Google Now Boasts World's No. 2 and No. 3 Social Networks 150
redletterdave writes "A new report released Monday revealed that Google+, less than a year and a half after its public debut, is now the No. 2 social network in the world with 343 million active users. Even better for Google, YouTube, which had not previously been tracked as a social network until recently, is now the No. 3 social network in the world with about 300 million active users. Google Plus and YouTube are being used by 25 percent and 21 percent of the global Internet populace, respectively."
Youtube is more a number 2 (Score:5, Funny)
Youtube is more a number 2 in terms of content being dumped out by the commenters
Re: (Score:2)
"Youtube is more a number 2 in terms of content being dumped out by the commenters"
I don't doubt that it's #2, or maybe 3. But question the numbers of "active users".
What's an "active user"? Somebody who comments? Somebody who uses their Google ID to log in to other sites?
I have little doubt that I am classed as an "active user", even though I don't think I've used my Google account for anything BUT to log in to other sites.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Youtube is more a number 2 (Score:4, Funny)
Where's /. on that list? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Not sure /. is that far behind Digg anymore.
Not sure if *anyone* is behind Digg anymore.
Not much competition (Score:5, Interesting)
Not to belittle what Google has done and purchased, but what other options were and are there? Google was supposed to be more secure than 1 other social network company. It is, though many distrust Google as much as they distrust Facebook when it comes to releasing information to Governments. Youtube was acquired, and for "Movies" and "Videos" was already a healthy and stable company. If it was launched as a social media site, I doubt it would have the depth it does. An alternative would have popped up in my opinion.
Re:Not much competition (Score:5, Funny)
Well there's Orkut...
Oh wait.
Re: (Score:2)
Well there's Twitter.
They are claiming that Google+ has more active users than Twitter. Clearly that isn't so, and therefore there's either some gross error in their methodology, or Google is paying them to say that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the deceptive part is that G+ and YouTube were counted separately. There should be a huge overlap between users of G+, YouTube, GMail, and Android/Google Play activations. While still invariably spammed, YouTube stats should be a more reliable indicator of Google's worth as a social networking provider, No. 2 by a nose.
As far as businesses are concerned, a YouTube channel would be more valuable than a Twitter feed. Of course, as a raw source of user-generated, rather than machine-farmed, information
Re: (Score:2)
I have to ask what they mean by "active users", because although I have a G+ account and like the UI and features, *NONE* of my so-called-friends use it. None.
Re: (Score:1)
Twitter is a social network.
They are trying to claim that Google+ has more active users than Twitter. Clearly that isn't so, so there's either something wrong with their methodology, or Google are paying them to say that.
One possible error with their methodology is if they are counting YouTube users twice. Once as a user of YouTube, and then also because Google has tricked YouTube users into being Google+ members.
Re: (Score:2)
That is probably accurate. I have reviewed lots of things on Youtube, but would have never signed up and would be completely anonymous if they did not force me to use my G+ account for access. While I don't mind watching movies of kitten boxing, I'm not about to start composing and posting such things...
Re: (Score:1)
I trust Google not to release more information to governments than they have to, but people need to understand that Google must comply with legal requests for information from the governments of countries they have operations in. I don't know if Facebook is any better or worse in this regard. The thing is I absolutely trust Google not to sell my information to any other company, Google knows the value of the information and knows it is more valuable kept to themselves, that way they can take a cut every tim
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, they are doing the same thing that Microsoft did with Internet Explorer. I might be part of those 300 million yet I never use Google+.
Re: (Score:3)
I use G+.
Facebook is for jokes, memes, family stuff. Little of consequence.
On G+ I interact with the engineers, kernel developers, cryptographers and other work related connections beyond my immediate employer.
There's a simple work/play divide between G+ and Facebook and that separation is good.
YouTube users now Google+ users (Score:5, Informative)
Not too long ago, YouTube asked me if I wanted to change my YouTube name to something else.
I thought 'Sure, why not.'
And out of nowhere, I became a Google+ user.
For a couple of months now, they've been tricking YouTube users into getting Google+ accounts.
Re:YouTube users now Google+ users (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems as if this is what a lot of "Google+ users" actually are - people who use other google products which have Google+ integration that they trick people into activating. In addition to youtube they do the same trick for Picasa, instant upload on Android, gmail chat, and probably others that I am not aware of.
I actually like Google+ well enough, but I think their reports of its user base are greatly exaggerated.
