Shared publicly  - 
And your definition of Active is ...

"... defined as “Used or contributed to in the past month ..."

...some what questionable.

That's a rather large scope, don't you think?
It also utterly ignores several important factors;
1) The freuqency of activity (Hourly, Daily, Weekly etc.)
2) The volume of activity (a single "yes", or 200 posts)
3) Doesn't clarify whether "lurking" or "passive usage" counts or not
4) Doesn't state whether it is attempting to discount spam accounts
5) Doesn't seem to account for "ditchers" (those that signed up, lookked and left)
etc. etc. etc .

All in all the figures are next to useless - it's far to generic, broad and uninformative.
For all we know, the FaceBook users may be on Fb for 6 hours a day on average, making 40 posts/comments/likes, whilst G+ has made a significant jump in spam accounts, ditchers, lurkers and signed in accidentally whilst checking their mail.

Further, there is little comparison to previous data/months/years ... so we don't know if their is a trend in uptake/decline/migration.
For all we know, G+ may simply have acquired a bunch of users due to the time of year, and they have since dropped off, whilst FaceBook was having it's typical seasonal dip, and is currently on the up.

Now, I now I sound somewhat negative and down ... that's because I am.
I'm not attempting to knock +GlobalWebIndex - but it is kind of useless aside from a potentially skewed picture.
Maybe if they could do a followup post with some of the missing data for atleast a bit of a comparison?
(Admittedly not easy for G+ due to age)

H/T to +Pedro Dias for the share, and +Mark Traphagen has one as well.

#googleplus #gplus #googleplusactivity #gplusactivity #googleplusgrowth  
Google+ grows to become 2nd largest social platform globally

Wow, that was quick! Like I had said before it was only a matter of time! It's also interesting to note the decline in Chinese based social media sites...

Google+, who despite being branded a failure or ghost town by large portions of the media, grew in terms of active usage by 27% to 343m users to become the number 2 social platform. Interestingly for Google, YouTube (not previously tracked by us as a social platform) comes in at number 3, demonstrating the immense opportunity of linking Google’s services through the G+ social layer. This is also a key indication of why Google+ integrated with the Google product set is so key to the future of search and the internet. We’ve got more coming on Google+ later this week as well.

Source: +GlobalWebIndex 

cc: +Sergey Brin +Louis Gray +Natalie Villalobos +Brian Rose +Eric Schmidt +Vic Gundotra 
Dave LaPlante's profile photoLyndon NA's profile photoChristine Alexander's profile photoMark Traphagen's profile photo
… besides, size / popularity is overrated.
It's not hte size of your platform, it's what you do with it :D
(Actually, possibly more true than we likely know)
We will follow up shortly with a detailed blog post about Google+. Thanks for sharing
Yep +Abe Pectol I couldn't agree more. Whilst it's interesting for me to get the latest statistics with 'marketing consultant' hat on..I really don't give a hoot.

Let's face the companies near the top are all massive.

For the vast majority of people they'd be just as well off or in many cases better if they interact within their niche.

I have a few travel clients and I always say they should focus on interacting in Lonely Planet (and for some Tripadvisor as well) to get their name out there. I also advise them to engage in The Guardian (UK newspaper) as I interact in there for my publishing work.

There's also some real hot plusses with the abobvemnetioned more niche forums/papers. I'm saving that for the time being though :-)
+Lyndon NA except for the fact that "did something in the last 30 days" has become the accepted standard for "active user" in social platform measurement. As long as you're judging everyone by the same standard, I think the relative measure is useful. Would I like to see all the other metrics you mention? Sure. But this is enough for relative comparison.
Yes/No +Mark Traphagen.
You are right, so long as the same yard stick is used, it's somewhat fair.
But as soon as you start considering the differences in frequency and volume within that period, you start seeing huge gaping holes and how skewed those figures are.

+Chris King - indeed, you go where your audience is (and hopefully your competitors aren't) :D

And thank you +GlobalWebIndex - the post isn't knocking "you", just the fact that the reports like this are often taken the wrong way/taken to heart without due consideration.
If you could lay your hands on more detailed data - that would be fantastic!
+Lyndon NA Thanks for your comment. I am the founder of +GlobalWebIndex. We used a monthly definition of active in this case and is usually the industry standard measure, we also track account ownership and nature of how they use the service. As we use a market research research methodology we only report people who claim to use the service. This in our experience is more accurate than using passive data as you can get many "active" people who are not actually using the service. We also track many other aspects of usage and will be publishing a post on Monday. Check out our +GlobalWebIndex page.  
Thank you for responding +Tom Smith  - very much appreciated!
And I'm dying to see what else you can show us (something that is still seriously lacking is indepth examinations and reports of the users, their behaviours etc.  There is still no strong comparison, nor activities per location/gender etc. for the various platforms (hint :D)).

I know it's a lot to suggest - but that sort of stuff would kind of make someone incredibly popular ;)
+Christine Alexander - yes ... I was a bit surprised by that.
I knew that MS was pushing to come back - but I thought all the nosie about P had caused it to sky rocket ... instead, though stable, it doesn't seem to have moved as far as many have thought.
Pinterest is the kind of niche network, like Instagram or Vine or Foursquare, that is going to click with only so many people, and then their market is saturated. They should be happy with the success they've had, but there is no way everyone is going to want to use such services.
I can't wait until it beats Facebook!
+Butch Bartley
- I don't think it will. G+ is too complicated for normal folks and it just aint as full as Facebook -- hold the tomatoes ;-)
+Tadeusz Szewczyk - I'm hoping the criteria is to actually use G+ (be it, or the notification panel).  Anything else would be wrong.
That said, they could potentially do the same for Fb and the numerous sites using the comments, likes etc.

