Profile

Cover photo
Leibo R Raibstein
Lived in La Ceiba, Honduras
376 followers|645,549 views
AboutPostsPhotosVideosReviews

Stream

Leibo R Raibstein

Shared publicly  - 
 
It's good to have role models! 😆
 
Hmmmm.... More food for thought....

22 comments on original post
3
John Fitzmaurice's profile photoLeibo R Raibstein's profile photo
14 comments
 
+John Fitzmaurice​ Heh heh. Substitute the quote I provided, instead of the current one, if it'll make you feel better. That'll make Sanger an admirable character for you, right? 😉 Didn't think so, Skippy. 

The end result is the same (and Sanger's views on minorities is still the subject of debate). 
Add a comment...

Leibo R Raibstein

Shared publicly  - 
 
Great article!
1
Add a comment...

Leibo R Raibstein

Shared publicly  - 
 
”Facets” watch face
 
This never happened with my Pebble. While pulling my hand out of my pants pocket the band caught on my belt and opened up. Apple wants $229 to fix a $349 watch. Forget it!
89 comments on original post
1
Add a comment...

Leibo R Raibstein

Shared publicly  - 
2
Add a comment...

Leibo R Raibstein

Shared publicly  - 
 
"Not one shred of evidence! (Because I destroyed it all, tee hee!)"
 
When you've lost the +The New York Times Editorial board...

That said, they don't mention the emails. Without releasing the emails, everything is a half measure. 
Hillary Rodham Clinton needs to give straightforward answers about foreign donations that were not publicly disclosed.
2 comments on original post
1
Add a comment...

Leibo R Raibstein

Shared publicly  - 
3
Leibo R Raibstein's profile photoGabrielle M.'s profile photo
5 comments
 
An adventure of epic proportions 
Add a comment...
Have them in circles
376 people
Jimmy Gun's profile photo
Aleen Hogpen's profile photo
Follow Yeshua's profile photo
Johannes Wiltfang's profile photo
Rich Sobocinski's profile photo
David Landriault's profile photo
Mary Spitler's profile photo
Cars Flow's profile photo
Jimmy Balimis's profile photo

Leibo R Raibstein

Shared publicly  - 
 
Can't remember where, but someone wrote an article on the notion of individuals identifying not only as trans-gender, but trans-species. Here we have a dog that thinks it's a kitten. Why not, right?
 
So tiny!
Disney the chihuahua hasn't grown for weeks and is so small she thinks she's a kitten, her family say.
2 comments on original post
3
Add a comment...

Leibo R Raibstein

Shared publicly  - 
5
Alan Andrews's profile photo
 
Missed it by THAT much!
Add a comment...

Leibo R Raibstein

Shared publicly  - 
1
Add a comment...

Leibo R Raibstein

Shared publicly  - 
5
1
Erik Swiger's profile photo
Add a comment...

Leibo R Raibstein

Shared publicly  - 
 
South of Rawalpindi, Pakistan 😆
4
Add a comment...

Leibo R Raibstein

Shared publicly  - 
 
Excellent analysis.
 
A Truly Awful Google+ Hatchet Job on Forbes Exposed

As some of you know, I've made it my policy for some time now not to waste time responding to the "Google+ is dead" articles that sprout up from time to time like weeds on a spring lawn. 

But the recent rash have been so bad, so poorly researched and argued, that I had to end my silence.

My next +Marketing Land column (which should publish next week, I think) deals with the main arguments in recent articles by +Larry Kim and +Travis Wright.

But in this post I'm commenting on a new Forbes post by Steve Denning titled "Five Reasons Why Google+ Died." In a response today +Mike Elgan dealt very well with a number of Denning's reasons, including a very bad misunderstanding of a quote by Elgan that Denning doesn't even correctly attribute. You can read Elgan's post at http://goo.gl/FH6DJ5.

I want to address a statistic quoted in the introduction of Denning's article. He quotes +Scott Galloway as stating that Google+ had a "97% decline in engagement rate, year over year." (The actual figure is 98%, as you'll see later, but that's the most inconsequential of Denning's errors.)

That's a pretty stunning claim. I wanted to see the actual study, where its data came from and its methodology. No context was given around the number.

In response to my comment on the Forbes article asking for that information, Denning referred me to a previous article of his, which linked to another article. That article had an embedded video of a talk by Galloway, in which he states the 98% drop in engagement as evidence that Google+ has failed, showing for a few seconds a bar chart with that stat.

But still no link to or citation of, in the article or video, whatever study this data came from. 

It took me almost an hour to track down the original study from which the "98% drop in engagement" comes, but eventually I found it.

It's at https://www.l2inc.com/research/social-platforms-2014. Turns out that L2 is Scott Galloway's own research company. 

The full report is for "members only." I entered my email address to get the download of the non-members version. It turns out to be only an excerpt, and does not contain the methodology or any details on how the data was obtained.

As far as I can discern, L2 looked at the social profiles of about 300 brands. So first off, this is only a study of brand profiles on social media.The study does not look at regular users at all. Which means to use it as a source to proclaim overall engagement is fallacious. 

When I dig down further in the excerpt, I saw that there was a lot more to the story.

Yes, of the 300 some brands they surveyed, Facebook is killing it. But if you look at the rest of the story, Google+ is doing at least as well as, and sometimes better than., the other secondary social networks. 

The ballyhooed "98% drop in engagement rate" (engagements per follower) occurred, according to the study, from July 2013 to July 2014. While that drop is  the worst among the networks surveyed, all of the networks had drops including Facebook, which dropped 13%. 

If you look at the other stats, you get a broader story. 

