searchengineland.com — After a week of questions about Digg's "Bury Brigade," Digg founder Kevin Rose has come in with some public comments about the system and the "alleged" brigade. Unfortunately, they're just comments - not solutions to protect Digg from the actual brigade I myself can see. More about that in the article below, plus how buries work and can be misused
Mar 2, 2007 View in Crawl 4
vexingmodstwoMar 2, 2007
Wouldn't "spam" be submitting the same article over and over?
captinherbMar 3, 2007
lol, they addressed the issue by covering everything up. They must have some former government employees working at Digg.
dannysullivanMar 3, 2007
@canewediggitSee further below for my reply in the next thread -- sorry, again hit the wrong reply link.I'm also going offline now for the weekend. I'll check back Monday and respond to any questions you have. Again, seeing the other thread -- where you feel falsely accused -- I can totally understand your perspective, upset and anger. And sadly, if Digg published buries, you would have been able to more easily push back.
Closed AccountMar 3, 2007
i'm trying to say you're an assh**e......i bet you think i think you're an assh**e now. see, now i never said you're an assh**e, just that i'm trying to say it. point being (i don't really think you're an assh**e) is that your qualifiers don't count. i know that data is false. you know that data is false, and assuming you did your homework, you knew it was false when you wrote the article. and you should have stated such. or better yet, not give any sort of free publicity or credence to people running inaccurate smear campaigns by posting their "findings."i know that wasn't the crux of the article, but i see no reason for that garbage to even be a part of it. you lost all sympathy from me if there actually are people trying to bury your submissions. but yes, people shouldn't bury things as spam when they are not.
jjorsettMar 3, 2007
How long before enough people get pissed off and divided into squabbling factions that it effectively becomes "bury everything"? That seems a likely outcome given how things are going.
castoroylMar 3, 2007
I would have to add that Digg needs to be very concerned about this issue. If content linkers become discouraged from adding that digg button to their sites or start removing them, Digg is going to become another Internet Dinosaur like Webcrawler.
dannysullivanMar 3, 2007
@canewediggit Came on for a quick look, saw:> i'm trying to say...Yeah, that was a great Colbert. Look, I'm not saying you are, I'm just trying to say :)Look, if Kevin Rose himself can link to one of those same articles and use the same type qualifiers I do, then you're being kind of harsh on me. What did he say here: <a class="user" href="http://blog.digg.com/?p=66">http://blog.digg.com/?p=66</a>"Just wanted to post real quick about some stories I’ve seen in the blogosphere regarding an alleged ‘bury brigade’ on Digg and on the Digg site blocking process."He doesn't say it's false. He would know if it was false, right? He simply says it's "alleged," which is totally not the same as debunking the allegations. Same term I've used, except I don't have access to prove if it is false or not. So why isn't he saying it’s false. Why aren't you calling him out for being more specific?He also says:"Quite a bit of this data was gathered inaccurately as the author states in the Digg comments."Again, he doesn't declare it all false. He goes with the "quite a bit" qualifier, implying that some of it was actually accurate. This is the person who should know -- and he doesn't say. If you're upset people are repeating false information, you should be upset with him. He -- Digg -- could definitively settle the matter. They haven't, not with that post.But more important -- and this is the last time I'm going to reiterate this point. I DID NOT WRITE ABOUT THE ALLEGED BURY BRIGADE IN THAT ARTICLE. That was NOT the point of the article. The article was about problems with buries in general -- and there are issues about buries in general. Digg shouldn't be afraid of discussing the problems in general. That's what will make it stronger. I pointed at those articles simply to say there's been new concern about buries IN GENERAL but then focused on some very specific "non-brigade" issues with one exception -- pointing out that a brigade, if only one person, is currently dinging Search Engine Land. And that's a fact that's obvious to anyone who does a search and looks at the stories that have been buried from us in the past two days or so.That's why I'm not calling him out -- because I didn't write about the issue. But I'll tell you what. Here's my contact form:<a class="user" href="http://searchengineland.com/contact.php">http://searchengineland.com/contact.php</a>Pick my name, send me your email. I would be more than happy to talk to you more by phone or by email to review the bury brigade allegations. As I said, I didn't cover them before. But I will now, to try and set whatever record straight you think isn't correct with my readers. You can share what happened to you, how you say you were falsely accused and get your point across.
dannysullivanMar 5, 2007
I used no false information, and frankly, you are doing exactly what you're so upset about to me -- saying inaccurate things. It's not that I didn't write "solely" about the brigade. I didn't write about the brigade other than the specific one hitting me. And I covered a lot of real issues with buries in general.Saying Kevin doesn't have to issue a statement. Well, he did. And he didn't fully dispute the charges. Again, if you feel a victim, you should take that up with him as well.You don't want to talk to me, that's fine. I wasn't asking you to prove your innocence in as much as I never told my readers you were guilty of anything. But I offered you a chance to spread your views on the situation beyond Digg.As for rushing to write, I reiterate. I wrote a story about issues with the bury system hurting stories before the "s**tstorm" that happened this week. It wasn't about a brigade but instead about how buries can be misused by ANYONE, ANY INDIVIDUAL, at Digg. My current story was really revisiting those prior issues. I'm sorry you continue to want to inaccurately lump it in with the stories you're so upset about. I'm sorry you continue to accuse me unfairly of not checking facts before writing. The offer remains open if you want to talk more.