What is Digg?68 Comments
- MikeonTV, on 12/13/2007, -2/+23Find Cheap Viagra Today!!
- 97thfloor, on 12/13/2007, -5/+21These are just plain stupid spammers not seo's.
- inactive, on 12/13/2007, -5/+20It doesn't say that all SEOs are spammers or that all spammers are SEOs. It just says that if you ARE an SEO and you DO spam, go away.
- vinblackham, on 12/13/2007, -1/+10Dang...I totally thought I was gonna see a pic of Chris Crocker cryin about "leave social sites alone!! please!!" Still...I agree.
- rmxz, on 12/13/2007, -1/+9Yet there is a *large* overlap between the two.
And when a SEO posts on a social media site, he's spamming.
And wen a spammer posts on a social media site, it has an SEO effect.
So in the context of this article they're pretty much the same. - phogasmic, on 12/13/2007, -0/+8Spammer's make it harder to find quality stories because they're worthless stories clutter the upcoming stories.
- maxyRO, on 12/13/2007, -4/+11spamming us with viagra is not SEO, it's just plain ol' dumb.
- jacquesm, on 12/13/2007, -2/+8seo = spam in disguise, search engines don't need SEO, it's just that when one of these jokers sells their services to your competitor you'll be more or less forced to follow. I don't care for these kind of tactics and I'm 100% sure it has cost me big money, there are tons of SEO spammed sites in front of mine in google, I seriously hope that google will in the long run penalize the bejezus out of them.
Spam on sites like digg is really starting to piss me off as well because it starts to seriously look like every day a fairly large portion of the stuff that makes it to the front page is actually spammed up for the first 50 diggs. After that they seem to take on a momentum of their own. It can't be too hard for digg to pick up on patterns like that (user has 0 submissions, user always votes in tandem with a bunch of others), and then to disqualify those users. - rudy23, on 12/13/2007, -0/+6either ways I doubt this plea is going to make any difference to them
- JohnSteel, on 12/13/2007, -2/+8Just go to the Gaming -> Playable Web Games -> Upcoming section of Digg. 99% is spam.
- sl9sl9, on 12/13/2007, -0/+6That is because SEO spam almost never reaches the front page. If it did, I am sure that far more people would be enraged with it.
- pophysis, on 12/13/2007, -2/+7what is this ebay?
- verdebrook, on 12/13/2007, -0/+5I'm new to the community. I thought I was supposed to add new stories for what I find interesting. Is that not cool? Help.... Thanks.
- diidiiidiid, on 12/13/2007, -6/+11I think blogspam is far worse than SEOspam. When blogspam hit the front page people get really annoyed and want to murder the submitter. That doesn't happen with SEOspam....
- cambob76, on 12/13/2007, -1/+5Nevermind, I found it.
- Anteros, on 12/13/2007, -0/+4Sadly there are lots of websites selling tools to spam sites like digg, del.icio.us, myspace, youtube etc... The people who buy these just see these sites as extra spamming opportunities now that email spam is saturated.
- SteveMax, on 12/13/2007, -1/+4Digg should use nofollow for every post that didn't make it to the front page (possibly remove it after the post got to the front page, because that would signal good content). Doing it as they do, it's crazy. It's almost stupid not to spam on Digg.
- hollywoodphony, on 12/13/2007, -1/+4Wait a minute, you're telling me Mustafa Kubalami didn't really like my video??
- Neticule, on 12/13/2007, -0/+3You got it right :) what your NOT supposed to do, is submit your OWN websites that only contain spam. Alot of people submit spam websites, just dont do that and you will be ifne :P
- johneva, on 12/13/2007, -0/+3Good article digg from me and yeah it is already out of control same old with all SEO tactics people use they over use them and go way overkill turning into mass spam.
- jquipp, on 12/13/2007, -4/+7Many of these people aren't SEOs, just plain self promoters.
- Professr, on 12/13/2007, -0/+3I'm sure if we all concentrate hard enough and tell them to go away, they will magically vanish in a puff of smoke. As long as there is money in it for them, they will continue to do it. They have no care for ethics, morals, our wishes, or politeness. The only way to stop them is to ruin them financially.
- yutt, on 12/13/2007, -0/+3Blog spam can also be SEO spam. There is much more overlap than people are implying.
Hell, blog and SEO spam can even provide useful information or services, it all depends on how it is done. There's nothing wrong with tactful self-promotion, in my opinion. - BLOODCHALKER, on 12/13/2007, -1/+3Spam literacy - here is a link to free secret solution :)
- WShadow, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2Search Engine Optimization (just in case)
- WShadow, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2This is crazy and blatantly false. PR updates only happen every few months or so. Though I'm not saying sumbitting something to Digg doesn't have SEO benefits.
- bxblox, on 12/13/2007, -2/+4Theres a difference between self promotion and spamming. Theres nothing wrong with submitting your own content occasionally and if people are interested it will get more diggs, if they arent it'll drop out. Thats the way the system works... It is annoying to have people spamming with their stuff non stop but the occasional submission shouldnt be a problem.
- MacEnvy, on 12/13/2007, -1/+3Wait ... you were disappointed NOT to see Chris Crocker? You've got problems, dude.
