As some people may know Digg released a “toolbar” last week allowing for easier submission and digging of stories on the popular social news site. I quoted the word toolbar because it’s not one in the traditional sense. Instead of installing an application or add on, the DiggBar is simply a bookmarklet that allows one-click access to the toolbar interface. This allows it to run in any browser which is very convenient. In an effort to use Digg more I started using the toolbar to add and digg stories as I find them (in most cases digg them because it’s rare I find something that hasn’t already been submitted).
This all sounds great, but there’s been a backlash against the toolbar. You see, the toolbar also acts as a URL shortener so you can easily share links to stories with friends. No problem, right? Well, as it turns out, there may be a problem. According to many sources (for the purposes of this article this source in particular) the way in which the DiggBar manipulates the URL information basically breaks the way in which addresses are suppose to work:
“In Digg’s efforts to keep you swimming in their stream, they completely obscure the original URL you’re supposed to be looking at. And no, not just the URL you follow from a particular Digg on their site — all the URLs you visit (via clicks) until you kill the bar. Additionally, if you’re browsing around a site under the bar itself and you kill it, it transports you back to the original URL you landed on, thus completely breaking continuity and making it almost impossible to know where you’ve actually browsed to.”
Ordinarily I don’t pay much attention to items like this. These days nearly everything is going to have haters in some capacity. In this case I’m making an exception because the site raising the concern is Engadget. Claims like these are easy to dismiss but when a huge site like this is boycotting another monster site you know something has to be up. So, what is Engadget’s stance on this matter:
“In our opinion, the DiggBar takes Digg’s approach to news gathering and dissemination one step too far. By hijacking URLs, they complicate an end-user’s experience on our site, and from a publishing standpoint, we think it’s a step backwards to mask the content you’re visiting with shortened URLs from an unrelated site.”
Interestingly enough Digg already came out earlier this week and tried to explain why the DiggBar is not a bad thing for sites. It seems they may have more damage control to do given this Engagdet news came out yesterday and it seems the block is in place.
Personally, I think the DiggBar is very useful but this whole situation gives me pause. As a content provider do I want to promote something which possibly limits the reach of a website, particularly my own? Of course not. One can argue that any traffic, even that which comes from the DiggBar, is good but should Digg be skimming from the popularity of other people’s content? It’s a tough call, one I really cannot answer for anyone because a lot of this is rooted in aspects of web sites or SEO that I don’t fully understand.
For now I may continue to use the DiggBar to submit and digg stories, but for sharing purposes I’ll probably continue to use bit.ly. If for no other reason then the fact the Firefox add-on is still WAY more convenient then the DiggBar. If Digg manages to address the concerns of users, however, DiggBar is a great way to consolidate your link sharing.
Updated by Starbuck: Great article here explaining Framebars and DiggBar (Hat tip: Kevin Rose, via Twitter).
Bob Starr, code named Starbuck, is a geek with a passion for film journalism and technology. You can follow Bob on Twitter (
Diggbar has done it, I haven’t seen one of my websites Framed since the 90’s. For my customers they know to look for HTTPS and the lock before using their CC, but DiggBar had broke that like a thief!
Already inserted a jscript framer-killer so I can look into a serverside PHP solution.
DiggBar is a security threat to online transactions and framer! And that’s just not cool.
@ Anon: I agree that it seems odd for a site like Digg to utilize such old web standards. From one perspective I like the fact it’s easy to use across all browsers (nothing to install). On the other hand I hate how it puts a frame at the top of shared links. Mind you, I think given all the negative press over this they may have corrected this particular issue by removing it for non-Digg users. You’re certainly not the only one added frame killer script to your page. Wow, it’s like we’re going backwards in time on the Internet.