Digggate: Conspiracy Theory or Brave New World for Digg
Last week, Danny Sullivan, editor-in-chief of Search Engine Land, coined the term Digggate in response to concerns of a potential scandal surrounding Digg, Google and the Diggbar. According to Sullivan, Digg is deliberately skirting issues surrounding the new Diggbar and consequently confusing and potentially misleading citizens of the Web.
Andy Sorcini, long time Digg user and social media enthusiast disagrees. "I honestly don't believe that the Diggbar was conceived with any maliciousness toward stealing content producers link juice. I think the idea was to drive traffic to Digg, while at the same time facilitate access to Digg services from content producers sites."
So, is the new Diggbar evil or will it be remembered as one of Digg's finest moments?
As most of you know, Digg launched Diggbar last week. We covered its debut on ReadWriteWeb, and in a nutshell, it does two things: it frames pages that Digg links to, allowing you to interact with content on Digg without the need to visit the actual site; it also offers its own URL shortening service.
Since then, there has been much discussion in the blogosphere about the wickedness of the new Diggbar.
And this is where our story begins. There are several issues here, but in the main, they involve the framing of content and the URL shortener which in turn bring up two main issues; potential copyright problems and potential SEO ramifications. But first, to better understand the issues surrounding framing, we need to take a step back in time.
A Brief History in Framing
Using frames on the Web is a technique that has been around for years and basically allows developers to split a single Web page into multiple windows, each of which capable of opening a different document.
You may remember this from a lot of sites in the nineties, where the navigation links of a site were separated from the main content. There was a major kerfuffle over framing at the time that peaked in February 1997, when 'The Gang of 6' headed by the Washington Post sued TotalNEWS and alleged that TotalNEWS was appropriating their content, using it within frames, and surrounding it with its own advertising.
Unfortunately, as a precedent, the suit was determined inconclusive, and according to Professor Stern at the George Washington University, mainly because "TotalNEWS felt unable to fund an expensive lawsuit to vindicate a principle about what legal regime ought to govern copyright and the Internet."
The Evil iFrame
Sullivan, in addition to a multitude of other SEO folk, has dismissed the Diggbar as good for nothing except misappropriating content from other sites and stealing link juice via the main culprit, the iframe.
"They [Digg] don't own this content; they haven't asked if they can put this content on the Digg Web site." Sullivan explained. "It would be the same thing if Digg went to your Web site, made a copy of your page, and pasted it into a page on their Website."
Let's examine this logic. Digg does not submit content to itself; content producers and the larger Digg community submit content to Digg. So Digg is not 'taking' your pages, it is only highlighting them; giving them more exposure than they would normally receive.
Additionally, and quite ironically, the majority of people complaining about this 'misappropriation' of content will often include a 'Digg this' or a 'Share this' button at the end of their posts in an attempt to reach a larger audience. Interestingly, Search Engine Land, Sullivan's own site, does this for every post. Would it not make more sense then, if a site did not want to share its content, to simply remove these buttons?
And therein lies the rub. Sites do want their content to be noticed by the Digg community; they want it submitted, voted up and content producers everywhere are constantly working on ways to hit the elusive front page. Landing on Digg's front page can bring anything from 2,000-250,000+ visitors to your site - and who wouldn't want that?
It seems like a typical 'I want my cake and I want to eat it too' scenario; content producers want the benefits of Digg, but they want them on their own terms.
The Evil URL Shortener
But it's more than the potential copyright issue that has Sullivan and quite a few other SEOs worked up.
According to Sullivan, the problem lies in Digg's use of a HTML 200 code rather than a 301 redirect.
"What Digg does is, when you make a short URL of somebody's page off of Digg, it sends out a code 200 that basically says, 'yeah I've got that code, it's right here,'" Sullivan said. "What we really want them to do is send out a 301 code which says, that page you're looking for, we don't actually own it, it's over here and that's where you can find it permanently."
So, what is the big deal about which code is sent?
According to Sullivan, the URL shortener Digg has implemented doesn't pass along the link juice because they're using the canonical tag. "If someone is reading your article and they decide to bookmark the page they're reading, they're actually bookmarking the page over at Digg."
