That is unfortunate that a social news website would have to take measures such as these per request of a user. Especially when the author is creating quality content, not submitting articles that are bury-worthy.
Paul
· 1 year ago
That is unfortunate that a social news website would have to take measures such as these per request of a user. Especially when the author is creating quality content, not submitting articles that are bury-worthy.
Antony Berkman
· 1 year ago
Hey Andy,
Have you ever had a post make it to the front page of Digg?
Tony
AndyBeard
· 1 year ago
The closest was breaking the PageRank penalties for lots of top blogs last October.
I was the top story on Techmeme, and linked to from 300-400 blogs, but the story was buried in 2 hours at 70 votes, but still went on to gain around 150.
The title was a little provocative, "Digg Favorites Slapped By Google" but the list of sites included half of Weblogs Inc, Forbes etc, I think that title was justified.
But no, I have never had a story front page on Digg - but that isn't really the point.
Digg is meant to be democratic, and they have now stated they don't manually moderate, it is all algorithm.
Fair enough, though algorithms can make mistakes. A high percentage of the comments I leave get caught in Akismet, yet I am not a comment spammer, and when I link to someone, it is a real link referencing them.
I just don't want people to waste their time in future - if Digg don't want my content, I am happy with that, but don't deceive my readers into thinking they are somehow helping me by promoting my stories on a service that doesn't want my content.
Antony Berkman
· 1 year ago
Hey Andy,
Have you ever had a post make it to the front page of Digg?
Tony
AndyBeard
· 1 year ago
The closest was breaking the PageRank penalties for lots of top blogs last October.
I was the top story on Techmeme, and linked to from 300-400 blogs, but the story was buried in 2 hours at 70 votes, but still went on to gain around 150.
The title was a little provocative, "Digg Favorites Slapped By Google" but the list of sites included half of Weblogs Inc, Forbes etc, I think that title was justified.
But no, I have never had a story front page on Digg - but that isn't really the point.
Digg is meant to be democratic, and they have now stated they don't manually moderate, it is all algorithm.
Fair enough, though algorithms can make mistakes. A high percentage of the comments I leave get caught in Akismet, yet I am not a comment spammer, and when I link to someone, it is a real link referencing them.
I just don't want people to waste their time in future - if Digg don't want my content, I am happy with that, but don't deceive my readers into thinking they are somehow helping me by promoting my stories on a service that doesn't want my content.
Antony Berkman
· 1 year ago
Andy, I understand that my question isn't the total point though given the quality of your posts and often times you provide objective analysis that others are afraid to write about, it would seem that over time you would have shown up. I realize it isn't conclusive evidence to say that because you have never made it to the home page that are somehow being penalized, however given the nature of your content, it certainly is relevant to what you are saying.
Antony Berkman
· 1 year ago
Andy, I understand that my question isn't the total point though given the quality of your posts and often times you provide objective analysis that others are afraid to write about, it would seem that over time you would have shown up. I realize it isn't conclusive evidence to say that because you have never made it to the home page that are somehow being penalized, however given the nature of your content, it certainly is relevant to what you are saying.
Bibokz
· 1 year ago
Hi Andy,
Since when are you using digg? How much daily traffic do you get on it?
Thanks, Bibokz
AndyBeard
· 1 year ago
Digg isn't about getting traffic, it is about sharing great news stories. If that happens to be on my blog or someone elses blog it doesn't matter. I have submitted stuff that has sent 100,000 visitors to someone else's site.
For me there is no difference between a story of mine gaining 1000 or 100,000 views, what matters is that something that is news "gets out there" to people who are interested in it.
I would honestly be more than happy even if someone grabbed or ripped off one of my articles and got a front page Digg on another site. At least the point of view would be expressed, however remotely.
Bibokz
· 1 year ago
Hi Andy,
Since when are you using digg? How much daily traffic do you get on it?
Thanks, Bibokz
AndyBeard
· 1 year ago
Digg isn't about getting traffic, it is about sharing great news stories. If that happens to be on my blog or someone elses blog it doesn't matter. I have submitted stuff that has sent 100,000 visitors to someone else's site.
For me there is no difference between a story of mine gaining 1000 or 100,000 views, what matters is that something that is news "gets out there" to people who are interested in it.
I would honestly be more than happy even if someone grabbed or ripped off one of my articles and got a front page Digg on another site. At least the point of view would be expressed, however remotely.
Kobra
· 1 year ago
Wow, that really sucks. I dugg this page.
Kobra
· 1 year ago
Wow, that really sucks. I dugg this page.
sharky
· 1 year ago
I never realized how "cliquey" DIGG has become, until I started to visit it on a daily basis. A well-known writer can develop over 1,000 diggs in the first 24 hours for even the crappiest of stories - and it sits on the "HOT" feature page. Nowadays, everyone votes just because they know the site, or 'of' the writer. It seems that 'fans' are now just pedantically clicking for fear of 'not clicking'.
Don't get me wrong - DIGG is a great site for finding new content and stories. But I'm becoming 'Digg-Blind' and realize that the number of DIGGS has absolutely nothing to do with a particular article's solidness, merit, and more importantly - it's creativeness. Digg is starting to remind me of a schoolbus with all the cool kids sitting at the back, or how you look at all the people sitting in the first class of an airplane, and you (in coach) have to walk past them first.
