Let’s say Digg worked out the SEO part 100%. Then it’s cool to use? Of course not!

1. It’s poor web etiquette. What if every site did it? (”Yeah, but Digg is just not ‘any’ site.”) OK, what if the top 100 sites did it? What if Google did it?

2. It’s ego driven. You love Digg so much, why would you want to leave? How about you just stay on Digg, and we’ll pull over that site and put it on the page for you. Copyright violation, anyone?

3. Digg is putting their ads on other people’s sites. In their frame, click on something to take action, and the frame expands complete with an advertisement. Digg displays your content below, but puts their ad at the top. Above any of the ads you might have. So, not only are they displaying your content to generate ad revenue, but they’re also diluting the value of your ads by putting their ad first.

4. This isn’t about user experience, or to make it easier for the Digg community, or whatever else they’re feeding everyone. It’s about money. Digg’s only motivation for the Diggbar is to increase the Digg audience, increase the time on the site, increase revenue, and so on. Whatever else Kevin Rose says is part of the Pollyanna PR spin. Making money is great. I’m a big fan of that personally. But, when you’re pulling this kind of crap to make your money, i guess you’re better off putting the “it’s really for the user” spin on it!

5. It’s not opt-in. What if a site doesn’t want the Diggbar at the top of it’s page? I mean, it’s not Digg’s page, right? If a web site owner doesn’t want his user experience altered, that his/her right, yes? (”Well, they can block it using various tools.”) Why should they have to? Isn’t that the unsolicited emailer’s creed? “You didn’t ask for this, but if you don’t like it, just click on the unsubscribe link.” Diggbar sounds spammy to me.

For being the tech saint he is, lover of open-source, feel-good guy, I expected a lot more out of Kevin Rose.