Comments on: StumbleUpon experiment – Low quality traffic http://www.thewwwblog.com/stumbleupon-experiment-low-quality-traffic.html Observing the Web.. With an apple macbook! Sun, 29 Jan 2012 18:25:33 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Online Earner http://www.thewwwblog.com/stumbleupon-experiment-low-quality-traffic.html#comment-10355 Online Earner Tue, 28 Apr 2009 09:23:15 +0000 http://www.thewwwblog.com/stumbleupon-experiment-low-quality-traffic.html#comment-10355 It's well known that the traffic is low quality and worthless for affiliates or any other type of conversion. SU users will invariably leave your site regardless of the quality of the content because they are not *looking* for anything in particular. They are simply having sites spoon fed to them. Also, the thing that particularly puzzles me is that although SU is essentially a traffic swapping site, they frequently ban accounts that engage in traffic swapping. It’s well known that the traffic is low quality and worthless for affiliates or any other type of conversion. SU users will invariably leave your site regardless of the quality of the content because they are not *looking* for anything in particular. They are simply having sites spoon fed to them.

Also, the thing that particularly puzzles me is that although SU is essentially a traffic swapping site, they frequently ban accounts that engage in traffic swapping.

]]> By: Online Earner http://www.thewwwblog.com/stumbleupon-experiment-low-quality-traffic.html#comment-16835 Online Earner Tue, 28 Apr 2009 09:23:00 +0000 http://www.thewwwblog.com/stumbleupon-experiment-low-quality-traffic.html#comment-16835 It's well known that the traffic is low quality and worthless for affiliates or any other type of conversion. SU users will invariably leave your site regardless of the quality of the content because they are not *looking* for anything in particular. They are simply having sites spoon fed to them. Also, the thing that particularly puzzles me is that although SU is essentially a traffic swapping site, they frequently ban accounts that engage in traffic swapping. It’s well known that the traffic is low quality and worthless for affiliates or any other type of conversion. SU users will invariably leave your site regardless of the quality of the content because they are not *looking* for anything in particular. They are simply having sites spoon fed to them.

Also, the thing that particularly puzzles me is that although SU is essentially a traffic swapping site, they frequently ban accounts that engage in traffic swapping.

]]> By: Kai Lo http://www.thewwwblog.com/stumbleupon-experiment-low-quality-traffic.html#comment-9920 Kai Lo Sat, 21 Mar 2009 02:06:38 +0000 http://www.thewwwblog.com/stumbleupon-experiment-low-quality-traffic.html#comment-9920 I still have to read up on StumbleUpon and Technorati to make the best use out of them. I'm sure there are ways to make them valuable. Keep trying, and keep searching for answers! I still have to read up on StumbleUpon and Technorati to make the best use out of them. I’m sure there are ways to make them valuable. Keep trying, and keep searching for answers!

]]> By: Kai Lo http://www.thewwwblog.com/stumbleupon-experiment-low-quality-traffic.html#comment-16834 Kai Lo Sat, 21 Mar 2009 02:06:00 +0000 http://www.thewwwblog.com/stumbleupon-experiment-low-quality-traffic.html#comment-16834 I still have to read up on StumbleUpon and Technorati to make the best use out of them. I'm sure there are ways to make them valuable. Keep trying, and keep searching for answers! I still have to read up on StumbleUpon and Technorati to make the best use out of them. I’m sure there are ways to make them valuable. Keep trying, and keep searching for answers!

]]> By: kate http://www.thewwwblog.com/stumbleupon-experiment-low-quality-traffic.html#comment-7148 kate Mon, 17 Nov 2008 23:04:45 +0000 http://www.thewwwblog.com/stumbleupon-experiment-low-quality-traffic.html#comment-7148 i came from stumble and i stayed and comment on ur blog; i will click in ur ads too ;) but being serious - traffic is good, if u dont need to think about bandwith limitation, there is nothing better and stumble is great tool for it; even if the visitors are just accidental, the probability of getting valuable visitors will always be bigger than with low traffic i came from stumble and i stayed and comment on ur blog; i will click in ur ads too ;) but being serious – traffic is good, if u dont need to think about bandwith limitation, there is nothing better and stumble is great tool for it; even if the visitors are just accidental, the probability of getting valuable visitors will always be bigger than with low traffic

