
Google+ grows 43% in June - vibrunazo
https://plus.google.com/114259566451209869276/posts/ZNrsoqPWRA2
======
therealarmen
Sigh. We're drawing conclusions from Compete again?

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
(<http://siteanalytics.compete.com/reddit.com/>) had less traffic than Digg
(<http://siteanalytics.compete.com/digg.com/>).

I don't have anything against Google+. But lets hold off on the congratulatory
praise until we're sure the growth is real.

~~~
toemetoch
Agreed.

According to one of Google's own services, google+ is pretty much dead:

[http://www.google.com/trends/viz?q=google+plus&graph=wee...](http://www.google.com/trends/viz?q=google+plus&graph=weekly_img&sa=N)

compare with fb:

[http://www.google.com/trends/viz?q=facebook&graph=weekly...](http://www.google.com/trends/viz?q=facebook&graph=weekly_img&sa=N)

edit: thank you downvoters for illustrating the bias on HN. A fake stats piece
promoting google as #1 on the frontpage? This place is turning into /. but
with more google employees. I'm out.

~~~
eli
Ugh. You can't divine traffic numbers from search volume and news mentions.

If that were the case, Mitt Romney should start a social network because he's
crushing Facebook:
[http://www.google.com/trends/viz?q=romney&graph=weekly_i...](http://www.google.com/trends/viz?q=romney&graph=weekly_img&sa=N)

~~~
toemetoch
lol, romney doesn't even register when compared to fb:

[http://www.google.com/trends/viz?q=romney,+facebook&grap...](http://www.google.com/trends/viz?q=romney,+facebook&graph=weekly_img&sort=1&sa=N)

red=fb, blue= romney

The reason this _is_ relevant in the discussion is that when you type in the
url in chrome (arguably the top browser) the word in the domain and subdomain
count as search words that show up in trends. So when you type "plus" for the
g+ url it's added to trends. You can check that little fact by looking at the
trends for "plus".

~~~
tomkarlo
If you've already been on Plus, and you're in chrome or (I think) Firefox, it
won't do a search when you type "plus" as the top autocomplete suggestion will
be "<http://plus.google.com>. To search, you'd have to key down the list of
suggestions.

------
simonsarris
Wow. Lots of impressions here.

MySpace is so small now! And shrinking! Let us never forget that history.

Tumblr and pinterest are adding a lot fewer users than I thought.

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".

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.

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!

\---

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.

Think about it. _Lots of people link to Google+ posts here._ 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.

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).

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.

~~~
smacktoward
_Lots of people link to Google+ posts here. Nobody links to the equivalent
Facebook thing, wall posts._

That's a bit misleading, because one of the few places G+ has gotten traction
is among developers, mostly in the Google ecosystem (go figure). That's a big
and important ecosystem, so it's not shocking that people from there would
post stuff that occasionally is of interest to HN.

Facebook wall posts aren't used in the same way by the tech crowd -- probably
mostly because they didn't work like blog posts or G+ posts until after G+
launched -- so they don't get HN links. But in other communities people
definitely link to wall posts. I work in politics and it's not unusual to see
a politico use their Facebook wall as a kind of proto-blog. (Sarah Palin, or
some nameless flack on her team at least, is/was a master at this.) It then
gets plenty of links from political media.

~~~
patrickaljord
> That's a bit misleading, because one of the few places G+ has gotten
> traction is among developers

I remember the same about Twitter, most users were devs and rails devs at
that. Doesn't mean G+ will be as successful as Twitter though.

------
programminggeek
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.

None of the non-techie people I know use Google+ or even mention it at all.

~~~
huggyface
_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._

Why is there the need to respond to data with anecdotes? If I give a Google+
growth anecdote, does that invalidate yours?

I have no idea why Google+ is being compared to LinkedIn. They have very
little overlap. Even among Facebook and Google+ the overlap is limited.

Nonetheless Google keeps iterating on the product and it seems to be paying
off. The Android Google+ client is now superb, and the content richness seems
to be greatly improving, particularly in the tech field. Which is important
because the tech field is what generally leads the growth curve.

~~~
incongruity
Because data can also lie. The key here is that the number reported is "unique
visitors" – what, exactly, is this telling us?

Not much at all because it says nothing of intent, much less duration of stay
on that page or frequency of use.

In the absence of that additional data, anecdotes can be useful to express
doubt or confusion about data that seems to not pass the sniff-test. It can be
as minimal as "is it just me, or does ... ?" sort of constructions or it can
be more formalized to say – "This doesn't fit with my personal observations".

