Many long term users of Digg are currently in revolt against this social media site. It is being called the ‘digger revolt’ and it has come about due to recent changes made at the website. These changes mean that the site can no longer be controlled by a small group of users, but instead intends to be more inclusive. This change though has made a lot of regular users angry about their loss of control and they are currently attempting to harm the website in revenge.

The digger revolt does not involve any physical violence; Kevin Rose has not needed to go into police protection – at least not yet anyway. The revolt is more about trying to lure other users away to other social media sites like Reddit.com and posting articles critical of the new Digg. The protesters want things returned to how they used to be. At the start Digg was blocking a lot of the protest but it now seems to be just letting it flood the website; it is not nice to watch and is sure to damage the reputation of the site.

This current revolt is fascinating to watch and just goes to show how much power users have on a website like Digg. Maybe those in charge of social media sites like FaceBook should sit up and listen – if they push their users too far they too could be looking at a revolt. In this instance you have to feel a bit sorry for Digg though, they are only trying to improve the website and make it a bit fairer.  Digg had turned into an almost exclusive group of users who seemed to dominate everything – in some ways their current revolt can seem a bit childish; like a baby throwing their rattle out of a pram.

Social media is hot today. There is no internet-savvy person who is oblivious on what social media means. When we hear the word social media, what words do we instantly associate with it? Do you think of social networking websites such as MySpace or Facebook? How about social bookmarking sites such as Digg and StumbleUpon? And who can forget about the status-updating and microblogging website called Twitter? All of them may be designed differently as well as serve different functions but they all have a common element for them to be regarded as a group.

Social media pertains to websites which has a community of people that shares information through the website. In this situation, the website acts as the medium to get the message across. That is why it is called social “media”.

With this in mind, social media have been utilized by people for various reasons. Mostly, it is used for businesses for it offers a targeted community which you can easily reach out to through messaging. Others have used it for its sheer power of promotion. There is a part of the community, however, that is called as social media addicts. These are people who stay at that particular website for the whole day and concentrate their promotion there.

This behavior is good and bad. It is good because it allows a user to penetrate the culture of a particular social media website in the beginning. This way, he can easily talk to its users regarding their needs. On the other hand, it is also bad. As Kristy Bolsinger said in her article entitled “Are All Your Eggs in One Social Media Basket?“, focusing all your time on one social media website alone will not help you as that website falls down in the future.

Well, we have seen social media sites rise and fall. There are some websites that have consistent traffic and revenue but there are also others which has a decreasing popularity as time passes by. What you need to do is to prevent facing problems in the future and spread your marketing scheme all throughout different websites.

Of course, this does not mean that you have to join every social media website you encounter. Managing 4-7 accounts will do. Besides, you will just create confusion for yourself by joining too many sites.

There is nothing wrong with being a social media fanatic. Participating in social media websites must be done with strategy and care.

Kevin Rose is at it again. Some people have claimed that Twitter have beaten Digg to the ground. It was just this January when Matt Churchill said in his post “Twitter vs. Digg: Measuring Success” that Twitter has equaled Digg in popularity because of a whopping 974% surge in its users thiss year. This was further exemplified with Joe Wallace’s post “Twitter vs. Digg: Social Media Wars” that indicated Twitter had really topped Digg. But what did Kevin Rose do? Whine? Complain? Create another website that will beat Twitter? Hell no. But he did create a website that will help Twitter.

A common error among internet marketers is the search to break new grounds. If you are as lucky as the founder of Twitter or Google, then you may find yourself successful. But then, helping or contributing to what is already out there is a rather wise option to make. That is why we have to commend Kevin Rose for his efforts on this new targeted Twitter directory called WeFollow.

Unlike other directories, WeFollow has this unique feature of getting updated easily. Each entry along with categories are ranked based on the number of followers. All one needs to do is reply to WeFollow on Twitter with the following format:

@wefollow #category1 #category2 #category3

WeFollow have also limited the number of categories you can sign yourself into. I think this is to make sure that the people in each category are somehow targeted. Because anyone can sign themselves to a particular category, there is the danger of irrelevant sign-ups that only solicits followers. If you want to try signing to more than three categories like what @mattcutts did, you will find that only the last three categories were credited.

I think WeFollow is a nice directory especially for those who are starting out on Twitter. Let us face it. All of us want to follow people who are relevant in our field. For example, if you are a designer, wouldn’t you find it more interesting to carry a conversation with a fellow designer than a programmer? Of course, there will still be a connection but not as intense as that of the same niche. Also, this will also be useful for customer targetting. If people are sorted into categories of interests, then targeting them for marketing would be more worthwhile because of better conversions.

