My G+ is just as active as my Facebook. But here's the kicker:<p>G+ almost always has better content.<p>The only explanations I have for that are that it's mostly techie people on there and the bar for posting something is a little higher than Facebook. I don't see people whining that WoW is down, but instead that they found some new scientific breakthrough in the news.
The "called-out" comment is the only thing about this link worth reading. The writer has never used Google+ yet complains about the lack of activity within his own news and invite feeds.
I know that, for some reason that I don't get, people in tech want Google+ to succeed. However, I see the same issues that the author present here. Moreover, Google has a big problem: it has to succeed fast. If within a few weeks Google+ doesn't become a clear competitor to facebook, everybody will label it as a failure, and then the result will be a self fulfilling prophecy.
I'm not a big Google+ fanboy like many, but damn, this is a bit premature no? Furthermore, the quality of the editorial is suspect, mostly because the author is using personal anecdotes to reach broad perspectives. I can't believe this is on Forbes.com
It's also probably a little early to declare something dead when people anxious to move to Google+ still can't even register. Not that I'm bitter or anything.
The article reads like a PR plant. Sorry but besides being a bit link-baitey it says "Nobody I want to follow uses G+ much." Fair enough but not really Eulogy worthy.