Commented on post by Joerg FliegeI'm hiding behind the sofa. This is the scariest ever Dr Who Christmas Special. — Stanley Kubrick and his hotel corridor designs have found a rich, fertile ground. Does the White House have any elevators?
Commented on post by Friends+Me in Google+ Help+Rupert Wood We may have had this discussion elsewhere, but I disagree with the ownership issue. As a community owner I have complete control over it. There is a sense in which I own the content posted in my community. There is a valid use case to do this. Where a community collectively decides they want to preserve and archive the communities content. Community owners and members are asking for this now. Google already does this. There are several places in the Takeout data where somebody else's post content ends up in your Takeout file. Examples include +1s on comments, +1s on posts. I'm not sure it helps to say "Google shouldn't, or couldn't do this" when it's a FAQ and a definite need. Currently, the Communities takeout is pretty useless precisely because it doesn't contain the content, only pointers to the post URLs. When those URLs may well 404 at some time in the future. But then the side effects of GDPR irritate the hell out of me. Just like Cookies before it. ;) — Good news everyone, We've released Google+ Exporter, an application that helps you to export your Google+ feeds (profile, pages, collections, communities, including all comments) to Wordpress eXtended RSS file. Another available option is to export all posts published to profile, pages, collections, and communities to JSON file, including all comments! Export up to 3000 posts with our free version. I would love to know your opinion, suggestions or requests. Thank you!
Commented on post by Edward Morbius in PLExodus: The Beginning is NearDo you have any kind of feel for how many communities people join if they join any at all? The UI seems to discourage joining more than 10 or so. — G+ Communities Rank-Size plot, based on 12,000 obs. sample The rank-size relation is a common feature of most population and group studies, see: http://www.statisticalconsultants.co.nz/blog/the-rank-size-rule-of-city-populations.html Plotting log-log of size (population or members) vs. rank (sorted order), a linear relation generally emerges. We see that here. The actual y-intercept should be about 4.3 million (Photography community), but the mainline sample, from about n=10 to n=1,000 gives a good fit. Values here are based on a 12,000 observation sample, multiply ranks by about 600 to get the full Communities estimate. More on analysis: https://old.reddit.com/r/plexodus/comments/9zx67d/google_communities_membership_analysis_preview/
Commented on post by Joerg FliegeAnyone for a repeat of Tottenham? As a motorcyclist and scooter rider I'm seriously uncomfortable with the Police using cars as offensive weapons. But there's no money for traditional policing. And the kids are a nasty bunch of thieving mudlarks who seem to like knifing each other. That stole my Burgman 400 in East London. So it's not like I have a lot of sympathy. But still. Is this what we want from our law and order systems in a civilised, rule based society? — Meanwhile, our grim Mad Max future is one step closer. The Met police has decided what to do with those violent moped gangs in London. They knock them off their mopeds. With those police cars. (Before you all get your knickers in a twist. Thats a specially trained group of drivers, and the police watchdog has the uneviable task to go through all this dashcam videos. Moped crime has gone down by 44% from last year.) I see a movie here. Mad Max V: Brexit Britain. With Tom Hardy and Simon Pegg.
Commented on post by Don McCollough in Google+ HelpGoogle helpfully gives us these reference codes. But what do they mean? What are we supposed to do with them? — Good afternoon. Due to the consumer G+ sunsetting, I've been migrating my collections to Blogger. Everything has been fine until the last ~30 hours when every single post of mine that has the full links to the Blogger sites was removed with the emails citing the reason as "spam". I've reposted my contact info post to my profile again, but it was pulled twice and then once for two of my collections. It seems the filters are having false positives. I only have these posts on my profile and I do not spam/share them anywhere.
Commented on post by Brian Williams in Google+ Help+Ifinder Ifindi Yes. And if you drill into Google+Stream, you get, ActivityLog, Collections, Events, Photos, Posts, And ActivityLog gives you +1s on comments +1s on posts Comments Poll Votes Google's really not helping here by hiding and combining these options but it is what it is. — I attempted to download my Google+ stream at http://takeout.google.com. However, there is no option to download Google+ info (see attached photos). Appreciate help from anyone who can tell me what I am overlooking. Thanks.