]]> By: kate http://www.thewwwblog.com/stumbleupon-experiment-low-quality-traffic.html#comment-16833 kate Mon, 17 Nov 2008 23:04:00 +0000 http://www.thewwwblog.com/stumbleupon-experiment-low-quality-traffic.html#comment-16833 i came from stumble and i stayed and comment on ur blog; i will click in ur ads too ;) but being serious - traffic is good, if u dont need to think about bandwith limitation, there is nothing better and stumble is great tool for it; even if the visitors are just accidental, the probability of getting valuable visitors will always be bigger than with low traffic i came from stumble and i stayed and comment on ur blog; i will click in ur ads too ;) but being serious – traffic is good, if u dont need to think about bandwith limitation, there is nothing better and stumble is great tool for it; even if the visitors are just accidental, the probability of getting valuable visitors will always be bigger than with low traffic

]]> By: Derek Ralston http://www.thewwwblog.com/stumbleupon-experiment-low-quality-traffic.html#comment-3549 Derek Ralston Mon, 28 Jul 2008 21:06:29 +0000 http://www.thewwwblog.com/stumbleupon-experiment-low-quality-traffic.html#comment-3549 While I agree that the quality of visitors from SU is quite low, at least they are visiting... I mean it's better to have some people reading your posts versus no one. And I think it will start to build branding. Sort of like that McDonald's commercial you see on television for the 20th time. When people see your site in stumbles multiple times, they start to become more aware of what your blog is about and might even subscribe to it the second or third time around. Can't look at it as a total loss- any visitor is good for me! While I agree that the quality of visitors from SU is quite low, at least they are visiting… I mean it’s better to have some people reading your posts versus no one. And I think it will start to build branding. Sort of like that McDonald’s commercial you see on television for the 20th time. When people see your site in stumbles multiple times, they start to become more aware of what your blog is about and might even subscribe to it the second or third time around. Can’t look at it as a total loss- any visitor is good for me!

]]> By: Derek Ralston http://www.thewwwblog.com/stumbleupon-experiment-low-quality-traffic.html#comment-16832 Derek Ralston Mon, 28 Jul 2008 21:06:00 +0000 http://www.thewwwblog.com/stumbleupon-experiment-low-quality-traffic.html#comment-16832 While I agree that the quality of visitors from SU is quite low, at least they are visiting... I mean it's better to have some people reading your posts versus no one. And I think it will start to build branding. Sort of like that McDonald's commercial you see on television for the 20th time. When people see your site in stumbles multiple times, they start to become more aware of what your blog is about and might even subscribe to it the second or third time around. Can't look at it as a total loss- any visitor is good for me! While I agree that the quality of visitors from SU is quite low, at least they are visiting… I mean it’s better to have some people reading your posts versus no one. And I think it will start to build branding. Sort of like that McDonald’s commercial you see on television for the 20th time. When people see your site in stumbles multiple times, they start to become more aware of what your blog is about and might even subscribe to it the second or third time around. Can’t look at it as a total loss- any visitor is good for me!

]]> By: david cheong http://www.thewwwblog.com/stumbleupon-experiment-low-quality-traffic.html#comment-893 david cheong Fri, 28 Mar 2008 19:14:49 +0000 http://www.thewwwblog.com/stumbleupon-experiment-low-quality-traffic.html#comment-893 There is one time that my traffic from the stumbleupon is higher than the google. That was a lucky shot i guess. Hope my site will be stumbled again.. :) <em>david cheong's last blog post..<a href='http://www.davcheong.com/money-warm-up/lucky-winner-in-contest-march-2008.htm' rel="nofollow">Lucky Winner in Contest (March 2008)</a></em> There is one time that my traffic from the stumbleupon is higher than the google. That was a lucky shot i guess. Hope my site will be stumbled again.. :)

david cheong’s last blog post..Lucky Winner in Contest (March 2008)

]]> By: david cheong http://www.thewwwblog.com/stumbleupon-experiment-low-quality-traffic.html#comment-16831 david cheong Fri, 28 Mar 2008 19:14:00 +0000 http://www.thewwwblog.com/stumbleupon-experiment-low-quality-traffic.html#comment-16831 There is one time that my traffic from the stumbleupon is higher than the google. That was a lucky shot i guess. Hope my site will be stumbled again.. :) <em>david cheong's last blog post..<a href='http://www.davcheong.com/money-warm-up/lucky-winner-in-contest-march-2008.htm' rel="nofollow">Lucky Winner in Contest (March 2008)</a></em> There is one time that my traffic from the stumbleupon is higher than the google. That was a lucky shot i guess. Hope my site will be stumbled again.. :)

david cheong’s last blog post..Lucky Winner in Contest (March 2008)

]]>