If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
Yesterday I promised you more information about using StumbleUpon more effectively while protecting your reputation online. I needed time to do some fact checking before posting any SU tips so that I could be sure to provide you with accurate information. It’s turned into a very long post. I hope you find it useful.
My source is Castor Quinn, an SU “miscatter.” For the record, he’s not a developer or an employee of SU. A miscatter is the person who changes the category of a page, once a wrong category report has been received. There are only a handful of carefully selected miscatters and they have the authority to make category changes within SU guidelines. The small size of the group and the increasingly large numbers of wrong category reports is the reason that SU seems to move at a snail’s pace when there’s a problem.
Ok, Stumblers, take note:
- Not everyone in the SU community is your friend. Some have a perception that anyone who favorably reviews search engine optimization or Internet marketing sites is out to game the community.
- If you submit your own site or your own posts, even under the intent of sharing worthwhile information, this is also perceived as spam.
- Why all the talk about spam? Because the experience I spoke of in my last post fit “the MO of some of the more aggressive anti-spam crusaders.” What’s the saying, “forewarned is forearmed?”
- The Stumbler who initially discovers a site is the one who controls the category for that site unless or until it’s recatted.
- Take note of your SU content filter. You’ll find it toward the bottom of your preferences page. Setting it to anything other than “Don’t show adult content when stumbling” may provide an opening for the accidental or intentional miscatting of your web site as adult.
Quinn wasn’t sure about this as the specifics about how categories are automatically assigned are part of SU’s proprietary information, but said that your profile rating probably plays some role in the process.
- Watch your thumbs-up and tags. Everything you thumb-up shows up in your tags. Can that artwork you’re reviewing be perceived as adult content? There’s that miscatting opening, once again.
- You’ll notice that I’m not using certain words in this post. There’s a reason for that. I’m speaking about specific labels and not wanting to cross SU’s content filter. Consider this also when you’re reviewing a site. What words are in the post title? What words are in your review?
- Accidental miscats happen and SU errs on the side of caution. People have been known to tic the adult content box unintentionally. The “autocatter” can also place it in the wrong category. When the mistake is reported, it’s fixed by a miscatter.
- If a page is in the wrong category, report it as a miscat.
Never mind that you review this type of site because it interests YOU. To the anti-spam crusaders, these topics are spam.
According to Quinn, “If you simply thumb the content (speaking of your site) and send it into the database, then in fact I would argue that SU does not have any responsibility to protect the reputation of your business. SU users are expressly not to use their accounts for promotion of a service or site. SU’s responsibility is to the users who use the service to stumble new content, not to those who use the service to promote content.”
This seems extremely short-sighted to me. I have submitted my own content in the past. In fact, I inadvertently submitted part one of this post. I tagged it, didn’t review it, didn’t give it a thumbs up, and didn’t realize it would show up as discovered by me.
SU does act against this sort of behavior. In fact, according to Quinn, the anti-spam crusaders feel that they’re persecuted by SU while spammers are allowed to run free. Just so you know, one of their calling cards is the addition of an “aids” tag to your review. Make sure you flag malicious stumblers using the flag option that accompanies every review.
Don’t ask me why someone who’s fighting spam would go to the effort to discover a site not submitted and post it in the P_O_R_N category with a thumbs-down, but apparently it happens. I’m sure someone had a good laugh, but I’m missing the point. So if you submit your own site, it’s spam, but if you don’t, they will? Thank goodness for friends!
“If they negatively review you,” says Quinn, “you can block them and hide their review, or report them to Feedback if they have violated the Terms of Service. If they negatively review your site … well, that’s their right, so long as they don’t breach the Terms of Service, publish your personal details, or post real threats against you (the famous “die in a fire” is not a threat, it’s a meme; “I’m going to track you down and kill your cat” is a threat). If someone wants to leave a scathing, hurtful, aggressive review of your website, so long as they are not in violation of the ToS, they can - SU is all about giving your opinions, so when people put their sites on the internet or thumb them into SU, they have to accept that some people may disagree, dislike or vent in their general direction. If however they breach the ToS, SU can intervene - report the problem to Feedback. This applies to tags also - all content submitted to SU has to abide by the ToS. You can also make use of the Violent, Aggressive and Unhelpful user flags if you feel a stumbler is one of those things.”
“Exposing hateful stumblers, revenge flagging, telling all your friends, posting to forums, giving them a negative review – generally this just causes you grief, enhances the enjoyment of the person who was clearly trying to get a response out of you, and doesn’t really advance the situation very much, so in most cases the best course of action is just to use the tools provided to fix it.”
