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 Now Boasts World's No. 2 and No. 3 Social Networks

samzenpus posted about a year and a half ago | from the facebook-and-the-rest dept.

Google 150

redletterdave writes "A new report released Monday revealed that Google+, less than a year and a half after its public debut, is now the No. 2 social network in the world with 343 million active users. Even better for Google, YouTube, which had not previously been tracked as a social network until recently, is now the No. 3 social network in the world with about 300 million active users. Google Plus and YouTube are being used by 25 percent and 21 percent of the global Internet populace, respectively."

cancel ×

150 comments

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

Youtube is more a number 2 (5, Funny)

jaymz666 (34050) | about a year and a half ago | (#42718875)

Youtube is more a number 2 in terms of content being dumped out by the commenters

Re:Youtube is more a number 2 (-1, Offtopic)

kiosjahu (2826723) | about a year and a half ago | (#42719173)

http://www.cloud65.com/ [cloud65.com] just as Jessica responded I cannot believe that you can get paid $6752 in one month on the internet. did you look at this link

Re:Youtube is more a number 2 (3, Funny)

sidthegeek (626567) | about a year and a half ago | (#42719571)

Normally this would be spam, but the irony of this comment is not lost on me. :-)

Re:Youtube is more a number 2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42719391)

And this is somehow different then most FB posts (ignoring the content may be a picture instead of video)?

Re:Youtube is more a number 2 (1)

YodasEvilTwin (2014446) | about a year and a half ago | (#42719523)

No one said that.

Re:Youtube is more a number 2 (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year and a half ago | (#42720645)

"Youtube is more a number 2 in terms of content being dumped out by the commenters"

I don't doubt that it's #2, or maybe 3. But question the numbers of "active users".

What's an "active user"? Somebody who comments? Somebody who uses their Google ID to log in to other sites?

I have little doubt that I am classed as an "active user", even though I don't think I've used my Google account for anything BUT to log in to other sites.

Where's /. on that list? (3, Funny)

oodaloop (1229816) | about a year and a half ago | (#42718885)

42?

Re:Where's /. on that list? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42719251)

8 millionth place. Far, far behind Digg and Reddit.

Re:Where's /. on that list? (2, Interesting)

Maxx169 (920414) | about a year and a half ago | (#42720781)

Not sure /. is that far behind Digg anymore.

Not much competition (4, Interesting)

s.petry (762400) | about a year and a half ago | (#42718897)

Not to belittle what Google has done and purchased, but what other options were and are there? Google was supposed to be more secure than 1 other social network company. It is, though many distrust Google as much as they distrust Facebook when it comes to releasing information to Governments. Youtube was acquired, and for "Movies" and "Videos" was already a healthy and stable company. If it was launched as a social media site, I doubt it would have the depth it does. An alternative would have popped up in my opinion.

Re:Not much competition (4, Funny)

Moridineas (213502) | about a year and a half ago | (#42719411)

Well there's Orkut...

Oh wait.

Re:Not much competition (2)

BasilBrush (643681) | about a year and a half ago | (#42719689)

Well there's Twitter.

They are claiming that Google+ has more active users than Twitter. Clearly that isn't so, and therefore there's either some gross error in their methodology, or Google is paying them to say that.

Re:Not much competition (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42720441)

They probably count people like me (and I assume almost everyone with Android) that have their pictures backed up to Google+.

Almost every day.

Re:Not much competition (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about a year and a half ago | (#42719725)

I have to ask what they mean by "active users", because although I have a G+ account and like the UI and features, *NONE* of my so-called-friends use it. None.

Re:Not much competition (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | about a year and a half ago | (#42719735)

Twitter is a social network.

They are trying to claim that Google+ has more active users than Twitter. Clearly that isn't so, so there's either something wrong with their methodology, or Google are paying them to say that.

One possible error with their methodology is if they are counting YouTube users twice. Once as a user of YouTube, and then also because Google has tricked YouTube users into being Google+ members.

