Why the New Diggbar is FAIL for Bloggers (and Everyone Else)

Posted on by

epicfail

The recent release of Digg’s new stylishly-cool Diggbar has been the conversation that everyone’s talking about… except they haven’t been talking about the right things.

The simple fact is that the new Diggbar uses an oldschool tactic and strategy called “framing” or “iframe.”

Essentially, by doing this Digg keeps all the traffic to themselves because the linking no longer jumps you to the original publishers page but a Digg.com page that has the content framed within their stylish iFrame.

That is completely BOGUS.

In fact, it makes me seriously upset that people haven’t picked up on this even though it’s straight up documented on some of the largest blogs out there and a number of people are already using it (and praising it) without understanding the much larger and serious issue.

Do not be fooled people, although it appears to be a really nice way to get some “extra diggs” in there, you’re ultimately losing out big time on traffic numbers, and for small time bloggers like me where every pageview and visit counts, I need those metrics to make sure that I can best leverage my time and blogging strategies.

Diggbar sucks, unless you really like your traffic completely hijacked… by all means then, go ahead.

Here are a number of key reasons (in addition) that make Diggbar the uber FAIL:

  • SEO bonus from Digg’d sites now is absolutely worthless. The URL’s linked to Digg don’t even point to your site anymore, they point to Digg.com/ajdl;fkjas;ldfkjasl;kdfj … or just another Digg page. To add to the burn is the fact that Digg adds their own META keywords and tags to the links. … … … Uh, can you say lame?
  • Diggbar is monetizing your site. That’s jacked up. They get the traffic boost and are also getting more ad revenue from your hard earned blog posts. I want a refund.
  • Diggbar increases your overall page load because it’s loading additional features, content, advertising, and javascript on ever freaking page. Thanks, but no thanks.
  • Diggbar is straight-up ugly. It steals valuable real estate from your look and feel of your blog and website and it drops important content below the “fold.” I designed my blogs strategically… why would I let Digg mess all that up?

Oh, and by the way. You know, of course, that Facebook is doing this too, as well as Hootsuite, and a number of other URL shorteners, like Krumlr…?

Yes, Digg isn’t the only culprit.

But some are getting really wise.

For example, the New York Times already has begun to block the Diggbar (test it here, you’ll see the Diggbar automatically killed) and I’m installing iFrame killage for most if not all of my properties.

If you want in on this, just copy this code into your header just before the </head> tag:

<script type=”text/javascript” language=”JavaScript”>
// Diggbar and iFRAME SUCK!!!
if (top.location != location) {
top.location.href = document.location.href ;
}
</script>

There. Be iFrame-free. #bandiggbar

38 thoughts on “Why the New Diggbar is FAIL for Bloggers (and Everyone Else)”

  1. John, You are so right on this! Good for you for taking a stand. I’ve seen talk of others thinking of imitating the Digg model – there needs to be a groundswell against this. It’s hard to think of another industry that parrallals this you. AP is now suing Google from even giving 2-3 lines of their AP stories on a screenscraper.

    As a consumer of links – I work hard to link back to the original author/source/creative talent. I also like to generously HT/trackback or link to a referrer if they’ve done some work as well. Digg is making this very difficult. I have to close my browser window and go to the link through a separate Google search.

  2. I first heard about this and I thought it was ok. Then I read about it and realized it was selfish and sketchy for them to steal the traffic like that. I have a blogger blog right now, so traffic isn't my worry yet, but on principle I say get rid of it. Just sketchy.

  3. Thanks for the heads up! I was kind of skeptical but a little too lazy to do the research :D You are right, someone else making the cash of of stuff that isn't theirs is JACKED UP!

  4. Thanks SO much, John, for making us bloggers aware of this. And thanks even more for the code to block it. Like you, I try to make it as easy as possible on my blog for readers to share what they like from my site on Digg, Stumble, Twitter, Facebook and other social media outlets. We don't need no stinkin' toolbar that robs us of the linkage points we work hard to earn!

  6. I added your code, and posted the following on the home page of my blog: "This site blocks all link toolbars. Support bloggers by linking directly to their sites. Read why link bars like the DiggBar rip off bloggers."

    The last sentence is a link to this post.

  7. Nice trolling. The only thing the diggbar steals is your search engine statistics. Not that you really [i]earned[/i] it, considering the fact that Digg lets you post your link on its site is a [i]priviledge[/i]. You still get every penny of ad credit, because your page is loading in a [i]frame[/i]. It’s not loading on Digg.com, it’s loading in a frame on Digg.com. It’s no different than having two different tabs, they’re just opened at the same time. All your ad clicks and views are still counted towards YOUR site. Not Digg’s. And don’t complain about a “traffic boost.” Digg’s PR is [i]twice[/i] that of yours, and it was before any Diggbar came into existance. The only way someone is going to view a Diggbar page is if [i]they were already on Digg[/i]. They’re not getting any extra traffic.
    … I think you need to look up how frames even work.