---Sharky
sharky
· 1 year ago
I never realized how "cliquey" DIGG has become, until I started to visit it on a daily basis. A well-known writer can develop over 1,000 diggs in the first 24 hours for even the crappiest of stories - and it sits on the "HOT" feature page. Nowadays, everyone votes just because they know the site, or 'of' the writer. It seems that 'fans' are now just pedantically clicking for fear of 'not clicking'.
Don't get me wrong - DIGG is a great site for finding new content and stories. But I'm becoming 'Digg-Blind' and realize that the number of DIGGS has absolutely nothing to do with a particular article's solidness, merit, and more importantly - it's creativeness. Digg is starting to remind me of a schoolbus with all the cool kids sitting at the back, or how you look at all the people sitting in the first class of an airplane, and you (in coach) have to walk past them first.
---Sharky
Linda Bustos
· 1 year ago
Digg should bury itself. Sheesh.
I like how you explain you're not in it for the traffic, it's about spreading great knowledge. Unfortunately, Diggs can happen simply because someone thinks a headline is cool (doesn't read content) or some buddy sent a shout to 10,000 friends who will vote it up so that buddy will keep them on the friend list...or something like that.
AndyBeard
· 1 year ago
Linda maybe, but it should be an outlet for genuine news or good discussion articles whatever the source.
Linda Bustos
· 1 year ago
Digg should bury itself. Sheesh.
I like how you explain you're not in it for the traffic, it's about spreading great knowledge. Unfortunately, Diggs can happen simply because someone thinks a headline is cool (doesn't read content) or some buddy sent a shout to 10,000 friends who will vote it up so that buddy will keep them on the friend list...or something like that.
AndyBeard
· 1 year ago
Linda maybe, but it should be an outlet for genuine news or good discussion articles whatever the source.
Damien Riley
· 1 year ago
This post is classic, funny, and true!
One thing that bothers me about DIGG is all the red tape you have to fill out to digg something. They really should figure something else out.
Cool post Andy.
Damien Riley
· 1 year ago
This post is classic, funny, and true!
One thing that bothers me about DIGG is all the red tape you have to fill out to digg something. They really should figure something else out.
Cool post Andy.
Antony Berkman
· 1 year ago
Damien, you're so right.
This is a classic post!
It's serious yet hilarious.
Antony Berkman
· 1 year ago
Damien, you're so right.
This is a classic post!
It's serious yet hilarious.
James Mortensson
· 1 year ago
I have ditched digg in favor of presscue, and I am really happy with it.
It allows for anonymous posting, voting, and commenting, which for me is great because I hate signing up for new services.
James Mortensson
· 1 year ago
I have ditched digg in favor of presscue, and I am really happy with it.
It allows for anonymous posting, voting, and commenting, which for me is great because I hate signing up for new services.
Matt Barnes
· 1 year ago
Hi Andy,
I am really sorry to hear this has happened to you. It took 17 submissions from my site before I realised that myself and my friends were wasting a lot of time and effort.
Auto-bury for blacklisted URLs usually occurs between 20-25 diggs. I had a rather public falling out with digg as a result and have discovered that it is in fact quite common.
Anyway I can help let me know, you may like to read this:
Matt for me it is very much a black or white situation
I really don't want Digg users wasting their time, however infrequently, digging a story that will end up autoburied.
If my content isn't allowed to go popular, I would much prefer it to be prevented from submission.
Matt Barnes
· 1 year ago
Hi Andy,
I am really sorry to hear this has happened to you. It took 17 submissions from my site before I realised that myself and my friends were wasting a lot of time and effort.
Auto-bury for blacklisted URLs usually occurs between 20-25 diggs. I had a rather public falling out with digg as a result and have discovered that it is in fact quite common.
Anyway I can help let me know, you may like to read this:
Matt for me it is very much a black or white situation
I really don't want Digg users wasting their time, however infrequently, digging a story that will end up autoburied.
If my content isn't allowed to go popular, I would much prefer it to be prevented from submission.
WHY CORNER
· 1 year ago
I feel really sorry about this unfortunate thing, but I must say that you have got "guts", man.
WHY CORNER
· 1 year ago
I feel really sorry about this unfortunate thing, but I must say that you have got "guts", man.
ojbyrne
· 1 year ago
The digg founder you never hear about read this (and empathizes). Don't know about digg staff, since I no longer work there.
It actually seems like a reasonable feature request, letting sites ban themselves from digg.
ojbyrne
· 1 year ago
The digg founder you never hear about read this (and empathizes). Don't know about digg staff, since I no longer work there.
It actually seems like a reasonable feature request, letting sites ban themselves from digg.
chloe baby
· 1 year ago
This is an unfortunate situation. There must be an alterbative to using DIGG. Digg really needs to be sorted out, so much red tape.
chloe baby
· 1 year ago
This is an unfortunate situation. There must be an alterbative to using DIGG. Digg really needs to be sorted out, so much red tape.
Maki
· 1 year ago
Digg has flat out denied the existence of auto-bury in the recent Townhall meeting although I still see instances of it happening to many sites. Should we give them the benefit of the doubt and keep trying? It's hard to say. On the other hand, what evidence can we muster against them to confirm that hidden penalties exist?
Whatever evidence we have will not be definitive because their system is set up in a way whereby buries are not transparent. I.E Hidden factors can influence the visibility of stories. It's very easy for Digg to suggest that the story was buried by users, and indeed that's usually the response I get when I email Digg.
I'm irritated that my site is on the list as well although I don't really care too much about it. I don't think its a waste of time that people are voting and submitting your stuff...not every article has the opportunity to reach the frontpage although in the process of getting buried, you may get a few visitors in return.
Is that worth it? Maybe.
