Join the Discussion

Comments So Far: 24

• 0%

  charbarred1 year, 6 months ago

  This is really disgusting.

  I stayed with digg after they banned my blog

  I minimized my participation but still contributed when they got rid of the top users list

  I stuck around when they buried any story that had digg in the title

  But this just takes the cake!

  Reply
• 0%

  nottinghills1 year, 6 months ago

  yeah, doesnt matter. what about the people that have friend brigades for votes. let digg be digg. stop complaining. :)

  Reply
• 0%

  TheAttacks1 year, 6 months ago

  I can only imagine that he was banned due to the inclusion of information that could have posed a security/privacy risk.

  Reply
• 0%

  nottinghills1 year, 6 months ago

  sinking or burying something, to many people, just means they dont want hear about it. people bury microsoft and sony, because they arent interested in it.. they always hear about it, ect,ect.

  Reply
• 0%

  okitech1 year, 6 months ago

  he/she was just another "contributor" there will be more and many will take his place. NS needs a whiners catag. if the person was upset with his choices of social group he/she would not go there. bottom line who ever it was needs to remember digg belongs to digg and they are free to close out any accounts they want.....with or without reason, justified or not.

  Reply

  1 Reply

  • 0%

    TheAttacks1 year, 6 months ago

    Supernova17 has been a long time member and a top contributor for. . . well, since before I was a Digg member. There's no reason he should have been banned readily in sight and if it was for the only two reasons that we can come up with (dupe, and the information in the story) then something is seriously messed up with this.

    Reply
• 0%

  nottinghills1 year, 6 months ago

  it would be like actor/actress, going out and making news statement, that whoever hires them, have all these flaws, but they choose expose it to news, instead of asking person whoever hires them, to help fix it

  (sorry i know nothing about celebrity field)

  Reply

  2 Replies

  • 0%

    charbarred1 year, 6 months ago

    Supernova17 doesn't work for Digg. Digg is not paying for his hard work and dedication. He was there from the start and helped them become what they are today. Sadly they chose to crap all over that.

    Reply

    1 Reply

    • 0%

      nottinghills1 year, 6 months ago

      I know he doesn't work for digg, but digg works for him.

      Reply
• 0%

  nottinghills1 year, 6 months ago

  If he apoligizes they may let him keep account. Who knows.

  But compare it to person at starbucks, that instead of telling manager, they are out of coffee. He screams it to anyone that wants coffee, that comes in store.

  I know, top contributers don't get paid, but some do see benefits from being noticed, when they submit their own stories.

  Reply
• 0%

  okitech1 year, 6 months ago

  i bet it is mostly because the data he/she posted was not accurate and the source of the code stated it. while it maybe true that grouping goes on....false acusations based on inaccurate variables will cause more problems...so maybe it is better to have a cup of coffe and enjoy the day

  Reply

  1 Reply

  • 0%

    charbarred1 year, 6 months ago

    Throughout my history with Digg I submitted many stories that got buried. Some I didn't know were not accurate and got buried because of that...I was never banned for this. Submitters are not in charge of the news, they simply submit them.

    Reply
• 100%

  richstyles1 year, 6 months ago

  It's amazing that Digg continues to do what competitors are working so hard to do: undermine Digg's success. I have a feeling this period will be highlighted some day in a "Web 2.0: Where are they now" documentary.

  Reply
• 0%

  nottinghills1 year, 6 months ago

  I don't know why people are so hard on digg. :/ Digg makes probably a couple million a year. While contributers all together make way more than that. Please settle down. Digg is cool.

  While google makes a few billion year, there is no telling how many trillions people make from google. It's just life.

  Reply
• 0%

  Digidave1 year, 6 months ago

  My two cents on it for what it's worth: http://www.newassignment.net/blog/david_cohn/feb20

  I don't think its proof that there is a bury brigade -- but that there is a bubbling in the community -- people want more control/access to information, etc.

  Reply
• 0%

  pagey1 year, 6 months ago

  He is unbanned now

  Reply
• 0%

  Digidave1 year, 6 months ago

  Anybody notice that all submissions on digg related to this event have been burried? Curious. Either the community doesn't want to face it -- or the Digg staff doesn't want to let them.

  Reply

  2 Replies

  • 0%

    tomboy5011 year, 6 months ago

    digg staff squashing controversy has become pretty routine....that's my bet.

    This brings up another reason that user-identified buries on digg will probably never be allowed. Then we could all see which (and how many) stories are actually buried by the community...and which are yanked by moderators. Patterns would emerge and that kind of transparency is not something digg staff seems comfortable with.

    Reply
  • 0%

    ind061 year, 6 months ago

    I can't imagine a social news site burying things they don't want to deal with. Talk about pathetic. Thank God that only happens over at Digg.

    Reply

• OnionHeadComment removed: User banned.
• 100%

  nottinghills1 year, 6 months ago

  14% sinks is a dissapproval rating for this post. Only 1% of the world wants hear about digg. This is netscape. Most people have never heard of digg.

  Reply

  1 Reply

  • 0%

    ind061 year, 6 months ago

    sigh

    Reply

• OnionHeadComment removed: User banned.
• 0%

  JennSierra1 year, 2 months ago

  Another reason Digg might be having problems? Seems the "Diggers" don't have as much authority on Digg as one might think. Update: http://forthardknox.com/?p=236

  Reply