What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Join the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Facebook view!
facebook.com/DragonAgeOrigins - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
64 Comments
- EXreaction, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19So much for democracy. All it takes is a few people to report it as spam and it is gone forever, even if it is a legit site, and just was a bad article.
No domains or sites should be banned IMHO, at least not unless some people submit hundreds of articles for one site that is simply spam(as in 75% or more advertisements trying to get people to buy crap like those viagra spammers do). - sovereign3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14In all fairness, for the amount of "content" you provide on your (sp)blog there is far too many advertisements. Come on, you wrote a post about how to make fast money for your blog (http://paulamooney.blogspot.com/2006/12/blog-faster-get-paid-more-money.html ). After browsing some of your posts, it just doesn't seem interesting and it really feels like your blog is just out to make a quick buck by bringing traffic from Digg.
Maybe it's not fair you've been blacklisted (Digg users, afterall, should determine what is Digg worthy), but your blog isn't worth a Digg anyway. - kevincw01, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9http://duggmirror.com/software/And_the_List_of_Domains_Ditched_by_Digg_Keeps_Growing/
- csandb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10I don't think it is fair to punish webmasters for things beyond their control. If someone really wanted to they could get any domain banned, just bury it enough times. I think Digg has given too much power to censor. Just because someone doesn't like a certain viewpoint they could potentially have that viewpoint silenced by getting domains that express such views banned.
- mcrbids, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Ahem. "Digg Ditching Domains".
Remember when Ditch was the noun, and dig was the verb?
- fletchowns, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Genmay is banned too, which doesn't really seem fair...
- jwxa, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I'm and adult and can decide for myself if an article submitted is done so for the author's benefit and if the article does not contain meaningful content.
If it is spammy, I exit the page. I don't want a minority (or a system designed to serve a minority's interests) decide what links are available to me as a Digg.com user.
Regarding Lee Odden,s "top five" article, I thought to myself, "Maybe this guy submitted the article and is trying to promote his commercial services?"
Then I read the article. The article provides well written content and a concise set of tips (not anything new) that will be helpful to a new blogger or developer. I can easily separate the article's usefulness from the commercial services available elsewhere on the site. It is the same common sense approach I would use if I found the article without the Digg.com submission.
There should be a distinction between submitted content that is obviously promotional in nature (SPAM)
vs submitted content that is useful and belongs to a commercial website. - cstrippie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Digg is a *social networking site*. Guess what...that means the *users* decide what is or is not appropriate for the site. It appears that a good many people here don't like the SEO crap: neither do I. IMO blogspammers are the biggest problem within Digg right now, and I'm thrilled to see some action being taken.
As stated in one of the linked articles: "There's always Netscape."
Yes there is: enjoy. - Darmichar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7"Anything linking to a real story isn't spam even if you don't like the blog ads."
Is this really such a hard concept to understand?
Just link to the original story.
I don't want to read a rehash/repost of a story on your crappy, ad-laden blog, so I mark it as spam. - RockMyMonkey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I was really pissed when they blocked my domain, but I sent an email to them and asked what was up. I'm still kind of ticked that they did it because of the actions of others (they told me so), but things seem to be fine since then. I think when they block some it is a test to see if the person is honest or not. If they defend themselves and have a legit defense, the domain is unblocked.
- dannysullivan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4It continues to sound like some Google out of 1999 story. The idea of banning a domain for submissions, when anyone can make those submissions, is absurd. Flip it around. What if Digg got banned because someone started submitting it over and over to the Google Add URL page? Or if someone linked to Digg from a bunch of porn sites, to try and put it into a "bad link neighborhood."
Crawler based search engines have gone through these types of things before. They've at least had the experience to realize that you can't start wiping people out on criteria they can't control. Digg's just a baby in terms of spam control. They will eventually have to shift away from this type of policy. And no doubt, they'll eventually start providing some type of "check if your banned; ask for reinclusion request" form like we see over at Google.
How the circle turns :) - madhaha, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Here's the breakdown:
1) SEO sites. Earnest people who earn money from traffic, "modestly" post about their own site. Usually something lame like "How I made money from the internet! And you can too!". On one hand I find these guys (and gals) grossly vain but some of them are putting out genuine content by republishing out of copyright material for example. I just wish all the others with the "make easy money by following my bloody obvious marketing strategy!" article submitters would accept they are NOT NEWS OR INTERESTING.
2) Popular sites with stupid users. These people ask their userbase to digg up an article on their forum/social network and inevitably some idiot signs up a bunch of digg accounts. Digg does offer these sites a second chance and the ban does serve as a decent warning. Maybe a more informative form email could be sent to the admin to dissuade this behavior?