Commented on post by Brian Williams in Google+ Help+1 s are in 2 places. - Top of the Takeout list. this is external websites you have applied a G+ +1 to via a button on that website. - G+Stream.Activitylog, which contains +1s on comments and +1s on posts inside G+ — I attempted to download my Google+ stream at http://takeout.google.com. However, there is no option to download Google+ info (see attached photos). Appreciate help from anyone who can tell me what I am overlooking. Thanks.
Commented on post by Brian Williams in Google+ HelpThat's actually quite strange. My guess is that the account you're logged in as doesn't have a Google+ Profile. So Google have helpfully left out the G+ options. If I look at the same page with my account, I see G+ +1s at the top. And 3 entries for G+ Circles/Communities/Stream between Google Shopping and Groups. — I attempted to download my Google+ stream at http://takeout.google.com. However, there is no option to download Google+ info (see attached photos). Appreciate help from anyone who can tell me what I am overlooking. Thanks.
Commented on post by Bill Brayman in Google+ Mass MigrationI really hate Twitter. And wish it would just die already. But meanwhile I visit it every day via a small highly curated list. — Two interesting items here, Twitter's discussion limitations, but also a big page of all of google's sometimes fantastic castaway products. check out gcemetery.co
Commented on post by Don McCollough in Google+ HelpInteresting use case for copying and archiving G+content across to a pre-existing Blogger blog. It would be great if Google could provide tools to make this easier. But even if they don't, there's potential for some 3rd party to use Takeout, the G+API and the Blogger API to do this semi-automatically. And then in the meantime, what's the best way of telling your followers that the content has migrated? — Good afternoon. Due to the consumer G+ sunsetting, I've been migrating my collections to Blogger. Everything has been fine until the last ~30 hours when every single post of mine that has the full links to the Blogger sites was removed with the emails citing the reason as "spam". I've reposted my contact info post to my profile again, but it was pulled twice and then once for two of my collections. It seems the filters are having false positives. I only have these posts on my profile and I do not spam/share them anywhere.
Commented on post by Joerg Fliege in Brexit, SchmexitSomebody asked "What happened in Mid-2015". Oh Look. Theresa May, Home Secretary. 12 May 2010 – 13 July 2016 And remember these from 2013? https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/jul/30/illegal-immigrant-poster-go-home — The Home Office has wrongly tried to force at least 300 highly skilled migrants to leave Britain under an immigration rule used in part to tackle terrorists and those judged to be a threat to national security, government figures show. The figures, revealed in a governmental review of its use of the controversial 322(5) provision, also suggest that up to 87 highly skilled migrants – including teachers, doctors, lawyers, engineers and IT professionals – have actually been wrongly forced to leave the UK under the terrorism-related legislation. A further 400 people may have been affected. They are largely people who have lived in the UK for a decade or more and have British-born children. Many were given just 14 days to leave and were no longer eligible for a visa to visit the UK or any other country. All the victims were denied the right to work, rent property or use the NHS during their appeals. Some chose to leave the UK but many of those who chose to stay and fight their cases were forced into destitution, debt and mental health issues, with some considering suicide, the review found. Children had suffered severe trauma and their parents feared it would have a life-long impact on them. The review revealed that 65% of Home Office 322(5) decisions were thrown out by the first-tier tribunal while 45% of applicants were successful at judicial review, against an ordinary applicant success rate of 28%. An extra 32% of “complex cases” could be wrongly decided, the review said. It also revealed that across all immigration categories refusal of settlement applications was 5% until mid-2015, when it increased to 52% for tier 1 (general) migrants. Paragraph 322(5) of the rules has been a central reason given for the Home Office’s refusal of those in this group. The review found that the most common mistake made by the Home Office was its failure to distinguish between a late submission of tax and an amended tax return. So I can get deported if I try to file my taxes in the right way? Splendid.
