They say they did it because of Terms of Use violations, but that’s absurd… among the three of us, we only submitted 20 posts over the three days we were live. We suspect they actually banned us because of the content of our posts, which were mainly excerpts from a book by one of us debunking human-caused climate change.

We’re calling on every blogger we know to support us in our drive to be reinstated in the Digg index. I would deeply appreciate it if you and your readers would visit our site, read our story, and take whatever action you deem appropriate.

Regards,

Jason G. Williscroft
The Dead Hand

http://www.901am.com/2007/has-digg-really-unbanned-those-banned-sites.html#comment-3992

AFAIK, a single Digg admin has the power to bury (or promote) any story unilaterally, without anybody knowing. Of course, nobody will know either way. As long as Digg admins have this much power, Digg is NOT the grass-roots, “democratic,” community-run, site that it purports to be.

Since there is no audit of what Digg’s admins are doing, this is a perfect opportunity for blogola/Diggola as an “inside job” - with nobody being the wiser. A little money or other recompense to Digg insiders can do wonders for anybody wanting to promote stories that favor their client and bury stories that don’t. Hmmmm…

———————————
http://digg.com/tech_news/1_Miiiiiillion_Users#c5594565

Does this mean that Digg will show its respect and gratitude for these million Digg users by:

1) Providing a “Who buried this?” tab;

2) Taking away the ability of Digg admins to bury or promote stories on their own, without regard to what the Digg voting public wants;

3) Decreasing the weight given to a bury as opposed to a digg, so that stories with a large enough proportion of diggs to buries will stay in the upcoming stories queue;

or perhaps even…

4) Taking away the bury button entirely, and replacing it with a button to report spam to the admins,

so that they can review it later, and decide whether or not the site is so egregiously spammy that it should be banned.

No? You mean that you folks at Digg don’t really care enough about us to consider doing any of these things?

Didn’t think so.
———————————

http://digg.com/software/Digg_Search_Much_Improved_Can_We_Have_More#c5594665
Okay, Kevin, now that we (maybe) have a tiny bit of your attention, how about doing something about the major problem on Digg that so many people have been complaining about recently, namely burying? How about:

1) Providing a “Who buried this?” tab;

2) Taking away the ability of Digg admins to bury or promote stories on their own, without regard to what the Digg voting public wants;

3) Decreasing the weight given to a bury as opposed to a digg, so that stories with a large enough proportion of diggs to buries will stay in the upcoming stories queue;

or perhaps even…

4) Taking away the bury button entirely, and replacing it with a button to report spam to the admins, so that they can review it later, and decide whether or not the site is so egregiously spammy that it should be banned.

If you don’t do something effective about this problem, people will draw the conclusion that you don’t really care about the many new Digg users who have just now put your site over the million-user milestone. So how about it?
———————————

I have done NOTHING that violates the Digg terms of service.

The only explanation that I have for my being banned is the fact that I questioned the right of Digg’s admins to bury and promote stories at will and with no accountability. The very instant I did this, one of these selfsame Digg admins panicked and banned me!

Ironically, my being banned in this manner PROVES everything what I have been saying!

If enough people think the story is worth reading, it becomes popular. And even then, if you read the title and the summary and you disagree with it, don’t read it. If you read the article and you disagree with it, you’re usually free to discuss it on the site or in the Digg thread. How does Digg hurt if an article becomes popular that people disagree with? I’m failing to see the major malfunction with removing Bury altogether.

I can say for certain that yes, every now and then the big guys running Digg throttle or squelch a story they don’t like seeing. They can tell you whatever stories they want but the fact is, they’re real people with real views; in fact, they have stronger views than most of us, or they wouldn’t have started the Digg revolution. You would do the same thing in their place, no matter what you may say. People who get power use power.

Still I think they could limit the number of percentage of stories a user can bury and while they’re at it, initiate some kind of second chance section.