The mistake is thinking that anecdotes add up to data – they don't – but put
enough of them together and they can be heuristically valuable – and one on
its own, in the absence of other real data, is still a completely valid
construct for conversational purposes or to challenge (albeit weakly) some
over-cooked claim, like what I'm seeing here, with the google+ traffic data.
The refutation of such an anecdotal experience with sound evidence doesn't
mean the the anecdote was worthless – hardly. It was valuable _because_ it was
provocative.

~~~
saraid216
OP: Wrong.

Anecdote: Wrong.

incongruity: Two wrongs make a right!

~~~
incongruity
George E.P. Box is quoted as saying: "All models are wrong, but some are
useful."

I would adapt that and say that all anecdotes are wrong, but some are useful.

~~~
kingkilr
Surely you have to make an actual argument as to why it's useful though? So
far all I've heard is "my friends don't use G+".

~~~
incongruity
Truth be told, I'm not arguing strongly in support of the original bit of
anecdotal evidence. I was more responding to the quote:

 _"Why is there the need to respond to data with anecdotes?"_

I feel as though I made my case pretty well for a generalized reason, above.
In this particular case, as I said:

 _"The key here is that the number reported is "unique visitors" – what,
exactly, is this telling us? Not much at all because it says nothing of
intent, much less duration of stay on that page or frequency of use._

I think there's much ado about little data. So, in the face of not all that
informative of data, I think a weak bit of anecdotal pushback is wonderful if
it gets conversation started.

~~~
saraid216
Conversation is pretty worthless when it's speculation piled on speculation.
If that's your thing, then well... okay.

I mean... if there's much ado about little data, why is it that MORE ado is
better?

~~~
incongruity
The simplest answer: see work on abductive reasoning and hypothesis building.

But, more fully, anecdotes aren't speculation. They're individual experience.
They are not, of course, a statistically representative sample. That doesn't
mean it's worthless – it's just not authoritative, but it is still some
person's real experience (internet truthiness aside). The all-or nothing view
of validity and knowledge is problematic – and likely not reflective of how
you or anyone else actually deals with reasoning.

Beyond that if it sparked discussion that either spurred the uncovering of
real data or identified the requirement of further considerations, it's still
of value.

~~~
saraid216
> Beyond that if it sparked discussion that either spurred the uncovering of
> real data or identified the requirement of further considerations, it's
> still of value.

Which it didn't. We're not going to get better data until Google releases it,
and Google is clearly not going to be doing so.

> But, more fully, anecdotes aren't speculation.

This claim would be okay if the anecdote was offered in a neutral environment.
Here, however, it's being offered as contradictory evidence. The speculation
isn't in the anecdote: it's in the purpose of offering the anecdote in the
first place.

The anecdote was about the same as a TIOBE survey result coming out and
responding with, "Oh, but I know a lot of Haskell programmers and don't know
any Python programmers." That's wonderful for you and all, but your experience
is seriously not relevant, nor does it prompt useful discussion or the
discovery of useful data.

I agree that anecdotes _can_ be useful. That's half the purpose of journalism:
finding anecdotes.

I disagree that they are useful _here_.

~~~
incongruity
_> Beyond that if it sparked discussion that either spurred the uncovering of
real data or identified the requirement of further considerations, it's still
of value._

 _Which it didn't. We're not going to get better data until Google releases
it, and Google is clearly not going to be doing so._

It most certainly _did_ spark discussion – I'd point out, somewhat ironically
that you've been involved in one of them yourself – but there were a number of
other replies. Some of which (mine included) addressed the data issue head-on.

 _> But, more fully, anecdotes aren't speculation. This claim would be okay if
the anecdote was offered in a neutral environment._

There is no such thing as a neutral environment, so your premise fails from
the start.

And, no, hits to a web page or unique visitor counts are not tantamount to
real usage figures for a social media site. So the analogy to a TIOBE survey
breaks down as well.

 _I disagree that they are useful here._

Well...

I said, explicitly that I was addressing the larger point of the other poster
asking "Why is there the need to respond to data with anecdotes?" I started
directly by pointing out the failing of "data" in this case – I find it to be
an over-played trope to always say "anecdote BAD!" and yet people fall all
over themselves if someone puts a shitty graph or table up, not stoping to
consider what the "data" means and what possible failings it might have.

And that led me directly to the value of anecdotes in general terms –
something you now say you agree with, so we'll call that point made.

Given that we agree about the general value, I think it's clear that in the
face of crappy, blindly accepted data, a mere (and admittedly weak) piece of
anecdotal observation does, in fact, point out that the emperor has no clothes
– the data pointed to here is very, very lacking. The anecdote was weak, but
sufficient for what should have been an obvious task of poking holes in
questionable data.

Instead, you prove my point by digging in your heels even more because someone
tossed out an anecdote.

------
brudgers
I'm on Google+ because I have a Gmail account.

