Literally me. π
I feel like this is an npub quality statistic waiting to happen.
Discussion
Where can you see these stats? I think you completely mog me with those numbers.
nostr.band
You would have 788, Ser Sleepy.
788 ?
Score.
16551 zaps : 21 median zap
That means a lot of people appreciated your stuff very often.
The numbers don't say anything on their own. Only in relationship to each other. You'd need some sort of ratio, like
number of zaps : median zap
Then I would have a score of 58 and you would have one of 4 because most of your sats came from one zap.
Noshole would have 28 and Gigi would have 868.
If my math is correct. π
More proof that nostr:npub1dergggklka99wwrs92yz8wdjs952h2ux2ha2ed598ngwu9w7a6fsh9xzpc is a badass
Unfortunately, zap receipts can be spoofed so they're probably not good to use for wot. The only one that knows for sure if a zap was real, is the recipient that manages the wallet that received the zap.
"This isn't really a payment proof, there is no real way to prove that the invoice is real or has been paid. You are trusting the author of the zap receipt for the legitimacy of the payment." From https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/blob/master/57.md
It's the same with followers in WoT. People make multiple npubs and then they can recommend each other.
True, yeah I always felt like these are both somewhat non starters.. the only things that seemed like they would work would be more like fiatjaf's pyramid, or that notabot project, where people vouch for each other, and when bots are discovered you know the invite tree (how they got in) and can prune it.
you can do that with WoT as well, because it's always one dumbass in your list that is at the root of it, cut them out, and their immediate neighbours and voila, clean again
this is why i rage against wishy washy "tolerant" people
i'd have to think about it for a while but i probably can cite at least a dozen examples in movies where it was that one "bleeding heart" that doomed the people
π
even if the zaps are real they can go round in a circle too
Would probably need to include length of time.
Which stat specifically on that list are you referring to, number of zaps received?
If so, iβm assuming nostr:npub12262qa4uhw7u8gdwlgmntqtv7aye8vdcmvszkqwgs0zchel6mz7s6cgrkj βs primal algo fucker has meddled with mine π³ 
Neat! Looks like I have a lot of work to do to reach your level π
Interesting.
19 score
Wow, you got one really big zap! π
That was the friend who got me onto the platform. That was his incentive. It worked.
Someone else could probably design a better scoring formula, just picked a really easy one.
So did nostr:npub1m4ny6hjqzepn4rxknuq94c2gpqzr29ufkkw7ttcxyak7v43n6vvsajc2jl just become the official scorekeeper of everyone's profile quality?
nostr:npub1xdtducdnjerex88gkg2qk2atsdlqsyxqaag4h05jmcpyspqt30wscmntxy Whatβs the point of counting the minimal number of sats zapped? Seems like a useless statistic.
By quality meaning what?
I guess that's would be subjective.
I consider npubs who have spent more time on here, having positive interactions and adding value for others, as being higher-quality.
Loud populists would win, no? Speaking for myself, I would give npubs with rare but original (self-written) content more value than the blasting spiderwebs of engagement.
You will need to answer how you want to weight vertices. I donβt think that a βpagerankβ (original Google approach) would work in the long run. I think βYahoo link listsβ are more stable because they work on source quality. For example: if Uncle Bob said something once a year, I might want to see it.
I think loud populists should win, to be honest. Social media expects a willingness to be social. This is a measure for Kind 01 notes. Nobody wants a SM feed full of people who "tweet" once per year.
People who write seldomly, but thoroughly, or with great effort/expertise, should focus on writing long-form notes, which could be measured separately.
I see the point about being social (how this ever became something digital). But it enables professional social medians. Like professional polititians, theyβre not rooted in the real world. I personally would not value influencers high. Itβs the sort of hyper-centralization, the internet naturally does. And I donβt like it.
My measure is actually counter to influencing. That is the whole point.
Influencers don't interact much. They receive large sums, but not frequently in small amounts. That's the sign of an interactive pleb, who is in the convo.
This also helps separate "dead accounts" that aren't worth replying to because they don't interact, from simply VBAs like Odell.
It's not the size, per say, that separates a pleb from an influencer.
