Shared publicly  - 
 
There’s a lot of conflicting data out there about Google+. A few studies over the past few months have portrayed the fledgling social network as relatively moribund, but another recent report from Experian Hitwise says visits to the network are growing substantially, hitting 34.9 million for the week ended Aug. 4 compared to 21.9 million visits for the week ended July 21 — a 59% jump in two weeks.

Whether the network is thriving or not, this research from Umpf, a UK-based social media firm, shows that activity on G+ is low compared to other social networks.

SEE MORE - http://on.mash.to/N5J3kg
646
246
Rasmus Berg's profile photoPams Bluemoon's profile photoRed Idea Digital Marketing Agency's profile photoRick David's profile photo
332 comments
 
Are there a lot more users like me- I hardly ever share anything, but I read a ton, and comment on a ton.
 
Umpf, which does not advertise their presence on G+...
 
Except you can't gather statistics on people who only share to their circles.
 
Perhaps it just indicates a higher willingness among G+ users to create original content, as opposed to sharing every meme and animated gif that comes along...
 
There´s nothing moribund about G+. You should know...
 
G+ is my google reader replacement. A news feed and a comment engine if you will. I forget to share because I'm reading and commenting on posts too much.
 
"Study" only analyzed shares across networks for 100 news stories

Okay. I'm sorry. I've been done with +Mashable for a long time, but yet they still continue to infuriate me. Today Mashable published an article titled "This infographics proves why Google+ is a ghost town" and goes on to say in the article "There's a lot of conflicting data....is this comparison fair? What do you think?" So....no. It doesn't prove anything. And the study is by UMPF and only analyzed 100 news stories. Never heard of them? Yeah. Exactly. Check out their horrific webpage. Clearly a market leader ((eye roll)). 

Let's also not forget that most people share privately (to "Circles" and "Extended Circles").

This conversation needs to die and linkbaiting along with it.
 
More insightful comments on G+. The majority of Tweets that I see get no response whatsoever.
 
This will change as more people realize the authorship value of being there. 
 
Umpf, which has not used their google plus page since November.
 
Oh, if people only realized who makes up Google+. It's a pretty influential group. What I want to know is did the influentials move to Google+ because they were tired of all the noise everywhere else? Something to think about.
 
I would like to see a stat for how many comments are made per minute on google+
Fabio \m/
+
2
6
7
6
 
Another "Quality vs Quantity" discussion, I assume. I rather read posts that are really interesting in some way here at G+, than to get those "I just woke up", "I just had lunch" or "I just took a piss" kind of posts on Twitter.... or drunken girls pictures on Facebook...
Tony M.
+
1
4
5
4
 
i just shared the article via myspace
 
It may be a ghost town but at least it's not full of zombies.
 
People on G+ don't need to share because they are creating the material that will be shared by others not yet walking upright...there's a reason they call it twitter....silly birds.
 
I agree with others here.  I don't post very much myself to Google+ but it's in the "comments" that G+ becomes more interesting.  I love the interaction between commenters and the discussions that arise.  You won't find that kind of engagement on FB or Twitter.
 
Learning a new tool is too complicated. They rather publish rubbish about them. 
 
+Duane Donovan Which is probably valuable info for a business to have. For instance if you want to spread the world about a promo or new product quickly- Twitter might be the way to go. 

Now someone needs to research the best place for a brand to create meaningful relationships with clients, or have real discussion about issues with clients... My guess is the answer would be G+
 
I prefer it cause it doesn't have a lot of JUNK posts like Facebook. People here post what is necessary :D!
 
If you look at the average quality of stories, you can probably reverse the order.
 
This is creepy! So many ghosts conversing!
 
I see what the problem is. People who write these articles are the ones that fail to get any interaction on google+. To see how active google+ is you need to get involved with the different communities; you need to interact with users on their posts. You’re not going to get engagement on google+ if you don’t try to engage with other users on here.

So instead of trying to make google+ look bad with your incomplete data you should rather focus on building your audience by improving the way you interact and engage on here. I thought you lot knew how social media works -_-
 
Going to be honest; at this point the Ghost Town argument for Google+ is too laughable to even take seriously enough to argue against. It’d be like arguing against someone who believed that Martians lived in their dishwasher.
 
+Mashable, how about a 'ghost free' analysis of its technical capability and performance?
Oh, right. That would be hard work. A bit more difficult than using others' findings and simply reposting.

We'll leave that up to +Ars Technica who make great use of their presence.
 
G+ is not your typical social network, it's better. You can have Facebook, we plussers love our social network! 
 
+DeAno Jackson Don't you take that away from me! The Martians in my dishwasher are my only friends. :(
 
I think that G+ has grown a lot this last 2-3 months, i think that this grow continues, i could leave twitter in 6 months or so
 
hahaha! Yea, right... And the check is in the mail RE: this "study" too, right? =) The only thing this so-called "study" shows is this: QUALITY (and intriguing people) = Google Plus, while Quantity and mediocrity = FB, LinkedIn, etc. Many people I know are flocking to G+ and Twitter to wash off the STINK from FB. LinkedIN & FB have already checked into the place where social networks go to die. Let's at least let them have some shred of dignity to do so! hahaha! #keeptellingyourselfthat ! :D
 
I think +Joe Frayer might be on to something!  Who's paying for these studies anyway?
 
I use a lot Google+ and I'm following some plusers and pages and there are a lot of activity and very interesting information for me.
What is surprising me these days is that some of my closest friends are starting to use Google+.
I don't really know why now and not some months ago but that is a fact: everyday more people are starting to discover and use Google+. I'm sure Google is very quiet with that, they need a couple of years to develop a complete integration of all of their products... we are only at the beginning
 
I just love how sites saying this is a "ghost town", have more than 100 comments on each of their posts and more than half-million people have them on their circles. Maybe its time we call the Ghostbusters, too much of them around.
 
I'm on Google+ but often ask myself why.
 
+Mashable bias reporting? This study is bunk. Look at the value of the content (comments and shares) on G+, it's actually pretty impressive.