Commented on post by Joerg Fliege in Brexit, Schmexit+Warwick Varley Remember the kids at Glastonbury and festivals 2 years ago chanting "Ooh, Jeremy Corbyn". I think it's fair to say that the drug of choice for Brexiters is alcohol. And I'd guess that the drugs of choice of Remainers is all the rest, and alcohol. — I am surprised the figure is not higher, to be honest. Other cracking stats about Brexiters: Brexiteers (12%) are six times more likely to believe climate change is a hoax than remainers (2%), though this pales in comparison to the almost half of Trump voters (47%). A belief there are harmful effects from vaccines and that they are hidden from the public is more than twice as prevalent among leave voters (13%) than remainers (5%). Fifteen per cent of Brexiteers and 11 per cent of EU supporters agree with the statement: “Regardless of who is officially in charge of governments and other organisations, there is a single group of people who secretly control events and rule the world together.”
Commented on post by Joerg Fliege in Brexit, Schmexit+Hartmut Noack Sorry about that. climate-alarmist was an unintentional dog-whistle. I should have said AGW believers or something. As you point out, being alarmed by climate change is an entirely rational response to the science not necessarily the deniers term of abuse, like "Warmist". — I am surprised the figure is not higher, to be honest. Other cracking stats about Brexiters: Brexiteers (12%) are six times more likely to believe climate change is a hoax than remainers (2%), though this pales in comparison to the almost half of Trump voters (47%). A belief there are harmful effects from vaccines and that they are hidden from the public is more than twice as prevalent among leave voters (13%) than remainers (5%). Fifteen per cent of Brexiteers and 11 per cent of EU supporters agree with the statement: “Regardless of who is officially in charge of governments and other organisations, there is a single group of people who secretly control events and rule the world together.”
Commented on post by Joerg Fliege in Brexit, SchmexitTow the whole of the UK outside the UK 5-mile limit. Then we'll have unlimited fishing rights. I've long thought the UK would be a much better place if it had half the people and was 1000 miles further south. Never mind Gibraltar, perhaps we need to annex the Canaries. Now if we can just find a way of cutting the population. The traditional empire way of keeping a newly conquered territory under control is to put a hated minority in charge. This gets a bit tricky with post-Brexit UK because the obvious candidates are all a bit ideologically unsound and I'll get into trouble if I suggest them. I'd offer the Buddhists but there's not really enough of them and even they are getting a bit of a bad name just now. So I think Vegetarian Hindus are the thing. When the borders shut, we'll have trouble feeding ourselves. And nobody wants cheap tasteless chicken from the colonies. But there's never any decent veggy curries in the supermarkets. So, I for one, welcome our new Hindu Vegan overlords with their Masala Dosa, Roti, Daal and milk sweets. The Monster Raving Loony Party used to have a thing about uniting all the islands off the coast of Europe into one nation of "The Rainbow Isles". Since those long ago times, the rainbow has been co-opted by the LGBT community. So here's the deal. Forget about all those silly christian sects and the 500 years of bloodshed. Let's unite the UK and the Republic of Ireland into one safe haven for all those who are pronoun challenged or have non-CIS sexual preferences. And just think how much it will wind up the gammons. — Charlie is determined to make Brexit work, and has some ideas: 1) Swap Scotland with North Korea. Out with gay-hugging pinko commie socialists, in with Juche. (Which is similar to Tory philosophy anyway.) 2) De-decimisation. £1 is 23 shillings, 1s is 11 pence, 1p is 3 halfpennies. Pass a law that makes sure that all computers operating in the kingdom must support this in hardware. British computing corners the market! 3) Invade Gibraltar. Get some second-hand Iranian anti-ship missiles from Syria and control the entrance to the Mediterranian. Issue letters of marque, roll in the money. From the comments: 4) Sink the French fleet. 5) Repeal the 1824 Weights and Measures Act. Wet herring is obviously counted to short 100. 6) Declare the Isle of Wight to be Brexit Island, move all Brexiters there. 7) Charge a royalty for the use of the English language. 8) MI6 starts supporting far right populists on the continent to fill the European Parliament with Nazis. Suddenly everyone will think Brexit is a good idea! 9) Bring back aristocracy. 10) Just nuke the EU. 11) Some Royal marries a Disney princess and the UK merges with Disneyland. 12) Build a space elevator.
