Update: Now includes the Digg Revolt.
Update: If you feel you have something to add about Digg’s history let me know at anthony{dot}hung{at}gmail{dot}com.
After blogging about the “Aliwood” incident, which was received with deafening silence, I looked into whether or not this was the first time anyone had been interested in controversy over at Digg.com.
Sure enough, it wasn’t.
What follows is a short and incomplete, I’m sure, collection of information that constitutes a brief history of Digg controversy.
ForeverGeek-Gate
This past April those guys over at ForeverGeek noticed a pattern of digging going on at Digg.com and called Digg out on it . They noticed that a group of dedicated Diggers (nee the Digg Army) were digging each others posts, foisting their submissions to the front page. What added a bit of special sauce was that apparently Kevin Rose was part of this circle as well.
Although this probably wasn’t the first time it happened, it was the first time it received the level of attention that it did, which was significant. Boing Boing weighed in. As did Slashdot . There was also a story on RealTechNews as well. Thomas Hawk seemed to be in Digg’s corner. The Inquirer had some coverage. As did Wired. So had a few other not inconsequential blogs which verified ForeverGeek’s findings. What happened next, however, was particularly troubling.
ForeverGeek was quickly found “banned” from Digg. That is, it was impossible to submit stories from ForeverGeek.com. Things spiraled out of control: as more and more Diggers picked up on the story and began submitting less-than-complimentary stories, they found their stories obliterated or buried, and in some case, the posters themselves banned.
Kevin Rose eventually weighed in on the issue himself explaining that ForeverGeek was thought to have been using fake accounts to digg up certain stories; therefore, it was banned. This appeared to be difficult to prove in and of itself, and in time, ForeverGeek was un-banned. Some people believe one explanation is that Digg is very heavy on spammers , ergo, it was easy for the domain (ForeverGeek) to get banned. After the fact, it appeared that many users part of the “Digg Army” disappeared as well.
More Group Digging Controversies
Of course, this wouldn’t be the first time that group digging was thought to occur.
AOL “Spamming” : Apparently Diggers with links to AOL have been group digging their own submissions, although similar submissions never make it to the front page. One of the Navigators on Netscape replied back , suggesting that it was coincidence alone, and that “natural groupings” had explained their group vote.
Liberterians get in on the act: BigDaveDiode catalogues his adventures with a Liberterian group pushing stories with a certain (liberterian) agenda. If his account is to believed, it sounds like that a small group of Liberterians organized themselves on a Yahoo! group and deliberately digged certain stories to the front page. Apparently 9 of 12 stories on their website had, at one point, hit the front page. Seems like once BigDaveDiode started asking a few questions (that were apparently pointedly ignored), their group disappeared from Yahoo!
Michelle Malkin Encourages Group Digging As Well : In a recent post, Michelle Malkin encouraged her own fans to sign up at Digg and Digg her own articles. Taylor Hayword does a nice breakdown of the new signups, how they’ve been digging, and just how many posts from Michelle Malkin’s own blog have been dugg. Ms. Malkin fired back in her own chipper way .
Recursive Humour
July 2006, John Graham-Cumming decides to post dual-post Digg and Reddit in a joke playing on the idea of “recursion” . One submission referred to a reddit submission, and, vice versa. By submitting both to each site pointing at each other, each separate submission got bongo results. It was meant to be a bit of a joke, but Mr. Graham-Cumming found out that Digg takes a dim view of anything that smacks of manipulating the system.
Sure enough, his post got deleted, and his profile banned.
Apparently, the explanation was that his efforst had violated their terms of service … although the part they quote didn’t seem to make a lot of sense, because he had, apparently, mistakenly submitted his story twice. And, apparently it had nothing to do with their “lack of humour”. Perhaps due to the spirited discussion both on Digg and on his website, or even a contribution by the Register, his account was re-instated some time later, although. It required Leo Laporte to intervene on his behalf (his initial emails weren’t answered) before his profile and posts were unbanned.
