So Google's argument is that because G+ is pervasively integrated, you can use it without being on plus.google.com. While this is technically correct[1]... they're still being evasive. Not everyone using G+-enabled Google products is using the G+ bonus features.
Rather than dancing around the single "user" number, Google could give more direct usage stats by breaking it down by feature. 20MM on plus.google.com, another 30MM sharing content onto G+, another 10MM clicking on G+ results in the normal Google SERPs, and so forth. It's still not a complete picture, but it's a hell of a lot better than "enabled G+ once, and is currently active on YouTube" that they're reporting now.
I am inclined to agree with the conspiracy theory that if these secondary stats were any good, we would be hearing about them.
"I am inclined to agree with the conspiracy theory that if these secondary stats were any good, we would be hearing about them."
I don't think it's that simple. Google publishes very few figures that have to do with its core profitability. For example, number of searches a day is not reported. I doubt it's because that figure isn't any good.
But in this case, Google is publishing numbers. Numbers that by their own admission aren't even trying to measure the right thing, and which seem to over-count that wrong thing anyways. Given that they're publishing any numbers at all, why are they publishing those numbers in place of more relevant ones?
Well, that's assuming people actually believe what Google. And even they believe what Google says, they don't have any compelling reason to switch from Facebook until their friends actually do switch.
What I mean is that even assuming that people believe google's statement of "it's not a ghost town anymore", they are probably not going to move until it actually stops being a ghost town.
That is because they have little to gain by announcing the number of searches because they're already way on top.
On the other hand, if G+ numbers were good, they would definitely announce it to increase the hype and get more people to check it out, out of curiosity.
Isn't Facebook doing the same thing and reporting active users as people who use the like button or post comments through their commenting system on 3rd party sites?
At one of Zuck's recent press calls, he said that they had taken a conscious decision to dial down on user numbers and instead talk about the amount of content that people were sharing.
Clicking the Like button falls definitely into the "actively uses Facebook" slot, but commenting on 3rd party sites is indeed a gray area. But I'd be surprised if there is a lot of people who use Facebook only that way. Anyone has any numbers that could shine light on this?
Does it really? Does everyone that sees a Like button actually understand what it does? I suspect not, and that a bunch of people click it just because they like the site and thing it looks fun to press. The same logic would say that anyone who hits a +1 button next to a search result is a Google+ user, which is equally silly.
I agree that numbers would be good here: how many Likes (or +1's) are hit by users without other recent activity?
Rather than dancing around the single "user" number, Google could give more direct usage stats by breaking it down by feature. 20MM on plus.google.com, another 30MM sharing content onto G+, another 10MM clicking on G+ results in the normal Google SERPs, and so forth. It's still not a complete picture, but it's a hell of a lot better than "enabled G+ once, and is currently active on YouTube" that they're reporting now.
I am inclined to agree with the conspiracy theory that if these secondary stats were any good, we would be hearing about them.
[1] The best kind of correct!