Commented on post by Joerg Fliege in Brexit, SchmexitMore seriously, I find it interesting that anti-science people are often actually anti-some-science. So pro-GMO, Pro-Nuclear, Climate Deniers are a thing. But so are Anti-GMO, Anti-Nuclear, Climate-Alarmists. And even radical vegans like their mobile phones. Dig it. All these tribes exist. Pro-GMO, AGW Believers = Ecomodern Pro-GMO, AGW Skeptics = GWPF Anti-GMO, AGW Believers = Greens Anti-GMO, AGW Deniers = Anti-science conspiracy nuts Pro-Nuclear, AGW Believers = Ecomodern, Lovelock Pro-Nuclear, AGW Skeptics = GWPF, Lukewarmists Anti-Nuclear, AGW Believers = Greens (especially EU) Anti-Nuclear, AGW Deniers = Anti-science conspiracy nuts — I am surprised the figure is not higher, to be honest. Other cracking stats about Brexiters: Brexiteers (12%) are six times more likely to believe climate change is a hoax than remainers (2%), though this pales in comparison to the almost half of Trump voters (47%). A belief there are harmful effects from vaccines and that they are hidden from the public is more than twice as prevalent among leave voters (13%) than remainers (5%). Fifteen per cent of Brexiteers and 11 per cent of EU supporters agree with the statement: “Regardless of who is officially in charge of governments and other organisations, there is a single group of people who secretly control events and rule the world together.”
Commented on post by Edward Morbius in Google+ Mass Migrationm'kay. This looks like a classic power law. So expect a very long tail. The interesting bit is going to be “The Fat Middle”. That’s the ~250,000 (wild guess) of communities with >250 people. Automating it is going to be hard but hand sampling of things might be interesting. Like “date of most recent non-pinned post” and the profile ID of the owners and moderators. As sites go from nerdy to massive the UI function gets smaller. When you start it seems really obvious to provide a list of communities like a large spreadsheet with numerous columns and sort orders. All communities sorted by most recent activity, or by owner name, or by total number of posts or whatever. By the time Google has applied it's army of managers to it, you get a page of pretty pictures in response to a search and that's it. "Communities 'Suggested for you' ". https://plus.google.com/communities/recommended seems particularly fond of very large communities high up in the "Short Head". Wow! https://plus.google.com/communities/101740425670472889181 Photography - 4,320,172 members - Public — Estimating G+ Communities by size I've been kicking at the problem of trying to estimate total G+ activity for a few years, and with the Plexodus, the question of how many active Communities are there is particularly pressing. Setting an arbitrary cutoff, consider communities of > 1,000 members. Based on some preliminary results -- 6,000+ completed of a larger randomly-selected communities sample of 12,000, I'm going to suggest there are about 55k - 65k communities > 1,000 members on Google+, from a total Communities population of 7.974 million. I'm using my old familiar method of working from sitemaps for Google+, with a running commentary as results come in posted to Diaspora here: https://joindiaspora.com/posts/dbee1250d0680136d1dc0218b70db60d Briefly, you can grab the top-level sitemaps via Google+'s robots.txt file, at https://plus.google.com/robots.txt One line of that file reads: Sitemap: http://www.gstatic.com/communities/sitemap/communities-sitemap.xml That's not actually the Communities list itself, but a listing of another 100 files containing all 7,974,281 individual communities. Rather than look at each of those, I've randomly selected a set of 12,000 (after a first run of 300) to look at. Generally, random sampling allows you to work with very small sample sizes, but given the highly-skewed Poison / power-curve distribution of Community membership populations, we need more numbers. The pull is running now, at about a query a second, and I'd crossed the 6,000 community mark a few minutes back. There are two sets of statistics which are of interest, univariate moments which give a general sense of the dataset, and a ranked-item report, listing the largest of the communities. The first gives an overall sense of the data, the second reveals what the top end of the data show, much of which is far outside the reach of the first report, and where the vast majority of community memberships reside. The univariate data: count, sum, min, max, mean, etc: n: 5655, sum: 597008, min: 1, max: 217297, mean: 105.571706, median: 2, sd: 2979.245712 %-ile: 5: 1, 10: 