JURY SYSTEM FOR USE IN ONLINE ANSWERS ENVIRONMENT

• US 20090164582A1
• Filed: 12/20/2007
• Published: 06/25/2009
• Est. Priority Date: 12/20/2007
• Status: Active Grant

• Current Assignee: Yahoo Assets LLC
• Original Assignee: Yahoo! Inc. (Apollo Global Management, Inc.)
• Inventors: Ghosh, Arpita, Dasgupta, Anirban
• Granted Patent: US 8,510,391 B2
• Time in Patent Office: Days
• US Class Current: 709/205
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/00 Administration; Management
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 50/182 Alternative dispute resolution
• CPC Class Codes: H04L 65/403 Arrangements for multi-party communication, e.g. for conferences data switching systems for conference H04L12/18; arrangements for connecting several subscribers to a common circuit, i.e. affording conference facilities H04M3/56; television conferencing systems H04N7/15

Abstract

A system for resolving disputes in an online answers community is disclosed. The system improves the system'"'"'s ability to resolve reports of abuse.

Claims

1. A method, comprising:

in response to an indication that content provided by a particular member of an online community is potentially improper, automatically sending one or more invitations to invite a plurality of juror candidates to express an opinion about whether the content is proper;

from said plurality of juror candidates, establishing a plurality of members of the online community to be jurors to determine whether said content is proper;

based on input received from one or more of said jurors, selecting a manner of responding to said content; and

responding to said content in the manner that was selected based on said input.

2. The method of claim 1, comprising:

wherein the step of automatically sending one or more invitations includes detecting a whether a user is logged in or not.

3. The method of claim 2, comprising:

in response to determining that a user is logged in, determining the qualifications of the user.

4. The method of claim 3, comprising:

upon determining that the qualifications of the user are within a predetermined threshold, sending an invitation to express the opinion.

5. The method of claim 4, wherein the step of expressing an opinion is in the form of a slider.

6. The method of claim 4, wherein the step of expressing an opinion is in the form of a text-box.

7. The method of claim 1 wherein the indication is a notification of potential abuse.

8. The method of claim 1 wherein the steps of selecting a plurality of jurors and sending to each juror an invitation are performed automatically after performing the steps of:

obtaining reputation information regarding a user that submitted the notification of potential abuse; and

based on the reputation information, determining whether the notification of potential abuse should be escalated.

9. The method of claim 1, further comprising:

selecting a subset of the jury pool for reviewing the notification of potentially improper content;

presenting details about the notification of potentially improper content to the subset; and

obtaining a verdict.

10. The method of claim 9, further comprising:

removing the abuse and admonishing the user that was responsible for loading the improper content.

11. The method of claim 9, further comprising:

notifying the user responsible for loading the potentially improper content of the verdict finding that the content was found to not be improper.

12. The method of claim 1, further comprising:

wherein if the verdict is ambiguous, forwarding the details to a customer care module.

13. The method of claim 1, wherein the method is performed within an online answers community.

14. A method, comprising:

sending one or more invitations to invite a plurality of juror candidates to express an opinion in the future about whether a particular content item is proper; and

from said plurality of juror candidates, establishing a plurality of members of the online community to be jurors to determine in the future whether said particular content is proper.

15. The method of claim 14, further comprising:

receiving a notification of a specific instance of potentially improper content;

based on input received from one or more of said jurors, selecting a manner of responding to the specific instance of the potentially improper content; and

responding to said potentially improper content in the manner that was selected based on said input.

16. The method of claim 14, comprising:

wherein the step of automatically sending one or more invitations includes detecting a whether a user is logged in or not.

17. The method of claim 16, comprising:

in response to determining that a user is logged in, determining the qualifications of the user.

18. The method of claim 17, comprising:

upon determining that the qualifications of the user are within a predetermined threshold, sending an invitation to express the opinion.

19. The method of claim 18, wherein the step of expressing the opinion is in the form of a slider.

20. The method of claim 18, wherein the step of expressing the opinion is in the form of a text-box.

21. The method of claim 15 wherein the steps of selecting a plurality of jurors and sending to each juror an invitation are performed automatically after performing the steps of:

obtaining reputation information regarding a user that submitted the notification of potential abuse; and

based on the reputation information, determining whether the notification of potential improper conduct should be escalated.

22. The method of claim 14, further comprising:

selecting a subset of the jury pool for reviewing the notification of potentially improper content;

presenting details about the notification of potentially improper content to the subset; and

obtaining a verdict.

23. The method of claim 22, further comprising:

wherein if the verdict is ambiguous, forwarding the details to a customer care module.

24. A system for managing reports of abuses in an online answers community, comprising:

a report module for receiving a plurality of reports of potential abuses;

a reputation module connected to the report module, for determining the reputations of both the reporter (plaintiff) and the reportee (defendant) and making an initial decision of a report of potential abuse;

a scoring module connected to the reputation module, for performing calculations to obtain a reputation score of both the plaintiff and the defendant, respectively;

a customer care division for receiving appeals from a defendant that obtained an adverse decision from the reputation module; and

a jury module for determining the accuracy of the reports.