Maki
· 1 year ago
Digg has flat out denied the existence of auto-bury in the recent Townhall meeting although I still see instances of it happening to many sites. Should we give them the benefit of the doubt and keep trying? It's hard to say. On the other hand, what evidence can we muster against them to confirm that hidden penalties exist?
Whatever evidence we have will not be definitive because their system is set up in a way whereby buries are not transparent. I.E Hidden factors can influence the visibility of stories. It's very easy for Digg to suggest that the story was buried by users, and indeed that's usually the response I get when I email Digg.
I'm irritated that my site is on the list as well although I don't really care too much about it. I don't think its a waste of time that people are voting and submitting your stuff...not every article has the opportunity to reach the frontpage although in the process of getting buried, you may get a few visitors in return.
Is that worth it? Maybe.
Chris
· 1 year ago
I read somewhere else--I can't remember which blog, but it was another popular one about web marketing and earning money online--and he was writing about how he thought he was on autobury too.
I have to be honest about Digg. It's just getting kind of creepy over there. It can't be counted on to deliver traffic. It's such a fickle environment. They play favorites over there. Frankly, I'm tired of hearing about the site.
But look at you, 3000 subscribers without digg. that goes to show you what good content will do for you. who needs digg?
Chris
· 1 year ago
I read somewhere else--I can't remember which blog, but it was another popular one about web marketing and earning money online--and he was writing about how he thought he was on autobury too.
I have to be honest about Digg. It's just getting kind of creepy over there. It can't be counted on to deliver traffic. It's such a fickle environment. They play favorites over there. Frankly, I'm tired of hearing about the site.
But look at you, 3000 subscribers without digg. that goes to show you what good content will do for you. who needs digg?
There is also a "block Digg" code linked in it you might want to use.
Digg does not want read ABOUT marketing or SEO, they prefer to get marketing and SEO messages served instead. Ads Apple, WII and the likes do not even have to be duisgised as articles.
AndyBeard
· 1 year ago
Tad I am aware of the block Digg code, but that doesn't help the situation. It doesn't prevent a story being submitted.
I am fully aware Digg doesn't want to read about marketing or SEO, but there is a whole load of news I highlighted in my article which is Digg worthy, from multiple sources, not just my blog.
There is also a "block Digg" code linked in it you might want to use.
Digg does not want read ABOUT marketing or SEO, they prefer to get marketing and SEO messages served instead. Ads Apple, WII and the likes do not even have to be duisgised as articles.
AndyBeard
· 1 year ago
Tad I am aware of the block Digg code, but that doesn't help the situation. It doesn't prevent a story being submitted.
I am fully aware Digg doesn't want to read about marketing or SEO, but there is a whole load of news I highlighted in my article which is Digg worthy, from multiple sources, not just my blog.
Jim McNeli
· 1 year ago
Keep writing stuff like this.
Jim McNeli
· 1 year ago
Keep writing stuff like this.
Brant Tedeschi
· 1 year ago
Stop crying because your stories don't get on digg's frontpage. Now because your blog posts didn't get on its frontpage, you write a blog 'asking to get blocked' as a last ditch effort to FINALLY get dugg.
I have seen some lame things in my day, but wow.
AndyBeard
· 1 year ago
You obviously didn't read the article
Nothing related to MyBlogLog has made it to the Digg front page in over a year - I feel that is pretty significant considering all the news items that have been written about them, not just on my blog but Techcrunch , ReadWriteWeb and others.
What they are doing with the social web is interesting, and their API is very powerful.
At the same time I would love something to do with Blogcatalog to have made it because they have also got an interesting API and activity stream fetures, but Digg would prefer fabricated top 10 lists rather than news.
I could delve into news of other services I cover, this was just the most recent.
If news related to these services is going to be buried by an algorithm, then why waste people's time even allowing them to be submitted to Digg.
Brant Tedeschi
· 1 year ago
Stop crying because your stories don't get on digg's frontpage. Now because your blog posts didn't get on its frontpage, you write a blog 'asking to get blocked' as a last ditch effort to FINALLY get dugg.
I have seen some lame things in my day, but wow.
AndyBeard
· 1 year ago
You obviously didn't read the article
Nothing related to MyBlogLog has made it to the Digg front page in over a year - I feel that is pretty significant considering all the news items that have been written about them, not just on my blog but Techcrunch , ReadWriteWeb and others.
What they are doing with the social web is interesting, and their API is very powerful.
At the same time I would love something to do with Blogcatalog to have made it because they have also got an interesting API and activity stream fetures, but Digg would prefer fabricated top 10 lists rather than news.
I could delve into news of other services I cover, this was just the most recent.
If news related to these services is going to be buried by an algorithm, then why waste people's time even allowing them to be submitted to Digg.
Buck
· 1 year ago
Didn't you know that SEO is a bad word? Nobody says you have to use digg.
AndyBeard
· 1 year ago
Did you know that comment spam by people who didn't even bother to read the article is frowned upon around here?
Whilst my site does cover marketing and SEO related content sometimes, I wouldn't dream of encouraging that content to be submitted to Digg in any way.
However when I write about other topics, such as various social networks, often my coverage covers a lot more angles than is normally presented on many technology blogs. I rarely get press releases sent to me, so all the content is 100% original material based on real usage.
Buck
· 1 year ago
Didn't you know that SEO is a bad word? Nobody says you have to use digg.
AndyBeard
· 1 year ago
Did you know that comment spam by people who didn't even bother to read the article is frowned upon around here?