1, 15: 1, 20: 1, 25: 1, 30: 1, 35: 1, 40: 1, 45: 1, 55: 2, 60: 3, 65: 4, 70: 5, 75: 8, 80: 13, 85: 22, 90: 45, 95: 129 What this tells us is that the typical Community size is very nearly 1. The mode is 2. And it's not until we get to the 95%ile that populations are over 100. The maximum (of the sample so far) is nearly a quarter million, at 217,297 members (a Spanish-speaking religious community, "La Palabra de Dios tiene Poder Comunidad", "The Word of God has Power Community" -- https://plus.google.com/communities/118362296060634412141), which is over 8x larger than the 2nd largest in the sample. The ranked listing shows (at this moment) 56 communities in the sample of > 1,000 members, each one representing about 1,086 other communities, or giving us roughly 60,000 communities of > 1,000 members. Similarly, there are likely about 9,800 communities with 10k+ members, and about 2,000 with 26,000+ members. (There's a report of the top 60 ranked communities below). *Keep in mind that community counts and populations have little to do with actual quality, and there may be some exceptionally vibrant, small communities of only a dozen or so members. That's not what I'm analysing here.* (I've ... heard variants of this argument for going on four years based on earlier analysis.) But for a sense of what potential bounds are, this should be useful information. (Needless to say, I'd really like to obtain confirmation of this from, oh, say, Google, just to pick a random authoritative source out of the air, but if it's got to be Space Alien Cats, let it be Space Alien Cats.) Other potentially interesting bits: Current sample (of 12,000): 6831 Total public: 6190 (90.61%) Member distribution: n: 5914, sum: 602661, min: 1, max: 217297, mean: 101.904126, median: 2, sd: 2913.446902 %-ile: 5: 1, 10: 1, 15: 1, 20: 1, 25: 1, 30: 1, 35: 1, 40: 1, 45: 1, 55: 2, 60: 3, 65: 4, 70: 5, 75: 8, 80: 13, 85: 22, 90: 44, 95: 125 Communities report Total communities: 6827 Total public: 6183 (90.57%) Total private: 644 ( 9.43%) Total open membership: 3773 (55.27%) Total closed membership: 3054 (44.73%) Total membership (public only): 602661 Mean membership (public only): 101.90 (And if you're noticing that the counts are creeping up, that's because, as I've said, the script's running now, though the numbers are sufficiently solid I'm confident in leaking a set.) (Further update: a 2nd large community with 126,123 members has turned up.) In other news, I've been looking at present G+ public participation and the fortunes of the 4,214 active profiles I found in 2015, versus the attrition rate of Google's last-updated profiles sitemap from 2017-3-1. Of the latter set, 1.6% were unreachable, giving 404 errors when I attempted to scrape them. Of the 2015 sample, the 404 rate is 13.24%. That is, having an active profile in 2015 gives an 8.275x higher likelihood of having a dead account in 2018 than having any account in March of 2017. That's ... an interesting result. The constructive active, public participants in G+ are too small to be seen in my current 3,000 profile sample. That corresponds roughly to < 1 million such users, and given some other data (3,248 members of G+MM as I type this, 7,061 users on the Pluspora Diaspora pod, 33,066 signatures on the "Don't Shut Down Google Plus" Change.org petition), it seems that somewhere in the 10k - 100k range, possibly bumping toward 1m with lurkers, etc., is the likely solid core. A value I've suggested often. (And yes, aggreeing on definitions, and finding accessible and trustworthy metrics is difficult.) 1 217297 members 2 26389 members 3 23412 members 4 22953 members 5 16902 members 6 12763 members 7 11490 members 8 10321 members 9 8782 members 10 7406 members 11 6819 members 12 6704 members 13 5344 members 14 5148 members 15 4972 members 16 4624 members 17 4590 members 18 4142 members 19 3518 members 20 3368 members 21 3243 members 22 3177 members 23 3164 members 24 3158 members 25 3035 members 26 2973 members 27 2764 members 28 2507 members 29 2477 members 30 2474 members 31 2334 members 32 2226 members 33 2070 members 34 2029 members 35 1964 members 36 1745 members 37 1744 members 38 1720 members 39 1620 members 40 1614 members 41 1593 members 42 1563 members 43 1501 members 44 1458 members 45 1343 members 46 1266 members 47 1230 members 48 1196 members 49 1160 members 50 1155 members 51 1133 members 52 1084 members 53 1035 members 54 1025 members 55 1009 members 56 1008 members 57 978 members 58 964 members 59 957 members 60 924 members Reminder: these are partial results, values will vary a bit, though should be reasonably reliable.
