The list of bloggers banned by Digg looks more like a who’s who of bloggers. It’s tragic in the long run. Did these people stop producing quality content? No. They’ve continued to produce great stuff and built their own audience even though some may have gotten their big break from Digg.
The Hypocrisy of Frowning on Self-promotion
There should be nothing wrong with legitimate self-promotion. Nobody dresses sharp just so that they can pose in front of the mirror. They dress sharp to go out and be noticed. When you do your best to create something, it’s only natural to seek attention.
Even Digg itself is bundled with tools to email your friends and tell them about Digg. Word of mouth on the net is email and IMs.
Self-promotion shouldn’t be stigmatized. It should come under the same litmus test as any other submission. Is it good content?
Now, I can understand subtle throttling and giving more weight to submissions coming from outside sources. But Digg’s propensity to ban or bury submissions coming too near from the source ludicrous and the “lifetime” ban is just insane.
Out of all the Digg users a small band of self-righteous do-gooders can banish you to an island of isolation. How is this good for Digg?
People with talent for creating interesting content will always have the talent to produce great stuff with or without Digg’s stamp of approval. The main focus of Digg should always be good content regardless of how it arrived at their doorstep and not be at the mercy of self-righteous Digg users who are easily hurt and have a vendetta against successful or motivated people.
What’s more these strict policies are only going to force social media marketers to be more careful and more subtle when they decide to try gaming Digg. In fact, you could argue that self-submission is in fact a measure of honesty that should be rewarded than punished because at least you don’t deal with marketers slyly positioning their Diggs by covert means.
- Trying to Digg the normal landing page for a feature seems way too spammy, so we’re creating a carefully targeted blog post about the feature and its unique, “wow, that’s cool” aspects. Obviously, this will link out to the feature itself.
- Creating a headline for the Digg submission is tricky business. In other Digg efforts we’ve found that the headline and description can make or break a Digg submission. Since you only get one shot, it’s important to be very strategic about the headline you use. Certain formats such as how to’s, top tens, and others tend to be very popular—sometimes too popular in that they could send up spam flags.
- Timing your submission to Digg is also key. Once again, you only get one shot, so it’s important that you make the submission in order to control the content of the headline and description. If Digg user ‘8thGradePimp’ scoops you and uses a mangled, worthless headline, you’re sunk.
Once you’ve prepared your strategy, launched your content, and submitted it to Digg, you’re unfortunately left in a classic hurry-up-and-wait scenario. Do the Diggs come? Do you get buried? Does your server crash from too much attention? Do you wanna dance?
You’re going to need a better strategy to ensure Digg stays “real” when you’re up against marketers that have been making the most of search engine marketing for years where the stakes are higher and the system they are up against more technologically advanced.
It’s only going to split Digg into completely luck of the draw random content and slyly disguised marketing ploys. Sooner or later you will reap what you sow.
Welcome to the social indeed.