Reshared post from +Esteban Contreras

The A Case for Social Depth

+Dan Reimold has 44 followers at the time that I write this. He wrote an "article" called "Google+: Social Media Upstart 'Worse Than a Ghost Town." http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2011/09/google-social-media-upstart-worse-than-a-ghost-town262.html

Dan's article basically says "Google+ is not good because no one follows me."

Now, Dan has some "evidence" for this. Of course he does.

Except his evidence consists of Rainbow Rowell's article on Omaha.com. +Rainbow Rowell has 33 followers on G+ and she has posted a handful of times. Rainbow's opinionated column basically comes down to this: "My Google+ home page is worse than a ghost town. It doesn't even feel haunted. Meanwhile, down the road,in a much less desirable neighborhood, Facebook is teeming with life." So apparently Google+ is dead because Facebook, which is over half a decade older has more users poking each other (I'm not disagreeing necessarily, just paraphrasing).
http://www.omaha.com/article/20110821/LIVING/708219941#rainbow-google-vs-facebook

And her "sequel" is well… "The fact that I think Google+ is useless might be one of the best possible indicators that it's going to succeed. Get yourself a Google+ account. This thing's going to be huge." I'm not sure what it is. Insurance? Change of heart? Sarcasm? Live journal emotional flashback?
http://www.omaha.com/article/20110824/LIVING/708249964/1199#rainbow-if-i-hate-a-new-idea-it-s-gonna-be-huge

But that's not all. The "best" evidence comes from the one and only Forbes: +Paul Tassi, the person who called the "eulogy" for Google+ and celebrated when others talked about it on G+. http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2011/08/15/a-eulogy-for-google-plus/

Apparently Google+ has become appealing to Mr. Tassi, who ironically also wrote a follow-up article only hours after the first one. No one remembers that one. Now, when I first saw Tassi's profile on Aug 15th, he had few followers and aprox 5 public posts. Today he's a happy Google Pluser with 1200+ followers. He almost raves about it without having to rave about it. Paul has converted and has amassed a following.

But wasn't G+ dead? Hmmm… I'm confused now. I thought the word "EULOGY" was a strong one but apparently I've been reading the wrong dictionary.

Now, I would've rather Dan linking to this TechCrunch article. Despite their opinionated (and allegedly unbiased) point of view and their recent TMZification, TC writers actually know what they're talking about. +Robin Wauters actually posted some numbers: A 41% decrease in public posts month-to-month. He might be right (someone please do call +Robert Scoble lol), but I will soon tell you why less posts doesn't show the whole story. It's not a good sign, but it doesn't say anything about the quality of posts and the engagement within them (take a look at the average Fb post), or the quality of users (take a look at your DMs and you'll see what I mean). http://techcrunch.com/2011/09/15/raise-your-hand-if-youre-still-using-google/

My thoughts are that if something is dead or a "ghost town", then no one will care enough to write about it more than once. Google Buzz died once and it was a quick death. Google+ is dying on a daily basis but I don't think +Larry Page is worried about what to post next before someone else tweets about his absence.

Traffic matters and all these deaths of Google+ create traffic. Even if the only people who care about it are those geeking out here and the media which absolutely loves to cover social media at its shallowest.

25 million or not, the Google+ community is unique and it has something worth coming back here for: DEPTH.

We'll see what happens but I can assure you that there is no dead player in the Social War(s). Social depth is what I see as the next big thing in social. And I don't mean this based on evidence but only as my personal hope (I've learned from the pros above that writing is apparently all about my own experience). In all seriousness, this is why I think Google+ matters to me: SOCIAL DEPTH.

Google+ doesn't create it, but it enables it in a way that my blog doesn't, location-based apps don't, Twitter barely does, FriendFeed almost did, Tumblr almost does, and MySpace never will.

I'm a big fan of all Facebook, Twitter and Google+. Google+ is new so I may be blinded by that. Or maybe I'm excited to see 3 big competitors instead of two or maybe I'm more of an "interest graph" kind of guy. I'm in a position where I can, and must, get to know them all quite well. But bottom line, I'd interested in more meaning and substance while I'm spending time on these networks. And the same goes for articles with clever traffic-driving titles.

In album September 20, 2011 (11 photos)

Google+: View post on Google+