3) Abusable sites. These sites have done something stupid like offering a "digg this thread/article" to all users. Inevitably, spammers start abusing this by submitting crap and digging it up. Nice high pagerank links. Diggers see this and slap it with spam warnings and the entire domain suffers.
Somewhat newsworthy in that it indirectly shows things you should really avoid when submitting. Maybe digg should add some examples of things not to do in their FAQs? - Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10Why isn't lewrockwell.com on there?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4You mean like thisblogisformypics.blogspot.com and associatedcontent.com ? which you have been digg spamming for the last few days?
I think I'll just go mark all of your submissions as spam. - jron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4add infowars.com to the list. thanks digg pause not.
- EXreaction, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"Couldnt people just use tinyurl?"
Nope, its banned. Any site like that will be instantly banned as it would upset all *protections* digg has in place to block urls. - shakin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"When submitted stories are consistently reported as spam and users complain via our feedback email about submission spam, we ban the domain."
I think this puts a lot of onus on the digg community to correctly identify spam sites. Just because a blog story is submitted, it doesn't mean it's spam. Maybe these should be labelled as lame instead so the spam label, and its harsh consequences, can be reserved for real spammers. Anything linking to a real story isn't spam even if you don't like the blog ads. - farr, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8Ohnoes, where will I get my SEO Marking Search Web News?
SEO = slime. - 15charmaxwtf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Why don't you just not read it if you don't like it? I mean it is that simple, it is like walking past a shop window and not buying what is inside.
- sfacets, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Censorship by a minority on a community-run website is wrong. Who's with me?
- remiprev, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Akismet is great for comment spam, I don't think it it would correctly filter stories submitted to Digg.
- jonashwing, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4and i quote...
"The stories I Digg are equally split between big sites and blogs (yes – including SEO blogs). If they were to ban all SEO blogs they would be losing a strong part of the community that helped make Digg the site it is today."
this guy needs to get off his high horse. he is NOT a strong part of the community that made digg what it is today. - ArchieAndrews, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2*Golf Clap*
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Just fyi - I submitted that article and I have no relationship to Lee besides admiring his work.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I just read your thread on what was happening forumside, I'm glad you were unblocked. Also - please tell the person that had his coworkers (on the same network) digging articles that they all can't digg the same story because they are all using the same outside IP address.
Good music news, I'll be watching your stuff! - vertinox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Genmay is banned because you guys raided Digg that one day with spam about that Wikipedia ban. There were hundreds of comments there were only [M] for people spamming digg.
So tough. - glafira, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I would like to see them release this list in txt format.
- imtigger2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2A plus Digg for using "Viagra" and "growing" in the same submission. :)
- toprank, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Regarding digg as a social news site and users making the decisions about what to include and what not to, I get it and that's fine. It's digg after all. It just seems a bit arbitrary to do so with a site like mine that is pretty much a goody two shoes kinda site. We post original content and DO have top rankings in Google and ARE recognized by traditional media (U.S. News, The Economist). It's nowhere near a "look how much I made on the Internet" type of site at all.
I'd rather people who are impressed by a story we post to not be confronted with a "This domain is banned from submissions" message when they try to submit it to digg. Obviously I've read the wrong rule book because to me the rationale for Q/A seems to fit somewhere between DMOZ and Lord of the Flies. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Got a link?
- SelfAbortion, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It's no secret that most people that submit stuff to digg have a select few sites that they submit from. Just look at the top diggers. i don't see the problem. If you don't like it, bury it or go past it and stfu.
- championchap, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1One that confuses me is that Goowy.com is blocked.
Its a pretty cool flash "Desktop" whats spammy about that? - kfsutops, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Exactly!!!!.
Simply stated, it's a user based website and users have chosen this website to be spam. Deal with it. As some other digger posted earlier, why post to your blog and make me go to another site? Why not just link to the site and put a good description of your point of view on the article so that other diggers will read it? - BigKitty, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Because Lew Rockwell publishes a lot of original writing that a considerable number of DIGGers want to read -this in spite of the fact that a few people automatically bury anything from that site without reading it first.
- ArchieAndrews, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4You got dugg down because your first version of your message included a lame attempt at your url spelled out, not unlike the last reply you left in this thread. You obviously knew this was why because you edited it to remove it. It is common practice to digg down comments with url spam in them.
- jus1haz2, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Couldnt people just use tinyurl?
- madhaha, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Perhaps ultimately what you should ask for is an uncensored option for Digg, spam and all.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1if it weren't for lewrockwell I would be blinded by the rest of diggers' conservative posts
Proud Liberal - digitalpoint, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1My domain is on that list (digitalpoint.com), and I don't think it was banned unjustly. Specifically the forum where the public can start threads and then submit them to Digg ended up just filling Digg (and my forum) with crap. I'm glad it's banned from Digg actually. If Digg unbanned it, I would ask them to reban it until they came up with some sort of pre-moderation queue (like the owner of a specific domain has the [optional] ability to review stuff submitted to Digg first).
