fact that they have a few, well-targeted shows, that a segment of the population watches (but nothing else)? Maybe it should be our goal to use these systems less, not more! In that respect, G+ represents an increase in efficiency -- which is a driver of GNP. So it's a good thing. Go G+!

Right on. Just measuring time spent on something doesn't determine it's value, that's the wrong metric.

Re:that's on purpose (3, Interesting)

Tharsman (1364603) | more than 2 years ago | (#39188861)

So maybe its users *do* use it for fewer minutes a month -- but isn't that okay? Is there not a market for that?

Not really. Social networks are not cheap to run, and they barely can gain any ad revenue if all you do is go in and out once a day.

I know Qudora is not the best source of info but this Q&A seems to have some logic behind it (and the numbers match):

http://www.quora.com/How-much-money-does-Facebook-make-from-a-single-user-using-the-site-for-1-hour [quora.com]
How much money does Facebook make from a single user using the site for 1 hour?
4 cents/user per hour of usage, with the following assumptions:
$2b in revenue in 2010, 540m unique monthly users, average usage of 7 hours per month per user.

IF we are talking the same profit ratios, this means 90 million users * (3/60) * 4c = 180,000 a month.

Thats absolutely nothing for a company like Google.

Also keep in mind Facebook is capitalizing heavily on in-game currency for games like FarmVille, something I dont think Google is doing, so the average may be even lower than 4 cents for Google.
This means that G+ is running at..

Re:that's on purpose (1)

jwijnands (2313022) | more than 2 years ago | (#39188897)

Yeah... on facebook a good adblock plugin is a must. And even then it's constantly apps asking for permission. Plus, on google I get some response from my 3200+ followers. (no clue where they came from!)

Re:that's on purpose (2)

painandgreed (692585) | more than 2 years ago | (#39189143)

G+ fits my desire for social-networking perfectly:...

Not for me nor my friends. Until G+ integrates with my Gmail calendar so I can organize events, it's a non-starter. Even friends of mine who hate FB have had to go back to it because all social activity and events are being planned and have invitations from there. I'm sort of surprised that it didn't launch with that feature as they already include non Gmail emails into circles so even nonG+ people could be included to events and respond.

facebook will go the way of myspace (2, Insightful)

Dan667 (564390) | more than 2 years ago | (#39188663)

the problem with social networking is the is very low barrier to entry. If someone comes up with a shiny new widget then people will dump facebook just like they dumped myspace.

Re:facebook will go the way of myspace (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39188723)

If someone comes up with a shiny new widget then people will dump facebook just like they dumped myspace.

That maybe but that shiny new widget isn't google+.

Re:facebook will go the way of myspace (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39189233)

True... sort of. Myspace spawned a thousand (at least) knock-off me-too copy social networking sites. I'm sure FB has spawned many many wannabee copies. The fact that I couldn't name one of them - not that I'm actively looking, either, nor would I ever care to - means that no one really uses them. The also-ran status of Ning - a network of social networks essentially, none done particularly well - means that while the barrier to entry may indeed be low, the barrier to visibility is almost impossibly high. Most social networks now are working on FB's fringes, leveraging it for exposure, frequently through niches like what is effectively photo-sharing - i.e, Pinterest, Path, Tumblr, Instagram, etc - all of which have had some success and are ultimately looking to both be webbed into FB but also be de-coupled from it.

I am sure some day FB will disappear. Maybe 5 years, maybe ten. For now it's got so much momentum that there's nothing inevitable about its failure. When you're dealing with the economies of scale FB and the unprecedented size it has means it has a lot of directions it can go in. Even Myspace's status as kind of the ghetto of the social networking world means it still has some use to some people. It's almost dead, just not completely and it still has some meat on the carcass for a certain audience.

Can't say that I'm bothered either way (0)

bytesex (112972) | more than 2 years ago | (#39188667)

Whichever pleasure website is today's flavour of the month tends to leave me stone-cold.

