Comments on: Is StumbleUpon better than Google?

By: MG Siegler

MG Siegler — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 02:21:46 +0000

Yep, Google Dice back in April – don’t know anyone that uses it – certainly not enough to talk about even when it’s essentially the same thing as StumbleUpon.

By: Mathew

Mathew — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 01:52:58 +0000

That’s true, MG — and didn’t Google also launch a sort of randomization-type feature earlier this year that was kind of a Stumble knock-off? I haven’t seen much about that since it was announced.

By: thatedeguy

thatedeguy — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 01:48:01 +0000

I think another interesting issue is the recent downgrading of PR based on whether a site sells links or not. I think that makes it unreliable at best. Stumble upon gets us around that. Maybe we need a metric that combines the two…

Jason: Last time I checked, Mahalo was a social search site. Seems to me that the 3.7 million users of stumbleupon would be your core group of users. And, frankly, you can throw out the bottom 50% of users as they’re going to use whatever search engine is convenient. e.g. Google.

Mathew: we may not be the average web user, but those like us usually make or break many of these companies.

By: MG Siegler

MG Siegler — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 23:34:53 +0000

One of the very interesting things in all of this is that Google actually had a StumbleUpon or sorts in place before StumbleUpon did. I think this is one of the few times where Google dropped the ball on the potential of a new service...

By: Mathew

Mathew — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 21:36:54 +0000

Thanks for the comment, Jason — you have a point there. I keep forgetting that I am not the average Web user, nor are most of my friends :-)