System for network-based debates

• US 6,347,332 B1
• Filed: 03/07/2000
• Issued: 02/12/2002
• Est. Priority Date: 12/30/1999
• Status: Expired due to Fees

• Current Assignee: Edwin I. Malet, Michael C. Row
• Original Assignee: Edwin I. Malet, Michael C. Row
• Inventors: Row, Michael C., Malet, Edwin I.
• Primary Examiner(s): VU, VIET DUY
• Application Number:
  US09/520,752
• Time in Patent Office: 707 Days
• Field of Search: 709/204, 709/205, 709/206, 709/219, 709/223, 709/224, 709/313, 709/328, 709/329, 707/10, 707/104
• US Class Current: 709/205
• CPC Class Codes: G06F 16/9535 Search customisation based on user profiles and personalisation
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/10 Office automation; Time management
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/107 Computer-aided management of electronic mailing [e-mailing]

Abstract

An Internet technology-based system (e.g., Web site) helps individuals filter and evaluate conflicting information through a process of online debate. The system leverages the inter-connection of the Internet to tap the expertise of users anywhere in the world, such that filtering and evaluation emerges dynamically from the process of communication and debate. In an illustrative implementation, the system infrastructure includes a data base, a rating process, community services, mechanisms for site organization and operation, and user interfaces. The database includes an argument base that structures discussion as a network of debates. The rating process operates directly and indirectly to accumulate the knowledge of the community for filtering and evaluating the information in the argument base. The argument base, rating process, and other elements of the system help users to quickly understand the key points of argument surrounding important issues without time consuming research, to identify the key facts or assumptions that are in contention while not having to think about extraneous and misleading rhetoric, and to support further research to explore specific points of interest in more detail.

Claims

1. A network-based system for filtering and evaluating information through a process of online debate, comprising:

(a) a server computer operatively coupled to a network and accessible to a plurality of users via client computers coupled to the network;

(b) a database operatively coupled to the server, the database including an argument base; and

(c) a software process, supported by the server, for supporting the on-line debate process;

wherein the argument base structures discussion as a network of debates;

wherein the argument base includes object classes for Propositions and Relationships among those Propositions; and

wherein Relationships link or associate a Proposition or Relationship with another Proposition or Relationship such that the combination forms a logical statement that can be determined as true or false; and

wherein the logical statements include the concepts of supporting or denying a proposition, such that if a proposition, “

A”

, supports another proposition, “

B”

, then if A is in fact true then B must be true, and if A denies B, then if A is in fact true then B must be false; and

where the logical statements also include the concept of equivalence, such that if a proposition, “

A”

, is equivalent to another proposition, “

B”

, then A and B are the same proposition.

2. A network-based system for filtering and evaluating information through a process of online debate, comprising:

(a) a server computer operatively coupled to a network and accessible to a plurality of users via client computers coupled to the network;

(b) a database operatively coupled to the server, the database including an argument base; and

(c) a software process, supported by the server, for supporting the on-line debate process;

wherein the argument base structures discussion as a network of debates;

wherein the argument base includes object classes for Propositions and Relationships among those Propositions; and

wherein the argument base comprises a network of propositions linked by rules of logic, such that, from a proposition, a user can identify key arguments for and against that proposition.

3. A network-based system for filtering and evaluating objects through a process of community rating, comprising:

(a) a server computer operatively coupled to a network and accessible to a plurality of users via client computers coupled to the network;

(b) a database operatively coupled to the server, the database including information on one or more object classes to be rated; and

(c) a rating process supported by the server, wherein

i) the rating process dynamically calculates and assigns a summary rating to items in the database, wherein the summary rating is a numerical value that represents a measure of quality, preference, value, or other means of prioritizing and organizing the records in the database; and

ii) records of different object classes in the database have summary ratings where the meaning or interpretation of the summary ratings differs among and depends on the object class; and

iii) inputs into the algorithm for calculation of the summary rating for a record in the database include direct ratings of the item by individual users, where a direct rating is a numerical value determined through user input and selected from a specified range or list of values for a specific record in the database; and

iv) the number of direct ratings an item receives, the range or list of values for each direct rating, the meaning or interpretation of each direct rating, and the algorithm or formula for incorporating multiple direct ratings for an item into the summary rating, are different among and dependent on the object class to which the record belongs; and

v) inputs into the algorithm for calculation of the summary rating for an item or record in the database include the summary ratings of other items in the system that are conceptually related to the focal item;

these are termed “

indirect ratings”

as their value in part determines the summary rating of the focal item; and

vi) the algorithm for calculating summary ratings is dynamic in that changes in direct ratings or indirect ratings are reflected in the summary rating in near-real time, which means immediately or within a time period that balances the operational efficiency of the system with the need for current information.

