From TweetMeme's point of view if this stays the same way we will be forced to remove it from our whitelist of shorteners, as by definition this no longer makes Digg a shortening service. We included Digg.com because we felt the addition allowed users the ability to gain extra traction along with the shortening support.
mortgagedeals
· 4 months ago
You're right. Trust is everything and I think they have shot themselves in the foot in the long term
David Rader II
· 4 months ago
Well put - in the foot.
cheeky_geeky
· 4 months ago
Just another example of a "hot" startup that has no common-sense idea of how to relate to users, customers, and partners. The short-term "payoff" from news coverage doesn't outweigh the negative long-term taste in everyone's mouth that adds up bit by bit over time.
the Jim Gaudet
· 4 months ago
And yet, where will everyone go? Unless someone like mixx.com goes on national TV and gets some exposure, they will not take those non-logged in users from Digg.
I guess Digg must be seeing more non registered users than registered and wants to change that. They are in the middle of their new advertising campaign and the bigger the membership, the better the return...
Also, it should be noted that you have to be logged in to digg something, so only members can get the page to the front page, but thousands of non members only look at the front and popular pages, IMO. I obviously do not have the data, this is just my opinion..
leighsah
· 4 months ago
Why anyone is still using digg is a complete mystery to me. After their despicable behavior surrounding the toolbar, I stopped. No need to support scummy behavior. And this is just more of the same.
If this were just another web 2.0 company rather than Kevin Rose and company, we would have left long ago. If this doesn't convince people that Kevin has absolutely sld-out, I don't know what will. This bad behavior is only a continuation of the debacle called the toolbar.
keif
· 4 months ago
I get the uproar, I do.
But really, this is a DIGG URL SHORTENER, BEING USED TO HELP DIGG USERS GET THEIR ITEMS DUGG. Digg, digg, digg. It's all about them.
And this huge uproar about it? Really? Get over yourselves. Use a different URL shortener. Make your own. The Digg frame is an extension of the digg site, complete with URL shortener for other services to use to direct traffic to Digg items.
This would be like being upset that Facebook uses an iframe for its users to make it easy to return to facebook afterwards.
I'm willing to say - it's too bad they didn't have it fully implemented at the beginning. It sucks, it does, because they changed how it works without telling its users that it was planning on it. Bad move on their part, but this move makes total sense, if it just wasn't communicated well.
But all this attention to it, all these people acting shocked that Digg may be about it's own survival and not about just giving everyone their cake and let them eat it, too. I know, Internet Community, you're used to getting your mob together and forcing companies to bend to your will (*cough*AT&T*cough*) regardless if it makes you look like a bunch of morons. But pissed off because Digg is about Digg? What next, shocked that Facebook is gathering your data to generate better targeted ads and you don't get paid for typing in all that info? This is just getting ridiculous.
Digg doesn't want to change? Make something better. Open source it. Create a toolbar. Do your frame-buster techniques. Block digg from your site. But quit trying to act shocked when a company does something that shows it's in it for the money.
Ben Cook
· 4 months ago
Keif, take a minute to read the complaints and it might help you understand what the uproar is about.
First of all, Digg has redirected a TON of links to their site that WERE helping the source sites rank in search engines.
Secondly, Digg already knows the problem with this approach as they dealt with the issue when they first launched the DiggBar. To change things now is a pathetic & desperate attempt to get more traffic. It's obvious they need to bring in revenue and fast, but this is NOT the way to go about it.
@pbarbanes
· 4 months ago
I have to agree here. The things that "shock" social media people strike me as fairly trivial. But that's just me. I recognize that each person has his or her own perspective about something like this. So for me NOT to be "shocked" isn't necessarily the correct response - it's just mine. But you put it pretty well, I think.
I had some similar thoughts social media "crowd-thuggery" that were prompted by the story of the tweeter who was sued by her landlord for $50 thousand for a tweet she had posted about them. It seems that social media people are trying to have it both ways. "If I Had A Social Media Hammer" http://bit.ly/TOegB
James F
· 4 months ago
Wow Digg. I recently read a blog about someone's entire journey to place on the first page. And after months of work, only got 6,000 hits to their website on that day.