In the end, we have to thank Kevin Rose for WeFollow. As Danny Sullivan said in his discussion of WeFollow,

It’s not perfect, but it’s a great start and well worth visiting.

Just a day ago, we have posted a catchy headline on how Digg had admitted the existence of autobury in their website. However, as a lot of people have suspected, this is just a prank started by the nitmeh3, the concerned user who conducted the anti-Digg campaign.

We confirmed this when Jen Burton, the community manager of Digg.com replied to our post entitled “Autobury Exists” Digg Admits. Her comment goes as follows:

“Hey there. Just wanted to reach out directly and let you know that the supposed emails this user has written about do not exist. I have personally checked all our contact history with this person and while we do have emails back and forth with him, none of them indicate the existence of an auto bury list or his supposed place on it.” – Jen Burton

We would like to thank Jen for directly telling us what is happening. We are torn after all since the user who spread this news have no credibility to begin with. As we said in our past post,

“…the argument of the user here is somehow childish. He sent an image on the Digg website that degrades Digg itself and was surprised that it got autoburied. He then went to this anti-Digg campaign on his blog post which may also be biased.”

A lot of things have been clarified here. First, the emails spread by the user nitmeh3 are all fake. Second, Digg did not admit that they autobury posts or did they exchanged emails with this particular user. I think this should clear up the noise a little bit. However, we think that because of this commotion, a lot of people will still entertain the possibility of the existence of autobury. Not that it matters. A single user can only do so much.

Lately there has been a lot of fiasco surrounding Digg and their auto bury feature. This comes as somewhat as a suprise to me as this is something that I predicted months ago.

Just to get a quick recap on the happening, lately this story has been creating a lot of buzz http://www.brentcsutoras.com/2009/02/20/digg-finally-admits-autobury-exists/ its basically being talked about everywhere.

But this was something I suggested months ago, just take a look here http://www.seotops.com/digg-is-no-longer-user-generated_111/

So it just goes to show if you want your stories delivered long before they go mainstream then continue reading this blog

Image Submitted by nitmeh3 to Digg

Digg have admitted with an email with a user that the autobury function exists. The said user is named nitmeh3 and he has been recently banned for digging an image that degrades the Digg staff. Digg, in trying to protect their name, have somehow admitted they autobury particular posts which they deem as inappropriate to the community.

This admission, however, is not blatantly stated. It is merely used by Digg as a reason for taking action on the user’s post. As the user saw his post is being automatically buried, he sent the following email to the Digg staff:

Hello Digg ,
I am Mick (http://digg.com/users/nitmeh3) at Digg. I have recently noticed that all my stories are getting buried automatically . I havent submitted spam right ? I have been submitting quality stuff since beginning and most of them have been featured on the digg homepage has well. But since yesterday my stories have started getting buried automatically ? Even though i didnt shout them and didnt ask for votes on IM ( which i usually do ) because I sure that those would reach the FP without giving them a push.
Kindly give me clarifications for this.
Thanks.
Mick (nitmeh3).
Source: http://fuck-you-digg.blogspot.com/2009/02/screw-you-digg.html

In Digg’s reply, they stated that the autobury exist and is shown in the following statement:

We appreciate that you have submitted quality stuff on Digg.com but because we must be vigilant in protecting against activities that compromise the Digg community we were forced to bury your submissions.

This particular email have caused a lot of noise in the Digg community. This somehow denotes that Digg actually buries particular posts. Of course, Digg is entitled to its right to protect their name and their staff but can it really suppress the freedom of expression in their website? Is it good to be part of a social bookmarking website that has staff members that control the content being displayed?

The answer to this question is yes and no. Yes because this website can protect users from inappropriate content such as adult content. However, the answer is no if it suppresses the freedom of expression and limits the information its users will know. This is like modern day censorship. But it all boils down to the effects of this process.

In the end, Digg being a commercial private institution have the right to set up its own rules on how to implement its policies. It has as much power to protect their integrity as they have to protect their users. After all, the argument of the user here is somehow childish. He sent an image on the Digg website that degrades Digg itself and was surprised that it got autoburied. He then went to this anti-Digg campaign on his blog post which may also be biased. Tell me. Can we blame Digg for taking such actions?

What’s your take on this issue? Is the action that Digg took appropriate to the situation or is it a mere suppression of the freedom of expression? What will you do if you own Digg?

But I guess Digg should not have used the word “bury” in their email. This is where all the commotion have stemmed from.