Commented on postMan does not live by sugar beet alone.
Commented on post by Edward Morbius in Google+ Mass MigrationOf all the posts of this, where would you like commentary? ;) I take it you're scraping front pages to get the membership figure? Shame there's no easy way to get total posts, owner or moderators. Shame there's no API for communities. Shame Takeout for communities is so minimal. — Estimating G+ Communities by size I've been kicking at the problem of trying to estimate total G+ activity for a few years, and with the Plexodus, the question of how many active Communities are there is particularly pressing. Setting an arbitrary cutoff, consider communities of > 1,000 members. Based on some preliminary results -- 6,000+ completed of a larger randomly-selected communities sample of 12,000, I'm going to suggest there are about 55k - 65k communities > 1,000 members on Google+, from a total Communities population of 7.974 million. I'm using my old familiar method of working from sitemaps for Google+, with a running commentary as results come in posted to Diaspora here: https://joindiaspora.com/posts/dbee1250d0680136d1dc0218b70db60d Briefly, you can grab the top-level sitemaps via Google+'s robots.txt file, at https://plus.google.com/robots.txt One line of that file reads: Sitemap: http://www.gstatic.com/communities/sitemap/communities-sitemap.xml That's not actually the Communities list itself, but a listing of another 100 files containing all 7,974,281 individual communities. Rather than look at each of those, I've randomly selected a set of 12,000 (after a first run of 300) to look at. Generally, random sampling allows you to work with very small sample sizes, but given the highly-skewed Poison / power-curve distribution of Community membership populations, we need more numbers. The pull is running now, at about a query a second, and I'd crossed the 6,000 community mark a few minutes back. There are two sets of statistics which are of interest, univariate moments which give a general sense of the dataset, and a ranked-item report, listing the largest of the communities. The first gives an overall sense of the data, the second reveals what the top end of the data show, much of which is far outside the reach of the first report, and where the vast majority of community memberships reside. The univariate data: count, sum, min, max, mean, etc: n: 5655, sum: 597008, min: 1, max: 217297, mean: 105.571706, median: 2, sd: 2979.245712 %-ile: 5: 1, 10: 1, 15: 1, 20: 1, 25: 1, 30: 1, 35: 1, 40: 1, 45: 1, 55: 2, 60: 3, 65: 4, 70: 5, 75: 8, 80: 13, 85: 22, 90: 45, 95: 129 What this tells us is that the typical Community size is very nearly 1. The mode is 2. And it's not until we get to the 95%ile that populations are over 100. The maximum (of the sample so far) is nearly a quarter million, at 217,297 members (a Spanish-speaking religious community, "La Palabra de Dios tiene Poder Comunidad", "The Word of God has Power Community" -- https://plus.google.com/communities/118362296060634412141), which is over 8x larger than the 2nd largest in the sample. The ranked listing shows (at this moment) 56 communities in the sample of > 1,000 members, each one representing about 1,086 other communities, or giving us roughly 60,000 communities of > 1,000 members. Similarly, there are likely about 9,800 communities with 10k+ members, and about 2,000 with 26,000+ members. (There's a report of the top 60 ranked communities below). *Keep in mind that community counts and populations have little to do with actual quality, and there may be some exceptionally vibrant, small communities of only a dozen or so members. That's not what I'm analysing here.