Does Digg desperately need traffic or why would they use such a blackhat (to speak in seo terms) technique? I never used the Digg URL shortener but people must feel cheated on. WTF?
Miguel
· 4 months ago
yeah my favorite digg section used to have pages and pages now there is just one.
Bob Kazak
· 4 months ago
Mmm, I'm going to have to disagree with your use of the word 'blackhat'. Because this shift in policy in no way automates the process of converting users to a Digg account. Though IMO it'd be better if they prompted users with an Ajax lightbox vs a redirect. Assuming their toolbar dealy operates via an iframe.
Gerald Weber
· 3 months ago
"I'm going to have to disagree with your use of the word 'blackhat'. Because this shift in policy in no way automates the process of converting users to a Digg account."
WTF are you talking about. Because it doesn't automate users into a digg acount it's not black hat? What they did is exactly the equivalent of black hat, but your definition of black hat is someone that automates users into opening an account? Get a clue!
Dave
· 3 months ago
I do not care what you call it, black hat, white hat, red hat. I will not click on a digg link because I know it will not take me to the site offered. A bookmark is supposed to take you where you want to go.
HakunaMatata
· 4 months ago
I disagree, this is not a part of blackhat technique. It's not sophisticated enough to be, nor does it conform to blackhat philosophy.
Zacqary Adam Green
· 4 months ago
Blackhat Search Engine Optimization, not blackhat hacking. The kind of "blackhat" that people who conform to the blackhat philosophy are probably upset that they're associated with.
ckanal
· 4 months ago
What are they thinking? This makes no sense. I don't think I'll be using Digg anymore.
Chris
· 4 months ago
If this was in fact entirely intentional, and not some kind oversight, it is a very arrogant move by Digg. The actual change they made is bad, but not warning anyone of the change is far worse.
MikeonTV
· 4 months ago
Correct me if I'm wrong but is it not true that both Digg and the publishing site would be receiving traffic for these links. I know that the publishers content is embedded in a (very large) iframe but it is still forcing this links to generate hits/page views/ect. No?
peterwarnock
· 4 months ago
If you are logged out of Digg, it now redirects to Digg instead of using the DiggBar; the old behavior was a 301-redirect. One inbound link from Digg is far less valuable than the collective hundreds of links from twitter, blogs, and other directories.
MikeonTV
· 4 months ago
it redirects not to Digg.com/ but to the short Digg URL which has embedded the webpage of the intended site. It is traffic for the publisher and traffic for Digg (which does not contain an ad I should mention).
Search engine debates are a different topic but those issue should not have changed. The Diggbar has been effecting that since it was released.
peterwarnock
· 4 months ago
Mike, log out of Digg and try again. The first week DiggBar was released, publishers were outraged that the address bar was masked. so Digg compromised by performing a 301 for users not logged in, including search engine spiders. Now that thousands of links have been published, there is a serious amount of PageRank weight at stake.
They can change the behavior moving forward, but not on links published prior to the change.
MikeonTV
· 4 months ago
@peterwarnock Sorry. I have majorly overlooked exactly what was happening. I see this as a terrible offense. They are saying either sign up or click through all our bars!
Ilya
· 4 months ago
Digg will get eaten up by the many new startup article companies if they don't act quickly to remodel their business model! People don't like getting hustled, especially in secrecy!
Stephen Robinson
· 4 months ago
Digg suck.
Liz Isaacs
· 4 months ago
Hey Peter,
Thanks for posting this...saw this in Tweet from one of my colleagues, Jan Simpson. Will I'm signed up with Digg, I have used it much and don't know if/or how much I will after reading this. Think Digg, has just DUGG them self into a deep trench or grave with their desperate attempts to drive more traffic to their site. I used to think Digg was cool in their distinctive approach to bookmarking fun reads on the 'Net. Guess they haven't learned anything from their other social media brothers re: privacy/other issues i.e. Facebook, Twitter etal.
Digg's latest avarice attempt to make them look good...isn't good karma...YA DIGG. Pete & Jan thank you as well as JD Rucker for bring this to our attention.
So, the question is do I wait to see what the outcry from Twitters, Diggers etal are? Or do sign up with Disqus and use them and my other news gathering tools more? Much to chant about.
