Question about Google+

[strata12123]

Why is Google+ gaining less traction and is less popular than Twitter and Facebook?

 

[Viktori]

I think it's because Facebook and Twitter are regarded as "cooler" when it comes to the social media market. It also helps that they were created and released for public use way earlier so they were able to capitalize on an unsaturated market. Nowadays, Google+ doesn't only have Facebook to contend with, but many other niche social media sites as well. It doesn't help their cause either that their name isn't as catchy.

 

[Yorozuya]

Yeah, G+ entered the game too late. It has a lot of great features but close to nobody uses it because everyone else is on facebook or twitter. Of course its worth using it as a webmaster since G+1s can help your rankings but apart from that I can't see why would anyone use it... I mean, what good is a social network without the 'social' part?

 

[Nymph]

When Google launched G+, they were trying to compete with Facebook and Twitter, which they soon realized was nothing more than a fantasy despite the amount of funds they pooled into it, and they carved their own path with it. There are significantly less users on it than FB and Twitter, but one of its best perks is that it can be used as a tool to increase your page rank. If you attach it to an article, for example, your PR for that article can raise significantly the more people on Google+ like or link to it.

As for why it is gaining less traction is because the concept isn't very unique or interesting. It's not enough to pull people away from Facebook and Twitter, and until something more ingenious than the two comes along, we won't be seeing that happen. If anything, Google+ is geared more toward webmasters.

 

[Viktori]

When Google launched G+, they were trying to compete with Facebook and Twitter, which they soon realized was nothing more than a fantasy despite the amount of funds they pooled into it, and they carved their own path with it. There are significantly less users on it than FB and Twitter, but one of its best perks is that it can be used as a tool to increase your page rank. If you attach it to an article, for example, your PR for that article can raise significantly the more people on Google+ like or link to it.

As for why it is gaining less traction is because the concept isn't very unique or interesting. It's not enough to pull people away from Facebook and Twitter, and until something more ingenious than the two comes along, we won't be seeing that happen. If anything, Google+ is geared more toward webmasters.

I agree. I think with the integration of benefits from Google's search engine, their social site will slowly and surely arrive at its own niche, which will probably be for the better since I think competing with Facebook in their own game at this point will eventually just prove to be futile. I've always felt that G+ was more serious or at the very least a little less casual, and I've never been able to put my finger on why it was so until I read your post.

 

[BruceBanner]

I agree with Google+ coming a bit too late to the party. . I also think that Google has managed to scare people away with it's heavy-handed identification tactics. I've had more than one person mention to me that they were turned off by the way Google linked all of their info together. Some were even freaked out because they got caught by the random phone verification requirement.

 

[deansaliba]

I think it might come down to the fact that Facebook and Twitter had a BIG head start, and I don't know any famous people who have been shouting about Google+ like they have with Facebook and Twitter, maybe Google could stick their hands into their pockets and pay Justin Bieber to rave about it.

 

[Viktori]

I think it might come down to the fact that Facebook and Twitter had a BIG head start, and I don't know any famous people who have been shouting about Google+ like they have with Facebook and Twitter, maybe Google could stick their hands into their pockets and pay Justin Bieber to rave about it.

I've never thought about it that way before. Now that I do, though, it's surprises me, but I do understand that G+ doesn't sound to be as cool as FB or Twitter. I think it's slowly growing its own niche, though, and soon it might prove to be a lot more valuable to the online market as it defines its market even more, which at this point, seems to be more focused on professional connections.

 

[caparica007]

I think that the common user, like me, has a Facebook account, all his friends are there, so he sees no reason to change to Google+ when the services provided are really similar. Mostly is about convenience, I want to "be" online with my friends, but I don't want to worry too much about it, so why create another account on another site?

 

[ozadin]

They haven't started advertising to the fullest yet. I believe that if they decided to focus purely on Google+, they will easily pass Facebook in a matter of weeks. They are the best company in other peoples heads, and everyone thinks of Google as the internet king. Facebook and Twitter are still popular because it hasn't died out yet. There is still content on both of the websites that keep their users interested. You can't say the same for Google+ at the moment.

 

[mikong]

Social Networking Sites has become the most visited sites in the world wide web. Its use has been maximized by the users, such as exchanging information for instance. Also, it has been an avenue for advertisers, which apparently would boost up their sales.

 

[Cammie27]

I think they're simply late to the game, and haven't successfully promoted any feature or features that would entice people to change their established habits. If you look at the successful social marketing sites that have come along since Facebook really blew up, they're all those who offer a distinctive experience that has advantages over FB... Instagram with the photo-based communications, Twitter's brevity, Pinterest's link-sharing and organization, etc.

It takes a certain critical mass for a social networking site to take off, because even the best site is pointless if it isn't well-trafficked. Google+, so far, hasn't really made a case for why it is anything more than a FB copycat and unless they can change that perception they'll never attract enough users to gain any real momentum.

 

[Athenagdlyt]

Although I may agree to our end-user understanding, Google may have entered that game too late. But then again, come to think of it. The internet universe continues to evolve. What may be too late can also be new. When is the deadline anyway to be considered late?
To give Google+ the benefit of the doubt, what facebook and twitter could not accomplish as a social network+search engine as widely as Google+ can, it gives us much to think about.
I'm still optimistic that Google+ can really grow and catch up with other social media giants.

 

[Cammie27]

I would like to see Google+grow, but for that to happen they're going to have to be able to point to some feature that is significant enough to convince people to change their well-established Facebook and Twitter habits. So far, they haven't done that.

I personally like some of the features of Google+, like the auto backup of photos from my Android phone and tablet, and the ease of sharing images from my mobile devices. Their photo site offers editing tools and other options that have to be done in third-party software before uploading to Facebook... but because Flickr can accomplish the same thing and has a setting to automatically share to FB, many people have already established patterns that make the skipped-step that Google+ offers less attractive than it might have been if it had hit the scene before so many third-party "patches" for features FB itself doesn't offer were developed.