- imtigger2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Oh... don't know if anyone noticed (probably did, I just don't wanna 'digg' for the story), but the "Submit Anyway" feature is all but GONE now. If you try to submit a story that has the same url of a dup, Digg will NOT let you do it.
Thanks Digg! - ArchieAndrews, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3...of course you did...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1So you consider this post and other posts that are buried being blogspam then -- simply because it insults your favorite "social networking site." I beg to differ.
The issue isn't about true spam sites that are banned. On the contrary, the concern is that legitimate sites are being banned simply because of this "social agenda" certain Diggers have. This post doesn't lack good content but it was buried down. It simply states a truth that is disagreed upon by numerous Digg users.
What is valuable information to one user might be "crap" to other users (which is exactly what you think about SEO). But there's a big distinction between what you term as "blogspam" and real spam that should warrant a ban from Digg. The former is still valuable to some members of the community. The latter does deserve to be banned, and the Digg moderators should review sites accordingly.
Let's liken Digg to a society (a "social" community) here -- would Digg ban a certain social group (e.g. Jews) simply because a bunch of people voted to "bury" their statements? There are still people who find their contributions valuable. A lifetime ban is not acceptable. - jonashwing, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@jwxa
i'm also an adult and i do decide if an article is spam or not. the thing is, there are also a lot of other adults on digg who think a lot of the same things i do are spam and they, in turn, also mark them as spam. i think its a great feature that if a large enough portion of the community marks something as spam, that it won't show up.
its basically the same concept as the digg/bury one, but just extended for repeat offenders.
you may be an adult but you're also a n00b!
:P - akiramedia, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Not all SEO = slime. Some, but not all. There is such a thing as ethical SEO.
- ArchieAndrews, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4...and yet you did the very thing you said you were concerned about only 3 or 4 replies later... I guess you're not scared of that outcome anymore?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Why isnt Michelle Malkin banned?...that's what I want to know.
- RockMyMonkey, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I just noticed that my site is mentioned in this article. FTR-Our Digg links did not get us blocked! What got us blocked was that someone that was Digging our stories was using multiple accounts. If you read the entire post they link to it shows how I got the domain unblocked. Plain and simple-It wasn't me using multiple accounts.
I also have tons of warnings for people not to cheat the Digg system. My point is that although Digg's current method of deciding what domains to block needs some tweakage, they seem to know this and are willing to listen if you are up front and honest about everything to them. - ammonj, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1You missed the conditional prerequisite before setting that variable.
Your code should read:
IF {reader = moron} THEN seo = slime
For others, they are more than aware enough that almost every cool and important website makes use of, or fully supports, the value and merit of the SEO profession, and its generosity in sharing so much with the entire web.
The improvements in Information Retrieval itself - the science of Search - have been made jointly from the inside and outside of the search engines. All of the major search engines pay significant attention to the feedback of the SEO community because it is exceptionally valuable to them. SEOs (by and large) live and breathe search technology. That is no idle claim, and even a fool (no, not looking especially at Farr any more than a dozen other bigots) can see how Matt Cutts often uses the help of SEOs to beta test new algorithm roll-outs.
Okay, so perhaps SEOs just don't do anything good for you? Really? I bet right now that half of the most iconic sites of the past few years, including this one, but especially wikipedia, haven't gotten to that status without the aid of the SEOs out there. For certain, Wikipedia especially is the most SEO conscious site I've seen, and is built with all the principles of SEO (gathered from the millions of free tips and knowledge shared so freely in SEO forums and articles) in its very core.
So what is the problem of people like farr here?
Probably a mixture of things.
Like jealousy that people like David Naylor and Jen Slegg get to sit having a chat at the googleplex with the founders while those with nothing of value to add to search do not.
Envy that Danny Sullivan and Rand Fishkin get quoted in the newspapers and periodicals on technology or business.
Trying to dismiss their own lack of significant contribution to the world in any meaningful sense, a sense of helping millions of webmasters achieve greater success and avoid simple (but sometimes obscure) small errors. - mdcarey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I am mentioned in this blog entry and I really think there should be a re-inclusion process, I mean how can you let one new members mistake or one abuser that can be dealt with. I certainly would not want someone DIGGING a ton of forum posts like Sean was running into, so certainly the problem becomes more complex
- tylerdurdenclub, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Actually, if these people are so ***** good at SEO they should have a top ranking in Google and not even give a ***** about this.
-
Show 51 - 64 of 64 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is