Comment by chaps
Hah no kidding. I tried just, "bill_gates" --
{
"username": "bill_gates",
"isReserved": false,
"isDeleted": false,
"categories": []
}
Hah no kidding. I tried just, "bill_gates" --
{
"username": "bill_gates",
"isReserved": false,
"isDeleted": false,
"categories": []
}
The comment on regex was really because that's what I did when I built internal reserved usernames list of 2 of my URL shortener projects. I love regex, btw. BUT, I don't think they cover all of what we need with usernames specifically. Shared some more insights on the thread about variations too (like underscores etc.).
Why would I want billgates to be reserved in the first place, unless I'm Microsoft?
And the definition of a "public figure" is absurdly broad and inconsistent. Some very common names are flagged as reserved for what are extremely minor celebrities at best (like an assistant coach of a college basketball team, or a actor with barely any formal credits as examples, and some other obscure athletes are marked as reserved while others are not).
Well, to clarify, this API is really for folks who're building platforms that require usernames. For ex: imagine if you were building the next Twitter or anything that requires usernames. There, you'd want to know what's happening with these kinds of usernames, where, people are now prepared to pay for too (premium usernames). Similarly, for cases where the names are offensive or profane, you may want to block outright.
As for definition of specific categories (more specifically public figures), you're right. Currently, it's just me building this and so I had to decide where to draw the line. I just drew it around the entire earth which I know is NOT the best appraoch but that's the one I went with just to ensure I cover all bases. Honestly, the API would tell if and why a username could be deemed reserved/premium. What to do with this info is really up to the platforms that are consuming it. They could let it slide, do nothing, just flag and monitor, block etc.
It's odd that they focused so much on "it's better than regexes" when it doesn't handle these cases where a regex would do well.