Again - this is why I prefer more detail/clarity - it reduces/removes the likelyhood of misrepresentation, misunderstanding and people taking incorrect information.

+Christine Alexander - you really think G+ is more complicated that Fb?
+Christine Alexander I think when people say that it's partly "confirmation bias," our tendency to think whatever we already know and are familiar with is "easier and better" than something new. We tend to forget our earliest days on Facebook or Twitter, and how bewildering it was at first. What I have to "friend" someeone? And they can't see my stuff unless I friend them back? What the heck is a "wall" or a "timeline"? What is all the RT stuff in tweets? How do I send someone a private message tweet? You're telling me that if I start a tweet with an @ mention of someone, only followers of that person see the tweet? Who knew?

The learning curve in any new network is steep. Each has its own terminologies and ways of doing things. I think Google+ is really as striaghtforward a social network as you'll find. What makes it seem harder than FB is that you don't just show up with a ready-made audience of real life friends and family. You have to go out and find the people and conversations that are worthwhile, as you Christine are already doing yourself. And that's what makes the effort here so richly rewarding.

I find once people understand that Google+ isn't about connecting with the same old friends and family you chat with everywhere else already (why would you need yet another network to talk to the same people?) and latch on to it as an incredible "discovery engine" that can connect them with new, fascinating and informative people in their field or interestes, people whom they never would have met on Facebook, they see the value of it and are hoooked.
+Mark Traphagen
Maybe so - but my observation is this: when someone invites you to FB - friend, family or business associate - there is more of a sense of "open arms" when you get there and is a more "personal, party" atmosphere.  So you get on there and it is very easy to jump-in to the fun and get people to engage with.

My experience with G+ is that a person goes there usually because they are told as a business owner they should be there. Once there - you quickly find that there is not "open arms" unless you are someone BIG or somehow you have "broken into the clique"

Grandma aint going to play that game -- and MOST people I know have come onto G+ and set up their profiles, hung out for about 1 week and gave up.

So - one may say that people will spend the time to work G+ even to get one response here and there is really wishful thinking unless the person will benefit extremely in their business to be working it.

I know my comment is not popular - but it is the hurdle that G+ has - and unless they have a way to deal with that - you are not going to see "All people" on G+
+Christine Alexander don't worry about it being "unpopular." It's your opinion, and its a valid one, especially considering that a lot of people probably have a similar reaction as yours.

Although I think Google+ will grow to be a very big and significant player, I'm not one of those fan boys who thinks it is inevitable that it will "beat" or even "kill" Facebook. You are very right that for "grandma" and many others, facing a white screen of unfamiliar faces is just too daunting. And I hear you on business people who come here, set up shop, hang out their shingle, and then get discouraged when no customers show up.

So I agree. Google+ isn't for everyone. It could be, but it would probably take a few more major blunders by Facebook to drive enough people over here to make that happen. Maybe once people discover how creepy their friends can be with Graph Search??? ;-)

Anyway, it is the very challenge that I think makes Google+ worthwhile for either marketers or topical enthusiasts on any subject, if they are willing to take the time. It's much like the real world. If a merchant goes to a new town where he and his brand are strangers and merely rents store space and puts a sign out front, and no one shows up, he has himself to blame. The customers are there, he just expended no effort to find them. He needs to join the Rotary and Lions Club. He needs to sponsor some cool events on the town square. He needs to reach out to find the people who need his business and be so amazing and helpful, they want to connect with him.

And that's what I'll be teaching your students when I do the workshop for you. ;-)
+Mark Traphagen - Right with you on your comments - and responding to the example of a new business owner in a new town .... problem is not everyone is a marketor! Marketers are the ones who do well on G+.... the rest are out of their comfort zone. Good stuff!
Well, I would add "geeks" to marketers. And by geeks I mean topical enthusiasts, people who really get into some area of interest and want to find great places and people to discuss it with. Google+ has also attracted those people, and they too can be richly rewarded by what they find here. 
I must admit, I can see where +Christine Alexander is coming from with the new user perspective.
I've been waiting months to see G introduce a "welcome pack" and "lets get you rolling" wizard ... and it's still not here?
I think it would go a long way towards increasing retention and improving good will etc.
+Lyndon NA   Or a "start-up" circle where you are added into automatically when you join and they have a ton of VERY friendly, helpful people that actually respond to posts and make the experience fun. Then people could venture out to the BIG G+ world when they are ready:-)
+Christine Alexander Some of us have been begging G+ to let us be in such an ambassador group forever now. We're actually willing to donate our time to being connected with new users who need help to get started. We thought this would be a better way than the SULs they present to new users, mostly filled with celebs who don't engage you back. Of course, our idea may not be scalable, given the numbers of people joining up each day.

But Google is at least trying that out in some small ways. I have a friend who is very active here who was approached by Google to help them reach out  specifically to college groups and show them how they could use G+ effectively.
Add a comment...