"Suddenly," he added, "you've got thousands of links on the Web pointing to that page on Digg; not pointing to the original page, and those links don't somehow magically pass along [link juice] to the original page."
"They're [Digg] suggesting that because they're using this canonical tag that they're somehow redirecting to the search engines and all that link credit should be passing on - but that doesn't seem to be the case," Sullivan said.
When asked who has made the claim that Digg's URL shortener is not passing on link juice, Sullivan responded with: "Me, Greg [Boser], and I think Matt Cutts, but that's not clear."
A quick lesson about the canonical tag/element by Matt Cutts
However, in this video (embedded below), Matt Cutts explains that creating a 301 is not always an option and if you can't resolve your specific issues by using it, there are other alternatives.
"There's a very simple element, link element, where you can say: my canonical that means, my preferred or my primary or the clean, or the pretty version of the URL I want to use, is not this ugly URL with a tracking code or a session ID, it's this pretty URL right over here."
But Cutts is quick to add that this element is a suggestion, not a directive.
"We don't promise that we will abide by this 100 percent." Cutts explains, "But at least at Google, we see this as a very strong suggestion. Unless we see something where you're hurting your own site, we probably would expect to respect this tag. I think in most cases it will work quite well but we do have to reserve the final bottom line ability to say no, we don't think this is best."
What this does, is tell Google where the canonical version can be found. "It's a very simple open standard," Cutts explains.
But What Does DIgg say About all of This?
When we asked Digg's head of engineering John Quinn why they decided to use the 200 instead of a 301, Quinn explained that the answer is simple: Digg's shortener doesn't redirect.
Although Digg had investigated all options (including the 301) to ensure the search engines focus on the original content, it decided against using the 301 as it is typically used by services that will redirect you to another page e.g. TinyURL or bit.ly. "Services that provide a frame, like Digg, Facebook or StumbleUpon don't redirect and hence return the 200 code for a successful response," Quinn explained.
However, Sullivan does concede that Digg has been fair by using the NOINDEX meta tag which tells the search engines not to spider these pages at Digg. "There's a plus to that. It means potentially these pages aren't going to compete with the original page. You shouldn't be doing a Google search and find out that these shortened URL pages are doing better than your own page. They're not allowed to be in the index whatsoever."
Still, Sullivan isn't sure that the information Digg is posting about its new Diggbar is completely truthful.
"I don't know any SEO expert, with any credibility that would have told them to do it this way. Most SEO experts first of all would have been appalled that they'd gone out there and done this framing to begin with."
Unfortunately, many SEO folk have to sign non disclosure agreements so it is likely we won't be seeing any respectable SEO putting up his/her hand saying "Hey, we advised Digg." They take client contracts and NDA agreements seriously as I've witnessed myself through my own professional relationship with Silicon Valley SEO/SEM firm WebMama.
As for Digg executives not disclosing their dealings with SEO experts; that's their call. Kevin Rose himself has made it clear that he's happy to take on more advice.
And while Sullivan is not entirely happy that Digg is boasting about getting a 20 percent increase in traffic since it launched its Diggbar, perhaps that is the bottom line. As Muhammad Saleem pointed out in his post over at Mashable, "This is probably one of the best strategic business decisions Digg has made in the past four years."
It is clear that Digg is moving into a new chapter of its young life. It's attempting to reach the mainstream audience, implement more useful products into its service, find ways to serve better targeted ads to its users, and perhaps in the process become a stand-alone business that is able to sustain itself.
And the Diggbar, just as the recommendation engine Digg introduced last year, and the new search Digg rolled out last week, make up just a few of the pieces of the overall pie.
Of course, for that to happen, it's a given that Digg will lose some friends along the way; you can't please all of the people all of the time.
What do you think?
Disclosure: The author of this post hosts The Drill Down with Andy Sorcini, and works with WebMama on Web strategy.
Share
Facebook
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteWeb posts
Too early to tell as far as I'm concerned. I like what Digg is doing to diversify, but I dislike the bar as it reminds me too much of the bad old days (pre-Y2K).
I think it may be best to wait until some hard data comes in to show what impact, if any, the digg bar has on another site's traffic / page rank.