- WShadow, on 12/13/2007, -1/+3When a SEO posts on a social media site, a SEO posts on a social media site. He's no worse than a "normal" normal user posting something. Why would his posting considered less worthy? Let me guess - it's because when you hear "SEO", you immediately imagine somebody submitting worthless, crappy stories just because all they want is that link. That describes the behaviour of a spammer, but it's not how good SEO works.
For one, a good SEO expert will submit good, or at least moderately interesting stories (as, one would hope, most normal users do), because it is *to their benefit*. Good stories get more votes (=more traffic) and relevant, well written articles do get ranked higher in search engines (the days of keyword stuffing are pretty much gone).
The average user posts something because (s)he thinks it's good, and (s)he wants others to see it.
The SEO worker posts something because (s)he thinks it's good, and (s)he needs others to see it ('others" including search engines).
The spammer posts something because (s)he wants others to see it ('others" including search engines).
Yes, some SEO people are spammers, but equating the two is completely wrong. - tightscrummy, on 12/13/2007, -2/+4Has this problem been brought to Ron Paul's attention? I know he'll fix it when he's elected, I was just wondering how.
- tightscrummy, on 12/13/2007, -1/+3Ebay is a website that allows people to run auctions. Your fifth grade teacher was right, punctuation does matter.
- zKman, on 12/13/2007, -8/+9GOOD ARTICLE WILL DIGG AGAIN A+++++++++++
- ninephoenixes, on 12/13/2007, -2/+3An acronym within an acronym. Freaky.
Anyways, I don't particularly mind when people submit their own stuff, just as long as they don't submit every stupid ***** thing that they post on their site that they should know won't in a million years get that many diggs. I figure that if it's an interesting article that people generally want to read, then it doesn't matter who submits it. I'm much more bothered by blog spammers. - haiduz, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1I think this should read:
RON PAUL Spammers: Leave Social Media Sites Alone! - keyme, on 12/13/2007, -3/+4What can I say, this kind of SEO works. It's a thing that I've tested myself. Submitting a PR 0 site to digg, boosts it to PR 3 in about 1 hour. This is crazy, but it's true. Google simply treats all pages on digg the same way, no matter how many diggs they get (unless they hit the front page, what really boosts things up).
- cambob76, on 12/13/2007, -4/+5For us who don't know.... What does SEO stand for?
- Waterrat, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1 try these miracle herbs,you will loose weight,stop aging,look ten years younger and be cured of the gout.
- strictnein, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1At least it isn't a recursive acronym - PHP, GNU, etc.
- inactive, on 12/25/2008, -0/+1Good saying
- sgtpppr, on 12/13/2007, -1/+2Well, a lot of people that post here run a blog and make money off the ads on it...so they of course think it is ok. It's easier to blame some chinese spammer and call them 'SEOs' and say that is the problem with social media sites.
- Goobernutz, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1If I bury this story as spam, will it affect the time/space continuum in any way? I'd better not, just in case.
- vdog, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1Now we just need some way to get rid of people like this.
- canandaiguan, on 01/11/2008, -0/+1hahahahahaha, brilliant. submit spam about spam. hahaha
- bxblox, on 12/14/2007, -0/+1PR increase within hours of doing anything just isnt true...
- WShadow, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1@Neticule : Surely you mean "what your NOT supposed to do, is submit your own websites that ONLY CONTAIN SPAM."
- vdog, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1No, no-one had to.
- BartTheBear, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1I am a "Traffic Optimizer"
Since the LA Times partnered with Mixx, does this mean that the articles that get posted to Mixx, and optimized for the Mixx search engine, are SEO spam? It will certainly effect the SERPs for these articles as Mixx does not use the "nofollow" tag in their links.
I like the 50 to one ratio. Makes it more palatable anyway. That is my practice with the other social sites. I actually suggest one per page at most. I don't do it all all in Digg.com though, accept for clients, which I don't have any at the moment, because Digg is rather strict about it. - 22pages, on 12/14/2007, -1/+2Most people don't get it. The SEO benefit from social media sites comes from the people that read the articles and then link to them from their blogs etc. If you don't link to the articles you see on digg, spammers will stop submitting their sotires.
- ernasty10050, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1this article is very good!
*bleep blorp* - masona3, on 12/13/2007, -2/+3I've said it before and I will say it again - search engine optimization (SEO) is complete *****. I've posted about this on Digg before when articles about SEO have made it to the front page. I actually got an honorable mention in a rather popular SEO blog for my last comment about this subject. The blog's author badly misinterpreted my comment about properly tagging web documents and he cried about it in one of his entries. (I think he thought that I was making reference to meta tags when I was, in fact, talking about using the correct doctype, making sure that your HTML and CSS tags are W3C compatible, using relavent keywords in your content, etcetera - nothing that the average slimeball "SEO specialist" would know anything about.)
Plain and simple, SEO is the digital equivalent of the "get rich quick" scheme. It really is too good to be true. You can cheat your way to the top but you're not going to stay there. There is no substitute for good site design, interesting and original content, proper tags, and good old fashioned reputation. It always wins out in the long run. -
Show 51 - 68 of 68 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