It’s funny how things work out. Yesterday I wrote an article based on feedback from many disgruntled DIGG users. I didn’t want it submitted in DIGG because I simply thought the DIGG staff would bury it. It was going to be submitted on REDDIT instead. A DIGG user got hold of the article and submitted it. It got about 70 Diggs in 2 hours and hit the front page after about 21 hours. It currently has 572 Diggs.

Kudos To Digg?

So, the article seemed to fly under the radar. It hit the front page. There were many people agreeing, many disagreeing and plenty who didn’t get the gist of the article at all… The point is that it was written based on some experienced DIGG users and their opinions about DIGG. Of course there is no conclusive evidence but repeated experience by dozens of experienced users is a finding of real results. Anyway, I was about to write an article giving Kudos To Digg.

Then they totally removed the article from their frontpage stories. Gone!

DIGG Censored Information?

Bugger! Here I was about to write accolades to DIGG and thanking them for proving me wrong and not burying an article that critisised them – and then they blatantly shat in their own nest (pardon the french). Shame! So the point still stands that only DIGG censored information gets to stay in public view stands strong. Sounds a bit like our newspapers actually.

Frontpage Story Buried By Digg

The article got 572 Diggs. Imagine how many people Buried it – Lots! That is just based on their comments. That’s cool. It is a democratic process and the readers vote on their opinion. Just the way it should work. But where does it break down? DIGG steps in and removes the story from their front page listings because… why?

Obviously they didn’t like it. (Sarcasm alert) Ah, the thought of a perfect world where anything we don’t like we can remove, hide, destroy and kill. The point of having a successful social network is to have the people in it shape it to their needs – based on the framework that the founders supplied. Of course there needs to be rules, but those rules also need to be fair and consistent. The people will weed out lies, untruths and discrimination themselves.

Feeling Guilty?

Here is the screenshot of the article in Digg after it was Buried By DIGG. The search will only find the article if the “Include Buried Stories” box is ticked. With 572 Diggs and being on the DIGG front page, I believe it can only be buried by DIGG staff. Personally, I see it as an admission of guilt when removing any critcism like this. That’s my opinion anyway

Someone please correct me here. Can a story be buried from the DIGG Front Page by users only? Please respond in the comments. Your feedback is appreciated.

For the record, I’m not a poweruser. I have 14 Front Page stories in my entire history since 2005. I have not had my own articles buried by DIGG (until now). I’m not disgruntled but I like people to be responsible for their actions when they put themselves in the public eye, just like I am responsible for my own actions.

Just Accept It

Some people are conformists and others aren’t. Some people say: “Just Accept It. That Is The Way It Is“. Well, that is not the way to improve anything. If you find something that smells fishy, you can either speak up – or you can walk away. We all have that choice. But if you choose to walk away, don’t come back when the changes have been made for you by the ones that spoke up 

In completion, yesterday my blog didn’t cope with thousands of people all arriving in 1 hour from the DIGG front page. I’ll take that on the chin. All my WordPress Blogs have WP Super Cache installed, except for this one…. my mistake. It’s there now. Thank you everyone that pointed out this point to me.

See you around