There’s lots of buzz around today over Suspicious Digging, Digg Corruption and Digg Fraud.
Unfortunately when a site has the combination of loads of traffic and user generated content there will always be people around trying to abuse the system. A lot of the debate is around Digg’s responsibility and the tension that they face between editing and allowing their system to be user driven. Interesting discussion.
Read more at:
- The Digg Backlash
- Growing Censorship Concerns at Digg
- Digg and Calacanis Bush-Whack Critics
- Digg is silently Moderating Legitimate Submissions
- Is Digg Working with their Own Shovel?
- Masses and the Machine
- Social Websites have Social Responsibility
- Rough Day for Digg
- Digg in a Hole
- Digg corrupted? Forever Geek makes the case
- The Social Corruption of Digg.com
- Debating Digg’s Methodology: editor or user driven?
- Digg Issue?
- Social Software – Do you own it?





My name is Darren Rowse and I’m a full time Blogger making a living from blogs like 
I think it’s going to be a while before we know the entire truth about this situation.
But for the record, I never really did care for digg.
I could probably build a service to replace it over this weekend, but I’d probably need some help promoting it. :)
Thanks for posting this Darren :P I posted my response to his non-response here:
http://forevergeek.com/news/responding_to_kevins_nonresponse_post.php
I had published a similar post -Digg Effect -gain or loss?
I never liked Digg that much.
Reddit, on the other hand, is now one of my favorite sites.
After various attempts at posting a story to digg, I’ve quickly became disallusioned with the whole system. Anyone who spends the time studying how stories move up the digg cloud to the magical “40 digg” tipping point only to magically disappear can see that digg is run by editors first and contributors second. One more than one occasion I’ve seen stories with over 100 diggs in a couple hours just disappear before making it to the front page while a story that struggles to 40 diggs makes it. The only difference in the stories is that one story pointed out that digg editors are obviously censoring anti-digg stories or sometimes just stories they didn’t like.
The real kicker here is that digg doesn’t flag a story as buried by users or editors at all. In fact, they just disappear from the digg cloud without any explanation. I wouldn’t really care if digg said that a story was buried by users or buried by editors, but the site needs to at the very least say what happened to the story (especially if it has over 40 diggs).
All and all I think digg is a cool idea, but it needs to be more upfront about the fact that editors can and DO bury stories. Right now it’s just giving people the fallse idea that they vote on the news and editors don’t control it.
I Digged your post this morning – purely in the interests of seeing whether it got through and survived the day or not.
http://digg.com/technology/Digg_Deception_
Apologies if there’s any fallout.
http://www.digg.com/technology/Darren_Rowse_(Six_Figure_Blogger)_spaming_the_internet_with_Ad_only_pages
Just curious if this is true and if it’s your website they’re discussing?