Google+ Is More Popular Than You Think

[DustyDrB]

This is because Google forces anyone who has a Youtube account or Google account to have a Google+ account.

I've never willing touched the site and I imagine I count as an 'active' user, because all my youtube settings and comments get sent to Google+

It has nothing to do with the success of the social network =D

This so hard.
I have an account because I upload to Youtube occasionally. Have NEVER used Google+. I too guarantee they are counting me.

Add another here. This is actually why I deleted my Gmail account and switched to GMX. I just want my email to be an email. I suppose I still have a G+ by proxy of having a Youtube account, but all the personal info on that one is fake.

 

[EscapeGoat_v1legacy]

I was forced to get a Google+ account by my university, so I'm part of that 343 million userbase. However, I highly doubt that all of them are active users - I imagine quite a lot are likely like me: forced to get an account by either YouTube or some other organisation, so Google can claim popularity but without actually being that widely used. Clever trick, really.

The only time Google+ has been useful to me has been allowing me to get into the Google Hangouts set up by the guys at GaymerConnect.

What exactly is Google Hangouts? I've heard people talking about it, but I have no idea what it is.

It's essentially a multi-person (up to 9, I think) video and text based chat thing run through/by/whatever Google.

 

[Shadow-Phoenix]

What exactly is Google Hangouts? I've heard people talking about it, but I have no idea what it is.

OT: I for one accidently signed up to Google+ during one of the more recent Gmail updates. I doubt I'm the only one in that boat. Any of my activity is based solely on my Youtube or Gmail account usage.

Google hangouts are what you'd expect to be a "hangout" where you can either start your own or have a friend invite you to one where you can text chat,voice chat or webcam chat with up to 11 people or more all at the same time.

They used to have the Youtube tab (pictured) which allowed you to all watch a video at the same time in sync and anyone had access to type in the search engine to change the video.

You can also share files with one another thanks to google docs and see who's viewing them as well as grant access to allow them to edit your document at the same time.

OT: I seem to be the second person on here to actively use G+ considering I despise Facebook and see G+ as being much better with my neatly organised circles to which I can post content I want to different circles and thus chat with different people.

That and there's no shitty timeline and so far no employer requests access to your account unlike facebook.

 

[BrotherRool]

snip

See to me Google are even worse than Facebook for this. I was excited at first because I'm not a Facebook fan but then I realised it was a terrible idea. Google already control basically all the videos people watch on the internet, most of the adverts people see on the internet and everything people on the internet visit by searching and something like 20% of all people's web histories with Chrome. The idea of letting them get hold of a social network too is terrifying.

And the worst thing is, there's no company in the world more talented at mining vast amounts of data or that has more experience finding unique ways to use that data. Just having a social network is bad enough (unless you run a blocking app, if you have a Google+ account [and as we've said they force people to use one] everytime you see a webpage with a +1, that means Google has been allowed to know that you visited that webpage)

I need Facebook so that Google doesn't get to control all the internet (same reason I wouldn't use Gmail or Chrome). I trust Microsoft, Facebook, Google and Mozilla with parts of my internet life than I would trust Google with my whole internet life (if it had to be one company only, I'd choose Microsoft because I think they'd be too bureaucratic and unorganised to actually use all the information)

 

[Mylinkay Asdara]

If I had to guess, based on my own personal experience, people signed up for Google + must have a segment who are only there to use the video chat.

 

[Rblade]

isn't the titel of that article wrong no matter how you spin it? Either alot of people clearly know that google+ is pretty popular, or it really isn't very popular.

 

[Evil Smurf]

the Injustice league has chats on google hangout, that's why i use it.

 

[Vrach]

And what exactly determines an active user? Because my girlfriend found out recently somehow she was an owner of a Google+ account she never signed up for and her Android phone just had a lovely setting to upload photos automatically onto her profile. We stumbled upon it when we were sitting one day wondering what the fuck drained her monthly internet quota on her phone.

Oh and I feel this is relevant - http://theoatmeal.com/pl/state_web_winter_2012/google_plus

Don't get me wrong, I like G+, it has some neat features, but there's a reason I'm not using it - it's because NO ONE IS. It came out and everyone went "OMG G+, bye bye Facebook" and two weeks later the thing was a ghost town.

edit: Oh and I feel another thing is relevant. With the Android market on the rise, Google Play store is where you generally get stuff. To comment however, you have to sign up for a G+ account. So I'm wondering how many forced accounts like that are out there. It has a bit of an Origin stink on it.

 

[Scars Unseen]

This is because Google forces anyone who has a Youtube account or Google account to have a Google+ account.

I've never willing touched the site and I imagine I count as an 'active' user, because all my youtube settings and comments get sent to Google+

It has nothing to do with the success of the social network =D

This so hard.
I have an account because I upload to Youtube occasionally. Have NEVER used Google+. I too guarantee they are counting me.

I could say something similar for Facebook. I created an account on a whim years ago and have since made exactly two entries on my page(and I was drunk when I made one of them). The only real use I've gotten out of the service is due to the SCA migrating from Yahoo Groups to Facebook. I occasionally get an invite to an event(which I see in my Gmail) and click "yes." I think that makes me an "active" Facebook user. Similarly, I occasionally get Twitter updates(again, in my Gmail) from a few gaming devs I've subscribed to, but have only ever Tweeted once on my own. Again, I think that makes me an "active" user.

They all pad their numbers.

 

[oldtaku]

So they added millions of youtube commenters. Is that really a win?

 

[deth2munkies]

All they did was add everyone with a gmail or youtube account to the tally. Nothing special, almost none of those people use the social tools.

