Comments on: Wired.com Proves Digg Can Still be Bought

By: Evan

Evan — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 15:04:39 +0000

This is not anything new just because Wired reported it. I did a similar thing when i wrote the digg piece for marketingshift.com last year except w/o User/Submitter. I just contacted diggers and said I’d pay a few for their diggs and they agreed.

Kevin and Jay denied that this could happen, oops.

I’m also pretty sure just about everyone knows this is happening at least most of the blogosphere and people who have used digg for a while. The site is full of spam and duplicate content and it has been gamed from day 1.

good for Wired for calling them out.

By: HMTKSteve

HMTKSteve — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 13:28:21 +0000

Let’s see here…

1) Digg claims they can not be gamed.
2) Someone games Digg.
3) Some bloggers try to discredit the gaming because of the reddit affiliation.

The simple fact is that Digg was gamed! It wasn’t even gamed with an interesting website and that is the point. If someone can get a crap website onto the Digg home page then Digg can be gamed.

The gaming goes both ways in that good websites can be buried before they reach the home page. I’ve seen stories with hundreds of Diggs that never make the home page!

By: kelvin newman

kelvin newman — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 11:28:37 +0000

Whether wired own reddit or not its about time someone put their money where their mouth was to see if the gaming service worked.

It actually seems quite cost effective if you think you have some good content that could do well on digg but you are worried about getting the momentuum started.

However I imagine most of the people who dugg the wired story might have there votes devalued.

By: Andy Beal

Andy Beal — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 06:39:23 +0000

Skitzzo – I wouldn’t go as far as backing Arrington’s call to sue them, but you do have to wonder about the motives of Wired.

Nonetheless, the bigger story is that Digg doesn’t have control of spam, as they claim.

By: Skitzzo

Skitzzo — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 03:26:10 +0000

It’s not like Wired didn’t disclose their ties to reddit in the piece.

Also, has Mr. Arrington ever watched the news? They constantly send in hidden cameras, under-cover agents, and participate in exploits to bring them to light. The fact that Wired is owned by a company also owning a Digg competitor doesn’t matter. If it were Reddit or Netscape themselves exposing this flaw, the fact still remains, the flaw is still there. The motives don’t much matter.

By: Joe Duck

Joe Duck — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 01:07:10 +0000

I thought this was a good expose of DIGG challenges as it faces an onslaught of social media marketing. Nicely detailed.

By: Deep Jive Interests » Did Wired Game Digg? I Don’t Think So

Deep Jive Interests » Did Wired Game Digg? I Don’t Think So — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 00:12:11 +0000

[...] Did Wired Game Digg? I Don’t Think So March 1st, 2007 at 6:38 pm by Tony There’s an interesting article up on Wired about how an author created a sham blog with some banal content, then bought votes on User/Submitter and some fairly unremarkable posts with accompanying pictures dugg to the frontpage. There’s the usual commentary from Digg watchers, including an interesting charge by Mike Arrington that Wired is playing to some strong conflict of interests as Wired’s parent company own’s Digg’s competitor — which definitely has some merit. Mat Ingram seems to agree. They could have run the story with a disclaimer, but none is to be found anywhere. [...]

By: Jason Schramm

Jason Schramm — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 21:59:59 +0000

A very tempting proposition. I could definitely use the traffic, though keeping the visitors on the site is another problem entirely. You can get all the traffic you want, but if people don’t come back you wasted a good opportunity.