Background: Graduate admissions in psychology continue to be a popular and competitive venture, with the demand for new graduate student opportunities exceeding the annual supply. Objective: Our present work was a partial replication and extension of Appleby and Appleby (2006). We added closed- and open-ended questions regarding social media to gauge how graduate admissions committees utilize social media to evaluate applicants. Method: We asked U.S. graduate admissions directors to answer six open-ended questions and then rate the frequency and fatality/harmfulness of 17 potential applicant errors. From the population of 467 graduate admissions directors, 56 provided complete responses (12.0% response rate). Results: We examine the closed-ended quantitative results presenting descriptive data and combining the frequency and fatality scales into a scatterplot; outcomes from the open-ended qualitative results provide rich and nuanced advice about graduate admissions errors. Conclusion: Poorly written application materials are to be avoided (obviously), but the evidence-informed advice offered here is much more nuanced and complex. Teaching Implications: Mentors and faculty advisors can use information from this study to provide data-informed advice to students interested in improving their chances for admission to graduate programs in psychology, offering specific tips on the most harmful/fatal mistakes to avoid.