GB2604351A

GB2604351A - Apparatus for altering a state of an element

Info

Publication number: GB2604351A
Application number: GB2102887.3A
Authority: GB
Inventors: Simmons Tim
Original assignee: Discus Ltd
Current assignee: Discus Ltd
Priority date: 2021-03-01
Filing date: 2021-03-01
Publication date: 2022-09-07
Also published as: GB202102887D0

Abstract

An apparatus comprising a processor for providing a query element and a response element linked to the query element, and a communication interface for receiving inputs relating to the query and/or response element from a plurality of users. The processor alters a state of one of the elements based on these inputs and the processor and/or the communication interface outputs the altered state and/or the element for which the state has been altered. A method for using this apparatus is also provided. This apparatus is also used to receive inputs from a plurality of users, with each input relating to one of the elements. The processor then determines a score for a first user based on the inputs of the remainder of the plurality of users and the processor and/or the communication interface outputs this score. A method of using this apparatus is also provided.

Description

Apparatus for altering a state of an element

Field of the invention

The present invention relates to an apparatus, in particular an apparatus for altering a state of an element. The present invention further relates to a method of altering a state of an element.

Background to the Disclosure

Present systems for building a consensus between a number of parties have certain flaws. This can be explained with the example of answering a question, where consensus is needed to find the answer to the question.

One way of answering a question is the court system, in this system a number of parties present their cases to a judge and agree to defer to a decision made by that judge. This method results in a, typically binding, consensus based on a deep analysis of the question; however, this takes a long time and incurs large costs.

Another way of answering a question is social media. Here, a party may pose a question and receive a large number of answers very quickly. However, it is difficult to vet the parties answering the question and it is difficult to avoid the submission of poorly reasoned or incorrect answers.

Therefore, there is needed a system that can reach consensus -on questions and answers, or more broadly on any submissions -both quickly and accurately.

Summary of the Disclosure

According to at least one aspect of the present disclosure, there is described an apparatus comprising: a processor for providing a query element; and providing a response element that is linked to the query element; and a communication interface for receiving inputs from a plurality of users, each input relating to one of the elements; wherein the processor is arranged to determine a score for a first user based on the inputs of the remainder of the plurality of users; and wherein the processor and/or the communication interface is arranged to output the score.

According to at least one aspect of the present disclosure, there is described: an apparatus comprising: a processor for: providing a query element; and providing a response element that is linked to the query element; and a communication interface for receiving inputs from a plurality of users, each input relating to the query element and/or the response element; wherein the processor is arranged to alter a state of one of the elements based on the inputs; and wherein the processor and/or the communication interface is arranged to output the altered state and/or the element for which the state has been altered.

Preferably outputting the score, state, and/or element comprises transmitting the score, state, and/or element to one of the users and/or displaying the score, state, and/or element.

Preferably, the processor is arranged to determine a score for a first user based on the inputs of -2 -the remainder of the plurality of users; and the processor is arranged to output the score.

Preferably, the processor is arranged to alter the state in dependence on the score of one or more users.

Preferably, the processor is capable of providing a connection between two elements. Preferably, the processor is arranged to connect two elements so as to support and/or refute a first element by reference to a second element.

Preferably, the query element is capable of being linked to a further query element Preferably, the response element is arranged so as not to be linkable to further descendent elements.

Preferably, the response element is arranged to have no linked descendants.

Preferably, the apparatus is arranged to determine the connection based on a signal received at the communication interface from one of the users Preferably, the possible states comprise one or more of: an open state in which the element can be altered; a locked state in which the element cannot be altered; an accepted state; an agreed state in which an element is deemed to have been approved by the users; a rejected state; and a deleted state.

Preferably, a locked state comprises a state in which the element cannot be altered.

Preferably, a locked state comprises a state in which inputs relating to the element cannot be altered.

Preferably, an open state comprises a state in which the element cannot be altered.

Preferably, an open state comprises a state in which inputs relating to the element cannot be altered.

Preferably, users are not able to alter their inputs for elements in a locked state.

Preferably, an agreed state comprises a state in which an element has been approved by the 25 users.

