One of the few quantifiable (if anecdotal) comparisons of FB vs G+ I have seen. And a very unexpected result!
One of the few quantifiable (if anecdotal) comparisons of FB vs G+ I have seen. And a very unexpected result!
Originally shared by Wil Wheaton
Thanks to everyone who visited my blog yesterday, in my stupid “what kind of traffic comes to my blog” thing.
Here’s what I found out. Please note that this is profoundly unscientific and the margin of error is probably large.
Total traffic in about 24 hours: ~24,689
Traffic from Facebook: ~13,428
Traffic from G+: ~11,261
I expected the numbers to be vastly different, skewed heavily toward Facebook. I haven’t made much of an effort to link to my blog from G+, because I figured people tended to stay on G+, or come from Reader, if they come from Google at all.
So, as far as I am concerned, G+ and Facebook are essentially the same for the purposes of “people come from there to read my blog.”
Interactions on Facebook:
Likes: 1118
Comments: 345
Shares: I have no idea. Facebook doesn’t make this easy to see.
G+: +1s (same as likes): 647
Comments: 247
Shares: 10
I don’t look at the likes and +1s as meaning "this is awesome" more than “I’m a person and I clicked on this thing.” A comment is a little more involved, because it takes a little more effort, so if I were giving value to things, I’d probably make a “like” or a “+1” worth maybe .8 of a comment (but that’s arbitrary, because I don’t really have a reason to assign relative values to those things.)
So here’s my conclusion: Based on my very limited sample size in a profoundly non-scientific study, there isn’t a significant difference between G+ and Facebook in terms of “people are interested enough to click on a thing”. Where there is a massive and significant difference is in on-site interaction, like commenting and upvoting things. In that regard, Facebook seems to have much more interaction. I think this is due to Facebook being around longer, and so many people using Facebook’s mobile apps for so long.
What I take away from this is that G+ is not the deserted, burned out Detroit warehouse some tech writers portray it as being. In fact, it’s just the opposite of that (as far as I am concerned) because it’s still a very young social network in comparison to Facebook.
When I asked the question yesterday, I was sort of looking to find out if it was worth my effort to post things on G+ that refer back to my blog, or if I should just drop that and use it more for listening than broadcasting. Based on my tiny, unscientific sample, I’ll go ahead and share more things in the future on G+.
So thanks for giving me some useful data!
Originally shared by Wil Wheaton
Thanks to everyone who visited my blog yesterday, in my stupid “what kind of traffic comes to my blog” thing.
Here’s what I found out. Please note that this is profoundly unscientific and the margin of error is probably large.
Total traffic in about 24 hours: ~24,689
Traffic from Facebook: ~13,428
Traffic from G+: ~11,261
I expected the numbers to be vastly different, skewed heavily toward Facebook. I haven’t made much of an effort to link to my blog from G+, because I figured people tended to stay on G+, or come from Reader, if they come from Google at all.
So, as far as I am concerned, G+ and Facebook are essentially the same for the purposes of “people come from there to read my blog.”
Interactions on Facebook:
Likes: 1118
Comments: 345
Shares: I have no idea. Facebook doesn’t make this easy to see.
G+: +1s (same as likes): 647
Comments: 247
Shares: 10
I don’t look at the likes and +1s as meaning "this is awesome" more than “I’m a person and I clicked on this thing.” A comment is a little more involved, because it takes a little more effort, so if I were giving value to things, I’d probably make a “like” or a “+1” worth maybe .8 of a comment (but that’s arbitrary, because I don’t really have a reason to assign relative values to those things.)
So here’s my conclusion: Based on my very limited sample size in a profoundly non-scientific study, there isn’t a significant difference between G+ and Facebook in terms of “people are interested enough to click on a thing”. Where there is a massive and significant difference is in on-site interaction, like commenting and upvoting things. In that regard, Facebook seems to have much more interaction. I think this is due to Facebook being around longer, and so many people using Facebook’s mobile apps for so long.
What I take away from this is that G+ is not the deserted, burned out Detroit warehouse some tech writers portray it as being. In fact, it’s just the opposite of that (as far as I am concerned) because it’s still a very young social network in comparison to Facebook.
When I asked the question yesterday, I was sort of looking to find out if it was worth my effort to post things on G+ that refer back to my blog, or if I should just drop that and use it more for listening than broadcasting. Based on my tiny, unscientific sample, I’ll go ahead and share more things in the future on G+.
So thanks for giving me some useful data!
Comments
Post a Comment