Have you ever read a bigger crock of BS in your life? The minimum I spend on G plus is 35 hrs a week usually 8 hrs a day Question of the Day How many hours are you on G + in a week?
15
1
Arvind Kumar's profile photoAlbert A (Albs)'s profile photosteph “gingerninja” wanamaker's profile photoCarla Zanoni's profile photo
116 comments
 
The attacks on G+ are just getting pathetic.
 
yeah, I spend a good 12+ hours at times in one way or another..
 
+stephanie wanamaker I can't believe this passes for journalism. It is obvious link bait, typical for Mashable, and a product of poor professionalism. I would not re-share such trash.
 
As many (including myself) commented on the article, I think what's happening is that it's averaging actual users with people who set up accounts and haven't used them since or stumble into "use" ... probably also discounts the mobile log ins etc. So, it does raise the issue of active users again and call into question those numbers, but yeah otherwise kind of a meaningless statistic
Bob Lai
+
4
5
4
 
Sorry, I spend closer to a few hours, and I see frequent and interesting content from people I've circled. I think the relative silence lasted about one week when I first came here, but I was quickly introduced to people from different circles.
 
yeah i don't get those numbers. makes no sense what so ever.
 
comScore is perhaps the most trusted statistical gathering and analysis agency on the web today. Just because you and I are heavy users of the service doesn't mean the majority of other users are.
 
Mashable is bought and paid for by Facebook.
 
Mashable is such an awful site that anything they said I would automatically assume to be false unless proven otherwise. And that proof would have to come from someone other than Mashable.
 
Around four hours per day for me is the average, at times I spend six or so.
 
ComScore doesn't account for mobile data. Isn't that where most of the growth for G+ comes from? New androids!
 
I think there are two kinds of user:

1. Profile, pic, content, share, +1, comment
-> build a community
-> find mind matches
-> many contacts
-> interesting stream
-> sometimes to noisy
=> addicts

2. No profile, no pic, no content, no interaction
-> no contacts
-> no stream
-> "ghost city"
=> never come back

I am #1 and online = G+ (and I'm online the whole day in my office...) - "hate" the little red notification counter...
 
+stephanie wanamaker there is a simple explanation.

Most FB users have a foundation on FB already. Good reason to go there. Most new G+ user don't. They have yet to build a network here. That's especially true for all the new teenagers.

Secondly most Smart phones come with a FB app, so most Smart phone users with a FB account are practically on FB 24/7

[EDIT]
To answer your question: I probably spend 8 hours a week on G+. 8 Minutes a month on FB (work related).
 
About 2 hours a day - first thing in the morning and if I have time at lunch, I log on quickly. If I am at home at night, I spend more time. I will admit to spending more time on the weekends.
 
I spent entire day and night on Google+, they should correct their stats..
 
There are lies, damn lies, and then statistics. That's what this is. Sure, you can create a statistic that makes a link bait headline, but what does it really tell you or communicate about the service? Not much at all. Everybody has a social security number, but how many people use it to check their social security balances on a regular basis? That must mean the ability to do so is worthless and unimportant.

A better measure is how much use the service is getting, not per user, but in total, and is that use continuing to increase? Additionally, you have to factor in quality of use. I could care less about someone logged into Facebook, spending time buying fertilizer for their game garden, as that represents no quality social interactivity at all.

As for me, I'm on G+, in one way or another, about 4 hours a day, easily. Reading items, commenting, sharing with others, participating in Hangouts, etc. All truly social activities.
 
I know facebook and twitter are spending lots of money on these stats to destroy the reputation of Google+. Nice sponsor post Mashable.
 
I would be curious to see how ComScore calculated the share box and notification counter across Google services.
 
+Anna Bavido Exactly, as that represents major source of G+ interaction. Here I am right now using Google Reader, yet also interacting with you via G+ courtesy of the notification counter at the top on the ribbon bar. And this is a major avenue for my G+ usage. How do they even begin to capture that externally?
 