Whilst my site does cover marketing and SEO related content sometimes, I wouldn't dream of encouraging that content to be submitted to Digg in any way.
However when I write about other topics, such as various social networks, often my coverage covers a lot more angles than is normally presented on many technology blogs. I rarely get press releases sent to me, so all the content is 100% original material based on real usage.
Cristian Mezei
· 1 year ago
I dugged it. And I agree with you about the penalization.
Cristian Mezei
· 1 year ago
I dugged it. And I agree with you about the penalization.
Melanie Phung
· 1 year ago
Well, looks like I can't digg you, so I had to settle for sphinning you instead. Oh, how unsatisfying.
Melanie Phung
· 1 year ago
Well, looks like I can't digg you, so I had to settle for sphinning you instead. Oh, how unsatisfying.
Dom Parker
· 1 year ago
I'm sorry, but this post did seem a little bit of a whine.
Maybe there is the possiblity that there is no 'auto-bury' like Digg has said, and your stories just aren't quite front page Digg worthy. Have you considered that?
Dom Parker
· 1 year ago
I'm sorry, but this post did seem a little bit of a whine.
Maybe there is the possiblity that there is no 'auto-bury' like Digg has said, and your stories just aren't quite front page Digg worthy. Have you considered that?
Cristian Mezei
· 1 year ago
Maybe there is the possiblity that there is no 'auto-bury' like Digg has said
Dom, if you're not a doctor, please don't try to open up people. They'll die!
Cristian Mezei
· 1 year ago
Maybe there is the possiblity that there is no 'auto-bury' like Digg has said
Dom, if you're not a doctor, please don't try to open up people. They'll die!
Nicole V.
· 1 year ago
I had no idea it was so political. Here I thought it was actually users voting for stories that they truly thought were newsworthy. I guess this happens wherever there is a chance for power to be had. Once someone gets that feeling, of being powerful over others, it becomes very intoxicating. Oh well, people will still find you! :)
Nicole V.
· 1 year ago
I had no idea it was so political. Here I thought it was actually users voting for stories that they truly thought were newsworthy. I guess this happens wherever there is a chance for power to be had. Once someone gets that feeling, of being powerful over others, it becomes very intoxicating. Oh well, people will still find you! :)
bpm140
· 1 year ago
Andy -- that sucks. Do you know anyone over at Digg?
AndyBeard
· 1 year ago
Eric I think it sucks more for the guys I cover like MyBlogLog, Blogcatalog, PayPerPost etc than it does for me, as they are the ones not gaining exposure, or in the case of PPP unbiased reporting in other places.
As an example the MBL API is seriously cool, but no article about it has made Digg popular - Kent's one I think only received single figure Diggs.
I don't know anyone directly at Digg (SF is a long way from Poland), but even the people who do don't seem to be able to get these issues cleared up... in much the same way we can't get Google to come clean on many things.
bpm140
· 1 year ago
Andy -- that sucks. Do you know anyone over at Digg?
AndyBeard
· 1 year ago
Eric I think it sucks more for the guys I cover like MyBlogLog, Blogcatalog, PayPerPost etc than it does for me, as they are the ones not gaining exposure, or in the case of PPP unbiased reporting in other places.
As an example the MBL API is seriously cool, but no article about it has made Digg popular - Kent's one I think only received single figure Diggs.
I don't know anyone directly at Digg (SF is a long way from Poland), but even the people who do don't seem to be able to get these issues cleared up... in much the same way we can't get Google to come clean on many things.
Dexter | Techathand.net
· 1 year ago
Digg is not that type of Social bookmark that i like,. In fact last 2 weeks ago I also said at my blog that I hate Digg. But this is the first post that I saw saying his site to be banned..
That is great.. And I like you mention that you achieve 3000 readers without gaming the social Bookmark site.
That is something to be proud of.
Happy blogging
Dexter | Techathand.net
· 1 year ago
Digg is not that type of Social bookmark that i like,. In fact last 2 weeks ago I also said at my blog that I hate Digg. But this is the first post that I saw saying his site to be banned..
That is great.. And I like you mention that you achieve 3000 readers without gaming the social Bookmark site.
That is something to be proud of.
Happy blogging
TzuVelli
· 1 year ago
Hi Andy,
I am a bit confused. Is your point that Digg seems to autobury your articles? Or, is your point that Digg seems to autobury stories related to certain other social media sites like MBL and MBC? Or, is your point that Digg's new algorithm has too many inherent hidden penalties to make it worth using?
Your last statement seems a bit rye.
but above all I am sick of people voting for my content knowing the votes are worthless.
Are you saying that your readers votes are worthless unless they propel your article to Digg's front page? Are you saying that only Digg's front page has value and no other aspect of Digg has any value?
I like your blog and have learned a lot by reading it. I am a bit surprised by this post. It seems as if you are saying that unless you are one of the popular kids you do not want to play.
Good luck. I am not sure this post will have the effect on your readers, Digg, or your reputation that you may have expected.
AndyBeard
· 1 year ago
It used to be a case that people using Digg would look at a collective page of the stories their friends had submitted or voted on.
Now with the new Digg design, that view is almost useless, and the majority of Diggers I know look at the upcoming page sorted by most Diggs.
If a story gets buried or autoburied, it is removed from upcoming, so many Dig users won't see it, even if they are friends.
In addition, because many Digg users know this is how it works, they won't even bother to vote for articles they enjoy, because they know that the content won't be seen anyway - all they will be doing by voting is accelerating its demise.