As someone else mentioned, tracking shares within a private circle isn't happening and thus the comparison is not valid. Facebook paying  Umpf to run a horrible study? Then Facebook pays +Mashable to post this garbage. Get real.

Let's gauge the comments to share ratio, and then make a comparison. ANOTHER point, this argument is old. Please move on and write something relevant.
 
Compared to both Facebook and Twitter from the time they started, Google+ (within the same time-frame) is doing EXCEEDING WELL.
But most of all, the fact that I, Lion, I'm using it on a daily basis, shows you just how great G+ is.
 
So sharing a story is how we measure successful networks? What about interactions and getting information I care about rather than a feed full of garbage?
 
So in a years time, G+ had almost 100m users.  How many users did FB have after one year?
 
Oh.. wait.  Let me sign in under my other account.
Rob Go
+
6
7
6
 
People socialize on LinkedIn?
 
The only thing that will make google+ succes is criticism 
 
I think these comparisons are not going to change much. Not that Google+ is unpopular, in fact IMO these are the numbers a social network should be when it's done right.

In other words, people are just over sharing / re-sharing in Facebook and Twitter.
 
I actually like to use G+ to express my opinions and ideas as friends, family, co-workers on Facebook are easily put off by such behavior. Imagine that.  FB is my "passive face," while G+ is my "socially responsible/involved" face.
 
yeah, since everything you say on twitter is for everyone same goes for facebook where the standard settings are, tell the whole world.
 
"...for every 100m users, the average number likely to share a story".  So G+ has 170,000,000 users divided by 100,000,000 gives 1.7; times 6 (the number per 100m) gives us 10.2 people on the G+ who are "likely to share [stories]"?

If I did my math wrong, please feel free to explain.  Otherwise, I totally discredit anything from this post.
 
I ought to read the report properly, but it seems to me that these thigs are always subjective.  At some point in the last 3 months, Google+ became more active than facebook for me.  It has always been more active than Twitter in terms of stories shared.  I need to see their metrics...
 
+Kelvin Lee 

I agree- its classic signal vs. noise; users on google+ are generally younger and more technically proficient- public posts outside of circles are going to look quite quiet. (i.e. your not going to get 1mil shares of people freaking out about a fake story that face book is going to a pay service.)

Linkedin is just trash for anything other that a contact book you log into once every 6 months.- the claim that it is above plus is absurd. (Advertisers spamming about themselves does not make it useful)  

Just as web hits ≠ human pageviews
social posts ≠ social engagement
number of users ≠  quality of service
 
 
For journalists who seem to really like writing about social networking usage numbers, they are amazingly poor at providing proper references to their sources. +Eli Fennell has previously done an excellent job at picking these so called research reports to pieces, mainly over not including private shares or mobile traffic - both of which are real strengths of Google+.
 
Cheers +Carter Gibson for seeing bad analytical data for what it is. Something to ignore..
 
I say give it time. Google+ is still very young. I remember a time when people didn't pay much attention to Facebook and Myspace was dominating the world. As long as Google keeps the platform competitive and innovative it will survive. 
 
The only thing I do on LinkedIn is wonder "how the heck did he/she fall into that job."  I don't think it's an honest forum as people are looking to puff themselves up and (perhaps) give off an impression of status and success... even if it's not true.
 
Why are we even bitching about this? Finally, I'm the 1%. Lol.
 
Just read this article on Mashables website. Have no intention to log in with a social media account to comment so thought I would come here to do so...

Once again, I find an article on mashable ridiculous...Google+ is in the early stages of its life cycle, measured up against other social media sites that have been around a lot longer.

Google+ is being measured against the three most popular social media platforms, and comes in forth... add the rest of the social media platforms around the world...and G+ looks like it is doing amazingly well...

I really feel these articles are created with the purpose of framing facts into looking the way one wants them to... quite tiring to see infact 
 
Maybe if Mashable started to allow g+ sign-in instead of just Twitter and FB they would see more of this community.
 
I thought I blocked you Mashable just so I didn't have to see these stupid flame posts. Fail on my part. Okay, you're blocked now. Continue with your inflammatory articles. 
 
+Mashable Do you have the data for Facebook's user engagement when it first started? I clearly remember opening facebook and not using using it for a long period of time (about a year or year and a half) before I fully started to use it. I kinda want to see those numbers. By all account I would say Fabecook was also a "Ghost Town" when it started. I dint think a social network's value is not measured by the amount of shares and traffic it generates, but by the quality of the content people can find inside and also the quality of the people sharing their content online...be it photography, articles of interest or thoughts in general.  
 
Maybe Google+ users are smart enough to not share inane stuff with a twitch of the finger?
 
In related news, it turns out humans don't fling as much of their feces as monkeys.
 
+Jared Aoki LinkedIn- It's supposed to be a "professional" networking platform where people highlight their "profesional careers" and employers can post jobs. It's like a employee database. +Charleen Taylor And I agree with what you've written. 
 
I dont know about you but I enjoy more Google+ on iPad than any other social media (Facebook / Twitter) and I guess there are more people like me. Facebook app is really awful and since Google+ released their improved app I am using it more and sharing from it. Would be interesting to see stats of usage for tablets of the main social media sites.
 
I don't need stats to tell me what social media is popular. I have a house full of teens... three of my own who are very active and have many peers... not including some who are my clients (for Senior Photos). I know first-hand what social media they use. Twitter, Instagram then facebook. Google+ isn't even on their radar. Maybe because Google + markets to "nerds"? (that's me w/my hand raised high). But I love Google +!  Just my  two cents. 
 
Surprising to see more activity on Twitter than Facebook. I thought Facebook dominated the show.
 
I think it used to be until people starting friending their moms, grandparents and pastors... then it stopped being a valid place for people to speak candidly about real issues.  Users went to another place to express themselves -- a place that Grandma won't venture.
 
That's all natural if you take into account that the average IQ of Google+ users is way above that of other social networks' users. Twitter is brimming with "gangsta" celebrities and narcissistic wanna-be's, and Facebook, well, is it really necessary to point it out?
 
