Digg is banning users because they digg too often

DiggA member in one of my discussion lists just got his account banned by Digg.

What was the reason you say ?

Your account was banned for the rate of Digging activity you’ve engaged in. We’ve determined that the time in which your Diggs happen, it isn’t possible to actually read the stories. Please read each and every story before you Digg or bury a story. Once you agree that you will Digg/bury more responsibly and read the stories, we will unban your account.

Recently, the Digg staff, trough their automated algorithms, is watching if a user is reading a story, by counting the time the user stays on that particular page, and the time it takes him to press the Digg button.

As another member in the discussion list said :

That’s funny. I have a feeling this is going to bite them in the ass.

I agree … This algorithm tweaking and fear of SPAM is going way to far … I mean, come on guys, banning users for voting stories too often ?

I would really love a response from someone at Digg.

PS: Noupsell has a really good personal explanation and clarification for this situation, at the Digg page.

PS2: Apparently, the Digg community catalogues this post of mine, as SPAM :)

“dig_count”:”31″,”area”:”Upcoming”}, {“type”:”report”,”itemid”:”2071615″,”date”:”2007-05-23 13:41:42″,”timestamp”:”1179927702″,”reason”:”Spam”,

Published by

Cristian Mezei

I am myself.

27 thoughts on “Digg is banning users because they digg too often”

  1. I just read your post and oh by the way, I didn’t Digg it as I read fast. ;-)

    Having said that, I do agree with Digg on this one.
    The site has grown to a point where they have to do something with the young boys and girls who just click to get Digg count. If not, they will keep the reputation that many of us have of their site.

    Good post

  2. I also agree. I think Digg has reached a point where it’s too big for its own boots. It really is usenet 2.0.

  3. Well, this means that a lot of people will get banned really fast. Cause i doubt the big diggers keep reading everything they hit, no? After all, the day has only 24 hours :)

  4. Yeah, they seem to be spending more time patrolling and regulating, more now than ever. I feel that the majority of it is pointless and they could better spend their time working on something else, other then pissing off the loyal diggers. I personally got confronted by a lawyer representing Digg, about my Digg API powered site, diggbrowser.com (which I have recently changed to duggbrowser…)

  5. I got my account banned exactly for what Cristi said. I digged many stories in a short period of time because of the simple fact that I did loved the articles. They were about css, design, mainyl things that interested ME. I wasn’t related in any way with any of the dugg articles btw.

    Now I got another account, though :)

  6. While I understand both sides of this issue, the fundamental problem remains that there are a lot of good stories that can’t make it to the front page and a lot of bad stories that do. Digg users have a short attention span. How many people actually even go the read upcoming stories? And with thousands of upcoming stories everyday how many can one really go through and track?

    It is really a challenge to make the digg concept work In the end many people only read the top stories and most of the top stories get dugg by people who more or less know each other.

    Will digg ever work for what it is? Will digg ever give each user a chance and more importantly will digg ever be able to really spot all the great articles submitted?

  7. Digg is fundamentally broken and it will take to re-engineer something to make it work for the community. There need to be a way to present upcoming stories in an easy-to-scan-through way to users so they can actually promote other good stories being submitted everyday…

  8. This has happened to me, too. I have two thoughts:

    1) Digg Admin has no way of knowing how much people can read and how fast. Besides, reading a story, in it’s entirety is not a requirement on Digg. Sometimes stories are Dugg for the clever titles, or for the description, or for the comments. Sometimes stories are Dugg between friends who want to support each other (ahem – this is supposed to be “social” news, no?)

    2) Limiting the number of Diggs deemed “reasonable,” serves the purpose of keeping the majority and minority communities in their current positions. For example, in the politics sections, we all know there are more liberals on Digg, and if the conservatives and libertarians want to promote their stories, they have to work harder. Not allowing the conservative and libertarian diggers to do this – keeps the conservative and libertarians, effectively, “in their place.” It’s a way that Digg is able to continue to manipulate what is shown on the front page.

    Good post. Thanks!

  9. Ah, big deal.

    We’ll adapt. We’ll not bury LGF and other hate-site submissions until after an appropriate delay.

    Move on.

  10. maybe this person was digging in say 10 seconds per story, in which case it makes sense why they’d ban him.

  11. You know whats so ironic about this is that MOST sites are trying to get people to excesively post and “Digg” everything they do. Here you get punished for it!? And what does Digg care if you read the entire story or not – they dont know how fast you may read!

    Curious? Check out Christopher Ruddy

  12. Cristi, this is a normal behavior for a company which is trying to eliminate SPAM but I will not rely on JavaScript.

  13. I have to go with digg regarding this.
    Let me share one hillarious joke with all of you–

    Few days back -a friend of mine was buying diggs from DP members. I happen to visit the services section and saw it. I posted there to send me the URL -just to have fun. Someone saw the post PMed me asking for a DIGG for $1 and asking my Paypal — I played the game and digged his link/post.

    After few hrs my YM alerted me that there was a payment — and Lol -it was $1.

    Are not people going too far? Matt Cuts knows all these things would happen if Google completely bans paid links. That is why they have kept quality web directories out of Paid Link arena.

    Cheers :D

  14. I just wonder how many people are sitting back and watching Digg try to break new ground with web 2.0, and taking notes on what to do and what NOT to do.

  15. Excellent post. Even the comments were insightful and entertaining.

    This particular Digg policy is based and entirely dependent upon the assumption that the person doing the digging is encountering the headline and story for the first time.

    The hypocrisy by heinous. Digg doesn’t exist if its users didn’t go to other websites to get their news, but they ban their customers’ accounts through a policy that is based on the assumption that Digg is the first and only place people go to get news.

    Unfortunately, this is not the only example of weak leadership and poor decision making at Digg.

    The good news is that Mixx (mixx.com) is providing a badly needed breath of fresh air in the social media scene.

  16. Re: Greg

    You must not have seen their Alexa and/or Compete data. I think the fact that Digg’s users are leaving in droves for Mixx speaks for itself.

  17. I appreciate the developers of the algorithm. This is how it should be-the calculation of time taken to read the story before one Diggs it is a smart move.

    After all, one can only take so much.

Comments are closed.