Its Digg. No, its StumbleUpon. No, its Diggstr!

Useful follow-up tailored to the thread: a short, practical checklist for evaluating new social-discovery sites so the time spent trying them actually produces measurable results. This is aimed at readers who find threads like this years later and want a quick way to decide whether to adopt, test, or ignore a newcomer.

Start with three simple functional checks in one browsing session: (1) discovery fit — does the site surface content that matches your interests without heavy manual tuning; (2) submission and voting flow — how long do user submissions take to appear and what moderation or approval delays exist; (3) performance and mobile UX — does the site load fast and behave well on phones. These map to points raised earlier: @InsightsDigital values the discovery model, and @BlackhatSEO flagged performance as a concern — the checks above help confirm those impressions.

Measure impact with a short experiment. Use distinct tracking (UTM) on the same link you submit to the new site and to an established channel, then watch referrals, bounce rate, and conversions for 48–72 hours. If you see no referral traffic, check whether referrals are stripped by browser/referrer policies, redirects, or HTTPS/HTTP transitions. Treat the experiment as binary: if it moves meaningful traffic and engagement, keep testing; if not, don’t waste more time.

Final cautions and next steps: treat new social networks as experimental channels, not core sources. Scan terms of service for content ownership and republishing rights before heavy use. Keep a short monitoring window (two to four weeks) and a fallback plan — rely on established channels for predictable results. These steps will help turn curiosity (as in this thread) into a repeatable decision process without overcommitting.