Danny will love this piece. |
I dont understand why Kevin just come clean and 'fess up to the choas that happens at digg..!!
Well, you if one makes the front pages, that's a booster for traffic and this alone is the root cause for 'moderation' preferences (?)
..and yes we all know that certain items hit the front page with hardly any diggs.. so thats not news to use and lets not forgot that whenever there's a post on digg about digg, it nevers gets approved or fails to come out of the pipeline..!! |
A rose is still a rose, even if called by a different name ... ;-) |
That interview was inspired by the post on this blog :-) |
I really love the Search Marketing Standard, I am subscriber, but the interview just does not fit in there. It's very superficial. Sorry Mr. Milyan. It seems you interviewed him without even telling him what publication you work for, because he states that "There is an entire SEO industry based on manipulating results.", which is of course a plain insult and simply not true. He goes on to say that Google and Yahoo talk about an "arms race" between SEOs and search engines. Either he is ruthless enough to insult people or he does not know what audience he is speaking to.
I truly do not want to read such crap in the foremost SEO/SEM magazine out there, indeed almost the only true one.
In contrast Google does clearly distinguish between search engine spam and white hat optimization.
I think it's time that the people turn their backs on Digg. It's people from the SEO industry that contributed substiantially to it's success, by telling webmasters how optimize articles for being dugg and stressing that it is important to submit stories to Digg.
Btw.:Kevin Rose promises new features for Digg that even Digg competitors from abroad like YiGG.de already have.
|
Didn't Rose recently claim that there are 1 Million + users ? Now he's saying there are only 700,000. |
"There is an SEO entire industry based on manipulating results. which is of course a plain insult and simply not true."
Huh ?? Blackhat SEO's is in abundance.. it exists ..we can't deny that.. |
How about use the Google Censorship System(running perfectly in china) as the filter to make the Digg rank system at the home can prevent spam? |
/pd, of course black hat SEO exists likewise white hat and all shades of gray ;-)
So claiming that the whole industry is about gaming search engines and Digg is crap. |
My user ID, namely 1389, was banned from Digg within MINUTES after I posted these three comments:
http://www.901am.com/2007/has-digg-really-unbanned-those-banned-sites.html#comment-3992
AFAIK, a single Digg admin has the power to bury (or promote) any story unilaterally, without anybody knowing. Of course, nobody will know either way. As long as Digg admins have this much power, Digg is NOT the grass-roots, “democratic,” community-run, site that it purports to be.
Since there is no audit of what Digg’s admins are doing, this is a perfect opportunity for blogola/Diggola as an “inside job” – with nobody being the wiser. A little money or other recompense to Digg insiders can do wonders for anybody wanting to promote stories that favor their client and bury stories that don’t. Hmmmm...
---------------------------------
http://digg.com/tech_news/1_Miiiiiillion_Users#c5594565
Does this mean that Digg will show its respect and gratitude for these million Digg users by:
1) Providing a "Who buried this?" tab;
2) Taking away the ability of Digg admins to bury or promote stories on their own, without regard to what the Digg voting public wants;
3) Decreasing the weight given to a bury as opposed to a digg, so that stories with a large enough proportion of diggs to buries will stay in the upcoming stories queue;
or perhaps even...
4) Taking away the bury button entirely, and replacing it with a button to report spam to the admins,
so that they can review it later, and decide whether or not the site is so egregiously spammy that it should be banned.
No? You mean that you folks at Digg don't really care enough about us to consider doing any of these things?
Didn't think so.
---------------------------------
http://digg.com/software/Digg_Search_Much_Improved_Can_We_Have_More#c5594665
Okay, Kevin, now that we (maybe) have a tiny bit of your attention, how about doing something about the major problem on Digg that so many people have been complaining about recently, namely burying? How about:
1) Providing a "Who buried this?" tab;
2) Taking away the ability of Digg admins to bury or promote stories on their own, without regard to what the Digg voting public wants;
3) Decreasing the weight given to a bury as opposed to a digg, so that stories with a large enough proportion of diggs to buries will stay in the upcoming stories queue;
or perhaps even...
4) Taking away the bury button entirely, and replacing it with a button to report spam to the admins, so that they can review it later, and decide whether or not the site is so egregiously spammy that it should be banned.
If you don't do something effective about this problem, people will draw the conclusion that you don't really care about the many new Digg users who have just now put your site over the million-user milestone. So how about it?
---------------------------------
I have done NOTHING that violates the Digg terms of service.
The only explanation that I have for my being banned is the fact that I questioned the right of Digg's admins to bury and promote stories at will and with no accountability. The very instant I did this, one of these selfsame Digg admins panicked and banned me!
Ironically, my being banned in this manner PROVES everything what I have been saying! |