Sorry, but I'm with http://daringfireball.net/
"Framing breaks bookmarking, it breaks copy-and-paste from the location field, it breaks your browser history, it breaks bookmarklets. There’s nothing OK about it."
and the many others who know this for what it is,
especially http://teddziuba.com/2009/04/diggbar-is-a-howl-of-desperati.html
"This move shows that not only is Digg willing to pull some sleazy shit to increase their unique visitors, but that they also need to pull this sleazy shit, because they need more unique visitors."
"This is probably one of the best strategic business decisions Digg has made in the past four years."
Either that, or practically the only strategic business decision Digg has made in the past four years (that anyone on the outside would notice).
We've been mindful of the situation since launching BurnURL (a month or so before the Diggbar went live) and we're speaking with content creators and readers to get feedback on how we display our ShareBar.
We provide a service, we're helping to gather mood data based on content to be able to share a real pulse of who is consuming this data across the web.
Here are some of our thoughts and our latest actions regarding some of the points brought up lately:
http://burnurl.com/6856kL
"Digg's shortener doesn't redirect."
This is like saying you ran over a man because your brakes don't work properly, even though your intentions were not hostile. Geez. Get your brakes fixed and use 301.
"It seems like a typical 'I want my cake and I want to eat it too' scenario; content producers want the benefits of Digg, but they want them on their own terms."
Well, yes, when their own terms are based on copyright.
Is this for real? Are you honestly saying that it's an either-or situation? Anyone who puts a Digg button on their content should just expect to have their content framed, their links usurped, and should shut up and take it? Sorry, but that's just crazy.
Makes no sense to me all this crying ? Stumbleupon has been using iframes for ages and no one gives a toss ? So why does it matter if digg does ?
@Tom Gruber's answer to you "why does it matter"
"But if they changed it to an opt-in feature that only worked via page-framing for registered Digg users who turned it on, and acted as a regular HTTP 301 redirection service (like every other URL shortener) for everyone else, I’d still think it was douchey but I wouldn’t oppose it.
(That’s why I’m not up in arms about Facebook’s or StumbleUpon’s douchey page-framing dinguses.)"
EVIL!
I reeaallly disagree with the assessment that b/c there *may* be a "digg this" icon on *some* content producers' sites they are wanting to "have their cake and eat it too".
How many authors out there are even aware of the ramifications of the DiggBar yet? Only the proactive ones (in other words a small percentage). Should they be FORCED by Digg to either be OK with Digg stealing their content or remove the Digg badge?
Also, most articles submitted to Digg aren't submitted by the authors, they're submitted by readers. So removing the Digg badge does precious little now doesn't it?
EVIL!
Fatal error: Canonical tags only work inside your own domain name.
we don't actually own it, it's over here and that's where you can find it permanently.
First point: You call a permanent redirect a 310. It's a 301. Second, the point that has been made by most credible SEOs (and has been confirmed by Matt Cutts)is the fact that the canonical tag doesn't work across domains.
Which explains why Danny said no credible SEO would have given them that advice.
This is generating a lot of attention lately, Google juice versus exposure...
I like the DiggBar and feel as an additional feature should also provide the ability to subscribe to the site RSS.
Interesting side by side piece to Tech Crunch's reasoned position and case made over the weekend to "block the bar".
This author here will certainly be ready to take a pretty serious spanking from the SEO guys/galz. Will be curious to see what other - perhaps more major- publishers have to say.
Seems to me the bar hijacks both content and linklove, but for all the right reasons 'cept for one: it ain't their's!
TK
Contrary to popular believe perhaps, I think the publishers that don't block the DiggBar and other similar spambars are partially to blame. It is the publishers who do not block such framebars, especially large publishers, that enable such frame spamming to survive.
http://tomuse.com/break-digg-diggbar-publishers-responsible-spambar
I think it's about time we gave Digg a taste of its own medicine. Curious to see how many Diggs it will take before they disable frames on Digg. =)
http://digg.com/security/Giving_Digg_A_Taste_Of_Their_Own_Medicine
I wrote the same rant last month (with fewer words) when I noticed Facebook loading my site in a frame. The solution is simple, just one line of Javascript removes the frame.
It is only a matter of time until Digg pisses off their entire user base. I am surprised that ReadWriteWeb is taking an neutral stance on this DiggBar issue.