TzuVelli
· 1 year ago
Digg's environment is a bit acidic for me. So, I have not made a priority of using the site. However, I think I understand your point.
From what you are describing, it seems that Digg once had more of a group emphasis. Where as now it has more of a site emphasis. Causing a bit of a clash of cultures. I can see how the change in emphasis would make some users feel disenfranchised, devaluing their participation.
As I said, I do not use Digg. But, I think i understand your perspective now.
TzuVelli
· 1 year ago
Hi Andy,
I am a bit confused. Is your point that Digg seems to autobury your articles? Or, is your point that Digg seems to autobury stories related to certain other social media sites like MBL and MBC? Or, is your point that Digg's new algorithm has too many inherent hidden penalties to make it worth using?
Your last statement seems a bit rye.
but above all I am sick of people voting for my content knowing the votes are worthless.
Are you saying that your readers votes are worthless unless they propel your article to Digg's front page? Are you saying that only Digg's front page has value and no other aspect of Digg has any value?
I like your blog and have learned a lot by reading it. I am a bit surprised by this post. It seems as if you are saying that unless you are one of the popular kids you do not want to play.
Good luck. I am not sure this post will have the effect on your readers, Digg, or your reputation that you may have expected.
AndyBeard
· 1 year ago
It used to be a case that people using Digg would look at a collective page of the stories their friends had submitted or voted on.
Now with the new Digg design, that view is almost useless, and the majority of Diggers I know look at the upcoming page sorted by most Diggs.
If a story gets buried or autoburied, it is removed from upcoming, so many Dig users won't see it, even if they are friends.
In addition, because many Digg users know this is how it works, they won't even bother to vote for articles they enjoy, because they know that the content won't be seen anyway - all they will be doing by voting is accelerating its demise.
TzuVelli
· 1 year ago
Digg's environment is a bit acidic for me. So, I have not made a priority of using the site. However, I think I understand your point.
From what you are describing, it seems that Digg once had more of a group emphasis. Where as now it has more of a site emphasis. Causing a bit of a clash of cultures. I can see how the change in emphasis would make some users feel disenfranchised, devaluing their participation.
As I said, I do not use Digg. But, I think i understand your perspective now.
Cristian Mezei
· 1 year ago
Good luck. I am not sure this post will have the effect on your readers, Digg, or your reputation that you may have expected.
This is the biggest error you made in your article. Do you really think that by even writing such lines Andy's audience or reputation would go down the drain ?
It's a no-brainer. if you ever want to look smart, you leave things discoverable by readers, not state them out-loud. if you did that, then .. well .. there are no brains involved.
Moreover, Andy just blogs about things he likes or dislikes. And since he's an Internet marketer like most of other guys around the web, he especially deals with websites like Digg.
IMHO, the Digg team have been pushed so many times by their own users because they made mistakes. The fact that they have an internal auto-bury filter is so obvious by many of us.
They probably, in their own meeting place talked and made it to get rid of spamming websites.
Our problem is that they auto-catalogue anything from the SEO/SEM field as SPAM simply because we know web tricks and sometimes know how to get ahead of others.
Now there's the BS. And it's not Andy's BS.
I hope this sums it up.
TzuVelli
· 1 year ago
Crisitian,
Please do not misunderstand my comment. It is not an attack on Andy. I have a lot of respect for him. I was simply pointing out that certain aspects of the post could be misconstrued and may not have the desired affect. Unfortunately, for many, perception is fact.
Do you really think that by even writing such lines Andy's audience or reputation would go down the drain ?
Absolutely not.
Cristian Mezei
· 1 year ago
Good luck. I am not sure this post will have the effect on your readers, Digg, or your reputation that you may have expected.
This is the biggest error you made in your article. Do you really think that by even writing such lines Andy's audience or reputation would go down the drain ?
It's a no-brainer. if you ever want to look smart, you leave things discoverable by readers, not state them out-loud. if you did that, then .. well .. there are no brains involved.
Moreover, Andy just blogs about things he likes or dislikes. And since he's an Internet marketer like most of other guys around the web, he especially deals with websites like Digg.
IMHO, the Digg team have been pushed so many times by their own users because they made mistakes. The fact that they have an internal auto-bury filter is so obvious by many of us.
They probably, in their own meeting place talked and made it to get rid of spamming websites.
Our problem is that they auto-catalogue anything from the SEO/SEM field as SPAM simply because we know web tricks and sometimes know how to get ahead of others.
Now there's the BS. And it's not Andy's BS.
I hope this sums it up.
TzuVelli
· 1 year ago
Crisitian,
Please do not misunderstand my comment. It is not an attack on Andy. I have a lot of respect for him. I was simply pointing out that certain aspects of the post could be misconstrued and may not have the desired affect. Unfortunately, for many, perception is fact.
Do you really think that by even writing such lines Andy's audience or reputation would go down the drain ?
Absolutely not.
Cristian Mezei
· 1 year ago
It seems I misunderstood you then. I am sorry.
The last part of my comment (about Andy and Digg) still stands.
Cristian Mezei
· 1 year ago
It seems I misunderstood you then. I am sorry.
The last part of my comment (about Andy and Digg) still stands.
Danny at Campfield House
· 1 year ago
Surprised you would even mention Digg. It's such a 'yesterday' site. Now if you were banned from Mixx, well that would be a story!
Danny at Campfield House
· 1 year ago
Surprised you would even mention Digg. It's such a 'yesterday' site. Now if you were banned from Mixx, well that would be a story!
igorthetroll
· 1 year ago
Andy, you should talk to Tamar Weinberg. Maybe she can help you with Kevin Rose.