Re:YouTube users now Google+ users (Score:5, Informative)
Exactly. Note also that they merely claimed they were "active users", but that what defines a user as "active" is a rather open definition if you go all the way back to the original report [globalwebindex.net] ("Used or contributed to in the past month"). If all that is necessary to be considered active is to use a Google service that is linked to your G+ account (e.g. Google search returns personalized results based on links shared by your G+ friends, which are (frustratingly) turned on by default), then more and more people are becoming active users every day without even realizing that they are being counted as such, for precisely the reasons you specified. Google keeps presenting it as a simple account upgrade or transition to a new system, rather than the user signing up for a new account entirely, which is entirely deceptive and unethical.
Moreover, the idea that there are actually 343M active users on G+ flies in the face of everything most of us know about the network, which is that the place is a virtual ghost town. Claiming that it has roughly half of the active user base of Facebook (343M vs. 693M) simply doesn't ring true and should have sent up a number of red flags for the research group. That YouTube has that many users comes as no surprise. But I don't see how a social network that most people still haven't even heard of can possibly be more popular than the most popular video sharing site that gets linked to and shared every single day, or half as popular as the social network that's used by nearly one in seven people worldwide.
Re:YouTube users now Google+ users (Score:5, Insightful)
Moreover, the idea that there are actually 343M active users on G+ flies in the face of everything most of us know about the network, which is that the place is a virtual ghost town.
That depends entirely on who you circle or -- more importantly -- has circled you. It appears to me that the vast majority of Google+ posts are not public.
Personally, my stream contains far more content than I can possibly keep up with. Only about a third of it is from personal friends or family, though. Most is from communities I'm a member of and various other people and projects I follow. If you're interested in Linux, for example, all of the major developers post on Google+.
For my usage, I much prefer Google+ to FB. The volume of content on Google+ is lower (but still more than I can actually read), but the quality is much higher. I dumped my FB account a while ago. However, my wife has maintained hers because there are a lot of people in our families who aren't on G+ so she uses FB to follow them, and tells me what I need to know. If I couldn't get that second-hand, I'd probably have to use both.
Re: (Score:2)
That depends entirely on who you circle or -- more importantly -- has circled you. It appears to me that the vast majority of Google+ posts are not public.
Oh, no doubt. But I'd imagine that the majority of the activity is clustered around a set of communities, rather than representing widespread adoption in the general population of the world. As it is, they're claiming that roughly one in twenty people worldwide have used G+ in the last month, which is ludicrously large for a service that's known by so few in the general public. For the time I was using it, I enjoyed G+'s metaphors and layout better than Facebook's, but the same sort of concerns that pushed
Re:YouTube users now Google+ users (Score:4, Interesting)
None of my real life friends have actually moved to Google+ from Facebook, but oddly, the community on Google+ is better. Less lively, but also less crap (went to the store today... here is a baby picture... here is a 3 year old meme... here is some religion fluff... here is a horoscope... I like poker.).
Google+ sucks as a network of friends, but its pretty nice for communities. Both the tech/nerd communities, and the photography communities are thriving. Google+ is the new Flickr, and they actively work on it, sponsoring all sorts of events and hangouts, and actively courting popular online personalities. Its paid off. The tech, geek, and science communities are also pretty healthy.
On Facebook I would never follow/like/whatnot someone who isn't a personal friend. One Google I only follow people who are interesting, even if they are complete strangers. They are pretty much two completely different things.
Re:YouTube users now Google+ users (Score:4, Insightful)
Moreover, the idea that there are actually 343M active users on G+ flies in the face of everything most of us know about the network, which is that the place is a virtual ghost town.
Au contraire, it's a very lively and information-packed place, with all kinds of content and discussions going on all the time, every hour of the day. But hte problem is, nobody is sharing anything with you, because you haven't circled anyone on G+, and/or they haven't circled you back. It's like going to visit your acquaintance Frank, and before even entering you declare his house to be dark, and then go around telling everybody that "Frank's house is so dark". Well yeah, it's dark you douchebag cunt piece of shit cunt, it's dark because you didn't switch on the light, shit-for-brains.
Re: (Score:2)
You're seriously resorting to ad hominem? In truth, my experience with the site is actually the exact opposite of how you painted it in your analogy.
