Google+ still dead in the water in terms of social sharing

Social plugin & analytics giant Gigya is reporting that only 2% of content is being shared via Google+ even after Google themselves report huge registration figures.

Those who run websites and are moderately serious about understanding their social sharing statistics may have already heard about Gigya, a company that offers social sharing and advanced tracking tools which are used by many large sites on the web. According to their Q2 figures (April – June 2013), about only 2% use Google+ to share stories compared to Facebook’s 50%, Twitter’s 24% and even Pinterest’s 16%.

Google has always boasted about huge increases in registrations and activations, and also tries to cover up activity by saying that privately shared content isn’t reflected in its statistics but Gigya uses its own methods via their custom platform to count the number of time stories are shared. While it doesn’t paint the whole picture of Google+’s situation, it’s a grim result given how much time has passed already. Let’s face it, +1s and Likes on stories don’t add much value to brands who are intentionally looking to get their content shared across profiles, and with web publications trimming the number of share buttons on their sites, will Google+ still remain in the mix in the near future?

The big question now is how well or poorly are accounts being converted from sign-ups to activity, and how well is information being spread across the platform or is it just remaining stagnant within communities and circles?

http://www.vyralize.com/3464/google-still-dead-in-the-water-in-terms-of-social-sharing/

That's what happens when you're late to the party

I'm pretty surprised that MySpace has disappeared completely though. Whatever happened to it?

I don't know a single person that actually uses it. I'm surprised it's even as high as 2%.

Pinterest is bigger as i thought.

Many smaller bands seem to keep using MySpace. No idea why.

@topic: Well, there isn't much of a reason to use a social network without actual users....

Rupert Murdock bought it for over half a billion dollars.  Then it became the 'lead story' for a year or two on Fox news - to get all the parents of kids to sign up.  He wanted to use it to promote his agenda. Then it died.

It was pretty amazing to see something so big just disappear like that. But Sears is gone too (the current Sears was purchased by Kmart - then the guy that ruined Kmart ruined Sears.  It was amazing and sad to see such a huge piece of the USA die when it was desisted off S&P 500.)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4695495.stm

I know this sounds like 'liberal propaganda' but sometimes the truth does.

Lol, and some of the people are like me - it's connected to other things.  So even when I don't mean to use it, things are getting posted there.  I got mad at Facebook once and tried to switch for a while. I just don't like it as much.  Plus I trust Google less than either Facebook or Microsoft.

So for active users it's proabaly even smaller.

i loathe fb.. so many issues... google+ is just more convenient to use for me and a lot less garbage involved with its usage compared to myfacebook

I'd prefer if the Facebook crowd didn't switch.

Google+ is brilliant at the moment.

No spam, no "like if you hate cancer" rubbish posts, no candy crush requests, no "a million likes to save this child", no bullshit.

It's great!

So what you are saying is that Google+ is the hipster of Social Networks?