[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.)