 

[sXeth]

Yeah, I actually did set up a Google+ and used it for maybe a month. At least 90% of the friends on it though just automatically got assigned one from their gmail, and have nil content on there, and logged in maybe once when they got the invites in the email. The numbers are drastically inflated because of thet wo popular services (Youtube and Gmail) technically being Google+ accounts.

 

[Strazdas]

I highly doubt that 343 million are active users. My impression based on the activity I see among my friends and random browsing is that a lot of people have an account, but hardly anyone uses it.

Yep, i technically have an account and it thinks im an "Active" user because i check my gmail and sometimes login into my youtube account ( i still use old username and password, FU google for merging them). altrough i did use google+ ONCE, and that was 2 days ago, and in fact escapist related.

 

[Pebblig]

Yeah I have a feeling it's just that if you have anything Google related (Youtube, Gmail) it gives you a Google + account. So I have a Youtube account I use reguarly, and I'm pretty sure I probably have a Google + account, but I've never actually been on it.

 

[Abomination]

This reminds me of the number of people who use "Bing" as their search engine. More likely that people are forced to go to a bing page when they mistype an address in their address bar.

Google+ had a go but suffered the same fate as anyone else who competes with World of Warcraft... the opposition has its claws into far too many people and there's no reason to have two programs that fulfill the same function, segregating those you associate with.

Essentially, Facebook has meta success. It's sucessful because it's successful. And that will cause its competition to fail. They will fail because Facebook is too successful.

 

[J Tyran]

It signs you up automatically if you use an Android phone and want an integrated contacts list too, you can opt out though. You just do it in the account management section of g+ and select "Delete profile and remove associated social features".

Just make sure you pick the right one or you will also permanently delete your g-mail/YouTube and whatever else.

 

[Loonyyy]

This is because Google forces anyone who has a Youtube account or Google account to have a Google+ account.

I've never willing touched the site and I imagine I count as an 'active' user, because all my youtube settings and comments get sent to Google+

It has nothing to do with the success of the social network =D

I highly doubt that 343 million are active users. My impression based on the activity I see among my friends and random browsing is that a lot of people have an account, but hardly anyone uses it.

^Is why

Also, I'd wonder who's idea it was to compare YouTube to Google+. You don't need an account to use the primary features of Youtube, so I wouldn't expect everyone who uses it to have one. Unless you regularly watch restricted content, post videos, or really want to comment, then you don't have much incentive to sign up.

The fucking numbers are all wrong, everywhere.

 

[BrotherRool]

Also, I'd wonder who's idea it was to compare YouTube to Google+. You don't need an account to use the primary features of Youtube, so I wouldn't expect everyone who uses it to have one. Unless you regularly watch restricted content, post videos, or really want to comment, then you don't have much incentive to sign up.

The fucking numbers are all wrong, everywhere.

Subscriptions are the big thing right? If you have a youtube account you can subscribe to a channel and be reminded whenever it updates with content. Google are really pushing the channel idea at the moment (they want to basically start challenging networks and have a whole video entertainment ecosystem where all the networks and publishers are underneath Youtube and so Google can scrape off the top of everything). They even redesigned the site so it pretty much only recommends channels as a whole now instead of individual videos (to the point where I struggle to find videos to watch when bored) and having an account to subscribe is a big part of the idea.

Given the size of Youtube, I actually thought this figure was a bit low. I mean every person you ever see commenting has an account and so presumably has a Google + account (the 'your profile' thing in Youtube now links directly to Google + instead of a youtube page)

 

[Loonyyy]

Also, I'd wonder who's idea it was to compare YouTube to Google+. You don't need an account to use the primary features of Youtube, so I wouldn't expect everyone who uses it to have one. Unless you regularly watch restricted content, post videos, or really want to comment, then you don't have much incentive to sign up.

The fucking numbers are all wrong, everywhere.

Subscriptions are the big thing right? If you have a youtube account you can subscribe to a channel and be reminded whenever it updates with content. Google are really pushing the channel idea at the moment (they want to basically start challenging networks and have a whole video entertainment ecosystem where all the networks and publishers are underneath Youtube and so Google can scrape off the top of everything). They even redesigned the site so it pretty much only recommends channels as a whole now instead of individual videos (to the point where I struggle to find videos to watch when bored) and having an account to subscribe is a big part of the idea.

True, but I meant the more casual consumer. The people who look for funny videos, the people who just browse, get linked there, or look for a specific instance. There's a lot of grandparents and soccer moms on social networks, who I wouldn't expect to be all that interested in the whole subscriptions etc stuff. They don't have to be a majority of users, just a large enough section to throw off the comparison. I'd say that almost anyone who uses G+, would use YouTube, same with any social network. If you have that sort of net presence, the ubiquity of YouTube makes the use of it almost inevitable. I'd expect if we went of usage, not accounts, YouTube would exceed G+, and probably Facebook.

On a personal note, I find the subscription system useless, and the idea of challenging television fascinating. I've many subscriptions, and I tend to just go to specific ones and watch videos from their channel, rather than go through the mire of suggested videos in the feed.

Given the size of Youtube, I actually thought this figure was a bit low. I mean every person you ever see commenting has an account and so presumably has a Google + account (the 'your profile' thing in Youtube now links directly to Google + instead of a youtube page)

Indeed, the guy I was quoting pointed out that if you make a Youtube or Google account, it makes a Google+ account for it, by default, and Youtube actions are displayed on G+. Which means that all the Youtube numbers get counted for G+, even when they don't use it.

 

[Knight Captain Kerr]

I'm another person who was pretty much made have a Google+ account by having a youtube and google account.