Shared publicly  - 
Google+1 is crushing Facebook and Twitter as a traffic referrer to the LAUNCH blog. It's just insane the difference!

With 100k twitter followers I'm getting half the clicks as from Google+ with 10k followers. That's 20x the effectiveness.

I'm getting 10x the traffic from google+ than Facebook and i have 5k facebook friends. That's 15x more effective.


a) why?
b) Is this your experience?
c) Where is Google+ in relation to Facebook and Twitter in terms of referral traffic?
d) if Facebook is designed to be a traffic blackhole, is Google+ designed to be the flood gates?

Rob Phillips's profile photoKyle Wickstrom's profile photoKyle M Brown's profile photoEric Lauzon's profile photo
people are just in exploration mode, and are clicking every link. When things calm down here, we'll see if people begin ignoring their stream
Right crowd with better opportunity for interaction and feedback that that interaction means something?
Same here. Lets face it, these are the early adopters and they are just more active. Plus it is easier to move round in G+!
I'd say the most massive factor is that you've got a much more accurately targeted audience at the moment who is viewing less stuff go by...but of higher quality. i.e. You stand out more to the right people
Right now there is a high concentration of tech people on G+ Also tweets disappear quickly. Popular posts keep coming back up on G+
Gonna go with flood gate that can be turned off with the next update
Could it be because google+ traffic is limited right now to early adopters who actually engage with the content?
You've got sample-bias in your data - (self-selected) - Google deliberately only invited the "cool kids" of the tech community - the most engaged. They've effective taken a significant part of your active twitter followers, and copied them over here - hence the apparent "effectiveness"
the "right" audience is present on G+.
You still have the 'fresh and new stuff' going on here. It is always the same with new tools, just the scale is different.
Maybe I haven't explored enough yet, but it seems Google+ is being dominated by a handful of 'tech elite'... Any idea where the other fishbowls are on here?
This exactly my experience. All the same as you divided by 3. I have 37K Twitter followers and a very active twitter feed but with only 3K Google+ followers the activity is comparable. Facebook is another story because I erased almost everyone and left friends and family.
It is too early to draw any statistical conclusions. While I am, so far, happy with the interface, the system is still in beta. Who knows what the real system will actually look like.
Less choice since people haven't been clicking "like" for 4 years and amassed thousands of other brands to pollute their stream. For me I have much fewer overall traffic coming through, which means less noise and more attention to what's here (you). Though, it's still great content. ;)
a) Convenience and the right people talking about the right things (when they bother talking about anything other than G+).
b) Yup. I have never gotten an uptick rate as far as follows and traffic from one source (other than SU from time to time).
c) Still less than FB or Twitter, but the time that it has taken to get there is a fraction of the time it took either.
d) I think Google+ is naturally pulling us into conversation rather than stupid games. Conversation leads to references, sharing content, etc. which leads to traffic out rather than in. Note: I always used FB this way, too, but too many people got caught up in games, pages, etc.
I agree with your followers being early adopters and being more active... plus posts aren't pushed down almost instantaneously like in Twitter :)
IMO, the ppl who are taking time to explore G+ are my target market who I reach out to on the other social medias. Although I am very optimistic of G+, I'm sure the efficacy rate will trend down as more of the masses come on board.
I think that's a very important point, Bindu. Twitter is not sticky in the slightest. No matter how good your content it will be buried very quickly. On G+, on the other hand, a post that gets a lot of comments will be extremely sticky, and crowd out other content. And a poster like Jason Calacanis will get a lot of comments by virtue of being Jason Calacanis. Translation: This is a very good medium for famous people because the Mathew effect is magnified: "For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath."
Pretty amazing, good data, thanks for sharing. To some extent, its probably the novelty and small amount of content here (less clutter... we all have fewer things to look at.) But, something does feel powerful about G+.... please keep us updated on this every so often.
I think that the comment about a targeted audience is vaild. There is more focus within G+ while the Twitter data stream is random and things can be missed over a 24 hour period. There is also less content competition in here at the moment and more scrutiny of posts. Time. Will. Tell. <-- I think we've seen that a lot in the past week+.
I think it's important to point out that the interface here makes the links seem a lot more inviting. You get a big picture of where you're going (instead of a tiny thumbnail on Facebook), and you see a full link (as opposed to a shortened URL that you'd find on Twitter). Half the time I don't click Twitter links just because I don't know where they're going, whereas here, I know exactly where I'm going to end up.
1) Asymmetric following model
2) Early adopters -> +Patrick Smith
3) Still Marketing and Ad free zone
4) Discovering value still high (relatively low noise besides the GIFs)
Chris S
FB is a walled garden, and twitter is kinda... meh.
a) why?
I bet your core audience has followed you here to G+ and has amplified your message to the limited and engaged G+ userbase.

b & c) Is this your experience?
No. Twitter still leads traffic. Click to conversion, Facebook leads. G+ could very well surpass both because of the Circles UX, but not yet.

d) if Facebook is designed to be a traffic blackhole, is Google+ designed to be the flood gates?

That's a nice analogy. I see it on a Facebook blue t-shirt with Lucida Grande font :)
xxx yyy
That's kinda like saying the ice cream shop in the same mall as weight watchers is always busier after weight watchers meeting let out ... I mean they are the target audience.

The real question is can Google+ drive traffic to something that's not tech related
A few reasons for the first question above:
i) More ways for followers to engage with your content (+1, shares, comments)
ii) Sharing is more viral (due to smaller, targeted tech community).
iii) New comments push older posts to the top of everyone who comments on your post. Compounded if they share it as well.
iv) Finally that notification bar on top keeps bringing users back - again and again to the content.
I've been doing serial Hangouts since I got here, including recording a live episode of Astronomy Cast with +Pamela Gay . I've had more engagement and involvement in a week here than years of using Facebook and Twitter.