Quinn suggests we relax, stumble, and enjoy ourselves instead of obsessing over the negative on SU. He feels SU is meant to be a toy, not something to be taken seriously. I agree about the “obsessing” part, but I think the service has grown beyond the original intent.
StumbleUpon is a powerful social media site. Yes, it can send you droves of traffic, but it also has the potential to damage your reputation. Does the good outweigh the bad? For now, I think it does. Whether or not that continues to be the case depends on how SU reacts to its changing demographic and growing community. StumbleUpon, are you listening?
Related Links:
An Open Letter to StumbleUpon Regarding Usability, Negativity, and Growing Pains
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
on Feb 27th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
This is a terrfic post Shari. I have submitted it to Sphinn. I hope it gets some coverage..You never know..SU is a scary topic for those that are trying to hide from it all. I’m sure it’ll get read even if it doesn’t become a hot Sphinn. Thanks for the information
on Feb 27th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
Oh…btw, in case you wanna Sphinn it yourself, here’s the URL http://sphinn.com/story/31512
on Feb 28th, 2008 at 4:02 am
[...] a really well written and concise post about Stumbleupon, visit Shari Voigt. Shari talks about thumbing and reviewing sites on SU, and lots more as [...]
on Feb 28th, 2008 at 7:35 am
@spostareduro - Thanks for your comment and the Sphinn, Kimberly!
on Feb 28th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
I have no business objectives. The only thing that can be hurt by attacks on my reputation is my ego but that is an illusory concept in the first place and so
no harm done. I am not here to worry about egotistical attackers Whos motive is to make themselves seem powerful. Let them have their jollies. While they are still engaging in their stupid shenanigans,I will have gone home to a better place to look upon them with a feeling of serene understanding and compassion
for them and their pursuit of false reality. So, no problem.—Doug Rosbury
on Feb 29th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
I enjoy using SU because I get to stumble to cool sites that are in my interests. Luckily, I haven’t met a Stumble Troll while stumbling, so I haven’t got any thumbs down, yet..^^
on Feb 29th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
#2 is not accurate. I had a podcast with Garrett camp, the creator of SU, and asked him this question specifically. He cleared up some other misconceptions too. You are allowed to submit your own sites.
http://www.search-this.com/2007/12/17/random-bits-podcast-with-garrett-camp-from-stumbleupon/
on Feb 29th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
@Doug Rosbury, @Internet Marketing Joy - Thanks for stopping by. I appreciate your comments.
@ses5909 - Thanks for the link to that podcast. It’s strange that what the creator of SU says is so far removed from what is actually going on in SU. I knew that submitting our own sites was/is allowed, but there’s no denying that it draws the wrath of the anti-spam group. Even though the rules seem to allow it and Garrett Camp said it was ok on your podcast, it’s perceived as spam. Unless or until that perception is dealt with by SU, in my opinion it just works against you.
on Mar 6th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
[...] One post I want to particularly mention is Andy Beard’s 7 StumbleUpon Problems I Would Love To See Fixed, which is somewhat related to this article. Also, Shari shares some interesting perspective from the inside of StumbleUpon in The Two Faces of StumbleUpon, Part 2. [...]
on Mar 7th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
[...] “The Two Faces of Stumbleupon” Part2 [...]
on Jun 1st, 2008 at 11:35 am
A fellow blogger friend actually went through some of the issues you mention in the post and let me say it made usiong StumbleUpon a nightmare for him such it is he has totally stopped using it.
on Jun 24th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
I have also found that it helps if you get a group of friends that you can talk to via gtalk or some other messenger service, and ask them to submit your pages from their accounts. This with hiding you pages with pages that have nothing to do with your site will help you to remain legit in stumble upon
on Jun 25th, 2008 at 10:27 am
There’s nothing wrong with notifying your friends of a relevant post. In fact, I recommend it. But what we all need to be careful of is “gaming” the system. Wherever we submit content, we need to keep our audience in mind. Will at least a segment of the community find our content to be valuable? A Stumble submission for the sake of simply gaining traffic is really pretty useless. It offends the StumbleUpon community and although it might result in a quick burst of traffic to the Web site, it has no lasting value.
on Aug 19th, 2008 at 9:54 am
I think you have to be pretty careful with stumble upon. The problem is that there are so many people that abuse it that it causes problems to the other people who simply wanna tell a few friends of their posts and get them stumbled. I myself love the service and will continue using it.