What are they doing? (2, Funny)

Monoman (8745) | more than 2 years ago | (#39188679)

3 minutes on G+ because they like it but most of their friends on family are still using Facebook. However, MySpace is still getting 7 hours per user each month because they still can't figure out how to cancel their account. ... it really is that hard for some folks. ;-)

Re:What are they doing? (1)

Tharsman (1364603) | more than 2 years ago | (#39188927)

Myspace users spend 8 minutes a month, not 7 hours. Facebook users spend 7 hours.

Optimistic reading of the stats (2)

sideslash (1865434) | more than 2 years ago | (#39188711)

So an optimist might say that maybe the more intelligent and self disciplined of the population have switched to G+, and are spending less time there because they use it intelligently, i.e. a lot less. It turns out that nobody cares that you cleaned the lint from between your toes, and also that Facebook, G+, and other social networking sites are parasitic honeypots designed to turn your private life into an advertising asset. So, good for G+ users!

A pessimist would say that G+ just hasn't caught on much -- and they would probably be right.

Niche market (4, Interesting)

sqrt(2) (786011) | more than 2 years ago | (#39188733)

Google could do well if they pivoted to the niche market of academics, science, engineering, technology, and journalists. Some of the discussions on Google+ for those areas of interest are actually very high quality. Certainly better than anything you get on Facebook.

It's highly subjective and a matter of personal taste, but I find the interface and presentation of Google+ to be superb, it really blows FB out of the water. I can't stand how cluttered and busy it's become while G+ is clean and just feels right. The "circles" metaphor and interface is a pretty good step forward for social networking, it doesn't get the credit it deserves for at least being the easiest to use and understand way to bring some granularity to what you share and who you share it with.

I don't want to see Facebook unseated, but I would love to see Google light a fire under them. Competition is good for users of both sites.

I regrettably was one of those counted. (0)

UltraZelda64 (2309504) | more than 2 years ago | (#39188767)

Somehow I stumbled across Google+ on my phone earlier when I was playing around with it. I figured, well, some of the things it did sounded pretty cool, so I'll give it a try. I could always get back out of it, I guess. So I did, grudgingly and forcibly "agreeing" to the terms of service which I thought were a crock of shit and were about cause me to just say fuck the whole thing. I barely did anything on Google+ though, I gave up quick. Just didn't see the point.

Then somehow I came across the Google+ article on Wikipedia last night. It's a social networking web site? Like Facebook and Myspace? Fuck that. Deleted my Google+ account on the spot. Gave them my reasoning while I was at it--I don't want any social networking bullshit. And that includes the other two I mentioned. I just do not get the whole point of social networking. Give me instant messaging and e-mail for occasional use and I'm set. Giving up so much privacy is not worth going all-out social networking, I just don't get the point of those services and can't justify putting everything out there in public, while giving companies tons of personal information to sell.

the fine print... (5, Interesting)

sjwt (161428) | more than 2 years ago | (#39188769)

Mr. Horowitz declined to share data about how much time people spend on Google+ but said "we're growing by every metric we care about." ...
When asked what metrics Google+ cared about, the answer was a straight faced "Any metric that is growing"

Real statistic (2)

McLoud (92118) | more than 2 years ago | (#39188779)

Nerds spend more time on /. than any other use spend time on G+. Or MySpace. Or both added up together.

It's The People, Stupid (2)

deweyhewson (1323623) | more than 2 years ago | (#39188795)

What Google failed to understand is that superior technology or features does not attract people to something; the culture, meaning the people, do. Everyone who cared about social networking was already on Facebook, or at least everybody they knew was, so what incentive was there to suddenly make the switch to Google+? Switching for switching's sake? People don't operate that way.

There are really only three types of people: those who go where everyone else goes, the smaller group who specifically want to go where everybody else does not go, and those few types who consistently keep believing that superior technologies (whether in operating systems, phones, media players, or gaming devices) are what dictate the market.