AOL Poaching Posters
July 2006 (again), Jason Calacanis of Weblogs Inc, and now AOL, and also Netscape makes an offer to all prodigious Diggers that some of them can’t refuse — cash for participating in the New Netscape . Netscape has transformed itself into a new social news website a la Digg, and Mr. Calacanis offers to compensate them for their hardwork. Many gurus / pundits weigh in on the situation, as does Kevin Rose. As it stands, Netsacpe is making some headway, but according to some analysts, has a long long way to go.
Digg of Oz?
Very recently, there has been posts floating around suggesting that not only do moderators exist on Digg, but they are actively changing and deleting posts without any apparent explanation. Netscape does it with aplomb and is quite transparent about it. One example at Digg involved a cadet “Aliwood” at the the United States Air Force Academy who, as part of her assignment had to participate in Digg. It began innocently enough until she contacted a top100 Digger, who had elected to mention it on his blog , then Digg the article himself. 60% of her posts were then promoted to the front page, with one of them getting over 1000 digs, however, most of the diggs appeared to be based on the story around her assignment, rather than the newsworthiness (or lack thereof) of her stories. In a few days her account and her posts were all deleted . Although “Aliwood” was not deliberately trying to ‘game’ the system, the popularity of her story skyrocketed the number of diggs her submissions would have normally gotten. And it appeared that she payed the price.
Digg Protects TM, Sics Lawyers on Gaming Site
August 2006 — Digg decides to enforce its TM “Digg” and “Digg it”, and sends its lawyers to send a cease and desist letter to DiggGames.com, for a variety of reasons, one of which is to prevent confusion with the parent site. DiggGames.com is a website which hosts games (flash and otherwise) which have been featured on Digg. A lively discussion ensues on Digg, where many opinions, some from lawyers suggest that without defending one’s TM, you could lose it. TechCrunch covers it briefly as well. Others go on to opine that it is not the fact they are defending their TM that is the issue, but the way they are resolving the issue. Some point to how Engadget is dealing with a Malaysian store who is doing a good job ripping off their name as an example; others yet point to Kevin Rose’s own “on-air/net” personality as a geek-cum-dark tipper as entirely disingenuous with the spirit of the cease and desist letter against a small time operator. Although Kevin Rose issued a statement through the Digg blog, claiming the intent was not to shut down any websites … but merely to get a name change. The story does not yet have an ending so far.
Circle-Digging: Elite Diggers Controlling Frontpage
September 2006. Jesusphreak posts an article questioning how democratic the digging processes is when he notices that a significant proportion of the frontpage articles are submitted, then dugg by elite, top20 (or 50) bloggers. It seems like these diggers digg each others submissions, thus propelling those submissions right to the frontpage — primarily because the Digg algorithm places weight on reputation. Something that elite Diggers have in spades. A firestorm of commentary erupts, causing it to hit all kinds of major news blogs, and even eliciting a reponse from Kevin Rose himself, wherein he goes on to state that Digg has plans to change the way top “Diggers” are recognized (Submitters vs. Diggers) in addition to subtle changes to the Digg algorithm so it will, apparently, offer a more equitable way for stories to be promoted to the Frontpage. Hemphill81 weighed on the issue himself, stating that he was just using the tools available; the commentary which followed was energetic to say the least.
Also of interest, p9s50W5k4GUD2c6, the Number One Digger decided to quit Digg after the whole debacle, and how Kevin Rose chose to handle things. [tip: Chrisek at DiggAddicts on this one!]. GregD similarly weighed in with his thoughts.
Interestingly enough, it pierces the consciousness of the blosphere, and quite a few other blogs begin to pick up on the story.
- DiggAddict — Controversy
- GoldenGod.net — “Digg Rigg Drama Bigg”
- ProfitPapers.com — “Is Digg Rigged?”
HD-DVD Encryption Key — The Numbers That Shall Not Be Named, and the Revolt.