I think they're just missing basic graph analytics. It's easy to sign up for G+ and be out on some tiny island. But if you're well embedded in the graph, it's like a torrent of activity. That's why so many people think G+ is dead when it clearly isn't.
 
Mashable would totally make up statistics. I think ComScore has too much of a professional reputation to keep up. I think they made the mistake of using the same metrics that they would use for FB & Twitter.
 
Probably I spend 1-3 hours a day interacting with it.
 
Problem is, all my family (who all have gmail accounts, hence G+ accounts) have never even tried it out to my knowledge. Averages are worthless. Another article even points out that Google won't disclose how many actual ACTIVE users they have. Its the people that don't even know they have an account that skews things.
 
+stephanie wanamaker where the hell are they getting that figure from...!

I spend a minimum of 7-8 hours a day for work and about another 2-4 hours personal...
 
I can't imagine how they calculate that number. There is this red number on my screen always calling me...
 
Probably 8hrs a day as I leave my stream open to provide rolling content.
 
Even though I can't be on as much as I want, I'm certainly on more than that! comScore is certainly respected but by the amount of traffic running through my stream and the amount of people I've seen the past month, I'd say there is something wrong with their metrics.
 
so the smallest amount averaged here is 14 hours a week and most peopel were 28-30 hours a week and a lot of people use the Android app as well! Just goes to show you don't trust statistics!
 
I reckon they've just polled the people in their office to get a stat like that (!)
 
I commented on the Mashable article itself, and had to log in with FB or twitter to comment. I found that ironic...
 
What's comscore? And why does it seem that Mashable is most often the one that casts disparaging remarks at this 'fledgling' network(Did they invest heavily in facebook or something?)?
If my browser is open, which it usually is, one tab is going to be Google+, and my browser is usually open constantly.
Luis V.
+
2
3
2
 
3.3 minutes? Don't believe it. The part about India? I can believe that part.
 
Also, how do they measure the time spent on Facebook? If I'm planting my farm or building my city, I assume they are counting that as Facebook time.
Bob Lai
+
1
2
1
 
+Lee Smallwood It doesn't necessarily have to be a fault of sample size; the questions asked could shape the numbers as well, even limit them to a range of pre-determined responses.
 
How many hours a week? oh god. I don't want to think about it. at least 40 hours a week.
 
+Bob Lai true - but you would expect a sample size representative of the people that use it. At the moment it appears that they've simply taken the office staff time spent on G+ and divided it by all the users (approx) on G+ - ok slight exaggeration but no more of an understatement made by them I feel... Subjective?
 
I'm guessing I spend about 3 hours a day. Maybe more on the weekends.
 
+Kent Hadfield nice to meet you! see thats the mark of a successful social network that its users want to log in on weekends not just when they are bored at work or school. There is a really close knit community with quite a few people having met in real life (HIRL)
 
+stephanie wanamaker I enjoy your posts. I don't always interact a lot but I tend to do a lot of observing and pondering on social networks. And in cafeterias, bus stations, coffee shops.
By the way, it seems I see a lot of content posted on G+ before it hits facebook. Just a personal observation...
 
+Kent Hadfield thanks for the compliment! I post a wide variety of stuff just abiut subjects that interest me but always post at least 1 thing that should make you laugh! I am slightly obsessed with movies
 
About 30 or so.... sometimes 40. Even if I'm not looking at it, it's still normally open in a tab.
 
Yep, this is rather bogus, to put it nicely. I am on G+ pretty consistently for 3 hours every morning, 3-6 hours at night, depending on schedule, and have it open almost always in the background at work... if I have time, I check in at least a couple of times. I check FB about 2-3 times a day for a few minutes. It IS dead over there, even though I have almost 500 friends. Here, however, I have almost 5,000 in my circles.
 
