>If it was really testing, why would they stop exactly and immediately when informed by the blogger That's absolutely not evidence that it is not testing. It'

>If it was really testing, why would they stop exactly and immediately when informed by the blogger That's absolutely not evidence that it is not testing. It's a good point, but it is in no way inconsistent with their explanation. It makes perfect sense because it was (theoretically) supposed to be a small test that nobody noticed. Once somebody noticed it, of course they're going to stop it. It's consistent with other theories being floated around, but it's important to note that it in no way contradicts their statement; exactly the opposite in fact. If your theory is correct, why not just do it more directly? Why not do it in a less obvious way? Why upvote random spam sites as well (some of which were created at the same time as the accounts in question...almost as if someone were testing submitting spam on Digg...) I don't doubt it's possible, but it seems to me people are letting their bias against Digg get the better of their reasoning ability.