an important share and read h/t +Mark Traphagen 
 
Despite a reportedly growing user base, Google+ isn’t popular when it comes to sharing content on social networks. http://mklnd.com/12PD9Fd

A new report from +Gigya says that only two percent of social sharing happened on Google+ in Q2 of this year (April-June 2013). That’s a fraction of the sharing that took place on Facebook, Twitter and even Pinterest.
12
3
Martin Stone's profile photoMartin W. Smith's profile photoSusanne Ramharter's profile photoJay Geater's profile photo
8 comments
 
Perhaps social shares isn't the most important metric for G+. If we were to as how many conversations happen on Twitter or Facebook we would see G+ jump ahead. I'm not trying to spin.

Facebook is a great example of why Social shares are an inadequate qualifier. Facebook's secret is simple: post pics and vids and ask questions. You rarely get the sustained and building conversations so common on G+.

Facebook is great for some businesses such as fashion and less proven for others such as Internet marketing. I don't want to imply I've figured G+ all the way out either. There is still a winding road to conversion from those conversations but the distance FEELS shorter and less obstructed.

Feelings can be deceiving but so can lies, damned lies and statistics :).
 
could the logged in search be a symptom of the semantic web implementations?
 
maybe I'm not sure what you mean by search results worsening.  For myself, I'm starting to look at other methods of searching, just to compare the results I find - as you say, 'still studying that' ;-)
 
just the incognito window actually brings no difference, will have to try it without cookies. Thanks!
 
Not Provided, as +Thomas Power and +Susanne Ramharter note  is a pain. The other idea that Thomas has tripped to is Google's without not provided is all but meaningless so they have use in a vice. 

Since "not provided" is logged in customers and the search experience is so different already and becoming more so (just wait until they are really firing Google Authorship) when we aren't logged in the number of logged in is going up fast. 

The system is setup to increase not provided and thus destroy Google Analytics ability to really manage a web site. I suspect when not provided reaches more than 60% on average we will be offered a paid option. 

The real question when that option comes will be is it worth it. It already takes substantial digging to really understand what content matters due to Google's float. When the static index died Internet marketers were forced to model instead of know. 

Back in the day when you appeared at the top of the SERPs you were first on that term. Not so much anymore. I use a tool to determine absolute position and even that tool is useless since Google decides when and how often anything is shown. 

Thomas is right to view this infinite shell game with suspicion. 
 
+Thomas Power Decline and fall of the Roman Empire for Google for sure. I think social scared them about as much as a company can be scared sort of like how scared Microsoft was of the web.

Turns out they both were right to be scared (lol). As we move toward semantic web, a web of meaning and context checked by social, what we know as Google will be all but gone.

I just created a Haiku Deck about how web design changes in a semantic web time (http://sco.lt/61eqNF if you are interested and sorry to pimp your post). 

The reason the big G is worried and closing the gates is app-ification + semantic could be a difficult combination for their $. Google's system depends on the VOTE of a link (or link expressed as social share). 

What if we LINK LESS? What if we SEARCH LESS? In an app-based world where I watch my Amazon movies without every appearing to go to Amazon (at least as far as Google is concerned) how relevant and true is Google's traffic analysis? 

Last night I fired my Amazon app to watch Inspector Morris and Google has NO VIEW into that click or time on site, none. As the mobile web dominates we will app-ify all of our code. 

My deck speaks to our adoption of the Google float. Once our websites are What If math then we can be said to be fully app based too since what Google's spider "sees" is nothing. 

Nothing because what you see when you go to my website will be different than what someone else sees based on your cookie. That cookie will say what persona you belong within and so what website you see. 

If Google has value in the world described in the Future of Web Design it will be VASTLY different than counting links. I think THIS anticipation of OUR future floats is why Google is insisting on having us all logged in all the time. 

Once we are logged in we are using Google's app in a similar way as my use of Amazon's last night. We disappear to anyone other than Google allowing Google to create a new value system NOT based on links. 

Semantic web is that new value system not based on links. Google will have so many signals and so much big data on behavior they can craft a new voting booth for their SERPs pages - one that may just remain elegant and relevant even in a world of meaning controlled by apps.