Although it was by no means a new piece of information, the hexadecimal key that allowed HD-DVDs to be encrypted with Linux had been vociferously tracked down by copyright lawyers. The result has been that many blogs have had to take down the key. Digg users got a hold of it and started submitting blogs with this information. The result? These submissions were taken down, some with as many as 15 000 diggs. The rationale? Digg was worried that they would be the receiving end of a DCMA lawsuit, and wanted to protect themselves as much as possible. The problem? The geek community that Digg was built upon took exception to the way Digg was handling this, as it was taking the side of the DMCA (albeit for self-preservation), rather than engaging it in some kind of meaningful conversation. The bigger problem? The Digg community revolted by submitting, then promoting, stories related to this key faster than what Digg could pull down. The richy irony? That Digg was built up on the backs of geeks, and now, in this time and on this issue that geeks are passionate about the best Digg can do is censor itself.
The undocumented history of Digg
With the rise of Digg as the posterchild of the Web2.0, its pretty fascinating to hear and read about the controversies around this emerging giant of the medium. While group digging is something that will always be an issue with these socially driven news sites, I think the most troubling thing is the rise of moderators on Digg. Evidence is clearly mounting that it is the case, but its difficult to built a case on — since Digg has had no qualms in obliterating posts and profiles, leaving no trace or evidence of any wrongdoing.
Since that’s the case it makes one wonder if there have been any other undocumented ‘controversies’ in Digg’s recent past. A secret history, perhaps? While it acts as grist for the conspiracy mill, one thing’s for certain.
As Digg gets more and more popular, it will (as it already has) start to attract more attention. More attention will mean more people trying to take advantage of the system, and more attempts at Digg trying to give the appearance of keeping things fair. It remains to be seen if Digg will ever publicly announce a more openhanded attempt at editorial control — but in the end, I think more transparency can’t be but a good thing.
August 25th, 2006 at 11:34 am | Permalink
wow. i heard of trouble in digg. but i did not realize the extend.
August 25th, 2006 at 12:24 pm | Permalink
Hey there,
Thanks for stopping by.
Its funny how things start piling up, eh? :)
But without a catalogue of the issues, people forget.
Cheers!
t
August 25th, 2006 at 3:13 pm | Permalink
I felt terrible about getting AliWood’s account deleted, even if I had no direct part in publicizing her profile. It was unfortunate that someone had to be ignorant enough to post the link to her profile.
As for the rest of the “Digg-conspiracy”, I guess it would just be the acts of any user driven content website to want to have a bit of damage control or moderation. For example, I don’t think Digg users should mind having their submission category changed and sites being banned from submission, that’s just trying to protect some integrity of the website. Users banning together to promote stories is a real problem and eliminating the sites they want to promote helps kill off the problem, I assume.
August 25th, 2006 at 6:10 pm | Permalink
Hey there Jeremiah,
Thanks for stopping by!
You know, the funny thing is I WANT to believe that she asked for account to be deleted, and NOT that Digg just obliterated it out of existence … because after all the controversy I still really like the site.
Funny thing is I don’t have any traction with *anyone* so all arguments to the contrary about there NOT being a hierarchy (A-list, B-LIst, C-list and so on) are just baloney … and sad.
I’ve tried to get down to the bottom of things, as they were, and its just silence.
No replies.
Believe me — I’ve checked my spam folder — Nada!
As for your other thoughts about digg — I think you’re right on.
Watch out for my next post about The Problem With Social Content Networks (such as Digg, Netscape or Shoutit).
Cheers,
t.
August 26th, 2006 at 12:48 pm | Permalink
I totally agree with you guys. It will be a shame if digg cannot keep its reputation of fairplay. Once people have the feeling that digg is not a fair place, the damage will be huge. On the other hand, i do understand the need of moderation for a community site such as digg. But how to strike the right balance is hard.
BTW, i posted this story on buzzcn again and gave it a chinese blurb.
http://www.buzzcn.com/news/1884
August 26th, 2006 at 4:40 pm | Permalink
Thanks for the simu-post on BuzzCn.com — will see how that pans out. Man, I wish I could read / write chinese! :)
Cheers
t
August 26th, 2006 at 10:01 pm | Permalink
I read this article after I posted on your other Digg article.
Good reading, my sense tells me Digg is not what it seems. It will be interesting to see what happens.