The analogy is a little off, because the landing page ultimately points to the destination; it would be more like a detour or layover. However, when they released the service, the policy was to 301-redirect users that we're logged into Digg so that spiders would apply the full weight to the final destination, so this change is a little unsettling.
I can understand why they did it. The click-thru/digg ratio is terrible. They shouldn't change the behavior on existing links though.
Ilya Radin
· 4 months ago
Digg needs to reconsider their business model if they want to avoid getting eaten up by the many new start-up 2.0 sites. People don't like getting hustled. Especially in secrecy!
Lethality
· 4 months ago
Twitter matters less and less every day anyway.
Kim Smith
· 4 months ago
Wow...you wouldn't think such a trusted source would be so irresponsible. Digg is the reason many people started blogging--they were the grassroots of blogging. It feels like a betrayal of what they have taught us all about the responsibility we hold--especially the importance of link integrity...you should ALWAYS cite your source and give them credit. I'm really disappointed in Digg for this move...I feel betrayed and I won't be linking to them in any way--they have lost my trust.
Paul OFlaherty
· 4 months ago
Sorry to say but of all the companies I would have expected to pull shit like this, it does not surprise me that digg is the one to do it.
Seriously bad form and a serious trust breaker. Thankfully I stopped using digg a long time ago, but seriously feel for anybody who may feel like they now need to go back through their archives and rewrite their links.
Sneh | LBOI Blog
· 4 months ago
That is not nice at all! I hate the sneakiness big sites resort to :-(
tweet this: petition @digg to stop hijacking twitter links. no bait and switch! http://act.ly/9u retweet to sign #digg #goodbyedigg
Gretta
· 4 months ago
Bummer. I'm not ever Digging anything again. They lost me.
Allen Weiss
· 4 months ago
So, this is bait and switch...the oldest marketing trick in the book and is basically against the law if this was done in the offline world.
Jeff Thomas
· 4 months ago
How's this for a blog post title? "DIGG sucks DIGGs!"
seanmacdhai
· 4 months ago
..holy cow, this is L A M E. I simple will not click any more DIGG urls.. period.
Dave Mora
· 4 months ago
One of the main reasons I don't go about using URL shortens provided but some kind of content provider.
But, then again I don't trust anyone. LOL
I suspect soon wordpress will have a shorten URL plugin if it doesnt have one already to create something like http://yourdomain.com/urjdf for your post or even an link to an external site.
But, for now I am sticking with snul.com it has not failed me yet.
Jeremy Buff
· 4 months ago
Wow, this is asinine. Digg has known to be unethical before, such as during the 2008 Presidential Elections. Can't expect much from them if you know their history..
Dan Grossman
· 4 months ago
Stop using URL shorteners. Really, they are evil. The entire fabric of the web is built upon URLs being as permanent as possible, not transitory intermediaries.
MikeonTV
· 4 months ago
Update: It would appear that Digg has reverted back to the old linking method for no logged in users.
mashable
· 4 months ago
As we just discussed on chat, Digg cannot redirect the link to Digg.com if the story hasn't been submitted to Digg yet. It checks first, and if the story has been submitted to Digg, it directs the visitor to Digg instead of the destination URL.
With a blog like Mashable, that means 100% of the Digg links created are sending traffic to Digg and not us.
DVonThaer
· 4 months ago
I know I'm very web naive when it comes to this stuff. But I thought I'd ask anyway. So, for example, if Mashable posts a story on say, green flamingos taking over Atlantic City, and Digg does not have it, the link goes to Mashable. But, if someone (anyone) decides to use Digg as a URL shortener, it will therefore go to Digg, and not Mashable's website?
mashable
· 4 months ago
You could create a Digg URL to the flamingo page and it would redirect to the right page for a short time...but as soon as anyone submitted the page to Digg, your link would start pointing to the Digg submission. In short, the destination of the link is changed if there's a relevant Digg page to direct the user to.
DougLaine
· 4 months ago
Ok, so how do we make sure the right owner gets the right credit? Can we prevent this?
Aniruddh D
· 4 months ago
should we say that Digg.com not using the friendly 301 redirect right now?
