Digg’s Spam Policy Needs Reviewing

I’m appalled to learn that Lee Odden’s Online Marketing Blog is the latest of sites to be banned by Digg. But how is it that a site dedicated to social media, search engine marketing and online public relations be considered spam when nothing about it’s content suggests so at all.

As it turns out, Digg users, or Diggers as they are more commonly referred to, play a major role when it comes to getting sites banned. When submitted stories from a particular domain name constantly gets flagged as spam by Diggers, future submission of stories from that URL will be put to a stop.

While such a policy encourages Diggers to play a part in moderating user-generated content, they appear to be doing more harm than good when innocent sites get banned because of prejudice. Online Marketing Blog has become a recent example of what happens when decision-making power falls into the wrong hands.

Likewise, this has also made it increasingly easy to crush your competitors. All you need is merely time.

The worst thing about getting banned by Digg, is probably the impossibility of getting unbanned even if you appeal against the ruling.

When submitted stories are consistently reported as spam and users complain via our feedback email about submission spam, we ban the domain. The domain will not be unbanned. The domain would consistently get reported as spam otherwise.

Think you’re innocent until proven guilty? Well, think again.

Unlike a suspect that is given a fair hearing, Digg’s current policy doesn’t allow you to do so. And clearly, this is something that has got to change. A couple of sites that I enjoy reading has already received the boot, and it is not surprising that others will soon be added to the list if this continues.

What I think Kevin Rose and his team should look at:

Firstly, Digg needs to improve on it’s current algorithm. I read somewhere that the current one buries a post once it hits 10 negative reviews. Is this true? If anyone knows, please drop me an email. It needs to calculate the difference between the number of positive diggs to negative ones, and not just because a lesser number of people disliked the article and voted to bury it as spam, it should do so. Don’t the majority win?

Secondly, beauty lies in the eye of the beholder. What is poison to you, might be meat to me and others. Instead of letting users decide what is spam or not, there should be a real moderating team in place that reviews each submission accordingly. I don’t suppose there is one now from the looks of it. I have to say honestly though, that manpower is going to be an issue here. With thousands of submissions a day, it is not going to be an easy task reviewing each and every one but obviously, something has to be done.

Finally, every site deserves to be heard fairly. There should be a dispute resolution center that caters to sites that are wrongfully banned for whatsoever reasons. Even Google attends to such matters, so why shouldn’t Digg?

Technorati Tags: ,

Share and Enjoy:These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Stumble it
  • YahooMyWeb

1 Response to “Digg's Spam Policy Needs Reviewing”

  1. 1 Getting Back To Blog! - 9tin20.com Pingback on Dec 29th, 2006 at 12:49 am

Leave a Reply

Quote selected text

Bad Behavior has blocked 250 access attempts in the last 7 days.