Contrary to your suggestion that I just walked in and declared it dead, I had an account during the late beta and I found it to be pretty active at the time (considering the small number of users, of course). And then they opened it up to the public, and it was even more active. Friends, coworkers, online buddies, old classmates, and all manner of people were h
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it my job to switch on Frank's lights? If I called around someone's house uninvited and found the lights out, I usually conclude they may not be in. I don't enter anyway, switch on the lights, turn on the tv and help myself to a beer from the fridge. People tend to frown upon that.
Or is it your analogy is crap?
Re: (Score:2)
... and Newt Gingrich has 1M of Twitter followers. [gawker.com]
Re: (Score:2)
They only have 7300 Likes on Facebook [facebook.com]. Don't you find it a little odd that they have over 136x more of them on G+? I see only a few possibilities:
1) Bots are responsible for artificially inflating scores.
2) Facebook really is on the downhill and people are leaving in droves.
3) There's a tactic in play that actively encourages liking on G+ (e.g. discounts on products, a tie-in with Google Wallet, etc.).
4) A niche community has settled on G+ to the exclusion of Facebook.
5) The site is receiving extra attentio
Re: (Score:2)
4) Several of my geek niches, namely Tabletop Roleplaying Games, Linux and Android, have huge communities in Google+
Re: (Score:3)
They only have 7300 Likes on Facebook [facebook.com]. Don't you find it a little odd that they have over 136x more of them on G+? I see only a few possibilities:
Or the networks have very different populations. Google+ is VERY nerd heavy. Facebook is full of "average joes", and your parents.
G+ has also pretty much supplanted Flickr for the place to post photos and talk to photographers. The photo community there is absolutely huge, and Google actively works within the community. The Linux, tech, and science communities are pretty active too. That said, I don't have a single friend who uses it, and all I really ever post is photos.
To be honest, though, I wouldn'
Re:YouTube users now Google+ users (Score:4, Insightful)
Spoken like someone who hasn't been to G+ in eons, thinks beast live there.
Re: (Score:2)
Ack responded to wrong post.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL
Re: (Score:3)
I tried G+ when it first came out. No one I know activley uses it, but everyone has *tried* it. I still get notifications and spam from it from Gmail, etc.
I don't know if they'd consider me an "active user" or not.
Unless there is some other parallel universe out there where everyone uses G+ instead of Facebook - I don't trust the numbers. *EVERYONE* I know uses Facebook, and *NO ONE* uses G+. I might be off by a *few* people in this statement - but it's not *much* of an overstatement.
Re: (Score:2)
I know more poeple who don't use Facebook and who have unactive accounts there than those who actually use Facebook. Maybe my social circle is too small though, or I don't hang out with enough kids but I just don't see facebook as an "everyone" sort of place. If Google+ is accused of inflating its numbers then Facebook is doing the exact same thing.
I've been on Google+ awhile and have never once seen any spam. I don't have gmail though or any other Google "services".
Re: (Score:2)
It seems as if this is what a lot of "Google+ users" actually are - people who use other google products which have Google+ integration that they trick people into activating
Note that the report data supposedly does not come from the companies who own the products being measured. Unfortunately the methodology isn't described. Does anyone know how the "Global Web Index" data is collected? Most methods I can think of would not be fooled by the kind of "fake" engagement you're describing.
Re: (Score:2)
If you RTFA, it measures usage in terms of "Active Usage" (defined as "Used or contributed to in the past month"), not number of accounts. So unless Google is somehow tricking them into posting on G+, I don't think this particular study is exaggerated.
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is, Google is actually transitioning at least some of their services to use Google+ for all "sharing" purposes under the hood. I know this is true in the case of Picasa at least - Picasa as most people will see it is now simply a part of Google+. (I believe it's still technically possible to not use Google+ for sharing things in Picasa, but G+ is the default, and most people using Picasa at this point are "contributing" to Google+).
Are other Google services doing this? It's hard to really know wha
Re: (Score:2)
The problem here is what does 'used' and 'Active' mean? I regular click links and unexpectedly end up on G+ while I'm logged into gmail in another tab. To G it looks like I'm using G+ as a user, but without intent am I really a user? Even if I actively went to G+ but only consume am I really 'active'?
I have a G+ account purely to stop the other fscking G pages constantly nagging me. To date I've had exactly zero activity from the 6 friends&family with accounts in my circles and I've posted nothing for t
Tricks COUNT (Score:2)
Pop quiz: what's the most popular desktop OS?
Followup question: did you throw up in your mouth a little, at using the word "popular" to describe that OS' marketshare? That's not really an honest way of describe a default "choice," or a "choice" that people are railroaded into thanks to network effects, kicking and screaming, and yet it is technically accurate.
