Digg hit controversy Wednesday — and by Wednesday night, founder Kevin Rose had responded.

Rose confirmed that his link-popularity site will ban a user’s account if they’re voting for stories too fast. But he added an important caveat.

“This is extremely rare.”

A news article had reported that a Digg user’s account had been banned for voting on Digg’s links too fast. Critical coverage followed at other sites, and when a blurb about the article was submitted to Digg, Rose turned up in its comments. He argued that even in the rare instances where the penalty kicks, it was more of a soft ban.

“If the user is banned due to an alarm being set off – in all cases, they are given an opportunity to be re-instated.”

He also noted that bans are a last resort. Yes, fast-voting users are occassionally sidelined, but it’s done with a careful algorithm, Rose posted. “We have automated systems that flag abnormal digging behavior (e.g. hundreds of Diggs in an hour).” One user asked how banned accounts get reactivated — and Rose jumped in with one more response. “Just email us.”

His first comment received 67 diggs, the second one 33.
The site’s found apparently remains extremely popular with its users. One even left a comment thanking Rose. “Unlike so many websites, Digg’s staff really seems to care about its users and they take the time to personally answer questions instead of just ignoring the users.” But a controversy still lingers over the tactic itself, with users pointing out alternate scenarios.

What if a story’s headline makes it clear that it’s duplicating another one? What if it’s an obvious spam? If other Digg users have left comments warning the article is spam — should these users have to independently read the problematic article before they’re eligible to bury it?

Rose’s comments seem to indicate that the occassional “blind digg” won’t trigger an account banning. But the bigger concern is the philosophy behind it, according to another comment. “I really hope Digg doesn’t become ‘What the community wants, but only if you do it exactly the way we want.’” Another Digg user added that “After the HD DVD thing this place has gone downhill…”

Perhaps the best critique came from a user named Flashman — arguing that the temporary bans are self-defeating. “Now people who game the system will know they need to add a short interval between landing on a page and digging it.” By tipping their hand, Digg makes it easier for malicious users to do the one thing they’re trying to prevent — game the system.

But Digg rolls on, still retaining a huge user community with users that are passionate, surly, and occassionally even funny.

A user named philonius added satirically that he’d judge stories based on the number of exclamation points in their title. And “awboy666″ couldn’t resist adding the obvious irony.
“I dugg this story without reading it!!!”

Related:

Entry was posted on Wednesday, May 23rd, 2007 at 7:19 pm under Blogosphere, Uncategorized.

Read more entries by David Cassel.
Stumble It!