Google+ attracted much of the second and third groups, but almost none of the first. And why? Because it's as though Google+ was a party at a huge, new mansion, and Facebook was a party at a slightly smaller, older mansion. Sure, Google+ had more stuff, and their house was maybe built a little better, but everybody was already at Facebook's party. And Google failed to understand that promises of toys don't win people over; everyone else having those toys does.

Re:It's The People, Stupid (3, Interesting)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#39189077)

or at least everybody they knew was

Ah that seems to be the key. FB is for people you know, however tenuously distant like that kid who sat next to you at lunch hour 20 years ago. G+ is for people who share interests with you. I've "met" some freaking amazing photographers, a couple decent hardware hackers, a couple decent cooks/chefs, some decent programmers, hundreds of ham radio operators...

Has anyone had any luck meeting and conversing with people in the hobbiest/interest type groups on FB or linkedin or whatever else? seems to be a spammy empty wasteland, but G+ actually more or less works for that.

Before I deleted FB years ago, 90% was people I knew and 10% was people I found. G+ seems to have flipped that ratio, which no one seems to be talking about. Yes there are exceptions, if you work at GOOG probably everyone you work with is there, but otherwise its the land of hobbies.

Most of that time (2)

atari2600a (1892574) | more than 2 years ago | (#39188797)

Was spent loading 200 5-minute GIFs & 12 youtube embeds all autoplaying at the same time

Just how does comScore get its numbers? (2)

swv3752 (187722) | more than 2 years ago | (#39188829)

Could it be that those that use G+ don't allow ads/cookies/widgets et cetera to track them?

Where did this data come from? (4, Informative)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#39188837)

The article is very light on specifics of where this data was obtained, other than pointing at Comscore.

I suspect the original source was this ComScore blog article. [comscore.com] Even that article is very light on methodology.

Quoting:

While Google Plus nearly matches Tumblr from an audience standpoint in the U.S., it does not yet attract similar levels of user engagement on its primary web pages. Importantly, these figures account for activity on plus.google.com and [but] do not include engagement with the Google Plus toolbar or other distributed content throughout the Google network of sites.

Right there seems to be an admission that ComScore isn't able to measure the total engagement, because they can't see it, and nobody needs to access plus.google.com once they are signed up. All the links you need appear on pages protected by https.

The very nature of Google+, with its circles of friends may work against any outsiders having any real access to the amount of time spent there by the average user. and, google's use of https makes this harder still.

These guys are shooting in the dark.

Still, I tend to agree, I only know of a few bloggers who think its cool to hang the little G+ symbol behind their names.

Re:Where did this data come from? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39189009)

Agreed. I use G+ all the time to check in on what's happening locally, and it's always from the G+ app on my phone, which I feel pretty confident doesn't show up in the comScore metrics.

Did they count Google.com? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39188857)

I spend about 72 hours/day on google plus. I am guessing that they didn't count all the domains that are used to check your google + account such as Google.com and gmail.com in their stats. I spend 24 hours per day on each of those sites, usually on 3 or 4 different devices.

   

Ads (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#39188901)

Does G+ have ads? I only use browsers with an ad blocker so I'm not sure. About a third of the article was fixation on advertisers interest, or lack thereof, WRT G+, which I thought was strange because I could swear they don't even have ads.

G+ is pretty popular in the ham radio and technical community. Linus makes posts worth reading. It seems like "technology podcaster" types use G+ heavily. Seems to be a lot of maker/hardware hacker type people on G+. Theres an interesting crowd of weather-freaks who like to second guess the NWS forecasters and do their own NAM and GFS analysis (I'm into it enough to know what they're talking about, but its not really my thing)

As far as news I circle Perl Weekly, Anonymous, and a software engineer named Margaret Leber who seems to share about 3 zerohedge articles per day.

