Thanks for the extra info, Jason. I have a computer with only this Greasemonkey script installed, and it works. I can't reproduce your problems. I thought maybe it was because I'm using Firefox 2, so I installed Firefox 3, and it works too. Weird.

I should mention that this script was updated in April 2008. If anyone is using a version older, that would explain why it isn't working. Using the most recent version (1.0.2) should work fine.

Thanks Charnita! Glad it's working for you.

Thanks SomKen. I've uploaded a new version. It works for me. Let me know if it gives you any problems.

Works for me. Are you forgetting to hit the filter button when you add a keyword? Or maybe you have conflicting Greasemonkey scripts? Disable the others and see if that helps. If you figure out which script is causing a conflict, let me know.

Keep up the good work, neaveru!

Don't bother. All this does is convert some links to say "Good news for Linux!" Not exactly useful.

Don't bother. It looks like a stalled project that the author never got around to finishing. The code is exactly the same as his other script.

Four million?!? How is it possible for a Greasemonkey script to be installed more times than there are Greasemonkey plugins? Yes, that's right -- on mozilla.org you can see that the Greasemonkey plugin has "181,181 downloads." And yet this script has been installed 4 million times? That means each and every Greasemonkey user has it installed 20 times! You can't even say that people have re-installed it each time the script gets upgraded, because it hasn't been upgraded for a year!

Yeah, looks like the source is good now! Congrats!

However, to whomever run userscripts.org, it sucks that you've set the script source code page body to "text-align:center" for IE users! Who wants to read code centered!?!

Wow! I just looked at TheBunman's code and it isn't even that bad! It waits for you to view the article summary, and even then it pops up a confirmation. C'mon! With all the controversy I expected it to just bury EVERYTHING on the home page that was from Daily Mail, maybe 2 or 3 or 4 stories on every page. But this? This isn't bad. This is like a helper application.

However, what IS bad is that it auto-posts a comment saying that the story was autoburied and providing a link to the script. That's spammy. In fact, that's just as bad as someone posting spammy stories! So TheBunman, I'd encourage you to release a new version with the auto-comment lines removed. Just allow the buries without spamming the discussion.

Good luck!

If someone is going to manually bury daily mail articles, I don't see anything wrong with automating it. People can bury stories for any number of reasons. I often bury stories because of certain authors or sites. Some groups are notorious for being spammy, and it's a good thing for members to react to that. In the case of daily mail, I believe it has a reputation for being poorly fact-checked and sensationalist. That's the kind of thing I can shrug off or even laugh at, but for people who want Digg to appear as more "legit" let them put in their 2 cents. They're doing what they think is correct for Digg.

Wow, that helped more than I expected. It's really nice now. The code works fast, too. Some of my scripts, not so fast. I hope you don't mind if I borrow some of your ideas?

Nicely done! I'm surprised at the changes. I don't visit the Codex much lately, but this certainly helps it to look less sloppy and more enticing.

I see you have another Codex script. I'll take a look.