August 27th, 2006 at 10:52 am | Permalink
[...] Read about it here. [...]
August 31st, 2006 at 4:23 pm | Permalink
[...] Full story on this page: A Brief History of Digg Controversy [...]
August 31st, 2006 at 4:23 pm | Permalink
[...] Read about it here. [...]
September 6th, 2006 at 3:54 pm | Permalink
Very good writeup mate. I’ll keep an eye on your blog.
September 6th, 2006 at 4:20 pm | Permalink
[...] Well, I’ve written about this sort of controversy before, but there’s a new spin on things this time — which, to be honest, I’ve noticed, thanks to some work by Chrisekblog, a few days ago. [...]
September 6th, 2006 at 5:02 pm | Permalink
[...] Well, its not the case. Just ask ForeverGeek. Or Aliwood. http://www.deepjiveinterests.com/2006/08/18/why-i-think-the-whole-digg-aliwood-thing-is-a-big-deal/ http://www.deepjiveinterests.com/2006/08/25/a-brief-history-of-digg-controversy/ [...]
September 6th, 2006 at 7:22 pm | Permalink
Have you ever looked up the definition of ‘nee’?
September 6th, 2006 at 11:47 pm | Permalink
I posted my first digg about problems with the ‘digg networks’ and it desperately needs to reach a wider audience, so plz help by linking to the link above and from there to the digg story. I need help getting this to large audiences to get it spread around and more widely dugg..
This is a brief summary of the full article (plz link to it and read, and help the digg story linked there get dugg by whatever means you can think of!)
Here’s what I think about what the designers of digg had in mind for it. They intended diggs to be handed out as the submissions were deemed to have merit. This is being subverted by large groups of networked people who notify thier network when they are about to submit a digg to cause thier whole entire network to digg thier story so that it gets enough diggs to hit the front page.
Let me explain the consequences of this. What initaited this call for the saboteurs of the digg meritocracy to go away is the fact that the other day I stumbled upon a guys blog (I think I might’ve found the story on reddit) who said that he submitted a news story which got like 3-4 diggs (iirc but the actual number was equally paltry). A whole WEEK after he submitted his story, 2 more submissioins got dugg, and they both (Im somewhat assuming because he didn’t specify iirc) hit the front page.
September 7th, 2006 at 6:14 am | Permalink
Why is Kevin addressing the circle jerk issues and not the bigger issue of [secretly] censoring all the stories that have the slightest critique of digg - this reminds me of another group that “can’t hear any bad news or criticism”?
September 7th, 2006 at 7:29 am | Permalink
Thanks for dropping by, Bobo.
I think you’re dead on correct.
KRo still believes (and touts) Digg as being driven by users, for users and more importantly controlled by its users, but its clearly not the case.
Moderation and editorial control exist — why they just don’t admit it is beyond me. Perhaps because it gets at the underpinning of their entire model and threatens their VC funding …. who knows?
Furthermore, when you try and contact them, they’ll never return your email unless they already recognize you as a top digger (I believe)
Cheers
Tony.
September 7th, 2006 at 8:04 am | Permalink
[...] I’ve written before about digg friendship groups, as have a large number of other people. After a certain point, it seems they did more harm than good. After becoming enormously popular very quickly, growth of the site had petered out. These changes seem designed to bring more people into digg and restore the perception that stories are promoted on their merits, rather than because of who submitted them. [...]
September 7th, 2006 at 9:06 am | Permalink
Thanks for your reply to my comment - regardless of the effect that telling the truth has on Kevin wealth - I think digg users and bloggers should force him/them to come clean and address the issue and either become transparent or stop lieing and saying that the site is user controlled “social, blah, blah, blah, web 2.0, etc” when it is clearly not.
These stories [the ones Kevin is responding to in his post without linking to them] are prefect examples - very, very clearly the digg community wants to discuss these issues and “digg” these stories hundreds of times yet those who actually control the flow of stories to the front page stop these stories from appearing against the wishes of the community.
digg is the same as the MSM - controlled by the corporate overlords and the “diggers” are the product they sell to the advertisers. The only difference is the beads and trinkets of allowing the users to engage in diggs and comments to make the users “sticky”.