She had her own grievances with him a little while back!
As far as MBL goes there is an interesting thing on the horizon, just keep an eye on it. ;-)
igorthetroll
· 1 year ago
Andy, you should talk to Tamar Weinberg. Maybe she can help you with Kevin Rose.
She had her own grievances with him a little while back!
As far as MBL goes there is an interesting thing on the horizon, just keep an eye on it. ;-)
All Comments
Have you ever had a post make it to the front page of Digg?
Tony
I was the top story on Techmeme, and linked to from 300-400 blogs, but the story was buried in 2 hours at 70 votes, but still went on to gain around 150.
The title was a little provocative, "Digg Favorites Slapped By Google" but the list of sites included half of Weblogs Inc, Forbes etc, I think that title was justified.
But no, I have never had a story front page on Digg - but that isn't really the point.
Digg is meant to be democratic, and they have now stated they don't manually moderate, it is all algorithm.
Fair enough, though algorithms can make mistakes. A high percentage of the comments I leave get caught in Akismet, yet I am not a comment spammer, and when I link to someone, it is a real link referencing them.
I just don't want people to waste their time in future - if Digg don't want my content, I am happy with that, but don't deceive my readers into thinking they are somehow helping me by promoting my stories on a service that doesn't want my content.
Have you ever had a post make it to the front page of Digg?
Tony
I was the top story on Techmeme, and linked to from 300-400 blogs, but the story was buried in 2 hours at 70 votes, but still went on to gain around 150.
The title was a little provocative, "Digg Favorites Slapped By Google" but the list of sites included half of Weblogs Inc, Forbes etc, I think that title was justified.
But no, I have never had a story front page on Digg - but that isn't really the point.
Digg is meant to be democratic, and they have now stated they don't manually moderate, it is all algorithm.
Fair enough, though algorithms can make mistakes. A high percentage of the comments I leave get caught in Akismet, yet I am not a comment spammer, and when I link to someone, it is a real link referencing them.
I just don't want people to waste their time in future - if Digg don't want my content, I am happy with that, but don't deceive my readers into thinking they are somehow helping me by promoting my stories on a service that doesn't want my content.
Since when are you using digg? How much daily traffic do you get on it?
Thanks,
Bibokz
If that happens to be on my blog or someone elses blog it doesn't matter. I have submitted stuff that has sent 100,000 visitors to someone else's site.
For me there is no difference between a story of mine gaining 1000 or 100,000 views, what matters is that something that is news "gets out there" to people who are interested in it.
I would honestly be more than happy even if someone grabbed or ripped off one of my articles and got a front page Digg on another site. At least the point of view would be expressed, however remotely.
Since when are you using digg? How much daily traffic do you get on it?
Thanks,
Bibokz
If that happens to be on my blog or someone elses blog it doesn't matter. I have submitted stuff that has sent 100,000 visitors to someone else's site.
For me there is no difference between a story of mine gaining 1000 or 100,000 views, what matters is that something that is news "gets out there" to people who are interested in it.
I would honestly be more than happy even if someone grabbed or ripped off one of my articles and got a front page Digg on another site. At least the point of view would be expressed, however remotely.
Don't get me wrong - DIGG is a great site for finding new content and stories. But I'm becoming 'Digg-Blind' and realize that the number of DIGGS has absolutely nothing to do with a particular article's solidness, merit, and more importantly - it's creativeness. Digg is starting to remind me of a schoolbus with all the cool kids sitting at the back, or how you look at all the people sitting in the first class of an airplane, and you (in coach) have to walk past them first.
---Sharky
Don't get me wrong - DIGG is a great site for finding new content and stories. But I'm becoming 'Digg-Blind' and realize that the number of DIGGS has absolutely nothing to do with a particular article's solidness, merit, and more importantly - it's creativeness. Digg is starting to remind me of a schoolbus with all the cool kids sitting at the back, or how you look at all the people sitting in the first class of an airplane, and you (in coach) have to walk past them first.
---Sharky
I like how you explain you're not in it for the traffic, it's about spreading great knowledge. Unfortunately, Diggs can happen simply because someone thinks a headline is cool (doesn't read content) or some buddy sent a shout to 10,000 friends who will vote it up so that buddy will keep them on the friend list...or something like that.
I like how you explain you're not in it for the traffic, it's about spreading great knowledge. Unfortunately, Diggs can happen simply because someone thinks a headline is cool (doesn't read content) or some buddy sent a shout to 10,000 friends who will vote it up so that buddy will keep them on the friend list...or something like that.
One thing that bothers me about DIGG is all the red tape you have to fill out to digg something. They really should figure something else out.
Cool post Andy.
One thing that bothers me about DIGG is all the red tape you have to fill out to digg something. They really should figure something else out.
Cool post Andy.
This is a classic post!
It's serious yet hilarious.
This is a classic post!
It's serious yet hilarious.
It allows for anonymous posting, voting, and commenting, which for me is great because I hate signing up for new services.
It allows for anonymous posting, voting, and commenting, which for me is great because I hate signing up for new services.
I am really sorry to hear this has happened to you. It took 17 submissions from my site before I realised that myself and my friends were wasting a lot of time and effort.
Auto-bury for blacklisted URLs usually occurs between 20-25 diggs. I had a rather public falling out with digg as a result and have discovered that it is in fact quite common.
Anyway I can help let me know, you may like to read this:
http://howtowritefortheweb.blogspot.com/2008/02...
