Use of Linkback feature with Digg.com - User Banned from Digg

Greetings to all,

I'm a vbulletin owner and have optimized my forum with vbseo. As such, me and my forum team "cross-linked" several of our threads and posts with Digg.com. We did experience an increase in traffic and our membership went up, however, we were also the victims of false spam complaints.

Please be careful and do not submit a lot of links to Digg.com or you might experience the same results. Your digg.com account being banned and your forum url banned, therefore, making a part of vbseo totally worthless.

I'm in the middle of heated debate with Digg.com, but their site is so rinky-dinky that it does not look like my forum url will be cleared from the banned list anytime soon.
Members of Digg.com falsely accused me of spamming because we "dug" a lot of post at digg.com, not because we actually spammed. Word to the wise, do not "cross-link" a lot of different post with various cross-linking sites or you too might be accused of spamming!

Now, since there is a mod to include "cross-linking" buttons without vbseo, it kind makes me wonder what vbseo is suppose to do when some of the features that came with it, do not "work."


Hopefully my problem with Digg.com gets straightened out.

Cheers.

3 links, maybe. It depends what they are on.

Digg.com members only like politics or anything they can curse at.

what are other social networking sites?

You have to expect this when you are networking together to promote your sites via something like Digg.

The intentions of having the links setup like they are via vbseo are not to get people to abuse sites like digg, furl, etc.... Not to sound like a jerk, but if I am reading the first post of this thread correctly, it sounds like you guys were in fact spamming digg.

That's the problem...

What is spamming?

Multiple different threads dug into a site "whose purpose" is to cross link. It is not stated anywhere that Digg should not be used in the manner in which we used it. All we did was "advertise efficiently."

(Keep in mind, the digg.com members "serve as spam catchers" then the Digg.com staff act on the members' complaints.)

-OR-

Is spam, unsolicited postings which are all the same thing?

It might sound like "we" were spamming, in reality, we did what is acceptable in Digg's TOS. It is very borderline. But when you have Digg.com members posting comments like this (here's proof )

It really brings into question whether what I did was indeed spamming or was I doing something that Digg.com members didn't like and together, they decided to falsely accuse me of spamming. A pircture is worth a thousand words, but what is spam? According to Digg.com's TOS, spam is what a member who doesn't like what you post! End of story!

The only thing that we did that was unacceptable was that our threads were not in tune with what the members of Digg are accustomed to "reading." (Assuming they can read.)

I doubt it is spam.
It is only spam...why? Because of your subjectivity? Give me a break.

As mentioned before, all I did was use digg.com to its fullest..

vbseo should put a disclaimer of some sorts:
Do not post a lot of digg.com links because although we issue "cross-linking" ability with our product, it is not intended be used to draw a lot of "internet awareness." Moreover, user understands that Digg.com users might consider it your post spam if they feel like resulting in your Digg.com account getting banned. Moreover, user of vbseo understands that users at Digg.com only like stories on politics and profanity.

Fortunately, I'm not a lawyer yet, as I would try and find a reason to take either vbseo.com or Digg.com or both to court just for litigation practice.

Yes, I'm aware of this, but you have to recognize the irony involved in this situation.

premise 1) I purchase product from vbseo titled "vbseo,"
premise 2) Vbseo provides me with ability to cross link to various sites.
premise 3) Various sites and their users do not agree with how we use the ability provided to use by vbseo.
premise 4) One of various sites provided by vbseo ban our url from further submission
premise 5) vbseo only provides consumers with links to use
premise 6) consumers use links provided by vbseo in a manner that is not outlined as breaking or infringing on any terms of service. Although questionable, is it not breaking or infringing any terms of service.
premise 7) Consumers who submit links are subject to members opinions about what is spam and what is not spam.
premise 8) Members falsify spam accusations due to " alot of postings" even though digg has mechanisms in place to prevent spam.
premise 9) Due to consumer's many submissions that are all different and false spam complaints consumer's url is banned from further submissions
premise 10) The linking ability that vbseo provides is now worthless.
premise 11) vbseo never stated to not post threads that users from other sites will not agree with and subsequently label spam and cause a url to get banned.

Conclusion) As stated before, this would serve me good litigation practice because if I can't use a feature provided by vbseo, and monies were exchanged, then someone should be held liable; is liable.

You could cry common sense all you want, but that isn't a viable argument here.
vbseo might have a "terms of service" (TOS) governing their product, but fortunately for consumers, their TOS is not absolute law.

I could go on and on, but this is getting rather redundant.

Originally Posted by Keith Cohen

vBSEO is in no way involved, since anyone can submit any site to Digg.com.

vBSEO just adds a link for you to use. How you and your users use it, is up to you.

Originally Posted by T.S.

You have 10 pages of Digg submissions in 4 days, and much of it looks like spam links that get posted by spambots. I would call you a spammer too.

digg / MARKETPROFITS / news / submitted

But digg has mechanisms in place to prevent spam bots.

Once you prove you are human, then automatically it is considered to be a legitimate entry. If not, then why have a "spam bot human" test?