    The “diggbar killer” script works. It’s been in existance for quite a while now. I first saw it used by ProBoards some years ago to prevent their pages from being embedded in frames. But it wasn’t for any bogus “some other site is stealing my advertisements” reason that doesn’t even make sense.

    • John, I'm wondering if "video games" is at least partly right. The Wired article you link to in your post (as partial evidence for your claims) says, "Even though the DiggBar keeps a user at Digg, the content provider's site is displayed in an inline frame, meaning it still receives a page view and the proper ad revenue for each click." If that's true, then the Diggbar isn't stealing as much as you post claims. I'd like to get that confirmed. If that's true, then the only valid objection would be your aesthetic one. Personally, I'd sacrifice a 1/4" of headspace if I were getting significant traffic from Diggers.

      I'm not necessarily jumping on video games' bandwagon here, just wondering if you can provide more evidence backing your claim that the Diggbar steals our traffic and PageRank.

      • Mark,

        Even if all videogames said was true the key takeaway is the fact that having the iFrames killer script is valuable because it disables others from leveraging and using your content without permission. There are thousands (if not millions) of websites that are "scraping" content all the time to build their traffic off of yours. having the script will stop those people anyways.

        in addition, i'm not against Digg. They can field me traffic all day long. It's much more of a disappointment rather than a huge "I hate digg" diatribe. they were the posterchild for doing it "right"… i'm a bit disappointed in the iFrame usage.

        and, of coruse, people can still digg the site, you just won't see the bar.

        one of hte issues that videogames brings up is how you advertise. i don't do any pay per click or CPM stuff for advertising. I htink that's ugly and it's not successful unless you know how to use it well with a target audience. I do simple sponsors trackng clickthroughs, not the amount of impressions. if it was the latter, i wouldn't have a problem.

  8. iframe's don't work that way. It still has to load your page in the users browser from your site. iframes are like little browser windows embedded in the page. The iframe can override your meta-tags and stuff being the parent page, but you still get the page load and all the regular viewer traffic stats. Using anti-iframe code is pretty common though, many search engines would do the same thing and thus a lot of sites have iframe take focus code on them.

  9. I have no idea how iframe’s work. But I know that if someone passes on a link they’ve gotten to from Digg – then the site opens for me with the Diggbar. Now if I want to bookmark the site, when I reopen I get the Diggbar. If I want to link from my blog to the site the Diggbar is still there.
    What I don’t like – as a consumer of links and trying to be a good Internet citizen is the fact that Digg is continuing to take up the space and I assume getting clicks as well as promotion when potentially years later the link depends on Digg’s original link. The biggest problem is if Digg is no longer around – the link will be bad.
    Isn’t this the same thing you see with BigTweets?
    The only way I know of to get back to the original URL is to close the browser tab and go find the link through Google or some other means.
    Down the road if somone uses BigTweet to link to a Diggbar originated link will we have iframes inside of iframes. Maybe not, I haven’t tried it. But the trend is troubling to me. Unless someone can explain how I’m misunderstanding this.

    • of course. it's not perfect and people will argue both sides. i think video game is right on a lot of points, but i have a level of \”compromise\” in terms of my design and the way i want to control my content… he has a different threshold.

      all good. all love. all better.

  11. Try as I might, I still can't find any personal value in the use of Digg.

    Sweet Digg-ownage on the link, though. :P

  13. > The iframe can override your meta-tags and stuff being the parent page,
    It doesn’t override anythign. It only sets the meta tags for the parent page. Google and other search engines do not link the content within the frame to the parent page. Google does not see that your content matches that META tag. From the parent page, Google does not even see your content. When Google crawls the frame, it uses the frame’s META information and the frame’s URL: not the Diggbar.

    > I do simple sponsors trackng clickthroughs, not the amount of impressions. if it was the latter, i wouldn’t have a problem.
    It doesn’t matter what kind of advertising you do. It’s still creditted towards YOUR site. Digg gets absolutely no ad revenue from it.

    > If I want to link from my blog to the site the Diggbar is still there.
    Right-click the frame, then click the Show Only This Frame option. IDK where it is in Internet Explorer, but Firefox has it. If IE doesn’t have it, right-click the frame (not an image in the frame) and select “Properties.” Then copy the URL of the frame and paste it in your address bar. Or click the X at the top right of the Diggbar………

    > the link depends on Digg’s original link
    Digg doesn’t have the original link. The “original link” is the one submitted to Digg. If the “original link” goes down, the Digg one goes down. If the Digg one goes down, the original link is still there. And as has been stated, the original link will still exist in search engines and will always exist separate from Digg.