4. A system as recited in 3, wherein:

(a) an entity receiving summary ratings is the Members or Users of the system; and

(b) Users'"'"' summary ratings are used to calculate “

member weighted direct ratings”

, wherein the weight given to a direct rating in the calculation of an item'"'"'s summary rating is affected by the summary rating of the user who made the direct rating, such that the higher or better the summary rating of the user, the more weight that user'"'"'s direct ratings will have in the calculation of the summary rating of that item.

5. A system as recited in claim 4, wherein summary ratings of a user depends on member-weighted direct ratings of that user by other users.

6. A system as recited in claim 5, wherein the ratings of users further depend on the quality and/or quantity of that user'"'"'s contributions.

7. A system as recited in claim 6, wherein the summary ratings of users further include a penalty for anonymity, such that the user'"'"'s summary rating is higher if that user'"'"'s profile is accessible by other members, and lower if that user'"'"'s profile is not accessible by other members.

8. A system as recited in claim 7, wherein summary ratings of users further depend on a user'"'"'s credentials, such that additional weight is given for particular expertise in specific areas.

9. A network-based system for filtering and evaluating information through a process of online debate, comprising:

a server computer operatively coupled to a network and accessible to a plurality of users via client computers coupled to the network;

a database operatively coupled to the server, the database including an argument base; and

a software process, supported by the server, for supporting the on-line debate process;

wherein the argument base structures discussion as a network of debates and includes object classes for Propositions and Relationships among those Propositions;

wherein the software process for supporting the on-line debate process includes a rating process; and

wherein the object classes receiving summary ratings include Propositions and Relationships; and

the algorithm for calculating the summary rating for a Proposition assigns a summary rating that increases as the strength of argumentation for that Proposition increases or the strength of argumentation against that Proposition decreases; and

decreases as the strength of argumentation for that Proposition decreases or the strength of argumentation against that proposition increases.

13. A system as recited in claim 9, wherein propositions and relationships can be supported or attacked with evidence, such that the summary value of a proposition or relationship increases with summary rating of the evidence supporting that proposition or relationship and decreases with the summary ratings of evidence attacking that proposition or relationship.

14. A system as recited in claim 13, wherein evidence is represented by object classes for Titles and References, where Titles are the bibliographical information on sources, and References are links between Titles and propositions and relationships in the argument base, such that Titles can be linked to propositions and relationships in a many to many fashion.

10. A system as recited in 9, wherein the algorithm for calculating the summary rating for a focal Proposition has, as inputs, the summary ratings of arguments supporting or denying that Proposition.

11. A system as recited in 10, wherein the summary rating for a focal Proposition increases with the truth value of arguments supporting that Proposition and decreases with the truth value of arguments denying that Proposition.

12. A system as recited in 11, wherein:

i. an argument supporting a focal Proposition is a Relationship representing the relationship logical implication, supports or implies, or some variant (“

Supports Relationship”

), and where another Proposition or Relationship is directionally linked to the focal Proposition;

ii. an argument denying a focal Proposition is a Relationship representing the relationship logical implication with negation, denies, contradicts, or some variant (“

Denies Relationship”

), and where another Proposition or Relationship is directionally linked to the focal Proposition;

iii. the algorithm for calculating the truth value of an argument includes as inputs, the summary rating of the Supports Relationship or Denies Relationship and the truth value of the Proposition or Relationship directionally linked to the focal Proposition by the Supports Relationship or Denies Relationship, such that the truth value of the argument increases with the summary rating of the Supports Relationship or Denies Relationship, and increases with the truth value of the Proposition directionally linked to the focal Proposition by the Supports Relationship or Denies Relationship; and

iv. the truth value of a Proposition is its summary value from the rating process.

15. A system as recited in 14, wherein the algorithm for calculating the summary ratings of Relationships and Propositions include as inputs the summary rating of Reference items linking the Relationship or Proposition to a Titleand the summary rating of the Title so linked, such that the summary rating of the Relationship or Proposition increases with the summary ratings of the Reference and the Title.

16. A system as recited in 13, further comprising a user interface that allows the user to navigate the argument base as a hierarchy showing the Proposition under contention across the top with two columns below;

with a first column showing the arguments and evidence supporting the Proposition in decreasing order of summary rating; and

with a second column showing the arguments and evidence attacking the Proposition in decreasing order of summary rating.

17. A system as recited in 16, where the user interface allows the user to drill down into the argument by double clicking on a PRO or CON argument, which causes the system to show that proposition and will query and display the related supporting and denying arguments.