Google+ suffering from "fading user interest" – The LA Times
According to a negative post in The LA Times, Google+ is fading away. That said, since they initially wrote this piece, they have already had to publish a retraction for quoting the wrong numbers!
They originally claimed that Google+ had 2million users in it's first 2 weeks, which was 500% below the actual number:
The LA Times: "The post initially said that Google+ had ramped up to nearly two million users in its first three weeks… The number of users that had started a Google+ account by then was closer to 10 million"
Anecdotally, I have seen an increase of 50% in the number of people connecting with me on Google+ over the past few weeks. I also get a massively better response to anything I have on Google+ than any other platform.
You can check out the while LA Times piece, below.
#Thunky
Embedded Link
Google+ continues battle with fading user interest, data say
Google+ traffic: According to data given to The Times by Hitwise, U.S. traffic to Google+ has dropped in 11 of the 21 weeks since its launch in late June, regularly falling between 10% and 20% from on…
Google+: View post on Google+
Google's playing the long game with G+. The LA Times is missing the point with some pretty lazy and very superficial journalism.
Totally agree. I just quoted your comment in the post, Simon.
I'd like to have given your comment +2 +Simon Gornick – That's exactly how I see it.
Of course, we could both be wrong.
+Jim Connolly Very possibly, but I like to think we won't, Jim. Ever since Schmidt stepped down as CEO, the company has stepped up in search, apps, social, overall integration, brand appeal. And it's also starting to 're-colonize' the web after FB's social plugin landgrab. (Full disclaimer: I'm a total G-head complete with my Cr48 and Nexus S)
The Times gets reposted a lot on Gplus, so I don't understand why they would try to piss off someone driving eyeballs to their site — just doesn't make any sense.
+Gary Tivey two words: 'link bait'
+Cliff Roth The journo's best friend.
+Cliff Roth – It REALLY does read like link bait.
+Jim Connolly +Cliff Roth Most stories these days do. If you examine headline construction, you can see how much news organizations rely on them to catch a click.
It is a rather simple formula. Want more readers? Claim something people are passionate about is failing. Tell people they are wrong and they will speak up. They will tell others to speak up. This all equals more viewers.
Similar to adding a CCAG to a post on G+ in hopes of getting on the 'What's Hot' Stream.
The trouble is, the push towards linkbait weakens journalism.
+Simon Gornick I agree completely
Waiting for the counter-article: Geeks flock to support Google+ at length, in long, erudite, cross-referenced posts..
That's just it. Being controversial works, but it's a short term solution to traffic! In the end, being controversial doesn't make me loyal to you, quite the opposite. Journos should rethink their strategy! Just my 2c's anyway…
Good point, +MJ Meyer!
As a relative newbie to soc media and someone that didn't participate in FB beyond getting a page, I would say that G+ seems to have lots of very good functions, great layout etc but might benefit from fuller guides etc re how to make the most of the functionality? Am I right or just not found the relevant support site, tutorials etc?
+Glenn Wallis A big part of it, is that this is a brand new platform and is having new features added all the time, making it challenging to keep up-to-speed, as it were.
It's a great platform and I believe will be a huge success.
+Glenn Wallis circling +Johnathan Chung is a great place to start. He curates a lot of great content including 'how – to's for G+.
Great thanks very much for the pointer Cliff. I'll go and do a bit of research and see if I can start to tap into G+ more fully.
That's awesome. The LA Times thinks people will be more interested in the fading interest of Google+ than any interest in Google+. I don't think it's the platform as much as social media overload. People can only support a few big networks and a few niche networks.