Regardless of what studies say, I like Google+ the way it is right now. Sure I don't share much but I comment on articles and posts and in that way I contribute to the wonderful experience that this social site has to offer. This is a place where strangers can have an interesting conversation and where people can learn....you can't get that sort of stimulating experience in Facebook, Twitter, or what have you.
 
Oh me, oh my-- why am I NOT surprised at the IMPECCABLE timing between this UK "so called" study and now this "fresh off the presses" FB UK headline: "Facebook Gambling App With Fluffy Creatures Definitely Not Aimed At Kids" in the UK. Link: http://goo.gl/btO3i  #thejigisup   #FAIL #ripfb  
 
I second
James and Lee above.
G+ is for communication between adults.... leave out the garbage invites about trollfarmer, mobsterwarz, etc.
Its a social network, not a social-robot/zombie network for the brain washed / braindead morons of the world.... :-/
 
Twitter is dominated by teens and tweens. I can't even express how overwhelming it is to read random tweets that people should really be writing in their diaries. The world isn't your therapist people. Nobody wants to see your dirty laundry. 
 
Twitter and Facebook is where the crème de la crap go.
James T
 
why g+ last
wrong
 
Its because Google+ people are more concerned with ideas than people and events.
 
Google has less overall traffic because it is oriented towards sharing a much narrower type of information. It is really a great platform for sharing news items and photos. Less good for sharing mundane daily details. Those of us who don't care where you had lunch today appreciate the high signal-to-noise ratio.
 
What this research seems to demonstrate to me is that Twitter is more densely populated with parrots than any of the other sites covered.
 
Maybe g+ users are more selective about what they spam their friends/followers/circles with.
Sean D
+
4
5
4
 
Give me substance over quantity any day!
 
Maybe articles wasn't worth of sharing? Certainly they must start work on quality than quantity
 
I do not like clowns sharing useless stories with me unless the add something the Pot. That is why I am G+. 

(Thanks for the post by the way.)
 
+Joshua Weaver how can you say the beta version sucked? I've been using G+ from week 2 of entry with invite only phase and never found it lacking or anything so bad to say it sucked. Sure in the past 1 yr they have added(and changed) some functions and features for the better but the basic features and functions which sets G+ apart from the other platforms and makes it so special, were always there from day 1 like circles, hangouts, spark. Other features are almost common to all the social networking sites. One important advantage of G+ is the privacy controls. A user has full control over what he wants on his account and again this was there from day 1. So I'm quite surprised by your comment. I'm just assuming that G+ didn't get much time(that it deserves) from you, back then.
 
really.. define.. STORY.. people whining about drama doesnt count. i like G+ for the simple fact that people post fun/interesting/meaningfull topics I can actually have a conversation about. rather than 150 words or a like button
 
Google+ is my outlet for thoughtful discussion and meeting interesting new people. I could only guess why the banter and comments are more intelligent here - by leaps and bounds (mostly). Let me give you all a pat on the back: Perhaps it's the fact that most people who use Google+ are early adopters. I came here because I was open minded and wanted to see what this platform was like. I liked it and started actively using it. I had to, because most of my friends were locked into FB.

Early adopters tend to be more open minded in general than people who like routine. That's just a generalization, but I believe it's true.

So in a nutshell: G+ attracted open minded, early adopters and here we are talking to each other, making relevant, intelligent comments, while many of our "friends" are somewhere else.

I use FB to decompress after a dramatic G+ political debate by seeing what my meat-space friends, family and acquaintances are having for dinner.
 
Everyone on this comment stream should be added to a G+ circle called: Awesome People. 
 
I also was on the beta of G+ and found it lacking. I recently gained interest in everything Google when they started changing the interface of all their services to make it faster, smoother, and just plain sexy. I am using Google Drive since Google Fiber is going to be widely available (hopefully) and would like to keep it all in the same domain. I also run a gaming organization that uses Google apps for our domain. I just wish they had a public API where I can post messages across all services.
 
G+ is not a ghost town. It is my preferred social site. I find the posts interesting and the discussions they generate tend to be lively and thought-provoking. I use FB to post updates to my family living in another country but G+ is where I choose to spend my time.
 
I am a ghost and this is my kind of town.
G Clark
+
3
4
3
 
Agreed, less spam and nonsense
 
You suck Mashable. Take your anti-G+ rhetoric to Facebook.
 
I like to think there are a lot more intelligent conversation on here instead of facebook where everyone is drunk or naked or twitter where its a live advertisement and argument feed.
 
Their research must be flawed. I have roughly the same number of people circled on Google + as I have friends on Facebook. Yet I see double to almost triple the activity on Google +. I cannot speak for Twitter.
 
Google+ is still infant, it will definitely hit more people but will take some time first.
 
And lookie there.. Another boring "I Dont Care" article. Thanks for nothing.
 
Another piece of anecdotal evidence that intelligence roams in small numbers.
 
I feel that G+ is a more mature way of getting info and forgets all the played out dramatics you find on other sites, that's why I deleted my Facebook account and barley use twitter
 
Happy ghost who is annoyed with your biased coverage on Google+. Do you have a response to +Amanda Blain post challenging your #'s?
 
people on FB usually just engage with friends, here on G+ there's wider audience of influencers, people or brands that won't spam you with promotions and IMHO, more quality content...
 
I like the low sharing numbers. Why share a twitter posting? If I was interested in some person, I'd friend them myself. I get more useless photo likes and lame story shares on facebook than actual interesting posts. On G+ I follow what I care about, and occasionally, those people share good stories, and I sometimes add the source author to my circles. That's engagement. Not another "share this picture if you don't want grandma to die".
 
Quality vs. quantity.   How much of the Facebook sharing is "Cut and paste this status if you love your mom/dad/sister/brother/second cousin twice removed/dog/cat/bird/hamster" type posts.   Facebook is cotton candy calories to Google+'s steak and eggs. 
 
+Michael Atwood Yes!  That's why I dropped everything else.  I've never been that much into the "social media" scene.  I'm an introvert.