* (I've ... heard variants of this argument for going on four years based on earlier analysis.) But for a sense of what potential bounds are, this should be useful information. (Needless to say, I'd really like to obtain confirmation of this from, oh, say, Google, just to pick a random authoritative source out of the air, but if it's got to be Space Alien Cats, let it be Space Alien Cats.) Other potentially interesting bits: Current sample (of 12,000): 6831 Total public: 6190 (90.61%) Member distribution: n: 5914, sum: 602661, min: 1, max: 217297, mean: 101.904126, median: 2, sd: 2913.446902 %-ile: 5: 1, 10: 1, 15: 1, 20: 1, 25: 1, 30: 1, 35: 1, 40: 1, 45: 1, 55: 2, 60: 3, 65: 4, 70: 5, 75: 8, 80: 13, 85: 22, 90: 44, 95: 125 Communities report Total communities: 6827 Total public: 6183 (90.57%) Total private: 644 ( 9.43%) Total open membership: 3773 (55.27%) Total closed membership: 3054 (44.73%) Total membership (public only): 602661 Mean membership (public only): 101.90 (And if you're noticing that the counts are creeping up, that's because, as I've said, the script's running now, though the numbers are sufficiently solid I'm confident in leaking a set.) (Further update: a 2nd large community with 126,123 members has turned up.) In other news, I've been looking at present G+ public participation and the fortunes of the 4,214 active profiles I found in 2015, versus the attrition rate of Google's last-updated profiles sitemap from 2017-3-1. Of the latter set, 1.6% were unreachable, giving 404 errors when I attempted to scrape them. Of the 2015 sample, the 404 rate is 13.24%. That is, having an active profile in 2015 gives an 8.275x higher likelihood of having a dead account in 2018 than having any account in March of 2017. That's ... an interesting result. The constructive active, public participants in G+ are too small to be seen in my current 3,000 profile sample. That corresponds roughly to < 1 million such users, and given some other data (3,248 members of G+MM as I type this, 7,061 users on the Pluspora Diaspora pod, 33,066 signatures on the "Don't Shut Down Google Plus" Change.org petition), it seems that somewhere in the 10k - 100k range, possibly bumping toward 1m with lurkers, etc., is the likely solid core. A value I've suggested often. (And yes, aggreeing on definitions, and finding accessible and trustworthy metrics is difficult.) 1 217297 members 2 26389 members 3 23412 members 4 22953 members 5 16902 members 6 12763 members 7 11490 members 8 10321 members 9 8782 members 10 7406 members 11 6819 members 12 6704 members 13 5344 members 14 5148 members 15 4972 members 16 4624 members 17 4590 members 18 4142 members 19 3518 members 20 3368 members 21 3243 members 22 3177 members 23 3164 members 24 3158 members 25 3035 members 26 2973 members 27 2764 members 28 2507 members 29 2477 members 30 2474 members 31 2334 members 32 2226 members 33 2070 members 34 2029 members 35 1964 members 36 1745 members 37 1744 members 38 1720 members 39 1620 members 40 1614 members 41 1593 members 42 1563 members 43 1501 members 44 1458 members 45 1343 members 46 1266 members 47 1230 members 48 1196 members 49 1160 members 50 1155 members 51 1133 members 52 1084 members 53 1035 members 54 1025 members 55 1009 members 56 1008 members 57 978 members 58 964 members 59 957 members 60 924 members Reminder: these are partial results, values will vary a bit, though should be reasonably reliable.
Commented on post by The Annoyed Atheist in Google+ Help+The Annoyed Atheist Did you see something like the screenshot above? You should end up with a zip file. Unzip that and you get a set of directories. At the top is an index.html file. Dig down and you get something like Takeout\Google+ Stream\Photos\Photos from posts\09-05-2017 And in there are some .jpg and .csv files. — I would like to know if there is anyway to mass download all of my photos to my personal computer? I looked in my Google photos and most of them are missing and I don't really want them on Google Photos. Is there anyway to download them totally without doing them one by one?
Commented on post by The Annoyed Atheist in Google+ Help+The Annoyed Atheist https://plus.google.com/legacy_photo_redirect — I would like to know if there is anyway to mass download all of my photos to my personal computer? I looked in my Google photos and most of them are missing and I don't really want them on Google Photos. Is there anyway to download them totally without doing them one by one?