    > The only way I know of to get back to the original URL is to close the browser tab and go find the link through Google or some other means.
    Or click the giant X at the top right of the Diggbar. =/

    And I have nothing against the iframe code. It’s perfectly fine to not want anyone to embed your content. The problem is when you think that Digg is embedding it in some improper way, when it’s not: it’s displaying your ads and your site in its entirety.
    The “stolen content” frames occur when someone ads a tiny iframe that only shows part of your site (the content) and disguises it with a template that makes the frame look as if it was part of the parent page’s site. Digg doesn’t claim it’s your site and doesn’t steal your content. It doesn’t effect your ads, money, or search engine optimization. Does that make the Diggbar purposeful? No. I’d rather it not exist either. But there’s a difference between it’s usefulness and what you’re attributing to it.

  14. Umm, guys this doesn't help any with SEO. It only helps with branding (i.e. removing the parent frame). Search engines such as Google sees this as a 301 Redirect. So you won't get any credit for incoming links from Digg, Facebook, etc. Basically, search engines see this as "linking" back to your own site.

  15. You guys can go on complaining about something that hurts nothing. As a web designer, I know that frames in no way “steal your content” and that Digg is doing so very legitimately. Hell, no only is there an X to close the Diggbar on that site, but there’s an option to disable it permanently if you don’t like it. Search engines still see your site and your content as YOUR site and content, and not Digg’s, and your ads and ad revenue are still attributed to you and not Digg. All of this is exactly why using iframes isn’t illegal, because it isn’t stealing content or anything of the like.
    The ONLY thing you lose is the PageRank help that Digg gives sites due to its superb ranking in Google. This is not something you earned. This is something Digg earned (as it happened prior to the Diggbar) and something that Digg offerred to its users as a priviledge. It isn’t lowering your PageRank in any way; it’s simply not giving you it, nor is it required to. If you want PR, earn it. Whoring Digg for PR was and always will be a priviledge, not some Internet right.
    So again, Digg did no damage to any site by including the Diggbar. Nothing was stolen, nothing is changed. If you don’t like it, disable it. If you want to whore websites with links to your site in order to get PR, go somewhere other than Digg. If you don’t want other sites embedding your content, use the iframe killer. If the only reason you’re using the iframe killer is because of the Diggbar, then you need to learn a thing or two about the Internet, browsers, frames, ads, and SEO.

  16. Now, after reading the 3 Dog Media article, it only goes more in the favor of no-harm-done. Digg displays links without the Diggbar URL to search engine spiders (thus giving you PR), and the Diggbar URL to its users. Therefore, you don’t even lose PR. How nice of Digg.
    I think the most confusion comes from your content being seemingly shown on a Digg URL. However, when a search engine crawls a Diggbar page, they do NOT see your content. Therefore they do not attribute the content to Digg. They do not see the content until they enter the frame, which is your URL not Digg’s, and therefore the content and all that is yours is attributed to your site and your URL. Just because it’s not displayed in the address bar doesn’t mean the URL isn’t there, and search engines know this. It’s no big secret.
    Some random viewer may be viewing your site from a Diggbar page instead of your actual URL, but what it all boils down to is this: if your page wasn’t on Digg, they wouldn’t have found it in the first place. It’s either the Diggbar URL or no URL.
    So, does it hurt your PR? No. Does it hurt your SEO? No. Does it hurt your ad revenue? No. Does it steal your content? No. Does it prevent you from viewing the site without the Diggbar? No (again, click the X, or even use the disable-permanently option).
    So why are you complaining about it?

  17. Webmonkey blog:
    > Digg is effectively making any links from the Diggbar useless to anyone besides Digg, and the results are evil of the highest order: It steals traffic, obfuscates URLs, pockets a profit and breaks the most basic element of the web: the URL.
    I’ve already debunked all of those claims. These are not researched claims, but were just copied and reiterated from the last source to which you linked (Three Dog Media). It doesn’t matter how many people copy-paste a false statement or how they word a false statement, it is still false.
    They do not steal traffic when your page is still receiving page views, and especially when the user is reaching the Diggbar URL *from Digg*. They’re stealing their own traffic now? It’s not like the links on your site are magically changing to links to Digg’s site. If they found your site through your site, it’s your traffic, and there is no Diggbar URL. If they found your site through Digg, you should be happy you even got a page load from them.
    And what’s wrong with Digg getting a profit from it? Someone used their service, therefore they deserve a profit. If someone doesn’t want to use their service, not only is there an option to disable the Diggbar, they don’t even have to use Digg. It’s provided as a priviledge, not an Internet right. The profit from the Diggbar is up to the user using the Diggbar. The profit that comes from the Diggbar goes to Digg. The profit that comes from your site goes to your site. The two do not intertwine.