I'm on Linkedin (and Facebook) because they offer value.

~~~
muhfuhkuh
The irony is that most people use Facebook (and LinkedIn) as glorified
publicly-facing email accounts with automatic reply-to-all and attachments set
to auto-open and display in-line. The only thing added is a rudimentary voting
system.

~~~
tptacek
I use Facebook to share and chat about photos.

I use LinkedIn for recruiting.

I use neither as "publicly facing email accounts".

At some level, any application can be described as "forms with some text
inputs and some submit buttons".

~~~
muhfuhkuh
"I use Facebook to share and chat about photos."

Which I'm sure you used to do in email. Smaller circle, same user task.

"I use LinkedIn for recruiting."

I still use email sometimes for that. Smaller circle, same user tasks
(attaching resumes, getting contact info for screenings, planning meet and
greets).

Actually, it was Monster.com + email, so yeah, I guess LinkedIn replaced
those.

~~~
tptacek
You can easily do HN via email too; it's called a mailing list.

~~~
muhfuhkuh
Definitely. But that's the thing. GP said he only has G+ because he has GMail,
but uses those other email workalike interfaces because they are superior
products. Just pointing out that they work in strikingly similar ways to
email.

------
obituary_latte
<sorry, meta> Is there a way to perhaps add revision history to mod-altered
post titles?

It's confusing and maybe even counter-productive in some cases when these
ninja-edits happen.

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.

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.

------
glimcat
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.

~~~
jsavimbi
It's akin to a grocer refusing cash and instead only accepting payments made
with their branded store card, for the customer's benefit.

I'm surprised there hasn't been a legal challenge to this.

~~~
taligent
Not sure why you have been downvoted.

What Google is doing is very much reminiscent of what got Microsoft into so
much trouble. Using a monopoly in one area to extend into another.

~~~
bagacrap
what area does Google have a monopoly in? Surely not search, email, or the
browser. MS wasn't just cross-marketing, it was bundling IE and setting it as
default which was unfair competition given that getting netscape required a
lot more work (knowledge of the alternative, pre-broadband download and
install). That plus bullying OEMs into unfavorable contracts. It's a poor
analogy because Google doesn't own the web platform, and it's incredibly easy
to switch services (just change your bookmarks).

~~~
jsavimbi
> and it's incredibly easy to switch services

Not when you have your entire team/company using gmail as a paid service. And
when you factor in the part about the user being the product in social
networking, basically you're forcing a paying customer of one product to
become a revenue stream in another.

Monopolies find themselves in trouble over this all time, just like when a
customer service agent from your credit card company or local energy
conglomerate passes you onto a sales rep from a third party without your
knowledge. It's how they scam the old, ignorant and uninformed.

tl;dr: you cannot change your bookmarks when you have no other options.

------
taylodl
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.

~~~
espeed
You can't view the post? I can view it without signing in, using incognito
mode. Regardless, the post is by Morten Myrstad, who works at Kontxt, not a
Google employee.

~~~
mullingitover
I've noticed that viewing G+ posts on a mobile device requires me to log in,
but not with a standard OSX/windows device. Pretty infuriating.

------
jcampbell1
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.

[1] <http://siteanalytics.compete.com/atdmt.com/>

------
donniezazen
1\. Google+ is a lot more open. I get to interact with variety of people
through public posts.

2\. I have gotten rid of RSS Reader and now get all updates on G+ and blog.
One less thing to worry about.

3\. Too many people make too many posts on Facebook. Circle on G+ is growing
on me.

4\. I like everything Google.

~~~
taligent
2\. Google+ doesn't replace RSS at all. 95% of feeds I read for example have
no Google+ equivalent.

3\. Then filter those people from your feed or trim down the number of posts
they make.

4\. Even the privacy violations and anti-competitive behavior so serious they
are under multiple investigations ?

~~~
donniezazen
I ditched RSS reader because it's a huge investment of time. I get all social
media updates in G+. Most blogs would email you blog post. I have integrated
all my RSS needs in programs I already use - G+ and Gmail. It is my own
personal minimalist experiment.

------
mtkd
How does he define a 'visit'?

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.

When I +1 a page using Chrome Extension - is that a visit?

Same with mobile apps - what's a mobile 'visit' - an API GET?

~~~
robert_nsu
I'd like to know also. I mean, all this post says to me is "Google+ gets more
traffic than LinkedIn". That isn't much of a feat when you consider Google
integrating G+ into searches, the use of browser extensions, etc.