Preferably, only one response element can be approved for any query element.

Preferably, the criteria for locking the query element includes the parent element of the query element being in a locked state.

Preferably, the criteria for locking the query element includes the query element being in an agreed state.

Preferably, for each query element only one linked response element can be in an agreed state and/or locked state. -3 -

Preferably, the criteria for locking the response element includes each child element of the response element being in a locked state and/or each element of a lower tier of elements being in a locked state.

Preferably, the criteria for locking the response element includes the response element being in an agreed state.

Preferably, the criteria for locking an element comprises a threshold number of users submitting an approving input for the element, preferably at least half of the users.

Preferably, an element being locked prevents said element from being altered.

Preferably, the system comprises means for determining a score for a first user based on one or more inputs of other users Preferably, the score for the first user is dependent on one or more of: a number of other users who concur with the input of the first user; a number of subsequent users who concur with the input of the first user; the scores of the other users who concur with the input of the first user; a number of other users who disagree with the input of the first user; a number of subsequent users who disagree with the input of the first user; the scores of the other users who disagree with the input of the first user; and the time and/or order in which the first user submits an input.

Preferably, the score for a first user submitting a first input for an element is based on the further inputs of one or more following users, in dependence on the submission of said further inputs occurring after the submission of the first input.

Preferably, the first user receives a negative reward and/or score contribution in relation to following users that submit disagreeing inputs Preferably, the first user receives a positive reward and/or score contribution in relation to following users that submit concurring inputs.

Preferably, the possible inputs include one or more of: an accepting input; an approving input; a disapproving input; and an abstaining input.

Preferably, the communication interface is arranged to receive a plurality of inputs for each element, with each input relating to a different user.

Preferably, the processor is arranged to determine a score for a user. Preferably, the score is dependent on the inputs of other users.

Preferably, the processor is arranged to determine a score for each user.

Preferably, the score for a first user submitting a first input for an element is based on one or more following users submitting inputs after the submission of the first input.

Preferably, the contribution to the score of the first user in relation to any of the other users is dependent on the number of users submitting an input before the first user. -4 -

Preferably, the change in the state of an element is dependent on one or more of: the inputs submitted for that element; a proportion and/or number of users submitting an approving input for the element; a proportion and/or number of active users submitting an approving input for the element; a score of one or more users submitting the input; a number of users submitting inputs; a characteristic of the users submitting inputs; a type of the element; a connection relating to the element; and a state of an ancestor element and/or descendant element.

Preferably, the submission of an input by a first user for an element results in a reward being divided between other users who have previously submitted inputs for said element.

Preferably, the submission of an input by a first user for an element results in a reward being divided between other users who have previously submitted concurring inputs for said element.

Preferably, the previous users receive a reward in dependence on, and/or in proportion to, their time of submitting an input. Preferably, the earlier submitters receive a greater reward.

Preferably, the first user receives a negative reward for following users that submit disagreeing inputs.

Preferably, the first user receives a positive reward for following users that submit concurring inputs.

Preferably, a user is able to alter their input. Preferably, this alteration results in the redetermination of scores for other users.

Preferably, the processor is arranged to determine a normalised score for each of the users of the system.

Preferably, the query element comprises a question element, which question element comprises a question to be answered.

Preferably, the query element comprises a command element, the command element comprising a call to action.

Preferably, the response element comprises an answer element, the answer element comprising a response to a/the question element.

Preferably, the response element comprises a result element, the result element comprising a response to a/the command element.

Preferably, the query element and/or the response element has a limited size Preferably, the size is determined by a user of the system.

Preferably, the processor is arranged to determine a/the size limit for one of the response elements based on a signal from the creator of a linked query element.

Preferably, the response element is arranged to be linkable to only a single query element. -5 -

Preferably, each element is arranged to have a single parent element.

Preferably, the processor is arranged to provide one or more of: a question element, a command element, an answer element, and a result element.

Preferably, the communication interface is arranged to receive a comment relating to an element.

Preferably, the processor is arranged to alter a state of an element based on the inputs.

Preferably, the response element is arranged so that it cannot have linked descendent elements.