Re:Not much competition (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42719905)

I trust Google not to release more information to governments than they have to, but people need to understand that Google must comply with legal requests for information from the governments of countries they have operations in. I don't know if Facebook is any better or worse in this regard. The thing is I absolutely trust Google not to sell my information to any other company, Google knows the value of the information and knows it is more valuable kept to themselves, that way they can take a cut every time a company wants to advertise to a specific type of user, if they sell the users information then other companies will be able to target ads as effectively as Google does and Google's ad network will lose its advantage. Facebook on the other hand I do not trust to keep my information to themselves, I'm sure they'd rather get a quick buck now than play the long game like Google does, and they don't seem to care much about their reputation.

Don't get me wrong, just because I trust Google more than Facebook, that doesn't mean I'm willing to give up all my information to them. I do limit my exposure to Google and have refused Google's requests for me to sign up to Google+. If I was interested in social networking I might actually consider Google+, although I would prefer a trustworthy non-Google option, but I certainly won't touch Facebook with a bargepole.

Re:Not much competition (1)

fermion (181285) | about a year and a half ago | (#42720063)

Google+ is only at the top because Google tried to log everyone who is logged onto Google onto Google+. I wonder how many 'active' users do anything on Google+. I know that I have linked a profile to Google+, occasionally do have to log onto Google to get something done, but have not done anything on Google+ since the first few weeks where I was checking it out.

Re:Not much competition (1)

Clsid (564627) | about a year and a half ago | (#42720595)

I agree, they are doing the same thing that Microsoft did with Internet Explorer. I might be part of those 300 million yet I never use Google+.

YouTube users now Google+ users (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42718965)

Not too long ago, YouTube asked me if I wanted to change my YouTube name to something else.
I thought 'Sure, why not.'
And out of nowhere, I became a Google+ user.
For a couple of months now, they've been tricking YouTube users into getting Google+ accounts.

Re:YouTube users now Google+ users (5, Insightful)

Etherized (1038092) | about a year and a half ago | (#42719075)

It seems as if this is what a lot of "Google+ users" actually are - people who use other google products which have Google+ integration that they trick people into activating. In addition to youtube they do the same trick for Picasa, instant upload on Android, gmail chat, and probably others that I am not aware of.

I actually like Google+ well enough, but I think their reports of its user base are greatly exaggerated.

Re:YouTube users now Google+ users (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42719267)

There was an article about this a while back and I can't find it but it talked about the end game for G+. Google never expected to take over FB from day one. If they had it'd have been great, but that's not what they expected. What they did was give people reasons to use G+. For example, want your business to show up on Google Maps? A person has to create a G+ account for it. There's all sorts of little things like this that Google is using to bring people into the fold.

Re:YouTube users now Google+ users (5, Informative)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about a year and a half ago | (#42719327)

Exactly. Note also that they merely claimed they were "active users", but that what defines a user as "active" is a rather open definition if you go all the way back to the original report [globalwebindex.net] ("Used or contributed to in the past month"). If all that is necessary to be considered active is to use a Google service that is linked to your G+ account (e.g. Google search returns personalized results based on links shared by your G+ friends, which are (frustratingly) turned on by default), then more and more people are becoming active users every day without even realizing that they are being counted as such, for precisely the reasons you specified. Google keeps presenting it as a simple account upgrade or transition to a new system, rather than the user signing up for a new account entirely, which is entirely deceptive and unethical.

Moreover, the idea that there are actually 343M active users on G+ flies in the face of everything most of us know about the network, which is that the place is a virtual ghost town. Claiming that it has roughly half of the active user base of Facebook (343M vs. 693M) simply doesn't ring true and should have sent up a number of red flags for the research group. That YouTube has that many users comes as no surprise. But I don't see how a social network that most people still haven't even heard of can possibly be more popular than the most popular video sharing site that gets linked to and shared every single day, or half as popular as the social network that's used by nearly one in seven people worldwide.

Re:YouTube users now Google+ users (4, Insightful)

swillden (191260) | about a year and a half ago | (#42719563)

Moreover, the idea that there are actually 343M active users on G+ flies in the face of everything most of us know about the network, which is that the place is a virtual ghost town.

