Sadly, Done With Digg
Ah, the raw, unyielding power of Web 2.0. My friend, Lee Odden, learned his Top Rank blog site was banned from Digg. He discovered this unceremoniously and is justifiably angry. Lee writes,
The site or blog owner has little control over whether other people submit stories and/or vote on them, bury them or report them as spam. Even if they’re not.
Sites can be banned from having their stories submitted to digg based on the activities of others having nothing to do with the site owner.
Lee is a man who has spent YEARS covering an industry and working within it with integrity. Sitepoint, another huge web properly, was banned at Digg.
Apparently at Digg, if Digg members want you out of the Community, they can do it with ease. No facts, no mercy and no responsibility. As a forums owner, I see spam the likes of which most of you will never see, with the exception of my friend Alan Webb. He was forced to shut down his forums because of the volume of spam.
A look at Digg’s FAQ provides a little insight into just how easy it is to get a site dumped if you really want to.
However, if any URL within Digg is consistently flagged as spam by the Digg community, that URL may be blocked from future submissions.
Nowhere does it say there is an investigation for PROOF that the site is a spammer. For members who are sensitive to what they may read online, Digg offers a way to put filters on what you are exposed to. That sounds fair. Nowhere did I see it say, “If you disagree with a Digg post, you can have it removed or get the domain banned.”
By allowing freewill banning of sites, Digg prevents us from an unbiased experience.
Digg’s Terms states:
“Digg may remove any Content and Digg accounts at any time for any reason (including, but not limited to, upon receipt of claims or allegations from third parties or authorities relating to such Content), or for no reason at all.”
For no reason at all?
Lee writes,
“I recently learned from a top digg member that certain digg community members decided to start getting rid of SEO sites by emailing spam complaints to digg. These community members’ definition of spam blogs is not what you might think. As long as the site has to do with SEO, they apparently consider it spam because the digg community generally detests anything to do with SEO.”
I tried three times to end this blog post on a calm note. Every ending I wrote was filled with fury. I had to stop and think. Am I PMS? And if so, I can’t even write in my blog. I’d scare you to death. Heh. (Not really. I think I have a handle on that now. But you never know…so I just choose to be cautious, to spare you.)
So, I’ve removed my “Digg This Post” thingy’s. It’s an action I can take, as someone who supports the SEO industry and recognizes their contributions to web sites and search engines and especially Web 2.0.
Digg must earn my trust again.
Good luck with that.
Update: Chris Winfield has a writeup on what’s happening, with a list of well-known web sites who have been banned by Digg, called And the List of Domains Ditched by Digg Keeps Growing.
Stumble it!Comments (9) to “Sadly, Done With Digg”
Post a Comment
Comments are moderated.




Lee Odden wrote:
Thanks for mentioning this Kim. I am not sure I am so much angry as I am disappointed. For as much progress and results we’ve been able to gain for clients using social news sites, and continue to, I was apparently drinking too much digg kool aid in thinking that there was any unbiased editorial review in such situations.
Not allowing people to digg stories on OMB is just going to frustrate users with digg. We’ll still continue to cover the industry and serve all the wonderful readers with (hopefully) useful and entertaining information.
I wonder if digg is destined to go the way of DMOZ with this kind of behavior?
Posted on 21-Dec-06 at 11:53 am | Permalink
Keith wrote:
This has overtones of DMOZ running through it. Good at first, but then a high percentage of the community becomes high and mighty, ruining the experience. Lee is a great guy and I love his insight; however, I believe he is clever enough to find a marketing technique to counteract being banned.
Posted on 21-Dec-06 at 12:56 pm | Permalink
cre8pc wrote:
I agree with you, Keith, that Lee can overcome this. How sad that he has to, however.
Lee, I’m optimistic that somebody at Digg will catch wind of this dialog and find ways to improve their service. So much of Web 2.0 remains a learning experience.
Posted on 21-Dec-06 at 1:00 pm | Permalink
hata wrote:
Digg just plain sucks!
http://www.digghater.com/
Posted on 21-Dec-06 at 3:53 pm | Permalink
Brad wrote:
I’ve never seen that attraction to Digg (or /. for that matter) Digg reminds me more of mob rule than any kind of rational use of good editorial judgement.
I think we also need to ask ourselves, “If Digg disappeared would anyone miss it?” and the answer is no, because they create none of their own content.
Posted on 21-Dec-06 at 7:31 pm | Permalink
Toivo Lainevool wrote:
For an alternative to Digg that focuses on SEO check out SEOyak.com
Posted on 22-Dec-06 at 8:41 am | Permalink
Tribulus Kre-Alkalyn wrote:
I think “digg” is not helpfull, nice tex..i have bookmarket it
Posted on 25-Aug-07 at 6:53 pm | Permalink
kre-alkalyn wrote:
I’ve never seen that attraction to Digg (or /. for that matter) Digg reminds me more of mob rule than any kind of rational use of good editorial judgement.
Posted on 23-Apr-08 at 3:48 pm | Permalink
Tribulus wrote:
I think “digg” is not helpfull, nice tex..i have bookmarket it
Posted on 23-Apr-08 at 3:49 pm | Permalink