Shared publicly  - 
 
Looking for input on Google+ for a story this morning. This study says G+ has weak user engagement: http://info.rjmetrics.com/blog/bid/56123/New-Google-Plus-Data-Shows-Weak-User-Engagement

Your thoughts?
We used RJMetrics was used to conduct user loyalty analysis and cohort analysis on publicly available Google+ data.
3
Naba Barkakati's profile photoChristina DesMarais's profile photoTom Rolfson's profile photoCliff Roth's profile photo
10 comments
 
Why do I tend to think
that Facebook pays for stories like this
to appear in the press ?!?!?
-
Paint me cynical if you please.
-
 
Faulty data set, poor analytical skills, lack of understanding of G+.

That pretty much sums up my opinion on that study.

The best thing about G+, besides it not being about what someone just ate all the time, is that you don't have to be public with your sharing. I primarily share to my pre-defined private circles, just as it was intended with G+.
 
Probably has weak user because hardly anyone knows about it,i'm only guessing
 
+Christina DesMarais There are a few issues with the analysis. Some of those problems are technical. For example, they compare the usage data from G+, which has only existed for a year, to data from Twitter for which they use data since its inception. Comparison of both services in their first year is more proper. They also give stats for +'s per post without any data to compare it to. Was the equivalent of one +/post typical in Twitter's first year of service? I'm not sure. A greater problem may be the authors' exclusive use of public postings, which creates sampling error that, in my opinion, makes the analysis useless, except for the purposes of writing a blog post about it. One of the attractions of G+ is the ease with which we can control the audience of our postings.

Like others have noted, G+ is not FB, Twitter, or anything else. It's G+. It's great for content aggregation and collaboration in addition to the services provided by the other major social apps. It's not people bleating on a street corner. It's more like, you walk down a street and don't see anyone, but then you go into a building and you find that there's a party going on. Not only that, it's a good party with interesting people talking about things you care about and leaving out things you don't. Less noise, more signal. I'm not saying that it might not be living up to Google's expectations, but the analysis in the article provides no useful information to speak to that.
 
90+% of my G+ posts are NOT public.
-
If I am typical
then the report uses a seriously flawed methodology,
by using "Public" posts..
-
I use my circles to "narrowcast" to,
and quite deliberately too.
-
 
+Christina DesMarais Please don't make the same mistake that +Jeff Bercovici did. Here's a bit from the follow-up to his original piece on Forbes.com http://goo.gl/jihcS My statement then holds even more true now. I have to work to keep my circles trimmed to 4,500 but I could not possibly keep-up with all the awesome posts that come through my stream. And engagement? There's no way to measure what people are doing.. with the beauty of circle privacy. I'd guess that 20-25% of all my posts or interaction is not shared public.

If you want to measure Google+ vs the rest, look at the last 50-100 posts that come through your stream or newsfeeds on G+, Facebook and Twitter. I'm sure you'll find the most creative, artistic, intellectual or affluent on G+. Now, look at the consideration of the interaction of the last 50-100 posts... which source would you most like influencing your purchasing decisions, business decisions or healthcare decisions?

As for whether G+ should be or will be as big as Facebook? If you look at my bio.. you'll see that I have seen it all develop online.. being named by Boardwatch Magazine as one of the first 100 people in the world to make a living online. My money says G+ will be the first platform to continue to grow for 10 years, that Facebook has 'jumped the shark' and violated the trust of too many people to regain true trust. The vast majority of people I see say "I still have Facebook because my family and friends are there." They're not GOING there because they get a warm fuzzy feeling from Facebook, they're going there as a means of what they perceive last resort to communicate. I quit Facebook in July...my true friends and family have had no problem emailing or calling me. Hundreds have come here and use G+ regularly as well.

Now that I'm getting close to a TL;DR post... I hope it's not too late to help with your piece.
 
+Tom Rolfson Thanks so much, Tom. Those are excellent points, and I agree completely. I have already filed my story, unfortunately, but my guess is I will write about this again so I will come back here and use your input later if it's OK with you.
 
+Christina DesMarais Of course it is. Give a shout anytime I can help. Have you done a Hangout yet? Are you familiar with all the cool things being done in and developed for Hangouts? That really is the magic of G+ that so few have yet discovered. Ultimately, I believe it's the biggest advancement in social networking in 20 years. Twenty years ago we had email/message relay networks, we had file sharing, we had the ability to transfer image files/product information or to reach servers via packet networks and even chat with chat "rooms" which allowed users to connect with others globally. And while video conferencing has been available in a lot of commercial forms.. bringing that power, free to end-users is huge.
Add a comment...