After a week of questions about Digg's "Bury Brigade," Digg founder Kevin Rose has come in with some public comments about the system and the "alleged" brigade. Unfortunately, they're just comments — not solutions to protect Digg from the actual brigade I myself can see.  […]  Let me as a content provider understand if someone's targeting me. If not, at least I know I should yank down all those Digg buttons sending you my traffic and point them to sites that show more respect for content owners. (Source: Search Engine Land)

Great canewediggit. Bury a legit story as spam about burying abuse when you know it isn't spam, because the author didn't submit the story. I think you are just contributing to the problem here. YOU just illustrated the story for all of us.  Stop burying based on opinions. Nobody cares what you think. The bury button is there get rid of malicious, inaccurate, spam story's. You don't need to bury it just because you don't like it. If nobody likes it, then it won't get diggs.

———-

Oh the irony. Digg user says there is no bury brigade and promptly buries the story.

———

Well, you prove entirely the point of the article you probably failed to read. The article I wrote demonstrates there is a brigade of some type burying every single article we've had submitted over the past two days. This one was buried less than 15 minutes after it went it. And if you've been burying every article about a bury brigade problem — hey — you yourself prove that one exists.

So why did we target Digg and not Reddit in the Wired News piece? Again, the answer is simple. Digg is so big that an entire industry has sprung up around gaming it, and therefore I could hire a company that would pay people to digg my story. There is no such comparable industry or company that will game Reddit. Again, I love Reddit and I think it’s very cool — but writing about it in this context would have been like comparing apples and oranges. (Source:  Techsploitation)

Arrington himself calls the article "a piece of investigative journalism," then turns round and roasts it for being investigative. That is, gaming Digg for an article about gaming Digg is "making the news," rather than reporting it. No, it's investigating the news, and testing and verifying the news you're reporting. […]  It's never fun being the target of an investigative piece, but getting all hot and bothered over the investigation is a historically standard reaction from parties who strike at the methods because they don't like the results.  (Source:  Valleyway)