But we're clearly in the honeymoon stage here, and it can't last. It's just a matter of time before people autopost their RSS feeds into their streams and it all becomes overwhelming here too.
a) Twitter can easily be missed based on the number that you follow.
Facebook limits your feed to those you most communicate with by default, unless you turn that off you may never see some of your connections again after a few months time.
Google+ doesn't seem to do that, just yet, and when folks comment, more folks will see your link.

b) Yes it is, and it's been very beneficial. Just want business pages to launch so I can do a page without fear that Google will dismantle it.

c) It's very high if you have a lot of followers, but very low if your friends don't share your links, or you don't have that many followers.

d) Facebook is designed to keep you inside of the walled garden, more and more they want to divert traffic to stay within their boundaries, which is why pages went away from FBML in favor of iframes. Putting your website content inside of facebook sounds great, until you realize that Facebook is advertising to your customers as well. Google is a discovery engine, designed to direct traffic flow to finding new things that might interest them.
Jason, even low traffic android dev blogs like mine get more traffic from posting article post links in G+ rather than FB or twitter
Active G+ users at this point are more tech saavy, hence interested in Launch and they are, at least for now, more involved and active with G+
+Jason Calacanis Am I the only one who keeps mistaking shared links for post titles? More than once I've caught myself clicking on a link, expecting a "full article" page with your post and all comments...

Note: ChartBeat stats have issues... Compare with other live stats tools like Clicky or Woopra and you'll see CB is off most of the time (over-counting sessions/concurrent users/page visits).
Facebook involves mutual friending... and without proper list usage too much articles/updates pass by... The Site is quite static as well.

Twitter has retweet but apart from that... the articles never reshow so again alot of stuff falls through the cracks...
It's because your 100K and 5K followers on Twitter and friends on Facebook, respectively, are all on Google Plus right now. You can also say, that amongst the tech insiders the number of tweets and posts has gone down since G+ was launched.
I think facebook is more for personal interactions, like with old high school friends, etc. G+ seems to have more of an enterprising feel (i.e. circles -- sharing the right stuff w/ the right people). Plus, since Facebook was most peeps first experience w/social, G+ is sort of an opportunity to reinvent ones self with more focus on what's truly important.
There is only one reason why it is so successful. It is because all of the Uber Tech Celebrity Geeks, sorry Jason, are actively participating in an environment that is only 1/16 exposed to the general public. This gives the Celebs a few weeks time to enjoy some normality before the flood comes. Celeb to fan participation is super high right now, which creates a whirlwind of analytics.
Actually Jason, that was meant to be a compliment. My son just crapped his Star Wars undies... Gotta go!
Interesting, I just checked our uniques have increased 10x in the last few days since I started posting company related stuff to Google+ ( btw - we see G+ as yet another reason why everybody has to use our service moving forward :) ) - so +Jason Calacanis might have something here....
Can you display any hard metrics? I want a screen shot of the referrer rates. Otherwise this is just spam.
+Rick Bjarnason Doesn't Facebook say that the average user visits the site once per day though?
Glad to see you're using Chartbeat. God, I love me some Chartbeat...
+jason calicanis That doesn't surprise me at all. The engagement and conversation is much better hear than those platforms at this point in time.
Google+ is newer, and has some appealing features. For me, the circles concept is the killer feature, it's what FB was missing. I don't think this means Google+ is necessarily better or cooler. It's the network effect, and SNS users are being trained to connect. The next big social network service will grow even faster, and this will continue until SNS saturation occurs.
Emil S
+David J Halvorson - at least at this point
I think at this point the kids will stay on FB and the parents will be on G+. I am sure goog does not want it this way so lets see what happens.
That's because all your facebook friends have hundreds if not thousands of friends to filter through. At Google+, you're probably 1 of tens or twenties of friends. When/if Google+ grows to comparable size, it will likely be about the same.
You're a big fish in a small pond.
Maybe your followers are following less users on Google+ than on Twitter because they are building their circles. As a result you have more attention and higher probability of click on Google+.
FB's default settings filter the newsfeed to show only notifications from people/pages you're in touch with/interact with... as a result you may have thousands of likes, but very few may see what you post, despite their indicated interest.

This may be also because your audience is Web and Tech people, I don't think even the majority of the regular internet user has even open a Google + account yet.
Impressive for a 2 week old product.

Wonder if Google+ will maintain the engagement levels when/if it goes mainstream.
Google+ has attracted early adopter, high frequency users who are on & off multiple times per day playing in their new sandbox. Facebook has 15 year old duckface girls and grannies cooing over baby pictures. If granny moved from Facebook to Google+, she'd still only log in twice a week to comment on new baby pictures; everything she didn't understand would intimidate her and go unused as it currently does on Facebook.
TL;DR - The invite-only beta attracted high use personalities.
Facebook is a closed system, so sharing is pretty limited to only people you know. G+ has that stumble upon effect (for now).
Agree with +Rob Phillips . It's nice having a link which can be shared with the public. I've found myself posting things on G+ and then sharing the link on Facebook.
a) why? - Early Adopters yes but we cant forget the Google has that other thing known as a search engine. Search results for key phrases used in Google Plus seem to rank very well and swiftly even with the NON user friendly urls. Interesting!!

b) Is this your experience? - Have not tested in depth but given my analysis noted in question "a", I would say it should be similar to yours.

c) Where is Google+ in relation to Facebook and Twitter in terms of referral traffic? Same answer as in question "b".

d) if Facebook is designed to be a traffic blackhole, is Google+ designed to be the flood gates? Possibly, and back to my answer to question "a".
I have the same kind of difference in the traffic from these social networks!
Add a comment...