Google+ grows 43% in June

Sigh. We're drawing conclusions from Compete again?<p>I've said this before and I'll say it again; using Compete for quantitative traffic comparisons is flawed, particularly with social sites that utilize embeddable content. Their data has been proven wrong countless times. Until recently, Compete claimed Reddit (<a href="http://siteanalytics.compete.com/reddit.com/" rel="nofollow">http://siteanalytics.compete.com/reddit.com/</a>) had less traffic than Digg (<a href="http://siteanalytics.compete.com/digg.com/" rel="nofollow">http://siteanalytics.compete.com/digg.com/</a>).<p>I don't have anything against Google+. But lets hold off on the congratulatory praise until we're sure the growth is real.

Wow. Lots of impressions here.<p>MySpace is so small now! And shrinking! Let us never forget that history.<p>Tumblr and pinterest are adding a lot fewer users than I thought.<p>Gosh just look at the page. Google+ looks very clean and beautiful compared to Facebook these days. I'm reminded of when everybody used to say "Facebook looks very clean and beautiful compared to MySpace these days".<p>Google has a big leg up here as Google+ ads can always be less intrusive and more relevant than Facebook ones. They can also afford to be cleaner by simply not making much (if any) money off of Google+ itself, just on the fact that it gets you into the google ecosystem.<p>One thing that really bothers me about new Google web properties is that Google made this browser, Google Chrome, with a search functionality that highlights the matched words in orange on the scrollbar. Then they went and broke this feature on every single scrollbar possible by using custom scrollbars on every Google web property except Google search itself. How silly!<p>---<p>Back to the topic at hand. I love the format of Google+ compared to Facebook. It sits between blog and social network, and long-form posts and answers seem much more natural and acceptable on G+ than on Facebook.<p>Think about it. <i>Lots of people link to Google+ posts here.</i> Nobody links to the equivalent Facebook thing, wall posts. (And extremely few people use Facebook "notes" which were an attempt to fill that gap and have falled by the wayside.) I think this is one of the most telling things of all.<p>I think Google+ has great opportunity for it to mature into more than just a social network, but a social network + blog for those who cant be bothered to make (and visit!) traditional blogs + interactive press release platform (important for both companies and users).<p>I don't know if G+ will "win" any long term battle, but I do hope that when social networks mature into more refined, less annoying versions of themselves, they will look more like G+ than like Facebook or MySpace. I think the trend is clear, anyway.

Yes, but I know dozens of people on LinkedIn. I know one active Google+ user and he's a bit of a Google fanboy to begin with.<p>None of the non-techie people I know use Google+ or even mention it at all.

I'm on Google+ because I have a Gmail account.<p>I'm on Linkedin (and Facebook) because they offer value.

&#60;sorry, meta&#62; Is there a way to perhaps add revision history to mod-altered post titles?<p>It's confusing and maybe even counter-productive in some cases when these ninja-edits happen.<p>If there is a reason to change the title, let people know why. This adds to the available collective information as to what's acceptable or expected.<p>Example: user w submits post with good intentions and unintentionally uses an x title which is not appropriate. Title is changed by mod and user checks history. User sees title wasn't appropriate because y. Next time, user thinks about it and tries harder to be more concise/accurate. Progress.

Given the way Google has been using high-pressure onboarding through several of their existing customer bases, I'm not surprised. And "visitors" likely counts people who got linked to a single post.

Nice try. I have to sign up for Google+ to read on article about Google+? If this is the dodgy tactics used to drive up usage numbers then Google+ must not be offering any intrinsic value. As for now, LinkedIn is providing me greater value. Actual value, without gimmicks.

Please keep in mind that Compete's data is from ISP data, so any http request to plus.google.com will count as a visitor. Which is why sites like, atdmt.com [1], have more "visitors" than google plus. I wouldn't trust compete's data for Google vs Linkedin because, the "uniques" could be coming from integrations with other google properties.<p>[1] <a href="http://siteanalytics.compete.com/atdmt.com/" rel="nofollow">http://siteanalytics.compete.com/atdmt.com/</a>

1. Google+ is a lot more open. I get to interact with variety of people through public posts.<p>2. I have gotten rid of RSS Reader and now get all updates on G+ and blog. One less thing to worry about.<p>3. Too many people make too many posts on Facebook. Circle on G+ is growing on me.<p>4. I like everything Google.

How does he define a 'visit'?<p>It's a vague concept now - from an ISP perspective hitting a page with G+ (or T or FB) button on it when signed-in takes down a 'visit' sized payload.<p>When I +1 a page using Chrome Extension - is that a visit?<p>Same with mobile apps - what's a mobile 'visit' - an API GET?

A likely cause for this that I haven't seen noted yet is that they are slyly directing people to G+ without the user even knowing. If you click on a Google Maps result to get the full information page, it's no longer a Google Maps page, it's a G+ page. These traffic numbers clearly include lots of people who got to G+ in this manner.

I rarely use G+ for the actual plus.google.com site. Instead, I add interesting or helpful people to various circles, and they augment my regular search results. But before you do that you might want to follow these tips for dealing with the random people showing up in your chat contacts <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3472283" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3472283</a> and flooding your "stream" <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/115948050407884269063/posts/Nd61YC5CbHJ" rel="nofollow">https://plus.google.com/u/0/115948050407884269063/posts/Nd61...</a>

Driving first time visitors doesn't mean anything for a social network unless they have <i>retention</i>. Show me that Google+ visitors return to the site regularly and I'll start to think this is more than just measuring the size of your car's engine to determine its top speed. Anecdotal evidence tells me otherwise -- there are tons of people on G+, but nobody uses it.

