Shared publicly  - 
 
Google+ is a One Way Street
I noticed that Google+ engagement onsite is pretty impressive. People will +, reshare and comment all the time. That's great. I almost moved here from Twitter. There is one crucial difference though. When I don't share my post on Twitter someone else will do. So the engagement moves both ways, from my site to Twitter and from Twitter to my site.
Google+ is just a one way street though. I have to share my articles each time or nobody will even notice them on Google+. Once I share them here I get also +1 engagement on my blog but without it doesn't work. There is no overlap of audiences. People who follow me on Google+ do not read my blog unless I share my postings.
That's bad. I'm not here to create "great content" for Google. I'm here to get more readers for myself not Google. I may reconsider my Google+ usage.
5
Nick Ker's profile photoSteve Bertolacci's profile photoTadeusz Szewczyk's profile photoSeppo Alaruikka's profile photo
20 comments
 
Twitter is for broadcasting, Google+ is for discussion and ideas.

Like you I also find that most of my content is initiated by me and then shared, +'ed and re-shared by others. this works for me and I don't mind.
 
They really do need to tie in some benefit to the content creators or people will drift away. With YouTube, they at least integrated AdSense-style revenue potential, but it's still a small share to what you can make on your own site if you can pull people away.
 
Don't worry, Google+ will not fail.
 
Different Platform, different Userbase.

How many have you got on Twitter?
How long have you had them?
Why did they follow you?
How often do you Tweet?
How many of your Site Readers also use Twitter?
How many of your Twitter crowd are in your industry/field?
How many in Twitter are not in your industry, and follow for the additional info?

Now the same again, but for G+?

Here, you will likely find that the majority are not your readers.
They don't bookmark/frequent your site, thus they don't know you made a post unless you tell them.

So, is it a waste of time, or is it a different channel ready for you to gain traction on/from?
Does it not mean that unlike some, you have 2 distinct funnels with little/no overlap, thus more efficient for you "users"?
Is it not better to fish from 2 different pools and build 2 different userbases than to rely on a sole/singular source?

Further - I view G+ as being a case of "peers".
Most of the people I interact with are in my fields, deal with the same/similar stuff - it's a professional interaction channel.
Where as I view things like twitter/facebook to be positional - people tend to spearhead, and others litterally follow - which suggests they are not peers, but "lessers" (for lack of a better term).
 
I think it is probably because the lack of a limit on the length of G+ posts makes it easy to have a self-contained discussion without going to the source site. On twitter, you can only post so much so people almost have to go read the original. There was talk of a G+ commenting system similar to Facebook's comments, but I have not heard much about it lately.  I think that would be good.  Lots of good discussion on G+, but it does seem to leave the original content behind. 
 
The blog post only finding its way to Google+ when shared here brings blog sharing to new light. So far I've thought that there isn't much point in only posting the blog post without commenting it somehow or adding something extra to it.
 
+Dan Petrovic So self promotion is the only way to go?
+Lyndon NA Yes, it's mostly peers we meet here. On Twitter there are more real readers.
+Dirk van Daalen Nobody talks about advertising. You do not get it.
+Nick Ker Quite apt analysis, Google+ onsite comments could alleviate that indeed.
 
Who will promote your content if not you for starters?
 
Google+Comments is a possibility.
I've been waiting for them to announce it for about 6 Months - still no sign/sound of it though :(

The fact that the audience base is different is the likely reason (or a large factor) for the behaviour difference.
So ... you have the choice;
1) Live with it.
2) Create new content on your site for the new user-base.
3) Alter your posting style here to encourage more engagement on your site.

Of those options, I'd go for (2).
What content can you provide on your site that is of interest to "us"?  What style would appeal?  What information, data, views or observations is likely to gain attention and retention from those already in teh field and in the know?
 
+Dan Petrovic  Well, ideally your loyal readers will. The SEO approach is to broadcast though even before someone else can do it.

+Lyndon NA Good advice but a lot of additional work too.
 
I don't have a very big base of loyal readers unfortunately so if I write something useful I make sure people hear about it. I'm definitely not shy about it.
 
Yeah, and that's a self-fulfilling prophecy. You will never get a loyal readership when you don't let it prove their loyalty.
 
I'm working on it, in the meantime I promote my content.
 
Why, the masses of people that Google send him simply because he puts quality content on his site....
:picks himself up after laughing off his chair:

Okay, humour/sarcasm aside ... what +Dan Petrovic says is correct ... you need to point at least a few people to the content.
The content has to "work" for them ... and they have to be the right "type" to share ... and there should be some "benefit" for the share.
As I doubt a reward scheme would suffice, it therefore has to be "attention" and "discoverer" value ... so the content itself has to be worth it, and worth it enough to pass on a little glory.

That's no small feat.
You're not exactly a "huge" name that allows you to output dross/crud and get it shared because of your "personal brand" (which I think is a good thing :D).

You're in for a hard bout ... but I'm sure you'll come up with something (you are after all not only smart, but interesting - and to be honest ... I've come close to monitoring your site a few times in the past ... and I'm damned fussy!).

Another avenue you could look at is wooing some disseminators.  Find some G+ers that circle you that share more often, put them in a special circule and cultivate relationships.  You could also look at people who run/participate in curation sites and do the same.
Basically seek out a new audience here ... one that consists of those that "do share".
 
+Lyndon NA It's not that I'm not cool enough or something. It's just that Google+ does not work properly. Look how I use Inbound.org - I never submit my postings there but 2/3 reach the fp. That's SEO 2.0 
 
I wouldn't say it's not working properly - I'd say it simply works differently.

The problem is that most of the other platforms/mediums are shout boxes or for "users".
G+ seems to be al ittle different - none of us like the shouters, and most of us network with peers ... so it's more akin to LinkedIn that Facebook or Twitter.

Another thing to consider is those that you do interact with here aren't really going to look at the same content as your Twitter peeps.
Most of us don't trawl the net for thigns to read for ourselves ... and to be hoenst, I reckon a good 40% have only started "reading" more 3rd party content simply so they can share it and share the glory here :D
So why not look at what I/others share, and see what you can do to match/exceed it?

The alternative is to simply view G+ as a non-earning source, and use it for networking, brand building and resource location.

Or simply put it in the round filing cabinet :D
 
+Tadeusz Szewczyk Inbound has an incentive mechanism and everything and anything will be posted up. In terms of getting to the home page it's a bit like with anything else, not so much about the content and more about the sensational title or a quirky or funny topics. Again different platform, people on inbound are scanning just like on Twitter. Google+ is different.
 
A huge difference may also be that there is, so far, no automation for Google+. There is for Twitter. Many of the tweets of your posts you see may not be you-promotional but may be them-promotional; simply feeding the machine.

The number of people active here and there vs the number of posts they do; sharply different too.

And: while on Twitter you can do a link stream only/mainly, doing so on G+ is much less acceptable.

Also, for myself I notice that there is a splintering of topics. I just can't bring myself to make my Google+ account another Facebook or another Twitter. So I do different things here.
 
Yeah, good point but I don't mean the first 5 to 10 worthless automated tweets. I mean those tweeted by real people. I ignore the automated ones because they never bring traffic or engagement. I ignore them so much that I did even forget to mention them.
Add a comment...