My War With Digg.com

Firstly, my apologies to my regular readers for being somewhat off topic today however this is something which I feel needs to be said. It recently came to my attention that regardless of how much support my submissions to digg.com received they never reach the front page.

Upon further investigation it became apparent that every one of my last thirteen submissions had been 'buried'. My first thoughts were that I had in some way offended someone or some people who had taken it upon themselves to attack every submission I make.

However, I soon realised that while such unscrupulous people no doubt exist they are not generally anonymous in their actions. Having seen such an attack on a friends submission it is clear that the people that do this at least have the courage to put their names to their comments. Furthermore, providing there is enough positive support these actions are not enough to supress an otherwise popular submission.

Having done some further research it appears that digg.com has a policy of blacklisting URLs allowing them to 'auto-bury' submissions and preventing them from being seen by the general public. Whilst I understand the potential need for such a practice there is no reason whatsoever for my own site to be subjected to this.

Most of my submissions have been from my own site although as my regular readers will be aware I often feature the work of others here as well as my own and nothing that I have submitted infringes upon digg.coms terms and conditions in any way. Digg purports that the success or failure of any story is dependant upon how it is received and voted on by the public. This as you can see is not always the case.

I was prepared to give Digg the benefit of the doubt and emailed them requesting that the error be investigated and resolved. I have now emailed them three times and have not received so much as a generic response.

This is unwarranted discrimination and as such is illegal practice but something tells me I am not the only one to have been treated unfairly in this way. Since they have failed to respond I have forwarded these concerns to both the BBC and Reuters and there will be many more to follow.

I have included the unanswered emails below for you all to see.

Dear Sirs,

Although new to Digg, I am active on various social media sites and was slightly baffled as to why my success elsewhere was not mirrored so far at Digg. However, I recently became aware that all 13 of my most recent submissions had been buried without even being viewed by those who were responsible for this.

The majority of these submissions were from my own site although they have been produced by a number of different authors and all were of good quality. Perhaps in one or two instances some may disagree but not in the case of 13 consecutive items produced by different people. It would seem either I am being personally victimised or there are a selection of people deliberately attacking blogger sites.

In the possible event that it was a personal attack I allowed the author of the latest post on my site to submit it themselves. The result was the same despite the fact that in this case the author is a highly successful writer and novelist. But then as I have said it was not even viewed before being buried.

I have no wish to be vindictive and so I have chosen to bring this to your attention privately rather than making this a public issue in the hope that you are able to satisfactorily resolve this issue and provide assurance that any future submissions I make be fairly treated. I am assuming of course that this is as a result of a few unscrupulous individuals whom you are able to identify and not a problem that is inherent to Digg.

I hope to submit within the next 24 hours and so I hope to receive a prompt response.

Regards

Matt Barnes (w0lfh0und)

Dear Sirs,

I find it unfortunate that you have not as yet replied to my previous email. Perhaps customer service is not considered a high priority?

Having completed some further research it has been suggested that my treatment is not due to public response but more likely that my URL has been blacklisted by Digg and that the removal of my submissions is an automated procedure. This would make some sense since public comments I have received have always been positive.

Whilst I understand a potential need for this kind of practice to be in place there is certainly no reason whatsoever for this to be so as regards my own submissions. I also find it disturbing that you purport that the success or failure of a story is dependant on public opinion when this is clearly not the case. As previously stated, every one of my submissions whether it be my own work or that of others has always been well received.

It is now my intention to prepare a report for bbcnews.co.uk as to how you have chosen to handle my grievance. I have already stated that I expect to receive a response from yourselves within 24 hours. This expires at 09.30 GMT, I trust that I will hear from you before then

Matt Barnes (w0lfh0und)

Dear Sirs,

Since you have chosen to ignore my previous emails you leave me with no alternative. You may expect to receive invitations to comment from several news agencies.

I am also seeking legal advice since unwarranted discrimination is quite clearly illegal.

It is unfortunate that this has become necessary when a resolution could have quite easily been achieved.

Matt Barnes (w0lfh0und)