I really don't want Digg users wasting their time, however infrequently, digging a story that will end up autoburied.
If my content isn't allowed to go popular, I would much prefer it to be prevented from submission.
I am really sorry to hear this has happened to you. It took 17 submissions from my site before I realised that myself and my friends were wasting a lot of time and effort.
Auto-bury for blacklisted URLs usually occurs between 20-25 diggs. I had a rather public falling out with digg as a result and have discovered that it is in fact quite common.
Anyway I can help let me know, you may like to read this:
http://howtowritefortheweb.blogspot.com/2008/02...
I really don't want Digg users wasting their time, however infrequently, digging a story that will end up autoburied.
If my content isn't allowed to go popular, I would much prefer it to be prevented from submission.
It actually seems like a reasonable feature request, letting sites ban themselves from digg.
It actually seems like a reasonable feature request, letting sites ban themselves from digg.
Whatever evidence we have will not be definitive because their system is set up in a way whereby buries are not transparent. I.E Hidden factors can influence the visibility of stories. It's very easy for Digg to suggest that the story was buried by users, and indeed that's usually the response I get when I email Digg.
I'm irritated that my site is on the list as well although I don't really care too much about it. I don't think its a waste of time that people are voting and submitting your stuff...not every article has the opportunity to reach the frontpage although in the process of getting buried, you may get a few visitors in return.
Is that worth it? Maybe.
Whatever evidence we have will not be definitive because their system is set up in a way whereby buries are not transparent. I.E Hidden factors can influence the visibility of stories. It's very easy for Digg to suggest that the story was buried by users, and indeed that's usually the response I get when I email Digg.
I'm irritated that my site is on the list as well although I don't really care too much about it. I don't think its a waste of time that people are voting and submitting your stuff...not every article has the opportunity to reach the frontpage although in the process of getting buried, you may get a few visitors in return.
Is that worth it? Maybe.
I have to be honest about Digg. It's just getting kind of creepy over there. It can't be counted on to deliver traffic. It's such a fickle environment. They play favorites over there. Frankly, I'm tired of hearing about the site.
But look at you, 3000 subscribers without digg. that goes to show you what good content will do for you. who needs digg?
I have to be honest about Digg. It's just getting kind of creepy over there. It can't be counted on to deliver traffic. It's such a fickle environment. They play favorites over there. Frankly, I'm tired of hearing about the site.
But look at you, 3000 subscribers without digg. that goes to show you what good content will do for you. who needs digg?
There is also a "block Digg" code linked in it you might want to use.
Digg does not want read ABOUT marketing or SEO, they prefer to get marketing and SEO messages served instead. Ads Apple, WII and the likes do not even have to be duisgised as articles.
I am fully aware Digg doesn't want to read about marketing or SEO, but there is a whole load of news I highlighted in my article which is Digg worthy, from multiple sources, not just my blog.
There is also a "block Digg" code linked in it you might want to use.
Digg does not want read ABOUT marketing or SEO, they prefer to get marketing and SEO messages served instead. Ads Apple, WII and the likes do not even have to be duisgised as articles.
I am fully aware Digg doesn't want to read about marketing or SEO, but there is a whole load of news I highlighted in my article which is Digg worthy, from multiple sources, not just my blog.
I have seen some lame things in my day, but wow.
Nothing related to MyBlogLog has made it to the Digg front page in over a year - I feel that is pretty significant considering all the news items that have been written about them, not just on my blog but Techcrunch , ReadWriteWeb and others.
What they are doing with the social web is interesting, and their API is very powerful.
At the same time I would love something to do with Blogcatalog to have made it because they have also got an interesting API and activity stream fetures, but Digg would prefer fabricated top 10 lists rather than news.
I could delve into news of other services I cover, this was just the most recent.
If news related to these services is going to be buried by an algorithm, then why waste people's time even allowing them to be submitted to Digg.
I have seen some lame things in my day, but wow.
Nothing related to MyBlogLog has made it to the Digg front page in over a year - I feel that is pretty significant considering all the news items that have been written about them, not just on my blog but Techcrunch , ReadWriteWeb and others.
What they are doing with the social web is interesting, and their API is very powerful.
At the same time I would love something to do with Blogcatalog to have made it because they have also got an interesting API and activity stream fetures, but Digg would prefer fabricated top 10 lists rather than news.
I could delve into news of other services I cover, this was just the most recent.
If news related to these services is going to be buried by an algorithm, then why waste people's time even allowing them to be submitted to Digg.
Maybe there is the possiblity that there is no 'auto-bury' like Digg has said, and your stories just aren't quite front page Digg worthy. Have you considered that?
Maybe there is the possiblity that there is no 'auto-bury' like Digg has said, and your stories just aren't quite front page Digg worthy. Have you considered that?
Dom, if you're not a doctor, please don't try to open up people. They'll die!
Dom, if you're not a doctor, please don't try to open up people. They'll die!
As an example the MBL API is seriously cool, but no article about it has made Digg popular - Kent's one I think only received single figure Diggs.
I don't know anyone directly at Digg (SF is a long way from Poland), but even the people who do don't seem to be able to get these issues cleared up... in much the same way we can't get Google to come clean on many things.
As an example the MBL API is seriously cool, but no article about it has made Digg popular - Kent's one I think only received single figure Diggs.
I don't know anyone directly at Digg (SF is a long way from Poland), but even the people who do don't seem to be able to get these issues cleared up... in much the same way we can't get Google to come clean on many things.
