Thoughts? Well, 240 WPM - my only thought is that it'd be the latter alternative. Shame, really, if it's done intentionally.

But it wouldn't have to be. Correct me if I'm wrong, but... you can type your own texts on keybr, can't you? So I could post and then type, say, the text ARSTNEIOTSRAOIEN repeated a number of times? That'd be fast as blazes, and maybe useful as an exercise for me. You'll note that although the speed surpasses the best entry by a substantial amount, the score is still lower due to lack of textual complexity.

Yep - I just did an even 210 WPM on the epos OIENARST (by DreymaR, 2008 - inspired by the works of Coleman, 2006). Burst speed 300 WPM. Had I used a lower burst speed, there wouldn't have been as many errors and thus the average speed could well have been 240 WPM instead. But I didn't bother to rehearse for this pretty pointless exercise.

That average speed equals that of one Gene Hayes who is #4 on the high score list now. Personally, I wouldn't post that score but(t)...

Come to think of it, I wouldn't know how to post it? Is this trick even possible? It would explain the scores if it's feasible.

My 8-year-old daughter's reading speed is now 90 WPM, so she's still ahead of my typing and I don't think I can overtake her now...  :)

Speedy readers can get up to at least 600 WPM in competitions before they start losing a substantial amount of information (at 1000 WPM, the top contestants only reach 50% understanding of the read text).

To type something fast you first have to read it (understanding it may be optional though!) and then generate the finger/hand movements required. You can see stenotypists reaching 300+ WPM, with the record apparently being 375 WPM.

I don't think that a typist typing all glyphs separately could reach a lot more than Ms. Blackburn's 212 WPM in light of all this. Maybe the theoretical limit should be near 240 WPM but I'm having a hard time imagining how it could be done. Thinking that Blackburn actually typed something meaningful as fast as I could hammer down 'oienarst' gives me goosebumps.

Sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_reading
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stenotype

I've heard 170 WPM sustained. Reading speed may be largely unimportant I guess, but the ability to send all those movement signals from your brain (and no faulty or contradictory signals!) fast enough must be hard to get any faster.

Well, they advertise some kind of phrase-completion software on the same website.  I was kind of under the impression people were using (and were encouraged to use) that software for keybr.

QWERTY some guys have done 180WPM at sub zero temperature with mits on a mechanical typewriter. 240 on a well designed keyboard bare fingered in good temperatures is certainly theorhetically feasible.

That makes sense. I was liking Keybr to begin with, but wasn't really looking into the scores. What bothered me is it had the most unusual selection of words. I'd prefer typing with words that I'll actually spell instead of stuff like "ded" which seems to come from middle English.