+Joyce Donahue couldnt have said it better myself! You see this thread already has 63 comments? I havent had more than 2 likes and 1 comment on any Fb post in the last month but have 3 times the interaction here
 
Pretty much the same here. Much less interaction on FB.
 
If you need to be on facbook to sign in there ( Think someone said that.), I cannot, because I gave up facebook shortly after getting on Google+ last July.
 
+Mike Elgan had a good write up about ComScore data ad the WSJ article. I like how he doesn't even mention the Mashable article.
 
Again, we need to see how this time is measured. By actual logged in time? Then I'm on here almost 24 hours, as I am always logged in, via work, home laptop, or mobile.

Also, I am posting more things to individual circles as opposed to public. If this is based on purely public posts, not everyone uses the G that way.
 
Apparently the statistics doesn't (can't?) count non public posts and comments. That's a huge flaw. My first language isn't english, and all my current post in my native language goes to circles to avoid annoying the big majority of english speaking followers. I know many scandinavians do the same. I'd say 50-60% of my interactions on G+ take place in circles. At times it's probably close to 70-80%.
 
Okay, I'm going to throw a wrench in the ointment and say that outside of hangouts and certain threads I don't normally "spend time" on G+ in the sense of it being my primary focus of activity. Like a lot of geeks, I multitask and maintain more of an attention cloud than a fixed focal point as such. However, G+ works well for me in that respect because it is lightweight and unobtrusive and pleasant to keep in the background. It is not always forcing itself into my perceptive field as other sites with tons of popups and ads and animations do. And I like how, for example, I was able to post this right in the notification dropdown without having to disturb any of my desktop state. It makes switching context very low impact.

So, I would say that measuring by minutes is very deceptive, because all minutes are not alike and some are more productive than others.
 
+Craig Lennox what I like and it looks like it's the same for you is that G+ can fit into how you want to use a social network - not force you adapt to a service that has constraints ;)
 
+Lee Smallwood: Sort of. For me it's less about constraints, and more about judicious user-interface design decisions and not bombarding me with a lot of noise and information overload.

I'll give you two concrete examples. Facebook has this thing where it says, "You haven't talked to Such-and-so lately, send them a message." How needy! I don't want that kind of pressure. Besides, in a lot of cases it's someone I talk to in person every day, so I don't need to be sending them messages on Facebook. G+ on the other hand doesn't feel the need to micromanage my social life, and for that I am grateful.

Another example: Facebook has a rudimentary messaging system built in, which is basically yet another thing to have to check and manage (or choose to ignore, as the case may be). Google, on the other hand, seems to recognize that we already have this invention called e-mail, so there's no good reason to re-create the concept poorly within its social networking software. Yet again, good design principles and a "less is more" philosophy make for a streamlined system which doesn't consume more mental resources than is necessary to accomplish its function.
 
+stephanie wanamaker I'm way behind you and a lot of other people in time spent on G+ because my day job claims so much of my time. I'm on early in the morning and late at night and can hardly do it during the day. But...it is my only social media medium. It's what I love and where I have found the most engagement. Seriously smart people from all walks of life, of all ages, across all cultures. This FB vs. Google+ thing is like the Republicans vs. the Democrats. It's a crashing bore. Each to their own. For me it is about quality of post, not quantity of posts. It's about quality of time, not quantity of time. Journalists tend to believe exactly what they want to believe. It's more convenient that way.
 
+stephanie wanamaker I don't spend one minute thinking about those people. At the very beginning you and I and a lot of other people jumped right in. There was no benediction from the Pope, no reviews in major mags, nothing to shore up our belief system in G+. We just did what curious people do: dive in.

If someone reads this article and is swayed by it, I'm sorry...then they shouldn't be on G+, where the people are smarter, more curious and more risk-taking than that. There were visceral reasons it took me forever to open an FB account. But it wasn't because of some ridiculous article in a mag.
 