That depends entirely on who you circle or -- more importantly -- has circled you. It appears to me that the vast majority of Google+ posts are not public.

Personally, my stream contains far more content than I can possibly keep up with. Only about a third of it is from personal friends or family, though. Most is from communities I'm a member of and various other people and projects I follow. If you're interested in Linux, for example, all of the major developers post on Google+.

For my usage, I much prefer Google+ to FB. The volume of content on Google+ is lower (but still more than I can actually read), but the quality is much higher. I dumped my FB account a while ago. However, my wife has maintained hers because there are a lot of people in our families who aren't on G+ so she uses FB to follow them, and tells me what I need to know. If I couldn't get that second-hand, I'd probably have to use both.

Re:YouTube users now Google+ users (1)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about a year and a half ago | (#42720471)

That depends entirely on who you circle or -- more importantly -- has circled you. It appears to me that the vast majority of Google+ posts are not public.

Oh, no doubt. But I'd imagine that the majority of the activity is clustered around a set of communities, rather than representing widespread adoption in the general population of the world. As it is, they're claiming that roughly one in twenty people worldwide have used G+ in the last month, which is ludicrously large for a service that's known by so few in the general public. For the time I was using it, I enjoyed G+'s metaphors and layout better than Facebook's, but the same sort of concerns that pushed me into closing my Facebook account (their releasing my info or compelling me to release it) are what drove me to close my G+ account as well.

Hell, when I read the headline, I thought it was going to say that Orkut had cracked the #2 spot and that G+ was a distant third. I'd find that more believable.

Re:YouTube users now Google+ users (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42720217)

If one niche hobby electronics company has over a million followers, I can believe that there are 343 million users.

https://plus.google.com/+adafruit [google.com]

Hardly a ghost town.

Re:YouTube users now Google+ users (3, Insightful)

blind biker (1066130) | about a year and a half ago | (#42720415)

Moreover, the idea that there are actually 343M active users on G+ flies in the face of everything most of us know about the network, which is that the place is a virtual ghost town.

Au contraire, it's a very lively and information-packed place, with all kinds of content and discussions going on all the time, every hour of the day. But hte problem is, nobody is sharing anything with you, because you haven't circled anyone on G+, and/or they haven't circled you back. It's like going to visit your acquaintance Frank, and before even entering you declare his house to be dark, and then go around telling everybody that "Frank's house is so dark". Well yeah, it's dark you douchebag cunt piece of shit cunt, it's dark because you didn't switch on the light, shit-for-brains.

Re:YouTube users now Google+ users (3, Insightful)

Zeromous (668365) | about a year and a half ago | (#42719331)

Spoken like someone who hasn't been to G+ in eons, thinks beast live there.

Re:YouTube users now Google+ users (1)

Zeromous (668365) | about a year and a half ago | (#42719345)

Ack responded to wrong post.

Re:YouTube users now Google+ users (2)

bradgoodman (964302) | about a year and a half ago | (#42719353)

Absolutley.

I tried G+ when it first came out. No one I know activley uses it, but everyone has *tried* it. I still get notifications and spam from it from Gmail, etc.

I don't know if they'd consider me an "active user" or not.

Unless there is some other parallel universe out there where everyone uses G+ instead of Facebook - I don't trust the numbers. *EVERYONE* I know uses Facebook, and *NO ONE* uses G+. I might be off by a *few* people in this statement - but it's not *much* of an overstatement.

Re:YouTube users now Google+ users (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about a year and a half ago | (#42720051)

I know more poeple who don't use Facebook and who have unactive accounts there than those who actually use Facebook. Maybe my social circle is too small though, or I don't hang out with enough kids but I just don't see facebook as an "everyone" sort of place. If Google+ is accused of inflating its numbers then Facebook is doing the exact same thing.

I've been on Google+ awhile and have never once seen any spam. I don't have gmail though or any other Google "services".