Google+ has a lot of activity but much less noise.  Less game invites, less stuff about people offering me picnic baskets if I be their neighbor, and fewer lolcat type stuff.  I know where to go see that stuff, I don't need someone sending me the latest picture.

I drop people with extreme prejudice now.  If I start seeing too much of that garbage in my stream I just remove them from the circle I have them in.
 
I believe in Quality vs Quantity. So far being associated with Google has gotten me better exposure and a new lead for my business then any other social media outlet. Have to say I/m happy with Google+ so far
 
Those figures are not accurate... Olympics haven't finshed yet!
 
Check out my blog to see how you can earn free things.
 
It's not about activity, it's signal to noise ratio.
 
G+ The place to go to avoid a stream of crap.
 
Share, as in copy content from others? If that's the case, I would have to go with Google+, since I'm getting a bit tired of seeing reposts, retweets and such. How about some original content, folks! I don't need to see the same cat pics, George Takei, etc. from 100 million people. ;o)
 
This study at least seems to be a bit unfair.  Google's whole selling point is that you share with exactly who you want to share with.  Unless these numbers include limited shares, it's kinda confirming what Google's aiming for.  I'm not sure net public shares is a great way to measure whatever Google's after, in G+.

Then again, it's pretty unclear what they're after, and whether they're succeeding.  My use of G+ no doubt contributes to their ability to target ads to me and my network.  To what extent, though...I'm not sure.
 
How many times a week you usually come home in the evening, telling your gf/wife something like this:

My co-worker told me that his wife had told him that her son had told her that her sister had told him that her classmate had told her that her teacher had told her that the earth is flat?

If this will happen on Twitter every day, wow, amazing. In German, we call a game like that "stille Post" which means something like "quiet mail". It's a game for kids.

First I left Twitter, then LinkedIn, then Facebook. On Google+, you don't have to re-share a post which is already "hot" because everybody can read that post. You don't have to re-share a post of, e.g., +Britney Spears because all people who circled her can read that post.

I'm on Google+ for about 3 or 4 weeks now, and I've read tons of comments. I love that.

On Google+, a post usually will start a well educated conversation. In most of that conversations you will find people from all over the world and of all ages.

That's a real social network. I don't miss Twitter, LinkedIn, or Facebook.
 
This was bound to happen. I have many friends on g+, but they don't seem to share much on this network.
 
Google +...will catch up eventually ..hear say
 
Maybe twitter users (twits?) just can't STFU...
"These pancakes are good!"
"I don't want to get out of bed."
"My dog/cat/bird/baby/fish is so cute!"
"I'm cleaning my house/car/office."

Who gives a flying f?  Is quantity of conversation more meaningful than quality? 

I summon the late, great George Carlin when I say, "STFU!  STFU!  STFU!" 

SHUT THE FUCK UP
 
why isn't tumblr on that? ...oh right tumblr doesn't count. 
 
Quality vs. quantity maybe?
 
This is just history repeating itself. MySpace was once the hot thing (does anyone even remember LiveJournal or Xanga these days?) and Facebook was the new kid on the block. FB used to be the site where all of your tech savvy friends would go because it had privacy settings and other cool, new stuff while MySpace just had a lot more users. Now Google+ has a lot of amazing privacy settings and new features that people would love to have on Facebook and a significant portion of the tech crowd is embracing it. It takes time to build any kind of network and Google+ is barely in its infancy. Google Buzz may have been a flop but almost everything else they've done has been outstanding; do you realize that a little over 8 years ago there was no such thing as G-Mail and if you wanted a quality E-Mail account you had to pay for it?
 
Considering 577k people have your page circled on +Google+ compared to 977k who have like your page on FB, I'd say G+ is doing pretty well for a ghost town. G+ exists only a year while FB is 8 years old.
 
G+ is a much more quiet network than FB. 
 
The thing I like about Google Plus is that it feels like there is an intellectual community here, despite the amount of users. It definitely makes it a better experience considering the unintelligent people I know don't use it. 
 
The problem with these statistics is they cant account for all the shares that arent public. Those other sites mostly if not everything is publicly shared. I have a few people in my circles that never post publicly
 
You know what makes +Todd Wasserman's obvious linkbait even more obvious? +Mashable didn't post this story to Facebook under their main account or their Mashable Social Media page. Le sigh. Good job, but let's not forgot this post has more engagement than even on Twitter.
 
Activity may be lower, but the quality of interaction is definitely higher IMO.
 
I never did twitter and lasted about 20 minutes on Facebook. I'm still using G+ for whatever that is worth.
 
So what you're saying is that all the cool kids have moved over to Google+??
 
So of the 4, someone from G+ is least likely to share a story? Did I read that correctly or am I having a brain fart? haha
 
I know for myself... I don't share stuff on here because all my friends are still on fb.. I follow stuff and comment. But if I share something, 2 people see it.. lol... I think that's the biggest reason for many..
J rose
 
KABLOCKABOT!
Translate
 
I'm happy with my dark corner of G+ and the interesting people who hang out here :-)
 
Every dog has its day. I feel a lot more comfortable on G+ but that probably has more to do with being a bit anonymous and my pathetically small circles.
Anyone else getting a kind of Reddit vibe from G+? 
 
Me too! It's nice to have a place to comment about knowledge and not about useless latest gossip.
 
This does not take into acount that half of the ones who share on facebook are false.
 
Perhaps the usage is increasing because of all those people turning on their Nexus7s...Google+ looking slick.
 
Google+ is also the youngest of the four social networks up there.  As far as capability, Google+ has the best tools for networking.  It will outlast Facebook and it will continue to grow.  I am not surprised to see Twitter at the top.  
 
Could be folks are migrating here because Zuckerberg is a douche, and they hate timeline on FB.
 
Google+ is technically superior. It lacks the masses I suppose, for now, but I have more people that I interact with here than I had friends on my deleted Facebook account.

There is less drama, trolling, spam, and crappy farm games here as well. If you want to play those sorts of games you still can, but without annoying everyone else. 
 
