arkinox (nprofile…cn9q), is this now a more relevant reference to implement a QTS review system due to the NIP-32 revision?
https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/pull/879
And what would you say is a more merchant/product focused approach compared to the place reviews proposal in the comments? I was thinking that following the updated NIP-85 proposal might be more applicable. "Thumb" could still be used as a rating label with either a 0 or 0.5 value, and the other arbitrary rating labels would have their score weights split equally for the remaining 0.5 (as per the original QTS proposal). Negative, neutral, and positive score options could also be used for the arbitrary labels, but a binary decision might be better.
cc hodlbod (nprofile…mt90)
calvadev⚡️
npub16d…x0nkq
2024-10-30 16:45:05
Author Public Key
npub16dhgpql60vmd4mnydjut87vla23a38j689jssaqlqqlzrtqtd0kqex0nkqSeen on
wss://nos.lolwss://nostr.winewss://relay.nostr.band/npub1jh4qu2g5e49syrwh293q8q90xeklvdx47pnj5vyca2tkljed08us0ctj6kwss://haven.calva.devPublished at
2024-10-30 16:45:05Event JSON
{
"id": "016fe17eadecb62ce92791251f0b43762dc004b9eff9bf3092c457b509dac3d4",
"pubkey": "d36e8083fa7b36daee646cb8b3f99feaa3d89e5a396508741f003e21ac0b6bec",
"created_at": 1730306705,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"p",
"e8ed3798c6ffebffa08501ac39e271662bfd160f688f94c45d692d8767dd345a",
"",
"mention"
],
[
"p",
"97c70a44366a6535c145b333f973ea86dfdc2d7a99da618c40c64705ad98e322",
"",
"mention"
],
[
"r",
"https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/pull/879"
]
],
"content": "nostr:nprofile1qqsw3mfhnrr0l6ll5zzsrtpeufckv2lazc8k3ru5c3wkjtv8vlwngkspz9mhxue69uhkummnw3ezuamfdejj7qg4waehxw309aex2mrp0yhxgctdw4eju6t09uqsuamnwvaz7tmwdaejumr0dshsq9cn9q, is this now a more relevant reference to implement a QTS review system due to the NIP-32 revision?\n\nhttps://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/pull/879\n\nAnd what would you say is a more merchant/product focused approach compared to the place reviews proposal in the comments? I was thinking that following the updated NIP-85 proposal might be more applicable. \"Thumb\" could still be used as a rating label with either a 0 or 0.5 value, and the other arbitrary rating labels would have their score weights split equally for the remaining 0.5 (as per the original QTS proposal). Negative, neutral, and positive score options could also be used for the arbitrary labels, but a binary decision might be better.\n\ncc nostr:nprofile1qqsf03c2gsmx5ef4c9zmxvlew04gdh7u94afnknp33qvv3c94kvwxgspz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduq35amnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwwajhxar9wfhxyarr9e3k7mgprdmhxue69uhksmmyd33x7epwvdhhyctrd3jjuar0dak8x6lmt90",
"sig": "f8f26a5246b34da7b19bea3674fb37c2ac02137b1379760cbb9091b433feabd1067e1a24843b2f383021a00a6dc94d3069796873b7d49eb3dfd31ba8c7656348"
}