Re:YouTube users now Google+ users (1)

swillden (191260) | about a year and a half ago | (#42719461)

It seems as if this is what a lot of "Google+ users" actually are - people who use other google products which have Google+ integration that they trick people into activating

Note that the report data supposedly does not come from the companies who own the products being measured. Unfortunately the methodology isn't described. Does anyone know how the "Global Web Index" data is collected? Most methods I can think of would not be fooled by the kind of "fake" engagement you're describing.

Re:YouTube users now Google+ users (1)

afgam28 (48611) | about a year and a half ago | (#42719591)

If you RTFA, it measures usage in terms of "Active Usage" (defined as "Used or contributed to in the past month"), not number of accounts. So unless Google is somehow tricking them into posting on G+, I don't think this particular study is exaggerated.

Re:YouTube users now Google+ users (1)

Etherized (1038092) | about a year and a half ago | (#42720495)

The thing is, Google is actually transitioning at least some of their services to use Google+ for all "sharing" purposes under the hood. I know this is true in the case of Picasa at least - Picasa as most people will see it is now simply a part of Google+. (I believe it's still technically possible to not use Google+ for sharing things in Picasa, but G+ is the default, and most people using Picasa at this point are "contributing" to Google+).

Are other Google services doing this? It's hard to really know what counts, since the authors of the survey don't reveal their methodology or describe what specifically they're actually counting. I'd be incredibly surprised if Picasa didn't "count" as "Active Usage" though.

Re:YouTube users now Google+ users (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42719851)

I actually like Google+ well enough, but I think their reports of its user base are greatly exaggerated.

And Facebook/Twitter/WoW/Aliens living on Earth isn't? :p

Tricks COUNT (1)

Cajun Hell (725246) | about a year and a half ago | (#42720989)

Pop quiz: what's the most popular desktop OS?

Followup question: did you throw up in your mouth a little, at using the word "popular" to describe that OS' marketshare? That's not really an honest way of describe a default "choice," or a "choice" that people are railroaded into thanks to network effects, kicking and screaming, and yet it is technically accurate.

No matter how Google+ got its users, it has them.

Re:YouTube users now Google+ users (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42719079)

+1. At first, I wondered how Google+ had so many users. I signed up for an account just to check it out. Then I remember seeing the whole real name thing. This is PR and an attempt to resuscitate the social network.

Re:YouTube users now Google+ users (0)

BasilBrush (643681) | about a year and a half ago | (#42719141)

Absolutely. Google tricks people into signing up to Google+. I had to end up deleting all my accounts with YouTube and other Google services to get rid of the Google+ account I never wanted.

I will never sign up for a Google service again. They make Facebook look honest by comparison.

Re:YouTube users now Google+ users (2)

History's Coming To (1059484) | about a year and a half ago | (#42719389)

You can simply deactivate your G+ account and leave the rest of your services intact, I did exactly that when the real name policy was introduced - it's an overly complicated and nerve-wracking experience however, get it wrong and you can lose a lot of data.

Re:YouTube users now Google+ users (0)

BasilBrush (643681) | about a year and a half ago | (#42719621)

Actually, it was when I saw the story that Google was storing all your searches, going back years and associating them with your accounts. I decided to delete all accounts with them at that stage.
http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/technolog/clear-your-google-search-history-now-240860 [nbcnews.com]

Re:YouTube users now Google+ users (1)

History's Coming To (1059484) | about a year and a half ago | (#42719359)

Ah...I wondered why they were suddenly so keen to get my real name - I presumed it was simply integrating Google Accounts but using it to boost G+ figures makes a lot more sense. I would be on G+, but I don't sign up to any service which requires my real name without very good reason. If Google ever really need my real name it's right there in my Gmail address and a decades-worth of emails. They know where to find me when they change their minds.