September 7th, 2006 at 12:12 pm | Permalink
[...] J’adore Digg. Sauf que ces derniers temps, Digg a suscité énormément de controverse parmis sa communauté d’utilisateurs. Tony Hung décrit très bien les événements des derniers mois dans un article détaillé. [...]
September 7th, 2006 at 12:24 pm | Permalink
I agree Bobo … I think you’re preaching to the choir on this one.
Donna over at ZDnet has a great article:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/micro-markets/?p=420
Check it out — basically she makes the case for many ‘user-driven’ sites to maintain the status quo, no matter how opaque it might seem … and how its _not_ in their best interests to change things.
As I say — the best thing would be for KRo to come clean and just say “you know what? we moderate our stuff, just like everyone else”.
I suspect the problem is that IF he does that Digg becomes like many other sites — and perhaps his VC support wouldn’t be happy.
Thanks for comin’ out Bobo.
(Btw, your site is so … PURPLE!)
Cheers
t @ dji
September 8th, 2006 at 1:49 am | Permalink
[...] Here is the text that has been addended to A brief history of digg controversy: [...]
September 8th, 2006 at 1:32 pm | Permalink
[...] History, after all, has a way of repeating itself. Just ask ForeverGeek. [...]
September 9th, 2006 at 10:45 am | Permalink
[...] A history on the Digg controversy [...]
September 14th, 2006 at 3:27 pm | Permalink
[...] This was not the first time that someone has pointed out this phenomenon. On April 18 of this year Macgyver at ForeverGeek posted Digg Army, which included screenshots of who dugg two recent articles on the site. Each article had the exact same 16 people digging it in the exact same order. Of the first 19, 18 were the same. Included in that list of people was, again, Kevin Rose. (for an in-depth history see Tony Hung’s excellent: A Brief History of the Digg Controversy) [...]
September 15th, 2006 at 2:58 pm | Permalink
[...] This was not the first time that someone has pointed out this phenomenon. On April 18 of this year Macgyver at ForeverGeek posted Digg Army, which included screenshots of who dugg two recent articles on the site. Each article had the exact same 16 people digging it in the exact same order. Of the first 19, 18 were the same. Included in that list of people was, again, Kevin Rose. (For an in-depth history see Tony Hung’s excellent: A Brief History of the Digg Controversy) [...]
September 20th, 2006 at 10:19 pm | Permalink
[...] A history on the Digg controversy [...]
September 21st, 2006 at 10:10 am | Permalink
[...] A Brief History of Digg Controversy [...]
September 22nd, 2006 at 10:03 am | Permalink
[...] Digg rattling sabres at DiggGames. O’Reilly posturing about “Web2.0″. [...]
September 26th, 2006 at 6:07 am | Permalink
I was hence wondering why none of my diggs got more than 5-6 diggs..
I guess me apart, everyone else is in the digg army :(
October 18th, 2006 at 12:50 pm | Permalink
[...] An advice to Dealigg developers. Spend more time and effort marketing your web site. Should you choose Digg for your announcement do not repeat the mistake I made. Do it like the clever people have done it. Find an active user with a lot of friends/followers ready to digg his/her submissions and let them submit your story. This is the drawback of all digg style sites - including yours now - the news entry has to hit headlines before the second wave of diggers - those who never even look into upcoming news section - will pick it up and make a hit out of it. Digg is not ideal - it can be played. [...]
October 27th, 2006 at 10:22 am | Permalink
[...] A Brief History of Digg Controversy by Tony [...]
October 27th, 2006 at 10:52 am | Permalink
[...] A Brief History of Digg Controversy by Tony [...]
October 27th, 2006 at 2:49 pm | Permalink
[...] A Brief History of Digg Controversy by Tony [...]
November 4th, 2006 at 7:24 pm | Permalink
[...] There’s a petrie dish already called “Wikipedia” or even “Digg”, which do require editorial control (no matter what Kevin Rose tells you) so that socially driven news isn’t dominated by porn, stupid tricks, and explosions (explosively tricky porn?). [...]