+Giselle Minoli thanks for having so much common sense! I feel better now! Yeah tech savvy people would know Mashable is not a credible source ! I am never swayed by reviews either! I only know 2 people from my city that are on G+1
 
+stephanie wanamaker How can ANYONE take +Todd Wasserman's opinion about Google+ seriously? Honestly folks...GO TO HIS GOOGLE+ PAGE. He's posted twice since the beginning of G+. Would you take a class from him at Columbia University? Does he walk his talk? Is there some critical analysis there based on experience, based on having worked at building some kind of community for himself and with others on G+?

He's repeating some random number that is supposed to be reflective of anything? Seriously...he should have contacted you +stephanie wanamaker and asked you to do his research for him and built his story around that. I think, in journalism, it's call having a credible source.
 
+Giselle Minoli I know... last time was October ...! I suspect +Todd Wasserman will just state he's only the messenger

I invited him to take part over here yesterday - but no response atm..
 
Well, +Lee Smallwood that would have been an interesting article to read. Some random numbers are revealed about G+ and a serious, critical, thinking social media/tech journalist who takes himself seriously decides to figure out for himself whether it's nonsense or not. I have no use for messengers who drop rubbish at my doorstep.
 
+Giselle Minoli complete agree ;) This has discredited +Mashable in my eyes - rather than try and establish the facts (through investigative journalism) they've become like News Corp (!)
 
You guys can believe whatever you want (and it appears you do!), but I was merely reporting stats from comScore. You have an issue with those stats (which were also reported by The Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg, among others), then take it up with comScore. BTW, you would probably save yourself a lot of grief if you learned to distinguish between breaking news and investigative journalism. The former is based on stuff that breaks that day. The latter often involves research done over months and even years. Also: Opinion stories include the author's opinions, while breaking news stories do not. Finally, as the story states, I tried to reach Google reps to discuss this, but they did not get back to me.
 
Had you had your own valid and compelling experience on G+ +Todd Wasserman your article would have been a much more interesting one, and you might have gotten a response from Google reps...
 
+Todd Wasserman wow Todd - good to see you here - and that isn't meant sarcastically

It's actually not what we believe it's based upon getting feedback from people within our networks - to try and establish facts

In fact +Thomas Morffew has seized the initiative by conducting a poll (1300+ participants so far https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewanalytics?formkey=dHlNZGZ5U1A0b0RBck9sbWNwdVBSYkE6MQ ) - and if you don't know Thomas he has 32,828 people in his G+ network - pretty respectable by anyones count.

With regard to 'Journalism' please excuse my ignorance - but whatever the correct term actually is - don't you have an obligation to publish what is correct - or at least show measure taken to get to the facts?

This maybe a subjective opinion, but the way I see it is that you and +Mashable had an ideal opportunity to elevate above the #WSJ by first ask the question to your networks here on G+ then reporting back your findings within the same article - you yourself have a considerable network on G+ (over 8000 people) but there was no question posed to them?
 
Yes, you're right. A poll of 1,300 certain provides much more proof than comScore's sample of 2 million. I don't know what I was thinking.
 
+Todd Wasserman Strange you should use sarcasm when I was simply asking why you or +Mashable chose not to engage with your network in order to get a 2nd opinion? Especially if a rep from +google+ couldn't be contacted...or was +Vic Gundotra the only one contacted?

Anyway, would be a good idea to get the exact size of Comscores sample size- no mention of the 2 million sample size in your original article...

Also, did the 7.5 hours users spent on Facebook in January contain time on site using mobile ?
 
Hi Lee, I wasn't responding to your question, but rather the idea that a larger study like comScore's can be debunked by a much smaller survey. First of all, don't you think your results will be skewed if you do the survey on G+? If The NYT reports that Romney won Michigan should they do a poll of one town in Michigan to attempt to show that Santorum actually won?
 