Re:YouTube users now Google+ users (1)

aztracker1 (702135) | about a year and a half ago | (#42719485)

I think they are really mis-representing numbers... I'm logged into, and use iGoogle as my home page (can't believe they are nuking it), and always have the G+ on the top-right toolbar on google sites. That said, I'm far from active on G+ itself... I don't mind the integrated user experience, I kind of wish, however, that I could bind multiple accounts (say a google apps account to my @gmail account), so that I don't have to log in/out to use them... and having them in the same gmail screen would be nice. All of that said, what google does provide works for me, and I'm less inclined to use google's services for my own domains anymore.

Re:YouTube users now Google+ users (1)

paul.hatchman (958948) | about a year and a half ago | (#42720107)

I change between multiple accounts all the time. The drop-down at the top-right of the screen lets you change which of your google accounts is active.

Re:YouTube users now Google+ users (1)

ArtDent (83554) | about a year and a half ago | (#42720955)

I'm not sure about this third-party report, but Google actually reports separate numbers:

- People who have Google+ profiles
- People who use Google+ features every month (including via other Google products)
- People who use the Google+ stream every month

At the beginning of December, those numbers were 500 million, 235 million, and 135 million (source: http://googleblog.blogspot.ca/2012/12/google-communities-and-photos.html [blogspot.ca] ). Given that we're now almost two months on from then, this new number (343 million) could be about right for those actually engaging with Google+, though not necessarily through plus.google.com.

Re:YouTube users now Google+ users (1)

assertation (1255714) | about a year and a half ago | (#42719943)

Every few weeks when I log into YouTube it asks if I want to use my real name. Before I can actually get to YouTube I have to fill out why I do not. The graphics make it highly easy to switch to a real name and not so easy to opt out. Google does something similar with email accounts when you login. They want your cellphone number. The options to put it in are Big, Bright and In Your Face. The link to just go to your account is small enough you have to look at the screen for a second or two to see it.

Re:YouTube users now Google+ users (1)

buanzo (542591) | about a year and a half ago | (#42720193)

Exactly. +1

Re:YouTube users now Google+ users (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42720253)

Judging by what I've seen of the ... ahem... youtube community, I would think they should be tricking youtube commenters OUT of google plus.

Re:YouTube users now Google+ users (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42720287)

There is no trick, the only thing wrong is peoples' perceptions of what Google+ is. Google+ is NOT a social network, it's a tying together of existing Google products to form one coherent whole "Google" rather than a million separate ones. The social aspect is only one small part of it, but by no means the entire thing.

Re:YouTube users now Google+ users (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42720523)

There is no trick

If they present options that sign you up for Google+ or take away existing functionality unless you sign up, and they don't tell you that that's what will happen if you choose the option, then yes, it is a trick.

Re:YouTube users now Google+ users (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42721009)

Eric Schmidt clearly said Google+ was an identity service, right?

Re:YouTube users now Google+ users (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42720347)

A while ago, YouTube told me that they were dropping support for private channels (I didn't choose to create such a thing in the first place, so private was the next best option), and I could either delete it entirely, at the expense of being able to "share content", or make it public. Obviously I chose to delete it, but now I can no longer add videos to my favourites list (which is not "sharing content" by any reasonable human being's definition of the term, and therefore there was no warning that that would happen) and if I want that feature back I have to sign up for Google+ and create a channel again. The really hilarious thing is that the feature for doing that doesn't even work....

orkut - number 4th? (1)

AbhiTheOne (2717543) | about a year and a half ago | (#42718973)

shouldn't orkut be on the list as well? I guess orkut would be 4th in that list, then the title should be
"Google Now Boasts World's No. 2, No. 3 and No. 4 Social Networks"

Re:orkut - number 4th? (1)

goblinspy (2738809) | about a year and a half ago | (#42719029)

Its heavily used by India and Brazil I think with billion plus population they have to count :)

Re:orkut - number 4th? (4, Informative)

Githaron (2462596) | about a year and a half ago | (#42719269)

I was a Brazil a few weeks ago. From what I saw, it looks like everyone over there is starting to move to Facebook as their dominate social network.

Re:orkut - number 4th? (0)

Bigby (659157) | about a year and a half ago | (#42720573)

If you were a Brazil a few weeks ago, is it safe to assume you are still a Brazil?