I personally hate twitter it doesn't leave enough room for coherent thought and people just follow you instead of replying to your comments
 
I like google+ but I use it differently than I use facebook. Most of my friends and family aren't the type to use it so it is kinda quiet, however I can probably network with different people. 
 
In my humble opinion facebook sucks, is a den . people have this tool is to create and disseminate personal gossip, tags are the worst, any fool has furniture, G+ is more elite and those who appreciate the simplicity and functionality, useful and simple.
 
Honestly.. only in g+. Where I dare to give a comment to an article that was made from someone that i didn't know..it just like one big community with a good sense of knowledge..
 
“What is right is not always popular and what is popular is not always right.” 
― Albert Einstein
 
No matter. It's not big issue for me. The most important thing is that I am very comfortable with G+, as part of other Google integrated services.

For me, Google is the World #1 Most Admired Knowledge Enterprise. You will be centre of world information and knowledge..

Doesn't matter what other people saying
 
G+ Really needs some help catching up with other, more established social networking sites. Anyone think that G+ is where social media is going?
 
I just started using g+... I find myself navigating over this way alot lately...i have a twitter account with 1300 friends and have only been on it twice...why, i dong know..
 
+Kevin Larson I don't buy capability as a formula for success, especially in social networks. Maybe you're right that G+ is a-otay, but if it was, it would be for more than the completeness of an implementation.

If people were attracted to the most capable platform for socializing (outside of real life :-p ) we'd all be using Google Wave right now. "Wave was awesome...if only I knew what to do with it," captures it just about.

I think it has more to do with other factors that aren't as cut and dry. For example, Facebook was first to get a critical mass of users who actually used it in a public way. The well thought out walls Twitter put up were different enough to allow it coexist with even Facebook.

Not sure where G+ can significantly erode on either's marker share, but there are two options: Cause users to uproot not only their online-social lives, but their whole networks'; or be different enough to coexist. The former isn't happening in a million years, while the latter...just isn't there...at least yet.

But again, maybe Google's getting exactly what they need, business-wise from this. For example, perhaps they're getting whatever improvement in ad-quality they were hoping for due to the quality of social graph they've built up around all of their products, including G+. Who knows.
 
People on g+ share because they care, people on fbook share for brownie points
 
G+ is the best service for how I want to social network. I am surprised that LinkedIn is doing so well. I put some stuff on it, but if I am not looking for a job then I am not really checking or using LinkedIn . . . and I haven't looked for a job since the 90s.
 
That's not necessarily an accurate metric about how engaging the member base would find the content to be. A dazzling set of statistics can be very novel to see, but I'm afraid it's not just an ends.

Me, I like Google+ - I think it seems a lot less "emo" than Facebook, frankly - though I update my Facebook wall, with my small, small group of FB 'friends' regularly too.
 
G+ has a community feel to it while Facebook and Twitter (I love them dearly) feel more artificial and distant.
 
Just coming around to G+ and I like what I see as a newbie

 
I Just Got Into It This G+ Still Not Really Sure How To Use It Tho I Always G+ Videos From My YouTube Channel But I Never See Them On Here
 
Well Google+ is much better and less full of clutter then Facebook.  Not to mention the people seem to be smarter then average.
 
People said much the same thing about Twitter (comparing it to Facebook) and Facebook (comparing it to MySpace) when they started. I see G+ heading in much the same direction, if only due to the fact that Google's brand is becoming more and more prevalent in the home environment.
 
whats the reason ? fake id  on facebook more than other ? more liberty n more open sex relation ?
 
Google+ has come a long ways in a year, a very good platform that still has rooms for tweaks.
 
I find this odd because I find news stories on G+ that don't show up on the other networks. It is the news that brought me back to G+. :)
 
I would rather say that Google+ is a more sophisticated socia media networking. It doesn't show duck faces and stupid comments. Heck, it doesn't even want you to post stupid-i'm in the bathroom and taking a good poop-tweet
 
Well +Erik Lee have you ever read "How to Lie with Statistics" by Huff? It depends not only on public shares, as has been noted by other commentators, but also on the data used to bring forth the evaluation.
In other words the stories they used are not told to us. They divide them into general categories (business, health, tech) but not by source or subject. If you hand-pick the right 100 stories you can control the evaluation.
In other words if the tech stories are from places like TechCrunch you will probably have more people in other social networks share them then here. If the stories were curated by places with easily accessible Tweet or Like buttons but no + buttons you may find that people use that ease of use to share them more readily. If the stories are old here they may be new there.
It all depends on the outcome you wish to see. 
 
ihhh poor g+, pooooorr! XD
 
From my perspective: G+ = raised acumen. 
 
It's almost impossible to say anything intelligent on Twitter. Facebook makes my eyes bleed and the posts aren't worth reading. LinkedIn is useful and serves it's target audience well. Google+ is by far my favorite.
 
I don't know if it's just me, but if I can't share an article from the page it's on, I'm not going to bother trying.
 
Google has been steadily bringing its various properties under the Google+ umbrella. Google Places is the most recent example that comes to mind. Meanwhile they've been on a mission to add more and more G+ information to their search results, so it's inevitable that traffic will increase. This graphic seems to illustrate engagement on social networks rather than traffic.

Which is more valuable? Well I'm sure there are arguments for both sides.
 
People will soon realize that Google+ offers the best platform for networking,  blogging, etc. with a wide variety of interests and communities given the Circles concept.
 
There are so many different topics and... Wait a minute. Public or Circle shares?
 
I actually just joined G+, and I have to say: meh...
 
That is cause all the people that Share on all the other sites are retarded. They share stupid shit like Cat pics and what not. Sorry G+ has some original people that post original stuff they dont need to share or steal other people's stuff to sound interesting. At least that is what I think based on the people on my circles. 
 
G+ is smaller than facebook and yet so is twitter. I suspect android domination powers the favorable g+ stats.
 
not to mention does someone posting a single  "I'm hungry" on Twitter -which can be done in a second, really amount to much? Substance overvolume. and really? you can post things on LinkedIn? I thought it was just a CV posting site with coworkers.
Bob B
 
Mike, yes... you can post things on Linkedin.
 
well i am not impressed with those other social networks because i have been hacked on all of those and yet to see one security threat on G+...im sold
 
Not to mention but their circles are easy to use and you can control who sees what a lot more easily then with the others. I am G+ all the way, the rest of the world will eventually come around.
 