Nick Armstrong
· 4 months ago
I just bypass the Digg links. If I want to link to the original, I do so and RT w/ the new link. I always thought it was hokey that a Digg landing page appeared each time I clicked on links from certain people.
DVonThaer
· 4 months ago
Now, what about people who don't have a Digg account? I assume it would direct me there as well if I clicked into one of their shortened links?
Doubledown Tandino
· 4 months ago
So, what do you suggest? A Boycott?
Radge
· 4 months ago
Very glad I never used Digg in the first place..
Matt
· 4 months ago
Well not going to use digg anymore. Hope others do the same because this is crap!
Robyn McMaster
· 4 months ago
I do not like the fact that Digg is highjacking my links. I use TweetDeck and when I want to shrink a URL, this seems the only option available. Thanks for alerting me. I will now check out Bit.ly or TinyURL. These will now take extra time. Previously, TweetDeck gave me a choice.
steelhoof
· 4 months ago
This is yet another reason to dump digg as a reliable resource on the web. To begin with a news item posted to digg can, and it frequently happens, be artificially buried by those that don't like the message. IN DEMOCRACY THAT MAY HAPPEN, BUT THERE NEEDS TO BE A WAY TO RESTORE. digg suggests they are democratic.. I suggest, rather, that digg is like a group of Mean Girls, and if one of the mean girls says no, it is dead.
HostMyJPG
· 4 months ago
Our founding fathers called this "Tyranny of the Majority" and is why they didn't like Democracy.
steelhoof
· 4 months ago
The issue is not the majority burying it, but that the bury is irrevocable... and it does not take a majority to bury. Once buried, If I have it correct, it cannot be unburied. THAT is not right.
"@kevinrose "just now reading the digg short url discussion, I was not aware this changed and will check in on it tomorrow (was on vacation for 2 weeks)" How is that possible?
c4
· 4 months ago
i just clicked on the link in that tweet you presented as an example, and it looks like it goes to mashable - does it just not register as a hit because of the tool bar, or did they reverse it since you published this post? am i missing something?
LOLGeek
· 4 months ago
Stop using Digg! They are ran by idiotic morons. The current twitter apps should get a quick update to make sure Digg is taken out for URL shortening. That will fix their wagon. Use tinyurl and the website like I do. Its a lot faster anyway then those twitter apps. :)
IPv6Freely
· 4 months ago
No big deal, Kevin Rose tweeted that he will be looking into it tomorrow, and that he had no knowledge of the change. It will get fixed.
Sean Tubridy
· 4 months ago
Don't expect any sympathy from Digg users. The top comment on almost any Twitter story on Digg is always "Fuck Twitter." Why they hate Twitter so much, I don't know.
joshklein
· 4 months ago
Digg has never been interested in catering to the desires of content publishers, and I think Digg's response to "Digg is no longer a valuable source of traffic for me, I will not use it" is exactly their intension.
As I've written about, Digg is for the mindless internet entertainment of 18 to 28 year old males who spend their 9-to-5's avoiding work and enjoy a good Mad Magazine now and then.
This isn't a pro or con, just an IS. Anyone serious about capturing more than false fleeting traffic wasn't bothering with Digg before, and won't bother with Digg now.
barbfmc
· 4 months ago
Everything about web numbers has become suspect. Because everyone is playing by the numbers. Everyone is playing The Numbers.
Ads must be a great source of income here.
Maybe when I send off Tweets, I'll send everyone via a short url to a link at my site first.
Rob
· 4 months ago
Well, Digg may get traffic, but it will run up their bandwidth as people click off. I wonder if they are watching their bounce rate? It should be skyrocketing!
WorldLifeSite.com
· 4 months ago
Its true, the old links to go to Digg and then you have to click the link to get to the article. I guess once its widely known to publishers they'll use TinyURL and take their DiggURLs down. I have an old Digg account and haven't signed in for at least half a year. Its really annoying to do all that clicking to get to an article. There should be a fall out once this news propagate.
cauzway
· 4 months ago
Their gain in high jacked traffic will be short lived.Their users will abandon them. I have.
I have never liked digg. It doesn't have any value for me. I see it now and then when a story I want to read is linked to its digg page, which just annoys me. I have, however, heard many horror stories about how it's run, so this doesn't surprise me. Ah well, they don't care what I think, I don't use them in the first place! I'll probably RT it though.. smooth move, digg!