------
JaggedJax
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.

~~~
michaeledwards
Yep, first noticed this a week ago. Lots of services redirecting into G+.
Definitely going to skew the numbers WRT the concept of active vs passive
growth.

------
sp332
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
<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3472283> and flooding your "stream"
[https://plus.google.com/u/0/115948050407884269063/posts/Nd61...](https://plus.google.com/u/0/115948050407884269063/posts/Nd61YC5CbHJ)

------
gfodor
Driving first time visitors doesn't mean anything for a social network unless
they have _retention_. 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.

------
mediocregopher
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.

The post was on the front-page with the original title for _hours_ , I don't
know why a mod decided that was the time to change it.

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

------
i0exception
It would be interesting to know if their definition of an "Active Google+
user" has changed. Otherwise those stats don't mean a thing.

------
rickmb
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.

Only nobody I know, ever, ever uses Google+.

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.

------
saraid216
I'm on Google+ because I'm not cool enough to say I only know one person on
Google+.

------
xenophanes
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.

It should just work by default.

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.

------
MattSayar
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"?

~~~
vibrunazo
Here in Brazil we do say "twelve comma three million", even tho our word for
"comma" is much harder to say than our word for "dot". But since everyone says
it, it just sounds natural anyway.

~~~
MattSayar
Thanks for the insight. One more thing I can't figure out based on your reply
is: how do you differentiate a decimal number from a list of numbers? For
example, consider the list:

    
    
        12.3, 7.6, 3.2
    

It's easy to see the three different numbers. But otherwise, wouldn't it be:

    
    
        12,3, 7,6, 3,2
    

And how would you dictate that? "twelve comma three comma seven comma six
comma..."?

~~~
vibrunazo
Those would be grammatically correct around here, I don't think I ever seen
anything like that in the real world. In actual math classes people will
usually just put parenthesis around numbers: (12, 3), (7, 6), (3,2). Sometimes
people will actually replace the comma for the dot to avoid confusion (there's
no hard rule set on stone, as long as you're being clear, it's ok). Sometimes
people will just space them differently like you did and hope that's clear
enough. For dictating, I don't think anyone would dictate the commas between
numbers, you would just space them when speaking "twelve comma three.... seven
comma six".

If you think that's confusing. It's funny to know that we often also use the
dot as a multiplication sign. So "12.3,7" actually means "twelve multiplied by
3.7" in english. Btw I'm curious, does other countries also use dot for
multiplication or is it only us?

~~~
MattSayar
I'm used to seeing parentheses around numbers when talking about ordered
pairs, or in the context of matrices and dot products, etc.

We do use dots to represent multiplication, but they're not on the "ground",
they're mid-height, aligned with -

------
joe_the_user
I would vaguely say Facebook is a social network people actually want to be
on. LinkedIn is a social network people might believe they _need_ 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.

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).

------
dbecker
I'm reminded that Google+ hasn't caught every time I log on.

Between visits, I think I forget it even exists.

~~~
wutbrodo
I know exactly what you mean. I created a Twitter account a couple years ago
but never really followed anyone; the few times I've logged on I've had a
chuckle about how apparently Twitter has zero users and then forgotten about
it.

------
hk__2
Can we know the number of _members_ instead of _visitors_ ?

~~~
myrstad
Worldwide Google+ has 270 million opened accounts. That is June figures,
compared to 170 million in April. According to Google 150 million people
worldwide log in to Google+ monthly, and 75 million people daily.

~~~
hk__2
Thanks

------
bringonbob
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.

------
fourstar
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.

------
kayman
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.

------
danhoc01
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.

I love Google+, but the only reason I specifically visit the site is to view
my Instant Upload album.

------
myrstad
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?

~~~
bagacrap
(unless they use the same flawed methodology)

------
welcomebrand
The numbers are impressive but whenever I login to G+ my timeline is always
like this:
[http://fc02.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2010/239/d/f/forever_alone...](http://fc02.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2010/239/d/f/forever_alone_by_foreveraloneplz.png)

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

------
PaulHoule
But who actually pays attention to it?

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.

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...

------
danbmil99
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.

------
EricDeb
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+

~~~
unreal37
Ironic. Google is the world's biggest ad company. But people will run to
Google to avoid ads?

~~~
coopdog
Maybe until it becomes like youtube

Having said that though I still trust google more not to abuse their ad
showing to the point of degrading the user experience

------
thekevan
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?

------
zht
those numbers seem really really low for Facebook and Youtube.

~~~
nostromo
They are US only

------
vessenes
... But far less valuable, so far.

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

~~~
myrstad
Gmail is not integrated into gplus.google.com, so the numbers does not include
gmail.

------
grandalf
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?

------
landonhowell
Morten Myrstad: Google's Meat Loaf doppelgänger.

~~~
myrstad
Which means?

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

------
xentronium
I guess, the title was moderated again.

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

~~~
josephagoss
This is only US data, not global.