I'm totally printing out this article and stapling it up on telephone poles around my town.
 
Remember, Twitter is good only to post and not to conversate.
 
I refuse to share this out of spite.
 
Twitter is mostly meaningless sharing. I'm sure 90% of the tweets get  lost in space and are not even noticed by anyone. 

Facebook is junk. Most people on Facebook only share "What's in their mind". Meaningful content rarely gets shared on FB. It sure is addictive to begin with but begins to suck with time, when you start realizing that most of the content on your wall is something that you are not really interested in.

Google+ comes across as an interest based social network. Most of the content in my stream is something that I'm interested in, because, I follow my interests here.   

Linkedin is moving in a different direction altogether. They're becoming more of a job site and not a social network. 
 
You must also take into consideration that G+ is still in it's infancy compared to the others who have been around longer.There are many who have yet to learn and know about G+ and what it can offer.
 
Substance rules over superfiction. I prefer G+. I like what I'm reading.
 
You really have to compare the quality of the posts as well. How many users are likely to post on FB every time they fart? A lot. Some people even have tweeting toasters. To most of us, that kind of traffic is just noise. I'll bet if you measure the signal-to-noise ratio on these networks, the rankings would be completely reversed.
 
Actually you can share privately on both Facebook and Twitter. People send messages to groups or each other on Facebook all the time. And that's private. And on Twitter people use DMs.
I skimmed through the comments here and wow... defensive much? I love G+ more than all the other social networks now, mainly because I feel like I get the best information. However I'm not surprised that Facebook and Twitter are more active. I don't need to deride their success to feel better. G+ fills a certain niche that's ok with me. I really hope it's enough for Google to consider it a huge success. Don't know what I would do if it some day went the way of Google Buzz or Wave.
 
+Alan Keith Simpson Facebook's sharing capability is exactly like Google+'s. Your assumption about Facebook is incorrect. On Facebook too, you can share with 'Friends only', you can create and share with specific lists (aka circles), you can share with only a single person if you choose to and you can share publicly. 
 
numbers who cares -- the quality of interaction is infinitely better than others!!
 
G+ is for serious conversation and real social networking. FB is just for keeping up with friends and family - people I would otherwise keep in touch with anyway 
 
I'm growing increasingly bored with Facebook. Nothing but reposts of photos, shares with some people posting 20 or so photos of vapid whatever that you have to wade through.  Twitter is useless. 140 characters is all your allowed per post. If one had much to say they will just keep continuing their discourse in subsequent postings which get lost in the shuffle of other posts if you have a lot of followers. 

G+ I feel like I can more freely talk about my day, mini blog my day.  Most of the content in my stream I find of value.  G+ is also very liberal with friending people. Facebook punishes people for trying to make friends with people they don't know. UMMMM isn't that what social networking is about is meeting new people?? HELLO!!  Oh yeah and Facebook "SUGGESTS" friends so you go to friend those people and get put on suspension.
 People get banned, 7, 14 and even 30 days for trying to  making to many new friends or if someone reports you saying they don't know you.
 If you get reported/flagged for a post.. same thing!!!

At this rate I knew  a few people just from my friends lists that are moving away from Facebook and onto G+.

G+ is much more liberal in regards to posting content as well.
 
Facebook recently reported that 83 million of their accounts are fake who cares about this data anyways. 
 
I have started sharing more as read more and follow more. I am trying to convert friends. I love Google+ so much better. Feed up with the bull shxt at Fbook. This is my new home and I'm staying. 
 
I dont want to jump on the evangelist wagon but,.. there is an issue of volume over quality here;

Which types of stories get twitted? "oh i had this or the other for lunch" or "hey here`s my latest shower epiphany" and lastly "look! a cool link" in terms of comparing social networks to home heating; Twitter is the kitchen lighter that gets the fireplace going, try and communicate anything beyond a witty comment on something else on twitter without embedding urls.

With facebook its either someone else`s news plastered on your timeline, pictures of people getting wasted, or not an the all around lol cat.

In linked-in in the conversation is dry and to the point "lets discuss this in terms of how it affects my career, or lack thereof"

In G+ its all about people sensibly articulating what they love, the way they see it and how it evolves into a new concept, or not, by the fact of being shared with like minded individuals.

It is obvious that the real value of G+ is pummelled by the quality over quantity axiom, and it better stay that way.

Crowd Pleasers need not apply.
 
I like how my g+ feed is filled with content that I want to read, comment on and share. Not a picture of the swirl on someone's latte or a, "happy Tuesday facebookers".
 
I use both fb and Google+, twitter seemed boring to me
 
I use both fb and Google+, twitter seemed boring to me
 
Well this study again takes shares of a story as a parameter.This doesn't specify public or even Limited scope shares. I'm pretty sure they can't pull data for Limited shares. Most people on G+ don't share to the public, so you get the illusion of Ghost town, although there is lots of buzz around. Atleast I can tell you that my G+ activity is as busy as it can get
 
I go back and forth.  This time, Facebook forced that Timeline thing down my throat, so I'm back to Google+.  
 
Wow you mean to tell me that the activity on G+ is lower then Twitter and Facebook and has a fraction of the people using it. I am really surprised by those numbers.
 
I share/post but now one ever looks at it:-( I get better response on FB
 
well, the reality is that Google+ started late, facebook and twitter are great sites that have millions of users everyday and they worked hard to reach at that level they are today, but google+ could be proud by saying 'We are better than MySpace'.
 
i agreed ;) but i aslo got a FB account..hehehe..
 
Well I mean.....and Google+ has 150million logins a day....let's not forget that along with 250million active users
 
How come this story has more +1s than likes on your website. It doesn't make sense being this a ghost town.
 
Shrug.