Jack Yan
· 4 months ago
While I don’t like this move by Digg, it’s been like this for weeks.
Jack Yan
· 4 months ago
Also, I agree with commenters who are saying that Digg has done a lousy job of telling its users. It was the same story when they removed the shouts. Do this enough, and it points to some pretty bad behaviour there—just as Facebook’s ill-advised moves do.
WorldLifeSite.com
· 4 months ago
Guess the server logs showed the redirects way to valuable to waist. Redirect traffic doesn't improve your SE rankings, this landing sure will. But many users will not appreciate having to do extra clicking to an article.
takeback
· 4 months ago
138 diggs and this story hasn't hit their front page? Digg burying it?
Good news: it has made it now, though you have to scroll about half-way. (I was the 338th Digger.)
Dave Durbin
· 4 months ago
Is there an organized protest being formed? I use Joost's Sociable and can take them away in 30 seconds. There are many other platforms.
TwtrCoach
· 4 months ago
Just submitted my blog to digg. And my digg as far as I can see worked fine.
But thanks for watching out for us. Have to look into it more to see the effects of this kind of actions from Digg.
Cheers..
Johanna Bowie
· 4 months ago
well i tried to leave them but some bullshit in their tos, but i'm never using them again!!!
Johanna Bowie
· 4 months ago
well i tried to leave them but some bullshit in their tos, but i'm never using them again!!!
jsinkeywest
· 4 months ago
Lame ass Blogcatalog just dupped all their wannabe bloggers into thinking that their toolbar was in their best interest and they bought it. These big sites Mixx changing their links recently to no follow,sites using these iframes to show their members that they have NO VALUE. When you put yourself first people aren't stupid and people should avoid these sites. They are for one thing to make money for the greedy ass owners PERIOD. You used to get 1-2 visits from Blogcatalog now you get ZERO LOL :) they jacked the few visitors bloggers were getting and if you ask people to check out your blog You get the rath the site doesn't make any sense. I stopped using DIGG awhile ago just a waste of time to many haters who are never going to let you get on the first page Screw em can't wait for all these lame sites to FALL :) Nice post
Tennisopolis
· 4 months ago
Thanks for the heads up. You guys are always on top of these subtle injustices. We'll be sure not to use Digg as much as we used to. Is tinyurl still kosher?
Stefan Pinto
· 4 months ago
ha ha and yet, 172 people clicked on "Digg it"
Mark Tweeples
· 4 months ago
Did they undo this? The link in the tweet you posted in the article goes to the correct page on Digg for the article now.
RetroSeek
· 4 months ago
What do you expect from a site like Digg? Digg will never be like it was in the good ol' days... those days are long gone.
A MacGlumpher
· 4 months ago
why is anyone surprised that a commercial site would do this? You get nothing for free in the longterm.
The_BORG
· 4 months ago
two week vacation and he had no clue? You approved it then? You mean he didn't even check any of his email or worry about work? I find that hard to believe. Must of had his head up his rear end the entire time.
Dave
· 4 months ago
I noticed that Digg was taking me to their site, I will not click a Digg link anymore, it is a pain to find the content, especially on mobile. "Digg Just Hijacked" is a trending topic on twitter now :o)
Marc
· 4 months ago
I am removing the Digg social bookmark from all my web sites and email templates.
Marc
· 4 months ago
I am removing the Digg social bookmark from all my web sites and email templates.
This is bad stuff; that's why I don't visit digg.com at all. I don't like that site. And know it look to me that TweetMeme is doing the same with their bar. :(
Pliggs
· 4 months ago
The toolbar isn't an issue, as both Digg and the site win, both get traffic and exposure. It's a small price to pay for exposure.
The issue is the blatent removal of the users exposure without notification that is the issue.
The other issue is Kevin Rose trying to pretend he knew nothing about it.
Liars are easy to spot sometimes.
Philip Sewell
· 4 months ago
I hav e only used digg briefly before, but I'm sure as hell not going to use it now! F**K Digg!