The bottom line is that the DiggBar in NO WAY helps the end user. It was created to help Digg inflate their stats. The fact that the "web press" (I am including RRW) isn't strongly voicing their opinions against Digg shows how much they fear Digg. How much they need Digg to boast their own stories.
Disgraceful.
http://www.x-pose.org/blog/145/
if (window.parent.frames.length > 0) window.parent.location = window.location
You have to admit the guy does raise some good points!
RT
www.anon-tools.at.tc
May be you guys should also take a look at this article
http://cloudtechnica.com/2009/04/diggbar-leathal-weapon-for-phishers/
This article deals with potential of Diggbar , could be used for phishing..
thnks .
Regards, Phil
I noticed a comment about ReadWriteWeb...then looked up at the address bar to see where I was...http://digg.com/d1oa1Z. D'oh! Nothing like stateless browsing. Even worse, if you try to navigate inside the site you linked to off of Digg, you're still trapped inside a frame with the address bar listing the digg frame address.
I use digg now and again for casual browsing; HATE the diggbar.
Hialrious. This is like the fourth article on the Digg Bar and nobody likes it.
I've been using the Internet since ARPANet and MILNet...and I like, no make that demand that I be able to see the address of the site I am at for my own security. I then decide whether or not to let scripts run in NoScript, whether or not to download any content, etc. Without the full unadulterated address and the content directly in the browser, without framing you do not know where you are and who is serving the content to you.
Then there is the right of the company that produces the document at the location and their rights, which are being infringed upon. Here personally, I hope they sue the shit out of Digg.
I use to be a member at Digg, but the majority of the users are Democrats, liberals, socialists and Marxist sympathizers. Over the past year and a half it got to be too much, listening to them during the election cycle. Hence I do not sign in but I still use the site for the links once in a while.
Digg has come way down from what it could have been. Kevin Rose and Addelson, two immature assh*les have been given a great opportunity and they are going to throw it all away.
While I can understand a publisher can get heated over the topic, I do not understand how Digg users don't like it/dislike it. Now I can Digg the site as soon as it peaks my interest, tweet the url, email the page, check the comments, etc. all in one tab. I have found it to be very useful. No downsides to me as the end-user.
I LOATHE the Diggbar- and I'm just a user.
I want to be able to turn off this abomination completely and permanently- it's like the modern day tag. I just want to scream "make it stop!"
That did say "modern day flash tag." Way to go stripping the > AND the word between them, instead of, oh just the brackets or maybe escaping them.
I've stopped using Digg and won't return until I can turn that garbage off.
I insist on seeing the actual URL in my address bar so I know what I am looking at. I will soon be an ex-digg user if this keeps up. I am getting tired of trying to remember only to follow digg links on machines with NoScript. Seems like it might be easier just to remember that I no longer use digg. But they have backed away from dumb decisions before. I am still holding some hope for Digg.
Hmm. It seems you can turn it off in your "viewing preferences" as long as you are logged in. Better than nothing, but I would rather have it be opt-in than opt-out.
So, how do you set a preference to get rid of the digg crap. I don't need the bar or even the intermediate page junk digg forces me thru to get to the content.
I'd drop digg in a second when someone else provides a cleaner was to get to similar user selected content.
Digg provides negative value to me. Not even a pony on the bar would help.
"Additionally, and quite ironically..." to, "...but they want them on their own terms" is an absolutely abysmal argument. Users' "endorsement" of Digg through the use of the Digg and Share This buttons is not synonymous with them eternally supporting everything Digg does. Of course they want to spread their message to the masses through highly trafficked channels. They also want to receive credit for creating the sticky content via incoming links that will bolster and strengthen their domain. That's the primary rub and cause of outrage among SEOs. By forgoing 301 (and instead attempting to use the canonical tag, which doesn't even WORK across domains) for 200, they are sucking the link juice away from the content creators. Digg didn't create the content; they don't deserve the credit.
As a user I was forced to download and install NoScript immediately in order to rid my browser window of that insufferable piece of shit toolbar that digg tried to foist on me.
I enourage other users to do the same. If you are so wrapped up in your little digg world that you need to drag a digg toolbar everywhere you go on the internet kill yourself.
