18 users responded in this post

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url
mygif

[…] wrote an article at the PandemicBlog about StumbleUpon and the negatives of self-submission. Most articles see self-promotion under a moral or “narcissistic” perspective. These […]

mygif
Mark Dykeman said in April 1st, 2008 at 8:18 am

This makes a lot of sense to me. Thanks for writing!

mygif
Ravenhawk said in April 1st, 2008 at 3:01 pm

Hmm..
Interesting.
I hadn’t known that they’d penalize stumbling the same domain repeatedly. It makes sense however.
I’ll attempt to keep this in mind in the future. I did notice somewhat that over time my stumbling was getting me less hits.
At first I was netting thousands of his, then it dropped to hundreds. This explains that cutoff.

mygif
Kimota said in April 1st, 2008 at 6:37 pm

Oh how true this is. Trouble is, whereby some social networks clearly state their policies on self submission up front (Sphinn for example), many stumblers are blissfully unaware of this factor in the algorithm until it’s too late. I recently saw my stumble traffic plummet and my submissions from my own domain no longer get accepted. SU didn’t even respond to my enquiries as to why this would be. It wasn’t until days of research had gone by that I discovered a buried little paragraph deep down on one of the SU pages that mentioned the ratio of one domain to other stumbles being a factor and that if this ratio is tipped, SU prevents you from submitting any more from that domain and affects your entire traffic. No warning and no possible way of readjusting the ratio to repair the damage. I’ve come across a few bloggers who have fallen foul of this when they are in the launch phase of their blog and trying to get some traction (me included). My blog has now built up lots of great stuff but I can no longer get traffic. Even when someone else stumbles me, I’m not getting anywhere near the same figures. Shame. Clearer information up front would have avoided many bloggers making this crucial and damaging mistake.

mygif
James Duthie said in April 1st, 2008 at 8:43 pm

Self submission is indeed a predicament for new bloggers. I noticed the diminishing returns for self submission early on and stopped at that point for fear of some sort of penalty. I also maintained a very healthy Stumble rate of external blogs (probably 50 thumbs up to 1 of my own) to avoid any perception of selfish Stumbling practices.

Luckily, my content is relevant to Sphinn, which is a community that accepts self submission. So I was able to continue to promote my work there, which led to Stumbles from active social media users. However, I am now finding that Stumbles from my regular readers are now producing similar diminishing effects.

The key is to constantly find new Stumblers to support your work. Easier said than done… :)

mygif
Donna Miller said in April 2nd, 2008 at 3:08 am

Wow, what a great article! I didn’t know this. In fact, I’ve bought eBooks and seen products by ‘gurus’ who say you should be Stumbling every page on your blog as you build it.

Special thanks to Kimota and James for your valuable comments. I’ve signed up for Sphinn, but haven’t had time to really use it. It’s good to know they accept self promotion and it’s a good way to get your site in front of other stumblers.

mygif

[…] StumbleUpon Yourself Jiannis Sotiropoulos has posted a great article over at PandemicLabs about why you shouldn’t stumble yourself. After reading the article I must say, it makes sense. For one thing it’s against […]

mygif
robojiannis said in April 2nd, 2008 at 9:27 am

I totally agree with James. Constantly find new stumblers to support your work. Simple as that…

mygif
Matthew Peters said in April 2nd, 2008 at 10:03 am

I think Kimota’s Example is particularly relevant here. There does seem to be a “point of no return” within the stumble algorithm. Here at PandemicBlog, we have absolutely noticed it. We stumbled our own posts quite a bit in the beginning because we felt we had to. Now, with this post as an example, we have been thumbed-up by 25 people and have 6 reviews, but we have only seen about 100 visits from Stumble. This is sooooo much lower than what we are used to. I want to write an article comparing that to traffic in the past. You will all be able to see it shortly.

mygif
Catfish said in April 2nd, 2008 at 12:41 pm

Well written. I think the value in this article is the last sentence:

Are you analyzing the submissions and submitters to improve your work and your network?

Great job.

mygif
Jay said in April 2nd, 2008 at 12:56 pm

Wait, so what’s the difference in submitting your own content compared to repeatedly submitting someone elses content everyday?

Jay
DatMoney.com

mygif
robojiannis said in April 2nd, 2008 at 1:53 pm

I don’t think there is a difference Jay. But I also don’t find a reason to constantly submit someone else’s content…

mygif
Marketing said in April 3rd, 2008 at 12:05 am

It’s all very complicated. Talent and content and exposure usually does the trick..

mygif
James Duthie said in April 3rd, 2008 at 8:36 pm

@Jay - I regularly Stumble the content of a number of blogs that I read daily and derive great value from. And while not certain, I suspect the same process of dimishing returns applies. The more you Stumble a site, the less effect it has over time. I believe this applies whether it’s your own site, or someone else’s.

mygif

[…] posts over at PandemicBlogs about the dangers of self Stumbling.  Their initial post was about why you should not Stumble yourself, and their more recent post addressed the what they view as a problem with Stumble (the algorithm). […]

mygif
Slices said in April 15th, 2008 at 12:13 pm

Hum… Masturbation is not a Crime!?

Serious tho, I think it would be better for everyone if website authors could just act honestly and submit their own stories.

mygif

[…] reading the post, Why You Shouldn’t Stumble Yourself, on Pandemic Labs, I’ve finally come to a conclusion about whether or not you can really […]

mygif
Kris said in April 28th, 2008 at 7:17 am

Unfortunately, this also happens when someone else submits your content regularly. A big fan of your site, for instance. Even though I still get a lot of votes, StumbleUpon completely stopped promoting my site, since the last 7 or 8 posts were all submitted by the same person - someone who is not affiliated to me. That means I have to ask a big fan to please stop liking me, which is kind of weird. It also means that if you want to sabotage a website (because it is a competitor for instance) all you have to do is submit every post it publishes.

Leave A Reply

 Username (*required)

 Email Address (*private)

 Website (*optional)

Please Note: Comment moderation maybe active so there is no need to resubmit your comments