Re:orkut - number 4th? (2)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | about a year and a half ago | (#42720995)

Look out, you're blowing their cover!

Re:orkut - number 4th? (3, Informative)

admdrew (782761) | about a year and a half ago | (#42719061)

No, Twitter is a very strong 4th, and there doesn't appear to be a close 5th. Orkut only has about 33 million active users [wikipedia.org] , which would put it much farther down.

Re:orkut - number 4th? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42719121)

orkut was on the list it was close to last place.

Re:orkut - number 4th? (1)

amRadioHed (463061) | about a year and a half ago | (#42719161)

Orkut is on the list, but it's way down past MySpace and Pinterest.

Re:orkut - number 4th? (1)

tomzyk (158497) | about a year and a half ago | (#42719235)

orkut is on the list.
The list is linked from the article.
While orkut may be very popular in a few select countries, it never really caught on worldwide. Personally, I stopped using it because of the massive amount of people that didn't respect the rules and would blast our "English only" community boards with Portuguese. (Back then, it was commonly referred to as the "Crazy Brazilian Invasion".) Us "uneducated folk" could never carry on decent conversations when every single conversation would branch off into 2 or more languages. So we left and waited for Facebook to set up community pages.

Google Plus boasted 343 million active users in Q4 (1)

rjstanford (69735) | about a year and a half ago | (#42719083)

I wonder how they determined "active users," since these days its getting easier and easier for anyone with a GMail-based account to find themselves "using" Google+.

Re:Google Plus boasted 343 million active users in (1)

vlm (69642) | about a year and a half ago | (#42719403)

I wonder how they determined "active users,"

You can google for this quite trivially, basically your definition of gmail, clicking +1 and stuff is the much bigger "somewhat under four hundred million" number from a couple months ago whereas the number of people actually making posts to their G+ stream is the somewhat smaller "well over one hundred ish million" number also a couple months out of date.

Unless youtube has zero or negative number users, it would seem they're using the latter definition "people who actually post stuff to their G+ profile" as their definition of "active" and then adding it to somewhere around 200M youtube users to get a bit over 300 million total as claimed. If they used your definition they'd be crowing about a number closer to 600M rather than 300M.

Re:Google Plus boasted 343 million active users in (1)

alen (225700) | about a year and a half ago | (#42719415)

you +1 something once a month, you're an active user

Re:Google Plus boasted 343 million active users in (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42719957)

To be fair, FB once talked about how they made email obsolete because people just used FB messaging. So it's not a far stretch to associate gmail with Google+. If you have a Google account you have a Google account. Distinguishing between whether or not you have G+, or youtube, or gmail, or whatever is a silly distinction. You have a Google account and you use one or more of the associated services.

"Active" user? (1)

xiando (770382) | about a year and a half ago | (#42719091)

What do they mena by "active" users, anyway? Does anyone know?

Re:"Active" user? (1)

Tallfeather (648452) | about a year and a half ago | (#42719127)

It means you're actively wondering how they're counting you as an active G+ user after you only logged into YouTube.

Let's define success: Money (2)

schneidafunk (795759) | about a year and a half ago | (#42719103)

How much money are they making?

hydrox (2, Interesting)

aahpandasrun (948239) | about a year and a half ago | (#42719117)

This is like saying that Hydrox is the #2 chocolate and cream cookie next to Oreo. It still sucks, and nobody likes it.

Re:hydrox (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42719383)

mod parent delicious

Re:hydrox (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42719589)

This is like saying that Hydrox is the #2 chocolate and cream cookie next to Oreo. It still sucks, and nobody likes it.

Spoken like someone whose never had a Hydrox. They were awesome, but Oreo had better marketing (including a much better name, let's be honest.)

Hyrdox is out of business now, FWIW, and the world is a worse place.

Re:hydrox (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42720939)

Hydrox had a bland as heck cream filling and between two rather bland chocolate cookies, simple as that.

