Is Stumbleupon referring more traffic than Facebook?

Is Stumbleupon referring more traffic than Facebook?(allfacebook.com)

18 points by jivejones 14 years ago | 13 comments

another 14 years ago |

But what sort of traffic?

See, e.g., Arvind's comments on StumbleUpon visitors:

http://arvindn.livejournal.com/133249.html

To quote the takeaway, "most of the traffic generated by StumbleUpon users to any given site is going to be low quality because the dopamine junkies make 100x more clicks".

phirephly 14 years ago | |

As far as I can tell, SU traffic is almost useless. I may get 1,000x as hits from SU, but I derive more value from some hole-in-the-wall site writing about me and sending 20 people.

muyyatin 14 years ago | |

Very true. StumbleUpon shows a much higher bounce rate and much lower average time on our site.

thesethings 14 years ago |

Sincere request: Can somebody explain the dynamics of how Stumbleupon is so popular? I don't know anybody who uses it. I am friends with alpha-geeks, teenagers, senior citizens, native Spanish-speakers in Mexico, etc. Barely anybody I know uses it.

I had a StumbleUpon account before Twitter, before StumbleUpon was a URL shortener, etc. I used it a little, but people didn't seem thaaaat into it. There must be some pocket of main use-case there. Is it mostly the URL shortener that even non-S.U. users bounce around in when directed to a su.pr URL?

I'd love to understand this.

(Also, as somebody else pointed out, S.U. traffic is pretty low-quality. Just peep your Google Analytics, and those sessions are quite short compared to Twitter/FB/Tumblr referrers. At least on my sites.)

webwright 14 years ago | |

I think it's less popular than these stats might indicate.

1 Facebook user might click on 1 or 2 links per day.

1 SU user "stumbles" dozens or hundreds of times in a session.

A stumble nets a pageview, but obviously has considerably less value (no intent baked into the click).

sudont 14 years ago | | |

Quote from a friend who stumbles: "oh yeah. totally. i hit 100 pages and maybe read 5 of them"

It's like a youtube party, but with a little fast-forward button: http://xkcd.com/920/

mithaler 14 years ago | |

I used to use it heavily, but I stopped when I moved to Chrome, since at the time it didn't have Chrome support and even now it feels hacky.

Worth noting that SU traffic may be unusually low-engagement, since I would think it's likely a user will just click Stumble again after the half a second or so you get to grab their attention. (That's an educated guess, mind you--I don't have any data to support this beyond how using SU felt to me.)

Hovertruck 14 years ago | |

I was wondering the same thing. I've never had the inclination to even go to their website.

icegreentea 14 years ago | |

Among my friends (university students, canada), it's pretty much used for idling wasting time when we need to give reddit or youtube a break.

endlessvoid94 14 years ago |

My site ThatHigh.com consistently gets a ton of traffic from SU, in disproportionate amounts. I'm fascinated by how massively successful that service is. The traffic has been steady for over a YEAR now. And it shows no signs of stopping.

And yet I know so little about it. I know they have something like 10M active users, which seems really high.

oldstrangers 14 years ago |

My facebook traffic is starting to pick up, but it's still no where near StumbleUpon.

Compare: http://i.imgur.com/oY03q.png

It's been like this since 2008.

travisp 14 years ago | |

What is the quality of the visits like? When you factor in time on site, pages viewed, bounce rate, etc. is stumbleupon still providing better traffic? It might be, but the answer isn't obvious to me without knowing this type of data.

oldstrangers 14 years ago | | |

Depends what you're looking for. If you're being paid by CPM, then yeah, they're great visits. If you're looking for conversions, then probably not.