November 4th, 2006 at 10:43 pm | Permalink
[...] I’ve been following the goings on over at Digg for a little while (shameless promo: refresh yourselves with a short history of Digg over here), and what never astounds me to this day, even with the latest changes and outrage on behalf of its top diggers is how silent Kevin Rose is. [...]
November 13th, 2006 at 6:52 pm | Permalink
[...] For me personally, I have had the most successes when I’ve actually tried #2 – trying to offer something unique and creative. My most popular post is probably the one on a “Brief History of Digg Controversy“. People started quoting it around September when there was an algorithm change that resulted in a pretty big to-do, since no one else had bothered to keep track of the goings on, and Digg’s own history is limited in what you can search anyway. [...]
November 22nd, 2006 at 3:29 pm | Permalink
[...] There are of course two options even within the first one. You can go the Netscape route and hire professional moderators, give them a fancy name (like Netscape Anchors) and have them on the site all the time, ready to serve the community. Or, you can have complete disregard for transparency, and have moderators that lurk in the shadows, like ninjas, while claiming you have no moderators at all. Of course when it comes to Digg, I am not privy to enough information to claim with certainty the existence of such ninjas, but others have talked about the issue enough to make me wonder. [...]
November 24th, 2006 at 1:15 am | Permalink
[...] Digg Has Moderators — They Just Suck November 24th, 2006 at 1:04 am by Tony In a fairly old post dugg up, it was found that Kevin Rose admits to using human moderators to edit Digg (Thanks to Muhammad over at themulife.com for the tip on this one). I suppose the surprise is in the admission of something that isn’t publicly written down, albeit that its from almost two years ago. We’ve known Digg’s moderators exist — and moderation isn’t the problem in and of itself. [...]
November 25th, 2006 at 4:19 pm | Permalink
[...] and many many many others. Did you like this post? please, subscribe to my rss feed and share it:These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. [...]
February 2nd, 2007 at 1:17 am | Permalink
[...] Digg’s internal ranking system has been a source for a lot of interest and publicity over the past several months — and most of it negative. It started with the blowup last fall, where there was a lot of interest in the front page on Digg, as a few people noticed that it was being monopolized by Top diggers. This changed as the algorithm changed. [...]
March 28th, 2007 at 6:26 pm | Permalink
Digg.com is getting cocky and banning small web sites just because digg’s users submit them to digg and digg’s moderators don’t like it. Scifidigg.com is the latest victim of Digg’s “We are big, you are small and we can do whatever we want” attitude.
First some background.
After running the website Scifi2u.com for the last year we realised there was a demand for a scifi digg type website – 6 Days ago ScifiDigg.com was born and is powered by open source Pligg and the YouTube API.
So what went wrong?
The site went live on the 22 March 2007. People submitted stories and video links to digg and other sites del.icio.us, Yahoo, Simply and Reddit. Having a submit button makes submitting very easy and fast but that could be a problem.
Let’s get to the point
WITHIN 6 DAYS THE SITE HAS BEEN BANNED FROM DIGG
Digg’s moderators decided that since the link pointed to my site and the posts are mainly videos from YouTube ScifiDigg should be banned from digg and no other links from scifidigg.com can be posted to digg.
Digg’s response
I contacted digg to find out what happened and why they blocked my site. The response I got from them was that my site violated their terms of use, by copying another site. I explained to them that although the video is streamed by YouTube we give the facility for original coments to be added.
The response I got was that they do not allow sites that copy other sites to be submitted to digg. I told them that according to their rules they should also ban Yahoo news, since it does not have an original content but republish articles from PCWorld, Reuters, MACWorld and others. Also falls under this category other major sites like neowin.net, blink.nu and many more that are doing exactly the same infact they should ban YouTube because the video content is often copied from other video websites. But hey, they are big sites and digg can’t pick on them without repercussion, like they can pick on small blogs that try to establish themselves.
So what have we learned?