Preferably, the query element is arranged so that it can have linked descendent elements.

Preferably, the command element is arranged so that it can have only a single linked child element.

Preferably, the processor is arranged to provide a wrap element, wherein the wrap element is a linked child element of the query element and wherein the wrap element comprises references to one or more response elements, which response elements are also linked children of the query element.

Preferably, the wrap element indicates a selected and/or approved response element relating to the query element.

Preferably, the wrap element indicates a list of possible and/or accepted response elements for the query element.

Preferably, the processor is arranged to output a response element when a top-level query element is placed in a locked state. Preferably, said response element comprises a response element linked to the top-level query element, which response element is in an agreed and/or locked state.

According to another aspect of the present disclosure, there is described a computer-implemented method of reaching consensus, the method comprising: providing a query element; providing a response element that is linked to the query element; receiving inputs from a plurality of users, each input relating to one of the elements; determining a score for a first user based on the inputs of the remainder of the plurality of users; and outputting the score.

According to another aspect of the present disclosure, there is described: a computer-implemented consensus method of reaching consensus, the method comprising: providing a query element; providing a response element that is linked to the query element; receiving inputs from a plurality of users, each input relating to the query element and/or the response element; altering a state of one of the elements based on the inputs; and outputting the state and/or the element for which the state has been altered.

Typically, the system of the present disclosure is one or more of: -Democratic -All users have equal opportunity to influence the outcome. There is no -6 -chairman.

Anonymous -Users cannot see who made each entry.

Internet based -Users can be anywhere that is internet connected.

Asynchronous -Users can participate in their own time.

Continuous -Users can work continuously. They do not take turns.

Any group size -There is no theoretical limit to the size of the group of users.

Any degree of complexity -There is no theoretical limit to the degree of complexity of the problems considered.

Competitive -Users compete with each other to lead the group to an agreed solution.

Emergent collaboration -the system produces an optimal collaborative solution when users act selfishly and just try to score points.

Any feature described as being carried out by an apparatus, an application, and a device may be carried out by any of an apparatus, an application, or a device. Where multiple apparatuses are described, each apparatus may be located on a single device.

Any feature in one aspect of the disclosure may be applied to other aspects of the invention, in any appropriate combination In particular, method aspects may be applied to apparatus aspects, and vice versa Furthermore, features implemented in hardware may be implemented in software, and vice versa. Any reference to software and hardware features herein should be construed accordingly.

Any apparatus feature as described herein may also be provided as a method feature, and vice versa. As used herein, means plus function features may be expressed altematively in terms of their corresponding structure, such as a suitably programmed processor and associated memory.

It should also be appreciated that particular combinations of the various features described and defined in any aspects of the disclosure can be implemented and/or supplied and/or used 25 independently.

The disclosure extends to methods and/or apparatus substantially as herein described with reference to the accompanying drawings.

The disclosure will now be described, by way of example, with reference to the accompanying drawings.

Description of the Drawinos

Figure 1 shows a computer device on which the systems and methods described herein may be implemented.

Figures 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b, 4a, and 4b show various configurations of a system for obtaining consensus, the systems each comprising a plurality of elements.

Figure 5 shows an embodiment of the system for obtaining consensus that comprises inputs. -7 -

Figure 6 shows a hierarchy formed using the system.

Figure 7 shows an alternate way of viewing the hierarchy of Figure 6. Figure 8 shows a method of altering a state of an element of the system.

Figures 9 and 10 illustrate the alteration of states of elements of the system.

Figure 11 shows a method of determining a score for a user of the system.

Figures 12a and 12b show detailed exemplary methods for altering the state of an element of the system.

Figures 13a -13j illustrate an example in which the disclosed system is used to select an engine for a car.

Description of the preferred embodiments

Referring to Figure 1, the system disclosed herein, may be configured on, added to, and/or viewed using a computer device 1000. Typically, the disclosed system can be accessed and/or modified by a plurality of users, where each user may use a different computer device.

