Itβs bad marketing. I would change that word tbh. I can already see npubs complaining about this
Discussion
what word would you guys use lol
Real instead of reputable
everything is a real follower regardless if itβs a bot or a spammer, the follow is real (it happened) now the question still stands is that real follower reputable or not..
I totally understand this. I just think a lot of people will get stuck at the reputable wording
ah maybe.. so far nobody except you and David but thatβs the great thing you guys can give nostr:npub176p7sup477k5738qhxx0hk2n0cty2k5je5uvalzvkvwmw4tltmeqw7vgup this feedback n see what he says
since itβs an open source thing I doubt anyone really will, they can simply fork it n name it whatever they want n see if their wording is more widely accepted
Maybe itβs just us π€·πΎ
I think itβs a great idea btw. Always thought the nostr band numbers were inflated
I follow npubs that aren't "real" people, but I find them valuable for other reasons. Not every npub included within what npub.world considers "reputable" is a real person, I am sure.
I can also tell you from running a WoT relay that there are still a fair amount of bots that make it into my WoT because people who I follow, and would therefore be considered "reputable" are also following bots, which would in turn make those bots "reputable" since it only requires one "reputable" follower for an npub to also be considered "reputable."
Pippellia explained here what he qualified as a reputable follow
nostr:note1yxynfx7tml8wgk6yytdwzxs2kwgjv5w4pkecqx0p8jzt9kev47pqw3ynvs
Yep, I read that one. He also gives more detail about how exactly someone is considered "reputable" here:
I agree with Miljanβs point. Itβs probably 80/20 lurkers/participants. This definitely cuts out the lurkers (who are also real). Maybe interactive follows would make more sense than reputable
True, but lurkers aren't posting anything to be unfairly filtered out, otherwise they're not lurkers.
