http://luigimontanez.com/2012/actually-social-media-buttons-...
The Nieman Journalism Lab followed up a few months ago:
http://www.niemanlab.org/2013/11/tweet-buttons-are-less-of-a...
http://luigimontanez.com/2012/actually-social-media-buttons-...
The Nieman Journalism Lab followed up a few months ago:
http://www.niemanlab.org/2013/11/tweet-buttons-are-less-of-a...
Oftentimes an ugly site with ads and popups everywhere will perform better than a beautiful, minimalist site. Sorry, but that's just reality.
http://www.mrgreen.am/affiliate-marketing/the-ugly-truth/ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1338459
But if you're actually in the content game? hmm..
Edit: I should clarify - the extra traffic we received as a result of the extra social activity was tiny and in no way made up for the damage to conversion.
But I'm starting to find it inconvenient when social buttons aren't used. Maybe it's because I'm getting older...but partially because web developers are either moving too fast for me, or have no concept of graceful degradation. For example it is now impossible, from what I can tell, to provide a "right-click" tap on the New York Times website when you're on an iPad. That is, you can't hold to highlight text (which is helpful when tweeting the title of Tweet).
So call me a surrender monkey. Social buttons are the web-widget we deserve in the fractured development landscape.
Edit: I also have to dispute the OP's contention that the buttons are never used...blog posts of mine that get shared a lot almost always involve the Tweet button...It's easy to tell because I've configured the button to post the title and my name in a way that you wouldn't if you were manually creating the Tweet itself.