Is Traffic Better From Stumbleupon Or Digg?

October 6, 2012

For a Stumbler or Digger who doesn’t have a very big profile yet, submitting to both these social networks can be a good way to gain a bit of extra traffic, but which is better?

Digg can bring masses of traffic for anyone who can get their post to go popular, but without having spent a long time building up a profile it can be difficult to get your content in front of enough people to get dugg. As a result, the novice digger can end up submitting articles and receiving no visits to their site at all. Even if the articles are good informative pieces that should be useful to digg readers, they just don’t get seen.

Then there is Stumbleupon. Pretty much from the moment you sign up, if you submit to Stumbleupon you will get visitors to your site. From experience you may receive around a hundred extra visitors for each page you submit. If you analyse your stats though it doesn’t seem like the highest quality traffic. Page view times are usually down and bounce rates are way up.

So what’s best? In my opinion, even though Digg is harder work initially, I prefer the way it works. If you take Digg seriously it seems entirely possible to get some good traffic from it once you’ve built up a profile. With Digg, I think that the chances of getting traffic that are actually interested in your subject is much higher. Stumble upon traffic is like foot traffic passing a specialist shop on the street. For the most part only a small percentage of those people stumbling past your site are even remotely interested in what you are selling.

Of course the on-the-fence attitude would say you should build a profile on both sites and submit to them both but as for which is better, I’ll jump on the side of Digg.

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post:

microsoft search engines