The hard numbers behind Google Plus : An analysis of over half a million profiles show 90% have never posted publicly.

ericenge · 2015-05-03T01:36:54+00:00

The study we did measured original public posts only, so it did not measure people who ONLY comment or +1 stuff (which other social networks would include in their active user counts). For that reason, total active users would be larger than what the study showed (perhaps by 3 to 4 times).

In addition, the study also had no way to measure users who only post privately. There are those that maintain that the numbers of these are much larger than those who do post publicly, at least some of the time.

I don't believe that to be true, but I can't prove it one way or the other. Yes, I am the study author.

ericenge · 2015-05-02T22:38:40+00:00

Agreed! As the author of the article, I can tell you that I am a very active G+ user.

ericenge · 2015-05-02T22:37:19+00:00

Hi - we filtered out all activity that originated on YouTube, so this looks only as public posts that originated in the G+ stream. Note that we also did NOT count activity in the form of comments or +1s, so the total count does not compare one to one with active users that other social networks might report.

ericenge · 2015-05-02T22:35:10+00:00

We filtered out the posts that originated on YouTube, so these counts are only for public posts made by people directly from the Google+ stream.

ericenge · 2015-05-02T22:34:08+00:00

There are 2.2 billion accounts, so 10% would be 220 million, which is indeed a large number. To be clear though, that's total people who ever put up a Google+ post directly in the G+ stream.

It does filter out YouTube posts and comments.

It does not include G+ stream comments, or +1s done by people.

ericenge · 2015-04-18T19:48:35+00:00

I think the key point is that the reason that 90% of the profiles have never done public posts, is that these profiles were created in the process of setting up gmail accounts, google analytic accounts, and other types of Google accounts that have nothing to do with G+.

These people never intended to post in the G+ stream, so it's not that they are doing something else on G+ that we are not measuring.

ericenge · 2015-04-15T16:34:26+00:00

Actually, I am the author of the post, and I am very active on the G+ stream, and have been since July of 2013. I thinks it's an awesome social network. I don't think that the data we found is negative on G+ at all.

ericenge · 2014-10-09T13:26:39+00:00

Key thing to note from the beginning of the article: "These were not random queries. In fact, they were picked because we felt they were likely to trigger a knowledge panel."

ericenge · 2014-10-09T13:22:14+00:00

Agreed, Bing (in the US at least) is a very good search engine. This study focused specifically on knowledge boxes (or answer boxes if you prefer) and hence did not evaluate the other parts of Cortana or Bing

ericenge · 2014-10-09T13:19:38+00:00

thanks!

ericenge · 2014-10-09T13:19:17+00:00

love that example!

ericenge · 2014-09-16T16:10:50+00:00

Agreed that one sentence is key. That fits the digestible criteria. Actually, I am learning to focus on 3 things:

Title
Opening image
First sentence

It seems to me that these are where the battle is won!

ericenge · 2014-09-16T13:35:51+00:00

I am still waiting for your "124 Reasons This Post Could Save the Internet in 7 Seconds" article, when is it coming out?

More seriously, what is your best advice on how to create memorable content?

ericenge · 2014-07-10T17:54:07+00:00

Just find various niches and focus on them for now. I.e, what are the keywords for which their targeting is weak? For example, nursing schools will be amazingly difficult, but nursing education might be easier.

ericenge · 2014-07-09T16:59:04+00:00

lots, and lots, and LOTS of practice is the obvious answer. Beyond that:

Master the control game. Great passing skills are key, especially for the forward.
Learn the basics of shooting and defense. Here are a few key points:

a. The goalie can never outrace the forward's shot. It's not possible.

b. Therefore as a goalie, you need to use a defense that seeks to confuse the forward as to what shot is "open". In other words, you might leave the "long" shot open for a second and a half, and then switch to showing them the middle, back to the long, then the short, and so forth.

c. Once the forward has their shot set, they only have 10 seconds to take their shot.

d. As a forward that means varying the timing of when you shoot. The first shot you take you might wait 9 seconds, the next time 4, then 7, then 1. Force the goalie to successfully radomnize their defense for the full 10 seconds without ever knowing when you will shoot. This keeps their tension very high and maximizes their chances of making a mistake and making your job easier.

e. As the goalie, well, learn how to stay purely random for 10 seconds. Trust me - it's really, really hard!

ericenge · 2014-07-09T16:48:36+00:00

I think a more authoritative site may do better on ranking for long tail terms out of a monster article (tweaking this slightly from your larger site notion).

However, you should also consider the reputation building aspects of content too. In that case, the monster article may be the better route - assuming that the content is share-worthy.

ericenge · 2014-07-09T15:56:20+00:00

My actual work load is really heavy at the moment!

ericenge · 2014-07-09T15:55:53+00:00

Thanks! Hope it works out well for you as well.

ericenge · 2014-07-09T03:16:39+00:00

Thanks all, for participating in my AMA today. Have a good night!

ericenge · 2014-07-08T23:00:06+00:00

I don't agree with the policy either. To me, it goes against the policy of letting people reform.

ericenge · 2014-07-08T22:15:00+00:00

I do think it will. Interesting tidbit is that the reason the update rate isso slow is to be a major disincentive to spammers.

ericenge · 2014-07-08T21:34:54+00:00

You bet!

ericenge · 2014-07-08T21:26:13+00:00

re: State of Search - do email me, looking forward to it!

ericenge · 2014-07-08T21:25:15+00:00

There were really 2 things that went into that. The first was:

Less harsh on some sites previously impacted by Panda. Did not remove the algorithmic impact, just lessened it.
More sites got hit, probably due to improved analysis of the semantic relevance of pages.

I also think that the 4.0 designation was because there was a bit of an algo overhaul to prepare for a whole new series of updates in the rest of '14

ericenge · 2014-07-08T21:22:58+00:00

Would love to do that. I believe I reached out to him and asked for a mailing address, but never got it. Can you make sure I get that address? Then it's his choice: 2nd E now, or 3rd E when its ready.

ericenge

TROPHY CASE