After finding that one of my sites was flagged at Digg for “consistently” being a news middleman (despite not being a news site, nor ever submitting news content to Digg), I sent the following email which I feel makes an important point. If I receive a response, I’ll post it here.
I say this with genuine intent on making Digg a better place:
I’d recommend taking a long, hard look at the definition of “consistently” that you (or the algorithms) employ when making a consequential decision like this. In my experience, consistency implies a pattern across time. But I have strong empirical evidence that you are making high-consequence judgements based on single or small sample sizes.
It is in the best interest of Digg long term to have a more agile and intelligent means of determining what constitutes “consistent”
The point of the email? Well, to be blunt, it’s this:
It’s only in a police state-like environment that “consistent” comes to mean “at least once.”