No matter how Google+ got its users, it has them.
Re: (Score:1)
+1. At first, I wondered how Google+ had so many users. I signed up for an account just to check it out. Then I remember seeing the whole real name thing. This is PR and an attempt to resuscitate the social network.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure about this third-party report, but Google actually reports separate numbers:
- People who have Google+ profiles
- People who use Google+ features every month (including via other Google products)
- People who use the Google+ stream every month
At the beginning of December, those numbers were 500 million, 235 million, and 135 million (source: http://googleblog.blogspot.ca/2012/12/google-communities-and-photos.html [blogspot.ca]). Given that we're now almost two months on from then, this new number (343 million) c
Re: (Score:2)
Every few weeks when I log into YouTube it asks if I want to use my real name. Before I can actually get to YouTube I have to fill out why I do not. The graphics make it highly easy to switch to a real name and not so easy to opt out. Google does something similar with email accounts when you login. They want your cellphone number. The options to put it in are Big, Bright and In Your Face. The link to just go to your account is small enough you have to look at the screen for a second or two to see it
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not too long ago, YouTube asked me if I wanted to change my YouTube name to something else. I thought 'Sure, why not.'
There's your problem.
Why did you think "sure, why not"?
Why didn't you think "why are they asking me to change my name"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For me it was the other way around. It asked my if I wanted to use my G+ name for Youtube, so now I'm also a Youtube user.
Re: (Score:2)
That's because there is no long a distinction between having a Google account and a G+ profile. They are the same thing, and Google's attempt to merge all its different site profiles into one started years ago.
It isn't a trick, they just failed to explain it very well.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
orkut - number 4th? (Score:1)
"Google Now Boasts World's No. 2, No. 3 and No. 4 Social Networks"
Re:orkut - number 4th? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Orkut is on the list, but it's way down past MySpace and Pinterest.
Re: (Score:2)
orkut is on the list.
The list is linked from the article.
While orkut may be very popular in a few select countries, it never really caught on worldwide. Personally, I stopped using it because of the massive amount of people that didn't respect the rules and would blast our "English only" community boards with Portuguese. (Back then, it was commonly referred to as the "Crazy Brazilian Invasion".) Us "uneducated folk" could never carry on decent conversations when every single conversation would branch off in
Re:orkut - number 4th? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Look out, you're blowing their cover!
Re: (Score:2)
Google Plus boasted 343 million active users in Q4 (Score:2)
I wonder how they determined "active users," since these days its getting easier and easier for anyone with a GMail-based account to find themselves "using" Google+.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how they determined "active users,"
You can google for this quite trivially, basically your definition of gmail, clicking +1 and stuff is the much bigger "somewhat under four hundred million" number from a couple months ago whereas the number of people actually making posts to their G+ stream is the somewhat smaller "well over one hundred ish million" number also a couple months out of date.
Unless youtube has zero or negative number users, it would seem they're using the latter definition "people who actually post stuff to their G+ profile" a
Re: (Score:2)
you +1 something once a month, you're an active user
"Active" user? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
It means you're actively wondering how they're counting you as an active G+ user after you only logged into YouTube.
Let's define success: Money (Score:3)
Poor definition of success but.... (Score:2)
..."Google Sites Revenues – Google-owned sites generated revenues of $8.64 billion, or 67% of total Google revenues, in the fourth quarter of 2012" http://investor.google.com/earnings/2012/Q4_google_earnings.html [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
hydrox (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Also Facebook stats aren't manipulated.
*choke* You actually believe that? Please tell me that the internet mangled more sarcasm?
EVERYONE manipulates their user counts. Do you think /. has over 2 million users? Real, active users? How many dummy accounts do you think Facebook has? How many inactive accounts? Hell, I still have a MySpace account (completely full of fake info) because they made it hard to delete it, I haven't touched it in over 5 years. There was an article on here, awhile back, claiming that around 50% of Facebook accounts
Users (Score:1)
How many of them are spammers and phishers?
And if you weight it by value... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:And if you weight it by value... (Score:5, Interesting)
Google+ actually has meaningful discussions.
FB/twitter for pics of dinner and smiling kids and babbling complaining and TV and sports discussion, G+ for hobbies.
G+ has HUGE and active ham radio, and photography communities.
Re: (Score:2)
It's odd you present two obsolete things as being at the core of a new technology.
