[vogonj]

http://insights.chitika.com/2011/failure-to-launch-google-gr... is the source article.

the 1200% number came from "Reportedly, Google+ saw a surge in traffic of over 1200% due to the additional publicity, but the increased user base was only temporary, as was projected in an earlier insights post." and the 60% drop came from "But, soon after, traffic fell by over 60% as it returned to its normal, underwhelming state."

but the graph right below that shows Google+ going back (in Chitika's "traffic index", whatever that is) to just about where it was before it was made public. as a result, I don't think those two numbers can be composed, and the "heh, guess 480% doesn't count for anything" smugness I've seen from a couple different places is based on everyone else's misconception of what the numbers mean.

[jdp23]

Agreed. Here's my take on it: http://wegetplus.net/2011/10/10/google-traffic-down-60-or-up...

[yanw]

The data in question is suspect as no hard data is shown nor are they saying on how many users the report is based on or how they were able to measure traffic at all. Chitikta is a Google competitor of sorts their business is ads and they do have a strong partnerships with Facebook.

[vogonj]

this link is some tech blogger's recapitulation of a Forbes tech blogger's expose of a Daily Mail article announcing Chitika's press release.

how is it any more trustworthy? at least Chitika's page has a graph on it (though they're tight-lipped about what that graph represents.)

[taylorbuley]

As a Forbes employee, it bothers me that it appears that Forbes is the source of the misleading statistic rather than the outlet that published the analysis of its incoherence.

We have a lot of really smart non-staff contributors (like Tim here, or my personal favorite Timothy Lee) and they never get enough credit for the independent thinking and analysis

[jdp23]

Tim's analysis in Forbes _is_ the source of the misleading "480%" statistic -- and the Forbes headline trumpeted the equally-misleading 60% statistic. So, while I think that Forbes' blogs are frequently quite insightful, this wasn't one of your better moments.

[bluedanieru]

They probably don't get any credit because the signal-to-noise ratio is so low. I'm sure you've got a few decent contributors, but my impression of your online opinion section is that it's little more than a soapbox for any idiot to the right of Paul Krugman. No barrier to entry at all, and certainly no requirement for intellectual honesty and rigor.