In the time period studied (again, July 2013 to July 2014), the surveyed brands increased followers on Google+ by 41% (compared to an increase for Facebook of 38%). Moreover, the absolute number of followers for Google+ was the highest of any network (960K, compared to FB's 781K).

Also, brand engagement per post went up 67% on Google+, while only 26% on Facebook. 

So you see, you can prove whatever you want, it just depends on which stat you choose.

And in this case, those numbers only apply to a very small sample of brand pages, not to all users of the networks, as the Forbes writer assumed.

These days I always want to add to these posts that I come neither to praise Google+ nor to bury it (sorry, Shakespeare!). I'm not going after this as a G+ fanboy, but simply because I hate misinformation.

UPDATE: With permission, I am adding on here an excellent comment left on the Forbes article by +David Amerland that very deftly deals with the five main "reasons" denning gave for why Google+ is dead. The following is David's complete comment:

Interesting points. Let’s take them in reverse: #5 – G+ is not a social network in the traditional sense of the word. It is a “social layer” (Google execs have specifically said this on a number of occasions) or more exact a set of tools used to socialize the web. There are a lot of new things within that: from HOAs (Hangouts On Air) to an ability to connect a real-world-business to a Google Map presence to a page, to real people profiles, to name but two.

#4 – From the outset Google said that G+ was not like Facebook and was never intended to be. No idea why this idea is perpetuated but obviously the words “social network” applied as a label mean the exact same thing to all people (sigh).

#3 – If by “customers” you mean those who use Google’s services and products in both their free and paid-for formats, then you’d be hard pressed to find a more end-user orientated company. Case in point any G+ users owns the data they upload (all of it). If you want to, you can download it and close your profile and walk away. Last time I checked Facebook retained the rights to everything you posted even after you closed your profile and it has taken court orders to stop them from using deleted profiles’ data.

#2 – I have no idea how you can think a structured search index is not a library (guess there are no books you can see there). Semantic search is very much like that and Google’s Knowledge Vault goes even beyond it. Search is useless without an index, an index is a cataloguing of information in a highly cross-referenced way. This point, quite frankly is ridiculous.

#1 – I agree with the extrinsinc/intrinsic rewards principle. There are many Google employees who do not use G+ themselves and it has caused issues internally in the company.

You could have got rid of all the other points and led with that and you would have got yourself an article that actually added some real value to the online conversation, but for that to happen you would have to have some awareness of the G+ platform itself (i.e. use it occasionally).
Google needs to rethink its mission statement and delight its customers
91 comments on original post
3
Add a comment...
People
Have them in circles
376 people
Jimmy Gun's profile photo
Aleen Hogpen's profile photo
Follow Yeshua's profile photo
Johannes Wiltfang's profile photo
Rich Sobocinski's profile photo
David Landriault's profile photo
Mary Spitler's profile photo
Cars Flow's profile photo
Jimmy Balimis's profile photo
Places
Map of the places this user has livedMap of the places this user has livedMap of the places this user has lived
Previously
La Ceiba, Honduras - Kenner, Louisiana - Dover, Delaware - Colorado Springs, Colorado - Columbus, Mississippi - Siguatepeque, Honduras
Links
Work
Occupation
Pilot
Basic Information
Gender
Smiley Face
This franchise is awful! With the exception of a couple of guys at the register, the service is bad (yeah, even by fast-food standards). Oh, and watch your receipt. They have two different prices on some items, and the manager insists that despite that, you have to pay the higher price, which is higher than the stand-alone McDonald's down the road to begin with. The only thing keeping this location alive is the fact it's in a Walmart.
Public - 3 weeks ago
reviewed 3 weeks ago
Staff was very attentive. The Playboy roll was tasty, and entertaining to watch being prepared. And the selections on the all-u-can eat menu were great, tasty, and fresh. This was my first time here, but it won't be my last!
Public - a month ago
reviewed a month ago
Food and service were great (thanks Chalynn), and the tiramisu was amazing!
Public - 2 months ago
reviewed 2 months ago
Used to really like the sushi here, but last time I went, the pieces were positively puny. It's still ok, but no longer a great value, and you can get better, bigger sushi nearby for the same price.
Public - 2 months ago
reviewed 2 months ago
30 reviews
Map
Map
Map
We've been at CSDA less than a year (2013), but are amazed at how much more our daughter has learned in such a short time. She's at the studio less (more free time for friends and homework), but is actually learning more! Instructor Maegan really challenges students and isn't afraid to add to, or change, routines as they master new skills. The number of older girls at the studio is a testament to Maegan's ability to motivate and encourage their love for dance, at an age when they tend to get burned out and drop out. Best of all, tuition is extremely competitive! One year follow-up (2014): to say that moving to this studio was a good decision would be a massive understatement. The year-end recital was absolutely phenomenal. Our daughter is getting an excellent dance education, but more importantly, she's surrounded by positive role models (from the director, to the other teachers, down to the older girls and her own classmates). Maegan is building a very strong team, and I can't wait to see where they go! Bottom line: This is THE studio to be at in the Fort Mill/Tega Cay area, especially for competitive dancers. Little wonder so many kids are leaving nearby studios to join this team.
• • •
Public - a month ago
reviewed a month ago
Great staff, good food, clean atmosphere.
Public - 2 months ago
reviewed 2 months ago
If you like billing nightmares, this Minute Clinic is for you! For some reason, they can't seem to send your insurance information to every department involved in your visit. So, rather than send any claims to your insurance provider, they just bill your credit card and leave you to sort out reimbursement from your insurance company. Convenience? Maybe for CVS. It's not worth the time you'll spend on the phone fixing their laziness, though. Do yourself a favor and go to the Target clinic in the same parking lot if you're in a hurry.
• • •
Public - 4 months ago
reviewed 4 months ago