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!



Entries (RSS)