As content suppliers I can see why you guys would be pissed off as well. I reccommend this guy's solution.
http://daringfireball.net/2009/04/how_to_block_the_diggbar
I think the diggbar sucks. They should give the user an option to opt out if you do not want to use it.
This can be fixed with one line of javascript.
if (top !== self) top.location.href = self.location.href;
But any url shortener's that put a stupid bar on top are trash. Its just stupid self promotion and branding. I've even gone as far as making my own url shortener (biturl) because I'm sick of all the bullshit all of them put in them.
I think this article is very funny. Everyone that has posted has been mad about content theft. But I'm sure alot of them have no problem with Bit Torrent products. It's ok to steal music and movies but not typed words that can be copied and pasted.
So just because some sites have a 'digg this' button, it's ok for digg to splash their logo all over my content, and take all of the juice for that page? I don't have a 'digg this' button on my site, nor do I need or want 200,000 14 year old cretins visiting it. Digg produces absolutely NO content, nor is there a single feature to their site that wasn't to be found elsewhere first. Digg exists purely for commercial reasons (way to fail there, Kevin), piggybacking on the labours of others for advertising revenue. Framing the content that already gives their site a reason to exist is an act of utter bastardry, shows contempt for actual content producers, and will be their undoing. I was a daily visitor for a couple of years, but one day into diggbar, cancelled my account & added code to my site blocking it from their url shortening "service".
The thing that i really don't like about the digg bar not referring is what about the favicons! i hate not having favicons so i can identify the site I'm reading!
Good write up. It is really hard for me as a web developer to see the value in trying to bring back or implement a new use for frames. Seriously, there are better ways. The Digg bar seems kind of "cool," but for power users this is just slowing them down.
Thank you for keeping all the content on one page. I hate when a long article is on multi pages.
I see little value in the diggbar as a short url site it offers little as it lacks lots of features and makes urls more ugly and less likely to convert because of the frame with their pretty much an ad for digg on the top of all pages.
As a tool for helping digg stories, it gets in the way more than it helps.
as a branding tool for marketting for digg - it's excellent.
Either that, or practically the only strategic business decision Digg has bedding introduction
made in the past four years (that anyone on the outside would notice).
its shit. make it an option for users - not forced upon the public. hide it for the public and leave the url alone if they still want to be p0wners.
I first saw this framing garbage over at propeller (AOL's digg wantabe). If digg isn't good for generating links then it's dead for web promotion IMHO. Should that matter to digg? If they had any sense it would. It's like biting the hand that feeds you. Who brings digg a good chunk of their content? The actual people who created it or are affiliated with those who created it. It is giving that one receives. Digg ain't giving anything back anymore.
just want so say some thing "great job"
Look at the best search engines from one place!
http://searchbooter.com/
I think this article is very funny. Everyone that has posted has been mad about content theft. But I'm sure alot of them have no problem with Bit Torrent products. It's ok to steal music and movies but not typed words that can be copied and pasted.
Normally when I posted an article or news, DIGG or Mixx would use a "do follow" link and the title for the article or news would show up on p.1 of the SERPS. Mixx like most bait and switch SB sites, just went to "no follow". More brazen than DIGG.
Nothing shows in the SERPS at all other than the DIGG or Mixx sub. Sorry Charlie. No mas. I will only help do follow sites.
Digg is becoming smarter like Google!
Great points... That digg bar was evil! I previously loved Digg, and then my personal account that wasn't used for spam or anything got shut down, I think they thought they found a trend or something...
Digg is best and really like to use it.
its best and tools and relevance is best to use too.
http://downloadmoviesandmovies.blogspot.com
I love the "you hate this but you probably don't have a problem with Bittorrent" comments. It gives me an idea.
Hey YoHoHo, you love the DiggBar, but you probably also love Hitler, kicking old people and drowning kittens.
Fun! It's like debate, only I get to to state your position, so I win! :-D
Ya, I like to visit digg to see what's going on, however I don't like using it for social media promotion purposes. It does seem like they are improving the application though
Does anyone know a good 'all social networks' bar to work for all of them so I dont get my browser crowded with dozens of 'useful' bars?
1 2 Next