Jay Martin
· 4 months ago
Ahhh., the ole bait and switch. Wonder how long they were planning this ? Waiting til just the right number of links and traffic were hitting the service to gank all the traffic? ahahhaah.
website design in adelaide
· 4 months ago
Sad. But, truth be told, Digg has been going down hill for a long time.
Kevin Rose is a Jerk
· 4 months ago
If you think he didn't know about this, you are dumber than a rock. Is he saying people do stuff there with out his knowledge and approval? Is that the image of a CEO he wants to put out?
spinchange
· 4 months ago
I could never figure out why people wanted to use Digg as a standalone URL shortner, but *not* submit the story there & use this for it's promotion (?)
If you just want a reliable URL shortner, you should just go with Bit.ly or Is.Gd or one of the others. Bit.Ly is practically my new delicious /with analytics. It's just a matter of time before the API improves and for them or someone else to add a more social layer/application to it.
This change ultimately makes sense for digg, but it's not what they gave us originally, and clearly not what people expected when they started using it and integrating it into their apps. Bit.ly isn't trying to route you to a desination or sell you ads, they just want to analytics - and it's accessible to anyone who wants to see it.
Coree
· 4 months ago
I noticed the other day when I tweeted a link and it changed to a Digg link. I just thought it was some cool little trick the website owner had designed to get their content higher ranked in Digg. Now I see how wrong I was! This is just wrong. We work hard to get our site's ranked and promote Digg on our sites, but they want to be greedy and take all the link love too. Boo! :(
bigmac
· 4 months ago
That's convenient. Common Kev, didn't know?? Gotta do better than that brother.
Steve
· 4 months ago
It's like taking ideas from Twitter! Twitter offers some short urls for postings. Now Digg is trying to make out of this kind of ideas!
dainathomas
· 4 months ago
May be you are right .. Steve ... may be it the idea was too fascinating for Digg ...
Cheers! Daina
Your Name
· 4 months ago
Dudes, YOU are linking to Digg. They're just not redirecting you back to where you really wanted to link to. That should teach you to stop using third party URL shorteners, but it won't.
Stephen Baugh
· 4 months ago
Just changed my URL shortener from Digg to bit.ly . Pity but it sucks if good hearted shares via digg gets taken advantage of.
waisybabu
· 4 months ago
*buries digg.com*
Splinter09
· 4 months ago
Yeah right Kevin Rose, you were not aware of these changes! That is going down as one of the funniest tweets of the year, what do u think we all are? stupids to say the least!
Ambarish Mitra
· 4 months ago
Digg cant take its followers and community for granted. How can Kevin Rose be oblivious to these changes.
Bas
· 4 months ago
Eh! Nasty. Never Digging anything again.
blupa
· 4 months ago
That really sucks.
Virtual Miss Friday
· 4 months ago
Sad to hear about this, but thanks for posting this very valuable info. I can't help but agree. This will greatly impact Digg users.
Gerald Weber
· 4 months ago
I'm calling shenanigans on him being on vacation and not being aware of the change.
spryka
· 4 months ago
simowner70@gmail. Twitter is like a breath of fresh air on the Social Media scene. I have been on it for just a few weeks now and I have met several interesting people. It is a platform to network with people you would like to meet in real life.
I dunno, I thought it was fairly obvious someone just made a mistake. Kevin and Jay aren't stupid when it comes to things like this. They would have known it would look bad for them. While ya it was a big mistake I swear some of you like to play the drama card a little to much.
Ryan McBrode
· 4 months ago
James Pyles
· 4 months ago
Rose: "No, I just founded the bloody thing. I don't have any idea what's on the roadmap".
Ryan McBrode
· 4 months ago
Oh please, get off your high horse. Things happen, besides one would think Jay would be the controller and even then if you truly folly Kevin you would know both of them are smart enough to understand that doing something like this would backfire. More then likely one of their code-monkeys made a stupid mistake. For Kevin not to know about something like this means it didn't go through the proper channels. I absolutely love all the dramatizing of people crying victim and fou people love to play the role.
