Raise Your Hand If You’re Still Using Google+
techcrunch.com
techcrunch.com
I do my social networking on the go, and I use Tweetdeck to keep everything in one place. Until Tweetdeck gets Google+ integration, I can't be bothered to open up another app...
What I do use Google+ for is pictures. The background upload is great and I like that Google+ doesn't seem to compress pictures.
That said, Google+ needs to differentiate itself by integrating with more Google apps, most notably Google Docs...
Then Google decided that they are in charge of the name policy and my account was blocked ever since. G+ as a concept was wounded.
Then Google thought it's a good idea to give me a popup saying 'You know what? Your account is blocked, you cannot read the content here anymore. Appeal and bend over or - hey - you can take your data with you when you go out of the door. We won't stop you'. Every link to a G+ post was inaccessible. It died in my world.
They fixed that now (so now I get a popup saying 'You're still not part of this community. Really, you can leave us if you want' - but I can close it and read the posts), but I don't care anymore. I didn't bother to delete my profile completely yet, but I haven't used it forever now and I'm missing nothing at all.
For my tiny micro cosmos (not representative, my own view) they failed hard to keep the enthusiasts. Opening my profile brings the cliche 'wait for the tumbling weed' feeling up in me.
I still check G+ every day, and there's a core of active users in my circles. But it would be more useful if I could connect with my colleagues who are Apps users.
Which is actually fine for me, because my tech friends don't really post tech stuff to FB anyway, it's just family/photo stuff.
Plus, I can follow Linus on G+: https://plus.google.com/102150693225130002912/posts
Then they shut down my account due to the full name policy. I never went back or attempted to reactivate my account. I am not going to use Google+ if the name policy is in effect. Twitter does not require a full name.
I think maybe the author should wait for G+ to be visible to all users and integrated over all Google's products, have a search feature and not to mentioned easier to sign up to before he starts echoing unreliable and meaningless stats.
Exactly. The article is measuring the number of G+ users who don't understand circles. Declining public posts isn't necessarily a bad thing.
I just wanted to emphasize that the 'public posts' metric is not necessarily ideal for a system where "easier private publication" was a showcased feature.