Mike Elgan and Dan McDermott/Steve Mayne had some pretty insightful G+ posts WRT this whole "non-issue". Maynes post pretty much summarize the whole topic, a typical FB post results in 300 mostly idiot comments and G+ only has 20 comments but the average IQ level in the G+ posts is around 40 points higher. Its not as intelligent as /. is, at least when I'm posting, but G+ is up there (smile that was a joke)

Its not all good. G+ has way too many chicks who post hot-ish G to PG-13 rated pics of themselves (playboy models, strippers) and babble. It was entertaining for a bit but I can get better pics for free elsewhere, so bye bye ladies. Theres always some political moron who bellows loudly but doesn't know much.

Seems like GOOG needs to do a bit of product differentiation. FB is for the kid you sat next to in study hall in 8th grade, grind casual games, chicks gossiping and fighting with each other, spammy company fan pages (chose your own selection of free spam!) and sharing pics with granny. In contrast, G+ seems to be interesting people.

So Google+ is more efficient? (2, Interesting)

Xphile101361 (1017774) | more than 2 years ago | (#39188903)

So it takes me 7 hours to do everything on Facebook that it takes me only 3 minutes to do on Google+? I like the efficiency rating.

Re:So Google+ is more efficient? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39189039)

Let me guess. You have zero friends because it's more efficient.

Ratings are flawed (1)

T-Bone-T (1048702) | more than 2 years ago | (#39188955)

You know those rating systems are flawed. They don't take in account houses that have, uh, more than two computers, and other things of that nature.

Same old, same old (0)

AftanGustur (7715) | more than 2 years ago | (#39188977)

The problem with G+ is that Google just copied Facebook, there is nothing new or interesting there.

You have a "profile", and you "post status updates", which your "friends" can "comment on" or "like".

No matter hot you look at it, if you remove the nice animations and colors you have the same system. The differences are not enough for people for switch.

Google needs to do something new and daring, and G+ isn't it.

I predict that there will be a Facebook-killer, but it will have to go where Google is afraid to go, it will be mostly a placeholder for content that you post where you want on the internet.

Re:Same old, same old (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#39189017)

It didn't copy facebook.
Unless you consider Toyota copying Ford because both companies make vehicles with engines, doors, and wheels.

Their won't be a face book killer for decades; there is a place for people who sitting in front of a social media site all the time isn't a priority.

Re:Same old, same old (1)

PatPending (953482) | more than 2 years ago | (#39189065)

Google needs to do something new and daring, and G+ isn't it.

They are working on it; it'll be called G++

G++ will be to G+ what G+ was to G just like what C++ was to C.

Re:Same old, same old (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#39189235)

the tranny community will love the built in polymorphism of G++, especially after the scandal back last July or so about G+ only allowing M or F for gender.
The encapsulation/inheritance system of G++ is not all that different than the existing G+ circle system.
It'll still take two years of college classes for the "best and the brightest" to figure out how to noobishly incorrectly use G++.
The G++ html code will render differently on every freaking browser just like (over the span of years) C++ was a freaking headache to keep working.
Lack of native multithreading on G++ means we'll still be stuck with the tired old non-tree posting format of FB and G+ (unlike /. which has a tree posting structure)
I'll paraphrase a Bjarne Stroustrup quote about G++: "There are only two kinds of social media sites: those people always bitch about and those nobody uses.". I love that quote, he rocks.

In short (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#39188993)

people with lives use G+

I don't care if it's 'popular'. (2)

Omnifarious (11933) | more than 2 years ago | (#39189025)

The conversations I enjoy having are on Google+. I've never enjoyed the way people interact on Facebook, and I've never wanted to be there. I have an account there that I pay attention to as little as I can manage.

LJ used to have those kinds of conversations. But that petered out after Six Apart bought them. Now it's Google+. And if it never becomes 'popular', I don't care, as long as it is popular enough that Google considers it worth having around. And of course, that's the rub.