And I love all these other comments about taking ownership and what not from more then likely people who haven't a clue what happens inside a company. Are you people so dense you dont even know who the "boss" is.
onelifenofear
· 4 months ago
Hmmmm.... not sure on this... The are other url shortners... I think the one I used was zane... who (in the small print of course) specify a maximun number of clicks and then redirect the url... You kind of expect this from small site... but from Digg? Me thinks they will change it back shortly...
Julius
· 4 months ago
Hmmm, redirecting folks to St. Louis? Probably not. It's more like aggregating AP or Reuters content to Mashable. I do agree however that if the right thing to do is to point traffic back to the originating site, but there is the simple fact that if you intentionally use Diggbar, you agreed to it's actions on your link. At this point, it's kinda like TV, if you don't like the show, change the channel. If you don't like what Digg is doing, don't use 'em.
Increase website traffic
· 4 months ago
Nice Post! Thanks for sharing the information...
camp185
· 4 months ago
Hopefully Kevin will fix this, but it now sounds like a business model for some less scrupulous webmasters.
Jamie Brown
· 4 months ago
Combine this with the Digg Bar and it seems like Digg's arrogance will be its downfall. When you get greedy with your traffic at the expense of your users, the only way is downwards IMHO.
liamiam
· 4 months ago
Splitting hair has new meaning.
Dagmar
· 4 months ago
I guess the rules of the game are constantly changing - hypnotic marketing, eh?!
All Comments
I guess Digg must be seeing more non registered users than registered and wants to change that. They are in the middle of their new advertising campaign and the bigger the membership, the better the return...
Also, it should be noted that you have to be logged in to digg something, so only members can get the page to the front page, but thousands of non members only look at the front and popular pages, IMO. I obviously do not have the data, this is just my opinion..
If this were just another web 2.0 company rather than Kevin Rose and company, we would have left long ago. If this doesn't convince people that Kevin has absolutely sld-out, I don't know what will. This bad behavior is only a continuation of the debacle called the toolbar.
But really, this is a DIGG URL SHORTENER, BEING USED TO HELP DIGG USERS GET THEIR ITEMS DUGG. Digg, digg, digg. It's all about them.
And this huge uproar about it? Really? Get over yourselves. Use a different URL shortener. Make your own. The Digg frame is an extension of the digg site, complete with URL shortener for other services to use to direct traffic to Digg items.
This would be like being upset that Facebook uses an iframe for its users to make it easy to return to facebook afterwards.
I'm willing to say - it's too bad they didn't have it fully implemented at the beginning. It sucks, it does, because they changed how it works without telling its users that it was planning on it. Bad move on their part, but this move makes total sense, if it just wasn't communicated well.
But all this attention to it, all these people acting shocked that Digg may be about it's own survival and not about just giving everyone their cake and let them eat it, too. I know, Internet Community, you're used to getting your mob together and forcing companies to bend to your will (*cough*AT&T*cough*) regardless if it makes you look like a bunch of morons. But pissed off because Digg is about Digg? What next, shocked that Facebook is gathering your data to generate better targeted ads and you don't get paid for typing in all that info? This is just getting ridiculous.
Digg doesn't want to change? Make something better. Open source it. Create a toolbar. Do your frame-buster techniques. Block digg from your site. But quit trying to act shocked when a company does something that shows it's in it for the money.
First of all, Digg has redirected a TON of links to their site that WERE helping the source sites rank in search engines.
Secondly, Digg already knows the problem with this approach as they dealt with the issue when they first launched the DiggBar. To change things now is a pathetic & desperate attempt to get more traffic. It's obvious they need to bring in revenue and fast, but this is NOT the way to go about it.
I had some similar thoughts social media "crowd-thuggery" that were prompted by the story of the tweeter who was sued by her landlord for $50 thousand for a tweet she had posted about them. It seems that social media people are trying to have it both ways. "If I Had A Social Media Hammer" http://bit.ly/TOegB
James F.
TwitterBackground.com
WTF are you talking about. Because it doesn't automate users into a digg acount it's not black hat? What they did is exactly the equivalent of black hat, but your definition of black hat is someone that automates users into opening an account? Get a clue!
click on a digg link because I know it will not take me to the site offered.
A bookmark is supposed to take you where you want to go.
Search engine debates are a different topic but those issue should not have changed. The Diggbar has been effecting that since it was released.