Oreo cookies dominated over Hydrox the same way Facebook dominates over Google+.

Also Facebook stats aren't manipulated. One signs up for Facebook to be a Facebook user. One apparently auto signs up for Google+ if they use any account based Google service.

Like Hydrox cookies, it is only a matter of time before users realize anything Google other than search is shitty, every UI change iteration breaks something and pushes for more real name user data.

Re:hydrox (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42720083)

I'm curious to know which social network you think the Oreo is. Somehow everyone chooses Facebook as their outlet to go full retard posting endless streams of snarky/passive aggressive/inspirational/religious image macros.

If Google+ was suddenly as popular as Facebook, I'd have to put almost everyone I know in a Circle where all of the content evaporates into nothingness.

Users (0)

0123456 (636235) | about a year and a half ago | (#42719137)

How many of them are spammers and phishers?

And if you weight it by value... (5, Interesting)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year and a half ago | (#42719151)

... then Google+ might be the only relevant social networking site. Facebook, twitter, etc, are still mostly plugged up with people taking pictures of their (coffee / cat / car) or telling you which bathroom they are using this afternoon. Google+ actually has meaningful discussions.

Re:And if you weight it by value... (4, Interesting)

vlm (69642) | about a year and a half ago | (#42719273)

Google+ actually has meaningful discussions.

FB/twitter for pics of dinner and smiling kids and babbling complaining and TV and sports discussion, G+ for hobbies.
G+ has HUGE and active ham radio, and photography communities.

Re:And if you weight it by value... (0)

The Phantom Mensch (52436) | about a year and a half ago | (#42719899)

Facebook is where my relatives post updates. Google+ is great for information from Google related products like android and chrome os. I tried sharing some pictures on Google+ and while the picture sharing is/was better than facebook I don't think anyone saw them.

Re:And if you weight it by value... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42719863)

So you are saying Google+ is relevant to social networking the way C-SPAN2 is relevant to television.

Re:And if you weight it by value... (1)

Bigby (659157) | about a year and a half ago | (#42720591)

CSPAN is irrelevant. Politicians don't do anything; they only react to what is happening and make themselves sound like they are doing something about it.

G+ is more like the Discovery networks. There is some good content embedded into not-so-good programs. Then there is the crap and cream of the crop.

How much is Google+ being used? (4, Informative)

parallel_prankster (1455313) | about a year and a half ago | (#42719289)

The more important matter is how much are they being used, especially to "socialize" as compared to facebook? I mean Google forces you to be a Google+ user pretty much if you use any of their services - Gmail, Picasa etc. What are the ad revenues on these services? What is the frequency of posts per user?

Re:How much is Google+ being used? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42719923)

I'm in college. I have never been asked "Hey, what's your Google+ username?" In fact, I've never heard anyone ask that of anyone else. I don't even know if that's how Google+ works. I've never used it. And yet, I have at least two Google+ accounts thanks to Gmail and YouTube.

Re:How much is Google+ being used? (2)

paul.hatchman (958948) | about a year and a half ago | (#42720185)

Yet somehow, after using multiple google products (including gmail and picasa) on a regular basis for well over 10 years, I still don't have a Google+ account. And I can still use all of those services just fine.

Re:How much is Google+ being used? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42720365)

keyword "pretty much". i use gmail and youtube every day and do not have a google+ page. you just have to ignore all the shit google throws at you trying to get you to join.

i hate google.

Youtube a social network? (1)

systemidx (2708649) | about a year and a half ago | (#42719297)

I'd say that's a bit far-fetched. But then again, this practice has been employed throughout the ages. If you're losing at a game, change the rules. (The rules being the definition of 'social network').

Re:Youtube a social network? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42720033)

Most YouTube users probably aren't using it as a social network, but some people are posting "vlogs" or using it to share semi-private videos with their friends.

The original idea for YouTube was a video dating service, so the social networking stuff has pretty much always been there.

Re:Youtube a social network? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42720093)

Some YouTube users are posting "vlogs" or using it to share private videos, even if most people aren't using it as a social network.