· Digg’s users don’t really determine what gets promoted, but digg’s moderators do.
· Digg have a different set of rules for small site and different rules for big sites, even though both are doing the same.
· Digg will ban a small site just because one of its user’s submitted an article that other digg members liked and promoted, but moderator didn’t like the link.
· Digg will not listen to reason when told that the site did not violate its TOS.
I am going to create a Digg.com clone http://www.BannedDigg.com Watch this space!!!
April 2nd, 2007 at 10:34 am | Permalink
http://allsux.com/2007/04/02/happy-tree-people/
for how to screw with digg hardcore :)
May 15th, 2007 at 12:52 am | Permalink
[...] been following the issue of the inequities at Digg, including issues around the mob-like factor around the Digg Brigade, and even the idea of a black [...]
May 15th, 2007 at 1:29 am | Permalink
[...] been following the issue of the inequities at Digg, including issues around the mob-like factor around the Digg Brigade, and even the idea of a black [...]
May 25th, 2007 at 9:35 am | Permalink
Digg’s up to it’s old tricks again. There’s a group of people digging Ron Paul stories way up to the top and falsely inflating his popularity, and they’re also getting people banned that are trying to point out this movement that violates digg’s TOS. Your informant on one of digg’s controversies, bigdavediode, was banned.
Also, on your HD-DVD controversy, please note that HD-DVD code posters were unbanned, but people that asked WHY the HD-DVD code posters were banned REMAINED banned and Kevin Rose failed to acknowledge that he even banned these people. What an asshole! Lying through ommission, buddy.
June 21st, 2007 at 12:42 am | Permalink
Tiffany Bow Box lock charm
Sterling silver. On a 16″ chain. Lock opens and closes. Charm and chain available separately.
Tiffany-sterling-silver delights in the opportunity to offer our customers fine sterling silver rings, fake Tiffany necklaces, pendants, replica Tiffany bracelets, bands, brooches, replica Tiffany earrings and more, all at remarkably low prices.
Please check out our website:
http://www.tiffany-sterling-silver.com
Or email us:
Info@tiffany-sterling-silver.com
TAG Heuer Link Chronograph Replica Watch Review
There are also excellent, Swiss ETA-powered reps of the standard, (non-chronograph) Link and Link GMT. When you examine the accuracy and quality of these new TAGs I think they are up par with the best Omega and PAM reps. Simply outstanding, and due to this sudden quality increase I suspect TAG might start getting more attention among the members, too.
The Link bracelet is a famous TAG “trademark”, and will make this watch easily recognizable among the watch people… and perhaps even among non-watch people, too. It has very original and innovative design and it’s completely different from all other sports watch bracelets. It’s very attractive, goes really well with the brushed case and polished bezel… and feels comfortable on the wrist.
Please check out our website:
fashionhause There are top quality of replica handbags for sell
with perfect weight, feel, and like the originals.or email us : info@fashionhause.com
August 4th, 2007 at 6:16 pm | Permalink
[...] given it their blessing that people vote in groups. I’d provide the link if I wasn’t tired of noticing Digg’s shennanigans. What *is* interesting (and here is a link coming up) is that these gentlemen have gone on record [...]
August 29th, 2007 at 2:38 am | Permalink
I agree Bobo … I think you’re preaching to the choir on this one.
September 4th, 2007 at 2:35 am | Permalink
Have you ever looked up the definition of ‘nee’?
January 6th, 2008 at 8:30 am | Permalink
[...] Deep Jive Interests - “A Brief History of Digg Controversy” This entry was posted on Sunday, January 6th, 2008 at 9:24 am and is filed under Web. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. [...]
January 6th, 2008 at 8:32 am | Permalink
Nice article and very good documentation!
January 26th, 2008 at 7:30 pm | Permalink
[...] as someone who isn’t a top Digger, but someone who has been watching from a distance for some time, I couldn’t help but come up with a few thoughts (Let me preface this by saying that I know [...]
May 22nd, 2008 at 3:39 pm | Permalink
[...] A Brief History of Digg Controversy (2006) [...]