They can change the behavior moving forward, but not on links published prior to the change.
Thanks for posting this...saw this in Tweet from one of my colleagues, Jan Simpson. Will I'm signed up with Digg, I have used it much and don't know if/or how much I will after reading this.
Think Digg, has just DUGG them self into a deep trench or grave with their desperate attempts to drive more traffic to their site. I used to think Digg was cool in their distinctive approach to bookmarking fun reads on the 'Net. Guess they haven't learned anything from their other social media brothers re: privacy/other issues i.e. Facebook, Twitter etal.
Digg's latest avarice attempt to make them look good...isn't good karma...YA DIGG. Pete & Jan thank you as well as JD Rucker for bring this to our attention.
So, the question is do I wait to see what the outcry from Twitters, Diggers etal are? Or do sign up with Disqus and use them and my other news gathering tools more? Much to chant about.
Liz Isaacs
Owner/Director of Creative Services
Lotus Writing & Communications
liz@lotuswritingcommunications.net
http://www.lotuswritingcommunications.net
http://lotuswritingcommunications.wordpress.com
I can understand why they did it. The click-thru/digg ratio is terrible. They shouldn't change the behavior on existing links though.
Seriously bad form and a serious trust breaker. Thankfully I stopped using digg a long time ago, but seriously feel for anybody who may feel like they now need to go back through their archives and rewrite their links.
tweet this: petition @digg to stop hijacking twitter links. no bait and switch! http://act.ly/9u retweet to sign #digg #goodbyedigg
But, then again I don't trust anyone. LOL
I suspect soon wordpress will have a shorten URL plugin if it doesnt have one already to create something like http://yourdomain.com/urjdf for your post or even an link to an external site.
But, for now I am sticking with snul.com it has not failed me yet.
With a blog like Mashable, that means 100% of the Digg links created are sending traffic to Digg and not us.
Try http://digg.com/d1xWzQ & http://digg.com/d2xWzQ
As I've written about, Digg is for the mindless internet entertainment of 18 to 28 year old males who spend their 9-to-5's avoiding work and enjoy a good Mad Magazine now and then.
This isn't a pro or con, just an IS. Anyone serious about capturing more than false fleeting traffic wasn't bothering with Digg before, and won't bother with Digg now.
Ads must be a great source of income here.
Maybe when I send off Tweets, I'll send everyone via a short url to a link at my site first.
http://digg.com/business_finance/Confirmed_Digg...
But thanks for watching out for us. Have to look into it more to see the effects of this kind of actions from Digg.
Cheers..
When you put yourself first people aren't stupid and people should avoid these sites. They are for one thing to make money for the greedy ass owners PERIOD.
You used to get 1-2 visits from Blogcatalog now you get ZERO LOL :)
they jacked the few visitors bloggers were getting and if you ask people to check out your blog
You get the rath the site doesn't make any sense.
I stopped using DIGG awhile ago just a waste of time to many haters who are never going to let you get on the first page Screw em can't wait for all these lame sites to FALL :)
Nice post
JT
www.anonymize.tk
The issue is the blatent removal of the users exposure without notification that is the issue.
The other issue is Kevin Rose trying to pretend he knew nothing about it.
Liars are easy to spot sometimes.
If you just want a reliable URL shortner, you should just go with Bit.ly or Is.Gd or one of the others. Bit.Ly is practically my new delicious /with analytics. It's just a matter of time before the API improves and for them or someone else to add a more social layer/application to it.
This change ultimately makes sense for digg, but it's not what they gave us originally, and clearly not what people expected when they started using it and integrating it into their apps. Bit.ly isn't trying to route you to a desination or sell you ads, they just want to analytics - and it's accessible to anyone who wants to see it.
Cheers!
Daina
Twitter is like a breath of fresh air on the Social Media scene. I have been on it for just a few weeks now and I have met several interesting people. It is a platform to network with people you would like to meet in real life.
KZ
Bulk Email Marketing
And I love all these other comments about taking ownership and what not from more then likely people who haven't a clue what happens inside a company. Are you people so dense you dont even know who the "boss" is.
Thanks for sharing the information...
Dagmar
Trading results that make you say W.O.W.
Follow me on http://twitter.com/tradingrichmom