The original idea for YouTube was to be a video dating service, so the social networking stuff has always been there.

Depends Upon How You Measure It (1)

mk1004 (2488060) | about a year and a half ago | (#42719573)

Define active. I've got a Google+ account, but rarely use it.

The ONE thing G+ has over FaceBook... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42719615)

At least it doesn't automatically fuck around with your accounts across sites. I'm sure this scenario has happened to some of you FB users before:

  - See video on one of those "youtube with nudity allowed" sites such as dailymotion
  - "This video is not suitable for minors, please sign in to confirm your age"
  - "Hmm, okay, it'll be easier if I just use FB to log in instead of creating an account for a site I don't really care about."
  - Watch video o.o
  - Several hours later
  - Check FB
  - You have a post on your Wall about watching the video, with comments on it from other people

Yeah, after this happened I all but stopped using the site entirely. On the other hand, Google is quite clear with how you share information across sites. I don't need to worry about a comment on some blog ending up getting sent to friends on G+, or some log of what YouTube videos I watched in the past week.

They are just calling gmail users google+ users (0)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | about a year and a half ago | (#42719663)

Any one using any Google product, picasa, gmail, youtune, google apps, anything, are being roped in as google+ users.

Quote after the first "America's cup" race. (1)

whoever57 (658626) | about a year and a half ago | (#42719835)

"Ah, Your Majesty, there is no second."

The first race was actually for the "R.Y.S. £100 Cup", subsequently re-named "America's cup"

Is there anyone here using it? (1)

danielcolchete (1088383) | about a year and a half ago | (#42719937)

It doesn't count if you work for Google. That is the only people I really see there.

Both my grammas are on Facebook, I didn't hear them saying they are thinking about opening a Google+ account.

Re:Is there anyone here using it? (1)

Cro Magnon (467622) | about a year and a half ago | (#42720393)

At least one person uses it. Everytime I log onto it, I see a new post from that person. Which is fortunate, since he seems to be the only person who does.

it helps (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42720017)

it helps when you essentially own the internet,... seriously what percentage of users never use google or a google owned property for anything?

Same Here (1)

almostadnsguy (2009458) | about a year and a half ago | (#42720019)

I must be 3 or more of those people, I have a G-mail account for each Android device (tablet is multi-user, 1 phone is strictly for work and 1 phone is for private texts from my wife). As I recently changed services I noticed that I somehow became a G+ member just by signing up a new device. Can I really be counted as I don't participate?

Facebook #1 (0)

hairyfish (1653411) | about a year and a half ago | (#42720139)

And Facebook is #1 with 95% of the global populace. The other 5% who didn't use Facebook were nerds who spent all day telling everyone in various other forums how they don't use Facebook.

On the comments of that article (0)

eksith (2776419) | about a year and a half ago | (#42720159)

"herbert" left this :

oh please, stop kidding yourselves. it's just because we are forced to login to use google services that they're getting the traffic. google plus is a turd!

I thought plus was optional when signing up for an account, but I guess this has now changed?

Wait wait (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42720293)

What was #1? I want to know if my MySpace account is worth anything.

Google has number 2 and 3 (0)

Cro Magnon (467622) | about a year and a half ago | (#42720371)

Which would be more impressive if there were more than 4 social networks with over 100 users on the planet.

reviewing an app on playstore (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42720389)

Another interesting point of all this happens to be: If you want to put in a review on any app you downloaded to your Android phone into Google Play Store, for better or for worse, requires you to have a google plus account to do it... Seems like a great way to inflate usage stats.

Picasaweb? (1)

Grizzley9 (1407005) | about a year and a half ago | (#42720737)

Does having your pictures backed up to Google+ / Picasa count as being an active user? Cause if so, they've got a heavy skew in their numbers. The unlimited space for Picasa users is why I signed up. Now all my pics and home movies are backed up but I don't use any of the "social networking" part of it.

Re:Picasaweb? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42720963)

Yes it does and this is how Google pumps up it's stats for Google+.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>