That is great.. And I like you mention that you achieve 3000 readers without gaming the social Bookmark site.
That is something to be proud of.
Happy blogging
That is great.. And I like you mention that you achieve 3000 readers without gaming the social Bookmark site.
That is something to be proud of.
Happy blogging
I am a bit confused. Is your point that Digg seems to autobury your articles? Or, is your point that Digg seems to autobury stories related to certain other social media sites like MBL and MBC? Or, is your point that Digg's new algorithm has too many inherent hidden penalties to make it worth using?
Your last statement seems a bit rye.
Are you saying that your readers votes are worthless unless they propel your article to Digg's front page? Are you saying that only Digg's front page has value and no other aspect of Digg has any value?
I like your blog and have learned a lot by reading it. I am a bit surprised by this post. It seems as if you are saying that unless you are one of the popular kids you do not want to play.
Good luck. I am not sure this post will have the effect on your readers, Digg, or your reputation that you may have expected.
Now with the new Digg design, that view is almost useless, and the majority of Diggers I know look at the upcoming page sorted by most Diggs.
If a story gets buried or autoburied, it is removed from upcoming, so many Dig users won't see it, even if they are friends.
In addition, because many Digg users know this is how it works, they won't even bother to vote for articles they enjoy, because they know that the content won't be seen anyway - all they will be doing by voting is accelerating its demise.
From what you are describing, it seems that Digg once had more of a group emphasis. Where as now it has more of a site emphasis. Causing a bit of a clash of cultures. I can see how the change in emphasis would make some users feel disenfranchised, devaluing their participation.
As I said, I do not use Digg. But, I think i understand your perspective now.
I am a bit confused. Is your point that Digg seems to autobury your articles? Or, is your point that Digg seems to autobury stories related to certain other social media sites like MBL and MBC? Or, is your point that Digg's new algorithm has too many inherent hidden penalties to make it worth using?
Your last statement seems a bit rye.
Are you saying that your readers votes are worthless unless they propel your article to Digg's front page? Are you saying that only Digg's front page has value and no other aspect of Digg has any value?
I like your blog and have learned a lot by reading it. I am a bit surprised by this post. It seems as if you are saying that unless you are one of the popular kids you do not want to play.
Good luck. I am not sure this post will have the effect on your readers, Digg, or your reputation that you may have expected.
Now with the new Digg design, that view is almost useless, and the majority of Diggers I know look at the upcoming page sorted by most Diggs.
If a story gets buried or autoburied, it is removed from upcoming, so many Dig users won't see it, even if they are friends.
In addition, because many Digg users know this is how it works, they won't even bother to vote for articles they enjoy, because they know that the content won't be seen anyway - all they will be doing by voting is accelerating its demise.
From what you are describing, it seems that Digg once had more of a group emphasis. Where as now it has more of a site emphasis. Causing a bit of a clash of cultures. I can see how the change in emphasis would make some users feel disenfranchised, devaluing their participation.
As I said, I do not use Digg. But, I think i understand your perspective now.
This is the biggest error you made in your article. Do you really think that by even writing such lines Andy's audience or reputation would go down the drain ?
It's a no-brainer. if you ever want to look smart, you leave things discoverable by readers, not state them out-loud. if you did that, then .. well .. there are no brains involved.
Moreover, Andy just blogs about things he likes or dislikes. And since he's an Internet marketer like most of other guys around the web, he especially deals with websites like Digg.
IMHO, the Digg team have been pushed so many times by their own users because they made mistakes. The fact that they have an internal auto-bury filter is so obvious by many of us.
They probably, in their own meeting place talked and made it to get rid of spamming websites.
Our problem is that they auto-catalogue anything from the SEO/SEM field as SPAM simply because we know web tricks and sometimes know how to get ahead of others.
Now there's the BS. And it's not Andy's BS.
I hope this sums it up.
Please do not misunderstand my comment. It is not an attack on Andy. I have a lot of respect for him. I was simply pointing out that certain aspects of the post could be misconstrued and may not have the desired affect. Unfortunately, for many, perception is fact.
Absolutely not.
This is the biggest error you made in your article. Do you really think that by even writing such lines Andy's audience or reputation would go down the drain ?
It's a no-brainer. if you ever want to look smart, you leave things discoverable by readers, not state them out-loud. if you did that, then .. well .. there are no brains involved.
Moreover, Andy just blogs about things he likes or dislikes. And since he's an Internet marketer like most of other guys around the web, he especially deals with websites like Digg.
IMHO, the Digg team have been pushed so many times by their own users because they made mistakes. The fact that they have an internal auto-bury filter is so obvious by many of us.
They probably, in their own meeting place talked and made it to get rid of spamming websites.
Our problem is that they auto-catalogue anything from the SEO/SEM field as SPAM simply because we know web tricks and sometimes know how to get ahead of others.
Now there's the BS. And it's not Andy's BS.
I hope this sums it up.
Please do not misunderstand my comment. It is not an attack on Andy. I have a lot of respect for him. I was simply pointing out that certain aspects of the post could be misconstrued and may not have the desired affect. Unfortunately, for many, perception is fact.
Absolutely not.
The last part of my comment (about Andy and Digg) still stands.
The last part of my comment (about Andy and Digg) still stands.
She had her own grievances with him a little while back!
As far as MBL goes there is an interesting thing on the horizon, just keep an eye on it. ;-)
She had her own grievances with him a little while back!
As far as MBL goes there is an interesting thing on the horizon, just keep an eye on it. ;-)