I'm not saying anything against ham radio, or photography, but they are or have been in the process of being superseded. Artistically, photography will be around for a while, but good video is always better in terms of information. Ham radio is nothing compared to the internet, wi-fi broadcasting and wardriving.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention roleplaying games, cosplay and anime communities. A lot of good discussions too.
Re: (Score:1)
So you are saying Google+ is relevant to social networking the way C-SPAN2 is relevant to television.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry... G+ will get its eternal September if Facebook tanks.
How much is Google+ being used? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
I'm in college. I have never been asked "Hey, what's your Google+ username?" In fact, I've never heard anyone ask that of anyone else. I don't even know if that's how Google+ works. I've never used it. And yet, I have at least two Google+ accounts thanks to Gmail and YouTube.
Re: (Score:2)
Youtube a social network? (Score:1)
Depends Upon How You Measure It (Score:2)
The ONE thing G+ has over FaceBook... (Score:1, Informative)
At least it doesn't automatically fuck around with your accounts across sites. I'm sure this scenario has happened to some of you FB users before:
- See video on one of those "youtube with nudity allowed" sites such as dailymotion
- "This video is not suitable for minors, please sign in to confirm your age"
- "Hmm, okay, it'll be easier if I just use FB to log in instead of creating an account for a site I don't really care about."
- Watch video o.o
- Several hours later
They are just calling gmail users google+ users (Score:1)
Quote after the first "America's cup" race. (Score:2)
"Ah, Your Majesty, there is no second."
The first race was actually for the "R.Y.S. £100 Cup", subsequently re-named "America's cup"
Is there anyone here using it? (Score:1)
It doesn't count if you work for Google. That is the only people I really see there.
Both my grammas are on Facebook, I didn't hear them saying they are thinking about opening a Google+ account.
Re: (Score:2)
At least one person uses it. Everytime I log onto it, I see a new post from that person. Which is fortunate, since he seems to be the only person who does.
Same Here (Score:1)
Gmail Account (Score:2)
Can I really be counted as I don't participate?
If you read the article you would not be counted *unless* you participate hence the measure of active users.
Facebook #1 (Score:1)
Nerds can so a little math :) (Score:2)
And Facebook is #1 with 95% of the global populace. The other 5% who didn't use Facebook were nerds who spent all day telling everyone in various other forums how they don't use Facebook.
http://globalwebindex.net/thinking/social-platforms-gwi-8-update-decline-of-local-social-media-platforms/ [globalwebindex.net] the original article puts Facebook at 650Millionish about half of the PC Market 1.2Billion...or about a 10% of the worldwide population of 7Billion.
Google+ is currently half that sitting at 350 Million [youtube at 300Million]. Which shows how incredibly successful it is on its own merits.
The bottom line though is Facebook has nothing close to your market penetration figures , let alone saturation of t
On the comments of that article (Score:1)
I thought plus was optional when signing up for an account, but I guess this has now changed?
Picasaweb? (Score:2)
What's "active"? (Score:2)
I have had a G+ account at least two or three times. I have deleted them every time, because they won't let me use the only name I am willing to use for social networking. "seebs" is my Real Name; it is not the name on my driver's license, but it is the name I commonly use in everyday life. According to their stated policies, I should be able to use it. But they don't do that, and a casual read of their forums reveals that a non-trivial number of people are having issues with the names thing...
So when they
Is that not a social network? (Score:2)
If you want to put in a review on any app you downloaded to your Android phone into Google Play Store
It does, and there is little doubt this *will* boost Google+ numbers, although I would argue that it is a social interaction [or at least exhibits features of one...like youtube] and Google is simply merging these together. Its less inflating figures...more consolidating social interaction...because users are interacting through Googles services *socially*.
The reality is Google is aggressively pushing its Google+ thought its *successful* social services. The fact that users continue to review apps / comment
You should read the article. (Score:2)
Which would be more impressive if there were more than 4 social networks with over 100 users on the planet.
All of top ten social networks have more than 100million users, perhaps you should have read the article. http://globalwebindex.net/thinking/social-platforms-gwi-8-update-decline-of-local-social-media-platforms/ [globalwebindex.net]
Facebook! (Score:2)
What was #1? I want to know if my MySpace account is worth anything.
MySpace is 15th perhaps you should have read the article. Although the company as a whole sold on June 2011 to Specific Media Group and Justin Timberlake who jointly purchased the company for approximately $35 million. From the graph ...about 50 Cent an active user.