Sharing a story is but one measure of a social site's value.  I use Twitter a lot and find Google+ to be higher quality interaction.  I use G+ more like a mini-blog service rather than expecting to share stuff all over.

I strongly dislike Facebook and use it only because my extended family does.
 
if g+ is a ghost town, i guess we r all ghosts.....woooooo....
 
Ugh. Twitter... It gets flaked with "Overtweeting" for a reason.
 
Theirs a lot of factors you have to take in consideration.  An accurate report is almost impossible with Google+, as you have to factor how many logging into Google+ because they logged into Google services (Youtube, G-mail, ect). but at the same time I can think of 100 different things off the top of my head that would make people want to make the switch, Like offeing different templets for users (some might want the classic FB plain Jane feeling) while businesses have virtually no care at all for a side bar, and rather have a page layout that focuses on pumping content.  A radio button "select a layout" with the idea that you re-customize as you adapt to G+ (what they should have originally named the social network, much more marketable and catchy) would be great.

As far as making the switch, heck yeah people are starting to migrate to Google+.  As Facebook redefines how to optimize "reach trap", your going to see a lot of  smaller businesses, random goofball trend pages, and non profit organizations have to echo that people need to constantly land on their page daily to find out new content, unless they want to pay the same prices as corporations like Pepsi.

But on point, let me explain a user opinion of G+ (so catchy right?) AS I AM USING IT RIGHT NOW.  Im stairing at about two messages in my oversized side bar where I can spam invite friends, like they somehow, on this earth, don't know about google, and havent signed up yet.  then I have listings of  big organizations there that I have written complaints to, that's my possible invites to send. 

Theirs only so much people want to integrate socially, and the fact that google doesn't let you define that right off the bat is its biggest flaw.  Anyone use Facebook as a mailing address, even though its possible?  Its nice to have the option, but theirs a reason most people don't.  Once Google wakes up and smells the social experience, theirs a lot more flexibility to grow.
 
Well no wonder +Mashable. You can only sign in with Facebook and Twitter on Mashable.
 
G+ will catch up.  It is just right for intelligent conversations, providing you have intelligent people in your circles.  
 
I'm puzzled by articles like that. I can't keep up with the volume of posts and comments.
 
What I can say - G+ers are a lot finicky on what they pass along!
 
1. Google+ is newer than all the other sites. 
2. Google+ has the second most users
3. Linked in isn't doing much better, if not just as bad.
4. It's crap like this that makes people not want to share.
5. This is really pointless, go on with your lives.
 
Dunno article seems right to me, Im 'forced' to use facebook simply cause so few of the people I know will consistently use g+. Facebook is the first place they head.
 
I love google+ its cleaner just wish more would give it a try
 
Nothing beats google plus. My FB account is so cluttered with unwanted requests, and posts etc. Google is much simpler
 
We that are part of Google+ today are the lucky ones....wait till the fake people show in a couple of years. Its like that cool bar you find before it becomes trendy and over crowded :D
 
Google plus is a fresh new concept, and I always like joining the Under Dogs. Here you can choose who hears what post. Also you can look up so much content and talk with strangers much easier than other social networks. If I could get fam n friends to switch I'd delete Facebook to be honest.
 
I use FB as many of my friends do not have G+. Else G+ scores over every other ones.
 
G+ has Original content created by it's users. Just take a look at the photography community here. Twitter is made for real time updates so if something impostor interesting happens the users have only one option since they cannot comment on a post: share it.


 
These statistics can only count public posts - but i bet that about 80% of all posts are not public on Google+
 
Look at the quality of the comments here. Now, compare them to the ones on Facebook and Twitter. Now compare the posts. Can you understand what I'm trying to tell you? Big numbers does not mean a better social network. Mashable is clearly being biased.
 
Mashable on its website doesn't even give the option of sharing materials with G+. It does so with Facebook and Twitter. It's one thing for Mashable to post materials on G+ dissing G+, but it's another thing for them to actually get on board.
Until they do, I won't even dignify their study with a comment. Oh wait...that was a comment (NEVERMIND). 
 
Number likely to share a story with someone else who actually WANTS to read it ... 1st G+ 6, 2nd f 2, 3rd in 1
 
Way easier to share on twitter. Takes two clicks. On Google+ I just comment on posts.
 
anyone remember myspace? it didn't even make the list lol
 
G+ is only 12 months old! not bad for a new comer.
 
Interesting. I never share on facebook.The g+ numbers seems very low. G+ is far better for sharing.
 
Yeah give it time...I receive bad reviews about facebook as well, but as always just another trick up a sleeve of mind benders out there to try and sell you crap you dont need. As far as I am concerned I have watched a lot of Google videos on Youtube and the one thing for sure is Google does good videos. As always you want to know the truth ask the source.
Hang Do
+
1
2
1
 
This doesn't take account of Pinterest, does it mean it fell off the "3rd" place in terms of social media platforms? I guess these data are based on sharing stories vs. general shares (pinterest is photos?) I wonder how long will it take Google+ will surpass these numbers or at all? I think using Google+ requires a bit more time and "technical" knowledge than let's say Facebook. Twitter still ranks at #1 by a large margin above its competitors.
 
So Twitter, a microblogging social network in which everything is public by default and whos primary function has become breaking and sharing news comes out on top in a tiny study regarding sharing news.  Right, and that prooves?
Really the only surprise in these results is how high linkedin ranks.  I wouldn't have expected that for sharing news.
 
You can learn from the mistakes that were made on Facebook. When you begin here you can control more with that thought in mind. And no bullies or stalkers so far!! So its all good!! :) happy day
 
Ghost town, but Mashable still in it ?
 
I've already uncircled Mashable, but now I guess I'm gonna have to block them, and I hope more people would do the same (they want a ghost town, let them have it). #BoycottMashable
For the betterment of the social networking world (and the internet in general), Google+ must succeed.
 
I am sure G+ knows how many users r doing what many things at one time.
Secondly, G+ has a quality content unlike other networks except LINKEDIN.
 
Google+ is only 1 year in so the activity level woun't be as high as Facebook as they've had 7 years to get where they are now.
 
