Method for managing collaborative quality review of creative works

• US 8,086,484 B1
• Filed: 03/08/2005
• Issued: 12/27/2011
• Est. Priority Date: 03/17/2004
• Status: Active Grant

• Current Assignee: Helium Exchange, Inc.
• Original Assignee: Helium, Inc. (RR Donnelley & Sons Company)
• Inventors: Gibson, Gregory Edward
• Primary Examiner(s): Jeanty, Romain
• Assistant Examiner(s): CHOY, PAN G
• Application Number:
  US11/075,775
• Time in Patent Office: 2,485 Days
• Field of Search: 705/7.41, 705/7.32, 705/7.29
• US Class Current: 705/7.41
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/06395 Quality analysis or management
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 30/0201 Market modelling; Market analysis; Collecting market data
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 30/0203 Market surveys; Market polls

Abstract

A method and system of assessing the quality of a work through a quality review engine. The quality review system efficiently builds a ranked list of works. Competing and collaborating creators review each other'"'"'s works through a variable, relative-measurement technique. Subject matter creators rate the quality of individual pieces of material, while concurrently being reviewed themselves to assess the level of expertise of each reviewer, and thus, the degree of weight that should be given to the commentary of each reviewer. Each review may itself be reviewed to assess a usefulness of the review to determine the weight the review should be given in the ranking process. Assigned reviews, monitored control works, and other fraud detection devices assure accurate rankings at a low cost.

Claims

1. A method of operating a quality review internet application engine comprising:

receiving, over the internet to a processor, a plurality of creative works from creators;

presenting, over the internet from the processor to a reviewer, a pair of creative works to rate, wherein the pair of creative works is selected from the plurality of creative works;

providing, to the reviewer from the processor, multiple choices for rating the pair of creative works based on variable relative measurements;

receiving, by the processor from the reviewer, a single variable relative rating for the pair of creative works provided to indicate the degree to which the works differ;

receiving, by the processor from the reviewer, a written review of a creative work rated by the reviewer;

weighting, by the processor, the received single variable relative ratings based on reviewer expertise;

comparing, by the processor, the weighted variable relative ratings;

maintaining a plurality of control creative works of known high or low quality, wherein the control creative works are mixed among the creative works to be rated;

identifying, by the processor, a fraudulent rating from the reviewer based on the received single variable relative rating being contrary to the known quality of one of the control creative works;

marking all variable relative ratings received from the reviewer as fraudulent when any of the reviewer'"'"'s variable relative ratings are identified as fraudulent ratings;

repeating the presentation of pairs of creative works to the same or different reviewers at least until all works in the plurality of creative works have received at least one non-fraudulent variable relative rating to another creative work;

sorting and ranking, by the processor, all creative works in order from best to worst based on weighted variable relative rankings;

requesting, from the processor, over the internet to creators to rate individual written reviews according to how much effort written reviewers made; and

increasing, by the processor, the frequency of inclusion of works from creators with higher review effort scores in presentation of pairs of creative work to be rated.

2. The method of claim 1, wherein the pair of creative works includes a creative work previously rated by the reviewer.

3. The method of claim 1, wherein the steps further comprise receiving, at the processor from creators, review usefulness scores for written reviews of creators'"'"' rated creative works.

4. The method of claim 1, wherein the steps further comprise applying a degree of weight to commentary from the written review.

5. The method of claim 1, wherein the steps further comprise requesting a creator to rate a written review of a creative work that the creator submitted.