I like this article … but details still need ironing. I’m working on a PR, which might likely be debated.
- NostrHub already has “upvotes” (disguised as a stars), and might not see the value in adding “downvote”. If adding WoT powered weights to these votes is the primary objective of this feature, it may be more effective to only do this.
- Nip 25 doesn’t specify a UI (beyond + or -) to represent upvote or downvote reactions, except to say that “explicit emoji reactions” should NOT count as up or down votes. NostrHub uses the “star” emoji to represent “upvote” for NIPs … while the “thumb up” and “thumb down” emoji are made available for emoji reactions in comments. This would prolly need updating, if we added downvote capability.
- Should the adding of “upvote” or “downvote” be accompanied by a comment input to allow for clarification? If so, we should update the UI for voting AS WELL AS the UI for adding comments.
Login to reply
Replies (4)
you should talk to alex about your PR as he may already be working on this integration for NostrHub as we have been discussing internally for 2 days now.
Downvotes provide a method to identify and weed out spam. If all we have are upvotes, then we have no method to separate valid NIPs with zero upvotes from spam.
I’d say to keep the UX as clean as possible. Perhaps popups with very simple 1 or 2 sentence explanations of what the user is looking at.
And I’m inclined to resist the temptation to provide too much in the way of a didactic explanation of what the upvotes and downvotes “mean.” The like button on social media ends up meaning different things to different people, and that’s fine. We can add more sophisticated methods of feedback in the future, but we don’t need to do that now. Baby steps.
While working on this PR for NostrHub, I discovered that comments (no ability to like ... yet) on 'official NIPs' are 'hard linked ' to the primary GitHub repo. While comments and likes on 'custom NIPs' use (best practice) an 'a' tag for reference, the likes are published as kind 7 'standard' event reactions. I also noticed that there are MULTIPLE event kinds (30817 & 30818, at least) that people use for publishing NIP specifications across nostr.
If we are going to leverage WoT to decentralize NIP curation, our ability to comment and react to them NEEDS TO BE STANDARDIZED (using kind-17) across NIP publishing styles. Therefore, I've proposed an addition to the NIP-75 specification for referencing external content.
Please review.
@david @Alex Gleason @Vitor Pamplona @Laeserin

GitHub
New spec in NIP 73 for referencing arbitrary NIP specifications by manimejia · Pull Request #2102 · nostr-protocol/nips
Allows 'all of nostr' to reference, comment, and react on any published NIP spec in a standardized manner, regardless of which repo or nostr event ...