I think you are missing the point that people here are making with you +Todd Wasserman. Your out is that you are just "reporting" comScore's stats, which you then pass on to an audience that "assumes" they are correct because they have some kind of mythological authority behind it. If you couldn't have spend months and months doing "investigative" research as you yourself pointed out, you could easily have said one of the following in your article, any one of which would have lent your story weight, objectivity, thoughtfulness and a greater sense of responsibility to the evolving world of social media:

1. I'm reporting comScore's latest stats about user time on G+ and we will see how it develops in months to come;

2. I'm reporting comScore's latest stats about user time on G+ and while I haven't done any investigative reporting myself, I'm curious where these figures come from because I have an actively engaged audience of 8,000 Circlees myself on G+ with whom I regularly communicate and I myself spend XXXX amount of time per day on G+;

3. I'm reporting comScore's latest stats and while I can't speak from actively engaged personal experience on G+, it is abundantly clear from users I have spoken with and communicated with that theirs is a completely different experience than what comScore is reporting;

4. I'm reporting comScore's latest stats and have a problem with the study because it isn't what I see from personal experience.

Bottom line: you cannot critique a restaurant or report on it if you don't eat there; you cannot critique a film you haven't seen, you cannot critique a book you haven't read; you cannot critique an exhibit you haven't seen.

Saying that you're just reporting the facts isn't accurate. You wrote an article that left readers with the impression that the facts are accurate. This is not journalistic integrity. There is more integrity in User Journalism on G+.

I'm glad I'm a writer not a techie, and that my opinion isn't swayed by these stats.
 
+stephanie wanamaker and +Lee Smallwood I have posted this entire conversation on the Columbia School of Journalism chat page on FB and have asked the powers that be to put G+ on the map for their next course. I get miffed at shoddy journalism and ducking under the rug when readers take on paid professional journalism. Not good.
 
Good point. How do we really know Romney won Michigan if all my Michigan friends voted for Ron Paul? How do I know I'm really typing this and am not actually in a Matrix-like contraption somewhere? How do I know the color blue to me is the color blue to you?
 
Ah, memories of hanging chads in Florida and Supreme Court Justices who mess with elections. It's a wonderful life +Todd Wasserman.
 
Thank you, Stephanie. I appreciate the comments, I really do.
 
+Albert Albs : yes we do it, with our unique "vanakkam" ;) :)
+Todd Wasserman : I think, just because comscore did with 2 million people , doesn't mean that its the absolute truth.
it could just be people who are regular FB users.
Do you really think, we will get the same engagement time of 8 yr old FB in g+ in less than year?
IMO, this whole comscore report is useless. Do you think comscore bothered to do a similar report when FB was 8 months old? they are just doing this to give negative PR to the g+ network. nothing more.
Why isnt even comscore having a presence here? if they tried to a do a study here, i'm sure the community would be really be interested to get into that.

g+ is growing. if you engage with g+ and its community, you get engagement. As simple as that.
I just checked your single public post. I'm sure you could have done a lot more in g+ but you didn't bother to. ;)

+Giselle Minoli : well thought out comments. (applauds)
I'm glad +Todd Wasserman is responding. that is miles above what other people doing. :)
Nowadays, people are just washing away their hands on the same articles they are writing. they dont even bother to respond. they like to think they are above casual people and not respond to actual,valid,pertinent queries on their articles.
Journalistic Integrity seems to be thinning away too fast. :( and worse it is becoming a trend!!

have a look at this article by +John Baldoni
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500395_162-57395779/why-google-plus-is-a-failure/
comparing GM motors with google?!!
he has only 3 people in his circles!!! (he does posts once 7-15 days) and he is writing articles about g+!! :D

+Albert Albs : enna kodumai saravanan ithu? :D
 
Well said +Arvind Kumar . That is bad PR. and that industry is sinking.

Yes. Read that article, at CBS. :( Looks like a vadivelu comedy.

Better these people must innovate their product in-order to beat the competition. This is a simple strategy. I think they are busy by sending “Birthday wishes” to FB friends and talking about its total number of users.
Add a comment...