Each computer device 1000 typically comprises a processor in the form of a CPU 1002, a communication interface 1004, a memory 1006, storage 1008, (optionally) removable storage 1010 and a user interface 1012 coupled to one another by a bus 1014. In this embodiment, the user interface comprises a display 1016 and an input/output device, which in this embodiment is a keyboard 2018 and a mouse 2020.

The CPU 1002 executes instructions, including instructions stored in the memory 1006, the storage 1008, and/or the removable storage 1010.

The communication interface 1004 is typically an Ethernet network adaptor coupling the bus 1014 to an Ethernet socket. The Ethernet socket is coupled to a network, such as the Internet. The communication interface facilitates communication between the users of the system and enables each user to receive and submit information that is thereafter accessible for other users.

The memory 1006 stores instructions and other information for use by the CPU 1002. The memory is the main memory of the computer device 1000. It usually comprises both Random Access Memory (RAM) and Read Only Memory (ROM).

The storage 1008 provides mass storage for the computer device 1000. In different implementations, the storage is an integral storage device in the form of a hard disk device, a flash memory or some other similar solid state memory device, or an array of such devices.

The removable storage 1010 provides auxiliary storage for the computer device 1000. In different implementations, the removable storage is a storage medium for a removable storage device, such as an optical disk, for example a Digital Versatile Disk (DVD), a portable flash drive or some other similar portable solid state memory device, or an array of such devices. In other embodiments, the -8 -removable storage is remote from the computer device, and comprises a network storage device or a cloud-based storage device.

Each user of the system uses a computer device 1000 to implement aspects of the methods and systems described herein. The computer devices used by the various users may differ; for example, one of the computer devices may comprise a storage device with a large storage 1008 and/or removable storage 1010. This may comprise a server, e.g. a redundant array of independent discs (RAID) server, which can store information for the system. Equally, one of the computer devices may comprise a personal computer or a smartphone, which enables a user to access the system in a wide range of circumstances.

Typically, one or more of the computer devices 1000 is arranged to receive inputs from the users of the system, to process these inputs, and then to propagate a relevant output throughout a network. This may comprise a centralised server receiving inputs from a plurality of users and updating a centrally held database based on these inputs. Equally, the reception and processing of inputs may occur on a plurality of separate computer devices.

In an exemplary usage of the system, a question is answered based on submissions from a plurality of users. This may comprise the computer device of a first user being used to submit a question and then the computer devices of a plurality of further users being used to submit responses to the question. These submissions may occur using a plurality of computer devices (e.g. using a distributed network) and/or the submissions may each be received by one or more centralised devices that are able to thereafter provide an output to the various devices (e.g. an agreed-upon answer) based on the submissions. It will be appreciated that a "question" may encompass a broad range of technical inputs; for example, the question may relate to the design of a machine, where the receipt of "responses" comprises the receipt of possible technical refinements for the machine.

A computer program product is provided that includes instructions for carrying out aspects of the method(s) described below. The computer program product is stored, at different stages, in any one of the memory 1006, storage device 1008 and removable storage 1010. The storage of the computer program product is non-transitory, except when instructions included in the computer program product are being executed by the CPU 1002, in which case the instructions are sometimes stored temporarily in the CPU or memory. It should also be noted that the removable storage is removable from the computer device 1000, such that the computer program product may be held separately from the computer device from time to time. Different computer program products, or different aspects of a single overall computer program product, are present on the computer devices used by any user of the system.

While the description below primarily relates to a system that is used for obtaining consensus on an answer to a question, more generally the systems disclosed are useable to process elements that are created and manipulated by users. These elements may, for example, relate to the design -9 -of a product where users are able to collaborate to reach consensus on an advantageous technical design of a product. In an example, the design of a car may be based on submissions from users, where users may be able to submit and vote on technical data (e.g. computational fluid dynamics data) in order to optimise collectively the aerodynamics of the car.

Referring to Figure 2a, there is shown a system 10 that is useable for obtaining consensus on a query (e.g. the design of a machine). The system comprises a plurality of elements, which elements comprise at least one query element 12 and at least one response element 14.