I dont share much on g+, g+ does a really good job of feeding me the info i like without the need for it to be shared by a ton of peeps first, i think sharing is much less required, so +1 on another who's just keen to comment on original posts.
 
The data from "reports" and "statistics" is completely irrelevant and the only thing they provide is jobs or something to do for those who create those reports and stats. The most important question noone is asking, so it seems, is this : WHY does noone at google seem to care for the MISSING FEATURES in google plus and why don't they get implemented; AND IS IT USEFUL to bring visitors, potential customers to businesses, companies, websites.... The answer to these two, IMHO, in its present state is NO. It doesn't matter how many followers, retweets, reposts, etc. you have, if don't really have the possibility to ENGAGE those users and MANAGE your users; having to put a + in front of someone's name, for instance, to "chat" with them is one of the greatest lacks of this g+.
 
I just dig all the cool tools g+ has.
 
No need to share because people will see them anyway when they're popular.
 
Does it count when the 'story' you're sharing is only 140 characters long?

People on Facebook don't share STORIES.  They share pictures of cats.  The more I read Facebook, the dumber I think I get...

LinkedIn has stories?

Of the 6 stories people share on Google+, 5 of them are interesting, and have a tendency to carry information, or, heaven forbid, I actually LEARNED something.  So... in my opinion, that's the best of the 4.
 
get this ..i went on face book because i am the second coming of christ but they banned me but let others using my name on to defile me ..i guess the first christ copped the same from so called christians ..skeatesy
 
On the actual article page I see 469 Facebook Likes and 612 Google+ +1's... I think that speaks for itself!!!
 
Twitters throwing a party while g+  is doing nothing? (picture)
 
I share lots of things publicly.
 
With everyone posting public by the time you reach 6 shares everyone has seen it. On FB they beg people to share their posts and they do!!
 
g+ aint a ghost town. it's just pretty cool hangout for the elite. unlike fb - full of morons who doesn't know what's substantial.
 
Still don't understand why Twitter is so popular. It is the most USELESS social network. It makes the worst part of Facebook (status update) the highlight of its site. I just can't stand Twitter /rant
 
give g+ some time, facebook is already sinking.
 
I don't think they'll 'pull the plug', at least I hope they don't take away my ability to see friends with live GPS location updates using Google Maps + Google+, I was going to use this to form an armada. It's like the center of many things, my email contacts, calender and a way of connecting people to and through existing Google products. In a certain sense Google+ is inevitably a success due to the success of other Google products and the fact these products must have the ability to connect users. I don't know - I'm just an innocent pleb but it seems that Google products are born with the necessity for connection and that users need to collaborate and communicate when using Google's services. It'll probably just evolve into some heterogeneous entity, some of the stuff I've mentioned is actually done through other services and sub-services anyway..
 
I wish this would actually work...I always end up with he loves me. Of course I always use those flowers that only have four petals....is that cheating?
 
but i just started to love it so much. 
 
Hmmm, I think you should define "story".
 
people tend to tweet like they crap, post on facebook as if they were eating and on G+ as if they were presenting a beautifully prepared meal.

please note +Mashable  that if I were to share this post it would be lame because everyone who has "what's hot" showing up in thier stream will eventually see it!
 
Sharing is a poor metric for general social activity. Sharing is communication and each medium is setup differently. I would never expect G+ to out-share Twitter... this isn't what it was designed for. Twitter was, thus dominates this metric.

Having said this... there isn't one simple metric that works well (# of login's, time on site, etc). I think Loyalty would be the best method for tracking activity/trending. Loyalty defines their commitment to the tool and should be good for predictability of future activity as well.
 
I am on a lot. But rarely share
 
Not sharing publicly is the primary reason Google+ exists. G+ users target their posts to their circles, and are thoughtful with the things they post. Twitter and Pinterest are designed to share publicly. Facebook is designed, apparently, to annoy intelligent users. I think G+, even though people might spend less time here now, is where people go to see content that is the most relevant TO THEM. I have G+ set as my home page so I can stay up to date with friends and content creators who matter to me without the noise from facebook users who don't.
 
Makes sense that activity is low although number of users is high: I mean, anyone who has a gmail account and did anything to their profile technically has a G+ account.
 
Wish people know linkedin would stop posting stories. The news thread looks like something a 5 yr old put together.
 
James, they soon will when they understand it! 
 
G+ should remain in no 4 as is.
It just means that plussers are less prone to flood the rest of the world with shitty articles / stories that nobody else are interested in anyway.
 
Feels like 99% of google plus traffic is stories about googleplus.

Including this one. :)
 
I couldn't help but notice...80% of the posts here are about g+..DOA or stifled growth? You be the judge
 
Maybe because G+ doesn't have duplicate accounts like FB.
 
With the excitement of a new social platform users went berserk adding untold numbers of people to their Facebook accounts.
I think G+ is a chance for people who made mistakes on Facebook to select and build a useful network of circles.
So whilst google+ may not at present have as many users as the others it will build up steadily and with better integration with googles other staples.
So watch this space,and interact with it. 
 
And in the end, none of it matters. Unlike Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn, Google+ is not Google's product. It's just one of many services it provides. And once they're finished integrating them all together its just another tool that's available to you that will probably be around well after people tire of Mashables re-hash flamebait.
 
+Mashable I think you can identify the level of engadgement from your post only! Check for no of +1s Shares and Comments you get from each network. I think G+ is way ahead
 
Hey +Mashable I am one of those fake ghost users on Google+ and since I don't exist or use Google+ I am going to un-circle you Am sure you will notice as I DON'T EXIST.....
 
So NOT worth haunting! Am tempted to circle you, just so I can UN-circle you....
 
Don't believe the social media firms since gaming is not possible in G+ like twitter or Facebook,since there is no write API.They will write this bull shit as long as G+ has no write API.U people use that stupid stuff for link-bait and loose ur credibility.
 
What is the point of spreading badly written journalism? Are you really that desperate for content that your willing to spread trash like this?
 
I am Brazilian, I'm loving the G +. Far superior to Facebook.
Add a comment...