I love how everyone is prematurely putting the wooden stake in the heart of Google+. It’s amusing actually.
First it was Robin Wauters over at TechCrunch claiming the site was going down because they’d had a 41% drop-off in public posting.  (Though he stopped short of putting it into the DeadPool.) And now, today, in a post yesterday on Network World, I see that we have Paul McNamara freaking out because Larry Page hasn’t posted anything in public since the 15th of August. 
It’s not what you see, it’s what you don’t
Both of them have acknowledged that the possibility exists that while _public_ posting is down, _private_ posting may be going strong. That is what I’m seeing a lot more of.
I’ve had several friends post “polls” asking people what topics they were interested in, and in turn, have seen a lot more people limiting posts to only one or two of their circles. Basically, what we’re seeing, is that people are starting to treat sharing on Google+ as they would treat sharing over on Facebook. They’re limiting content to people who _they_ want to see it, and not, by default, posting everything to their public feed, as you would with Twitter status updates.
If everything was to be public, they wouldn’t have given us control
And that’s key. Google+ was designed from the start to allow you to pick and choose who you wanted to share with. Therefore, unless you have access to Google’s numbers (which I don’t) these writers, and everyone else, has no idea how well Google+ is doing.
Just remember: No matter what you think, Google+ is not dead until the fat lady sings.
 Robin Wauters – TechCrunch: “Raise Your Hand If You’re Still Using Google+”
 Paul McNamara – NetworkWorld/BuzzBlog: “Has Google’s CEO stopped using Google+?”