Shared publicly  - 
*They are continuing to dance around these #gplus #stats issues:*

"...Page also teased the audience by noting that Google+ is really two things: a new social layer across all Google Web sites, and an actual "social destination" where people go to share stuff.

Then he gave usage numbers for the social layer -- 170 million. But still didn't give numbers for the actual site, saying only that he was happy with its growth and engagement. Such a tease."

Keep in mind that Experian Hitwise has reported a (statistically extrapolated) stat of 61M or so U.S. VISITS (not Monthly Unique Visitors) for G+ for March ->

... and is showing about 13M visits for the first week of April -> (bottom of page) which would make it around 52M for the month if these weekly numbers stay relatively constant.

Even if Experian is off in their estimates (and presumably they don't measure mobile), 60M - 120M visits (to be super generous) is nothing to write home about, since that is likely to equate to many fewer Monthly Uniques. Each active user is likely to have up to dozens of visits a month.

My guess is that the estimate of 20-25M active U.S. G+ users is not too far off (no one knows exactly how they figure in possible mobile only users, but they supposedly are making some adjustment to their numbers for that), so somewhere around 60-120M visits would fit.

170M, even including all international users ( x 2 U.S. users or less than that?), is clearly not the number of active users. Neither is the 100 Million number.
Rod Dunne's profile photoAlex Schleber's profile photo
Just as an insight - the apparent dip of 13M visits for the first week of April.... I run a number of sites and they all dipped during this week too. Its due to the Easter break. My sites are a mix of US targeted & global and they still all dip that Easter week in April. All back up this week. Just wanted to FYI that just in case folks extrapolate a decline incorrectly.
+Rod Dunne yep, I didn't put too much emphasis on that, or even the 61M number since these web stats firms despite their best efforts can be off (which is why it is best to compare them to themselves only, month-over-month, apples-to-apples if you will). It's more of a question of general ballpark estimations.

I'd say Page is basically saying there are 170M general Google users that have registered for/turned on G+. The number of world-wide active users is much lower, and the number of very active (as in multiple times per week) is lower still. What are your estimates?
+Alex Schleber I've no estimates myself.. I've been trying to keep up with the various media outlets numbers. But everyone is guessing at this point.

I personally feel the take up is very low in Ireland - FB & twitter are everywhere. I've just finished up 9 mts freelance work with a digital advertising agency and NONE of their 80+ clients are doing a thing with G+.. no pages even.

I was involved in several talks (in particular with radio stations) and they are up to their gills with FB/Twtr so are not even entertaining it.

As an aside I've been trying to organise a HIRL for Dublin and have had one response... which sort of sums it up.
+Rod Dunne thanks for letting us know your anecdotal data. Yeah, as I pointed out on a previous post, the #BrandGate thing (totally self inflicted by Google and unnecessary) killed off a ton of potential for G+ use by brands (as regular profiles, as a lot of news brands especially were immediately doing).

Allowing it would have 1) bought Google a ton of extra and positive coverage of brands happily experimenting with the "field trial", 2) would have avoided the first downer of the otherwise high energy/kumbayah launch phase (to be followed by strike to with the similarly ill-conceived #nymWars stuff), and 3) might have actually served to create some serious NATURAL Interest Graph bundling on here, all without having to resort to the worst of all "solutions", the SUL.

Bringing in Pages late as an afterthought once much of the energy had already dissipated made sure that they would flounder for the most part. I have heard of next to no one with a Page not on the SUL having done anything with it to write home about. +The Verge seems to be doing so-so OK with 30k followers.

And even those ON the SUL with hundred of thousands of users are barely taking it seriously anymore (will post an older comment excerpt in the next comment below this, this one is already getting long).

P.S. First time came up here, July 22 of last year! ->
+Rod Dunne ->

Amalgamated comments from me:

"... nah, it [the BrandGate] was a major mistake. They could have been on here, fending for themselves without any special privileges, and could have actually served to build a natural Interest Graph of sorts around their brands and/or topics that they are about or cover. G+ would have never needed the SUL (not that they needed it at all, but they did need something for onboarding, and opted for the lowest quality solution with the static/fixed SUL that has been distorting this community).
a fair number of all of the other people here were "commercial interests" as well, artists, photographers, solopreneurs of all types. G+ is primarily NOT for straight-up socializing with IRL friends and family like FB.

So why draw an artificial line in the sand? The successful (personal) brands on here are all on regular old profiles. G+ Pages are an afterthought for everyone, b/c that's not how the community was built. Show me one example of a minor business or cause (not turbo-boosted by way of the SUL) that has seen success as a Page on here.
if you look at most of the newsbrand pages on here, this is what you find:

A few, propelled by the SUL are doing OK, but really it's nothing to write home about, and even some SUL members or those with several hundred thousand followers are barely taking it seriously (the +The New York Times - 345k followers - has 4 posts since March 13... about the same for activity level for +TIME incidentally. +The Wall Street Journal stopped posting on Feb 5, etc. etc.).

+Mashable and +TechCrunch are doing OK, but somewhat smaller yet still pretty high-powered outfits like +The Verge are seeing really slow growth at currently 26k followers. As are all the others (Ars technica, ReadWriteWeb, asf.) not on the SUL."
UPDATE: +The New York Times has posted 3 times since April 1...
Curated: Another data point -> +The Rachel Maddow Show (which I actually enjoy for the most part) is on the SUL, but if you click through, has never once posted on here... so much for curating that particular list...
Pages is a travesty. I didn't know the back story on it so thanks for the insight. I do have some GPages of my own, and did set up some for clients, but the inability to circle others has smothered them completely.. makes them totally pointless even from these meagre attempts to use them.

The fact G are so cagey about the numbers actually says a lot in itself and throwing out the 170 million number so vaguely earlier didn't really feel right.

I do hope things improve and that theres some inclusive sense to the roadmap to onboarding & fostering various communities.
+Rod Dunne yeah, Google went all OCD on the rules for Pages there, too bad it will never matter since no one is using them... File under #irony. /cc +Alexander Becker
+Rod Dunne yep. That's about right about the m/m data being the most useful. I am anxiously awaiting the March data (unpaid usually out around the 20th of the next month).
Add a comment...