I don't like this whole cloud business at all. It's a broken model.

It's just a trick by Google... (1)

forkfail (228161) | more than 2 years ago | (#39189053)

... to keep Yahoo from suing them.

Haven't been on slashdot much lately (2)

Gnaythan1 (214245) | more than 2 years ago | (#39189055)

Most of the stories here I've already read on google+ or Reddit

And the conversations tend to have more signal than noise.

I wonder, did facebook hire a PR agency to smear google again?

They need to integrate it with mail (1)

DrFalkyn (102068) | more than 2 years ago | (#39189069)

That was my biggest disappointment with Google+. They had a golden opportunity to integrate social networking, chat, and email, and all they did was throw up a knockoff of Facebook. I have gmail up nearly constantly, not so much with Facebook

Re:They need to integrate it with mail (1)

Shados (741919) | more than 2 years ago | (#39189101)

except it IS integrated with gmail. You have your circles on the left and you get the notifications at the top. Unless you meant something else?

It actually made me use both less. (2)

Maltheus (248271) | more than 2 years ago | (#39189105)

I definitely prefer google+ and it made me dislike facebook even more than I had before. But since no one you know is on it, you end up follow a lot of strangers (did find some interesting people). The problem is that the filter controls are so awful (the last I looked) that I never want to use it. The circles concept is great, but they never got it out of the early development stage. Your stream consists of everybody or one circle. They released a beta and moved on to focusing on auto-sharing everything you do with your circles and a whole lot of other things that nobody wanted.

At the end of the day, I just don't have time for it. With sensible noise controls, that could change. But with everything else going so wrong with google this past year, I don't really want to use their products anymore anyway.

So I went back to facebook, sort of. It was such a sorry experience compared to g+ that I find I hardly visit there anymore either. I'll do a quick check in once in a while and then get out.

The 2 main reasons why Google+ loses to Facebook (1)

snotclot (836055) | more than 2 years ago | (#39189161)

Let's not forget that the primary demographic in which any new trend starts is the college-age to twenties crowd.

Facebook smartly captured this specific demographic and their attention (away from Friendster and MySpace), because of two main reasons, whichi Google+ does not have:
1) social acceptance (ie friend confirmation button)
and
2) being the "first" network in which people could feel unstalkerish by stalking people they barely know but would possibly like to know better (flirtation, becoming friends, etc)

1) it started off being an "in-network-only" - what does that mean? It means, the college students which were its first users, mostly wanted to check out those hot girl/guys in their classes. It also had a "confirm friend", so you gained some sort of "acceptance" that it was consensual "stalking".

Google+, however, misses that boat: anyone can add you, without your consent (you can only block, not force them to unfriend). That means there is no "confirmed acceptance", missing out on a key social-emotional facet.

2) Furthermore, Facebook has most momentum *not* because it has "all your friend", but because it has "all the cool/hot girl/guys you'd like to be better friends with but-only-met-once-at-a-party-and-do-not-want-to-overtly-add-on-another-network-again". If google+ finds a way to migrate this set over to G+, I'd wager the G+ snowball would start rolling, and rolling pretty fast.

As an example, I was one of the first on facebook. So was my circle. But guess which same circle is on my G+ ? That's right! The geeky circle I have that was first on these due to being in "ivies" and having "friends who work at google". However, which group is missing from my G+ and everyone else? Those acquaintances you met once and never met again? Some you unfriend, but some you still want to see as a contact.


tl,dr:
1) Facebook's confirm friend button works far better to make users feel safe
2) Facebook has snowball effect due to people having already added, surprisingly, not their EXISTING friends but rather the *acquantainces* they'd *like-to-get-to-know-better* but would rather not admit to "stalking" by adding them on another network again.

Bleh (2)

mawe (1247174) | more than 2 years ago | (#39189175)

Google+ is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39189227)

pig's feet compared to top sirloin

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?