(Laporte gives Rose the background)
Laporte: Is that true?
Rose: That’s a good question.
Laporte: You don’t know?
Rose: I’ve been gone for 2 weeks so I don’t know what got pushed, what code got pushed and how it functions but my last understanding is that what we wanted to do is have it so that if you click on a Digg URL it takes you to the Digg stories so you can Digg it. Rather than providing a short URL service that just forwards and does redirection we would just do a URL service just for Digg articles. Just like the same way that Techcrunch does “techcrunch slash 85374″ – if you go to that you’re not going to go to some other site you’re going to go to techcrunch. That’s the story.
Laporte: So you’re backing off on the original idea which is a general URL shortening service…
My question is this: If they intended on doing this to Diggbar, why was there no post on it, no indication on their intentions to change Diggbar from a general URL shortening service to one that is exclusively for Digg articles? I'm not debating the usefulness of an exclusive Digg shortener, in fact, it can be very useful if that's what you're aiming for. On the contrary, I'm questioning how Digg went about all of this. It makes them look shady.
Hi from Digg,Thank you for writing to us about this matter. This is working as intended. Please let us know if you have any feedback or have additional questions we can assist you with.Digg Support
From TweetMeme’s point of view if this stays the same way we will be forced to remove it from our whitelist of shorteners, as by definition this no longer makes Digg a shortening service. We included Digg.com because we felt the addition allowed users the ability to gain extra traction along with the shortening support.