To anyone late to the party, the original title of the post pointed out that G+ has apparently surpassed LinkedIn in usage, which might explain why many posts focus on LinkedIn as a site for comparison.<p>The post was on the front-page with the original title for <i>hours</i>, I don't know why a mod decided that was the time to change it.

These numbers are showing G+ just a bit smaller than twitter traffic wise. I'm just not buying it.

It would be interesting to know if their definition of an "Active Google+ user" has changed. Otherwise those stats don't mean a thing.

Sure. I have a Google+ account, two even, because they are both attached to my private and business Google accounts. Same goes for almost everyone I know, they all have at least one Google+ account.<p>Only nobody I know, ever, ever uses Google+.<p>I'm guessing many visits I make to Google applications whilst logged in count as Google+ usage. In reality, I haven't used it since after the first month or two, and that is pretty much reflected by the people around me.

I'm on Google+ because I'm not cool enough to say I only know one person on Google+.

Let me know when Google+ actually works with my google apps email address. It says you have to enable it but I did enable it (terrible documentation/help to do so) and still could never get it to work with no useful error about what's wrong.<p>It should just work by default.<p>And if it's disabled, they should stop sending me emails asking me to sign up when they know perfectly well that they won't let me.

Somewhat off-topic, but this has been bugging me for years: for countries that use , instead of . in decimal numbers, how do they pronounce it? ie For the number 12.3 million, I could say "twelve point three million" or "twelve dot three million." For 12,3 million, do you say "twelve comma three million"?

I would vaguely say Facebook is a social network people actually want to be on. LinkedIn is a social network people might believe they <i>need</i> to be on. The two aspects are at least somewhat contradictory - a some significant portion of Facebook users are there to share things they wouldn't want an employer or potential customer to see whereas LinkedIn is fundamentally about selling one's self.<p>If Google+, using a tighter identity and so-forth, happens to replace LinkedIn, that would be one way to not be in direct competition with Facebook. But also to guarantee a certain limit to growth (at least until everyone in the world has to sell themselves to potential employers and customers all the time - sadly real possibility but one that thankfully isn't appearing tomorrow).

I'm reminded that Google+ hasn't caught every time I log on.<p>Between visits, I think I forget it even exists.

Can we know the number of <i>members</i> instead of <i>visitors</i> ?

I cannot believe no one has brought up the fact Google's Chrome web browser updates have been practicing evil, and thus the impressive growth. Essentially, it tricks people into signing up as a Google user. The push to corner a phenomena, which has reached its peak, by Google has been rather jaw dropping. The next generation is about to change everything and only a few will guess correctly what they will make the next must-have service will be.

The only person I know on Google+ is my brother who works there. It's a good product, but it'd be a lot nicer if more people I knew used it.

Google+ is okay for early adopters but as long as my family and friends are immersed in facebook, the G+ is a hard sell. But since most people use google, and google has unified login system, it is very easy to join google+. But actively use it? I don't know. Does the average user spend so many minutes on google+ everyday like they do on facebook? I don't think so.

I would like to see how many people sign up for (and visit) Google+ due to the Instant Upload mobile photo feature. That's certainly my use case. I occasionally end up on Google+ from a search, but that's maybe once a month.<p>I love Google+, but the only reason I specifically visit the site is to view my Instant Upload album.

There are two sources confirming the same trend for Google+: Compete shows a growth of 43% - in monthly visitors - from May to June. Experian Hitwise shows a growth of around 35% - in monthly visits - in the same period. So I would think: Two analytical firms would hardly be wrong at the same time?

The numbers are impressive but whenever I login to G+ my timeline is always like this: <a href="http://fc02.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2010/239/d/f/forever_alone_by_foreveraloneplz.png" rel="nofollow">http://fc02.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2010/239/d/f/forever_alone...</a>

"Larger" is a relative term. How many people pay monthly subscriptions to LinkedIn vs Google+ ?

But who actually pays attention to it?<p>The main consequence from Google Plus is that I see Kingsley Idenhen's face every time I do a query connected with the semantic web.<p>For the life of me I can't figure out how to send people messages or get into a hangout or do anything with plus...

To quote Chelsea Handler (who doesn't get mentioned enough here on HN I think), G+ is a hot mess. It takes forever to load, it's confusing and opaque, and it simply doesn't, and probably won't, ever have the reach to be relevant.

Facebook has been putting a lot more ads in the newsfeed lately. I find it irritating because I can't just avoid them like I do with the ads on the right! These types of actions may lead more users to Google+

Maybe, maybe not. I signed up for a throwaway Gmail account today and along with it came a Google+ account. I didn't click on the G+ link, but how may people have, only to never visit again?

those numbers seem really really low for Facebook and Youtube.

... But far less valuable, so far.

A less interesting title would have been "Gmail is (and always was) larger than LinkedIn."

gmail was already larger than linked in, and google can just flip a switch to "join" gmail users to google plus. How is this metric not BS?

Morten Myrstad: Google's Meat Loaf doppelgänger.

And it's still unavailable on Windows Phone...

I guess, the title was moderated again.

Only 158 million of Facebook's 800x million users visit in any given month?