The query element 12 and the response element 14 are linked so that the response element can be seen as a response to the query element. As described further below, the query element may, for example, comprise a question element or a command element and the response element may comprise an answer element or a result element. It will be appreciated that features described with reference to question elements or command elements are more generally applicable to query elements. Equally, features described with reference to answer elements and result elements are more generally applicable to response elements.

The system is configured such that users of the system 10 are able to create elements; for example a first user create the query element 12 and a second user may respond by creating the response element 14 and linking this response element to the query element.

Users are then able to submit inputs for at least one of the elements, as described below with reference to Figure 5; these inputs are used to reach consensus on a response element 14 for the query element 12.

Based on the inputs, the computer device 1000 is arranged to alter the state of one or more of the elements. A particular use of this is to alter the states of elements based on inputs from users -therefore, elements that are approved by a majority of the users can be determined and output. This may be used to determine, for example, the design of a machine.

Referring to Figure 2b, there is shown an example of a system 100 comprising a plurality of response elements, which in this example are answer elements Answer Al 104, Answer A2 106, Answer A3 108, and a query element, which in this embodiment is a question element Question A 102; the answer elements are linked to the question element to indicate that these answer elements address a question contained in the question elements. These answer elements may each be created by the same user, or the answer elements may be created by a variety of different users.

A question element comprises a question to which users may respond via an answer element. A question element is arranged to be linked to one or more descendent elements, where the descendent elements address, or add to, the question.

An answer element comprises a response to a question element. An answer element is arranged to be linked to one or more parent elements, where the answer element answers a question posed -10 -by the parent element(s). Typically, an answer is arranged to be linked to only a single parent element (e.g. a single question). In some embodiments, an answer can be linked to a plurality of parent elements; for example, the same answer may be used to answer a plurality of question elements.

Typically, answer elements are not able to have linked descendants (e.g. child elements), so that an answer element is an endpoint.

In some embodiments, there is a size limit for one or more types of elements. For example, question elements may be limited to a single sentence, or to a limited number of sentences. In some embodiments this size limit is set by an administrator of the system, or by the creator of a parent element; for example, a user that creates an initial question element may set a size limit for each element that is linked to this question element.

In some embodiments, answer elements (or more generally response elements) may require a certain format which indicates a type of response. For example, response elements may be required to start with an indicator such as "Yes" or "No" or "N/A".

According to the present disclosure, users of the system are able to vote upon the answers in order to reach a consensus on an answer to Question A 102. As is explained in more detail below, the conditions for reaching a consensus may depend on a variety of parameters, such as: a number of users voting for an answer; a feature of the users voting for an answer (e.g. a historic accuracy); a consensus parameter set by the user posing the question; and agreement from a certain proportion of users of the system.

Referring to Figures 3a and 3b, the system 100 may comprise a command element Command C 114. A command element relates to an action to be undertaken, for example Command C may state "ask Claire for her availability". Command elements are linked to one or more parent elements; typically, command elements are linked to one or more question elements and/or one or more other command elements. In some embodiments, command elements are arranged to be linked to only a single parent element and/or only a single parent question element.

The system 100 may comprise a result element Result Cl 116. Result elements are linked to a parent command element and relate to the outcome of the action specified by the command element. For example, Result Cl may state "Claire is available next Wednesday". Typically, result elements are not able to have linked descendants, so that a result element is an endpoint.

In some embodiments, each command element may be linked to only a single reply element (e.g. once a reply element has been linked to a command element, this command element is locked). This is useful since often a command will have a single possible result (e.g. while answers to questions are typically subjective, the result to a command is more usually objective). In some embodiments, there may be a plurality of reply elements linked to a single command element (e.g. to give a number of competing answers or to give a number of symbiotic answers). In some embodiments, command elements may be linked to a further element and/or a further command (e.g. there may be a further command responding to command C 114 that states "Which Claire?").

As is apparent from Figures 3a and 3b, typically question elements and command elements may be linked to descendants that are also question elements and/or command elements. For example, a question element Question B 110 may be linked to Question A 102 and a command element Command D 118 may be linked to command C 114. In contrast, answer elements, such as Answer B1 112, and result elements, such as Result Cl 116, typically do not (or cannot) have linked descendent elements.

In this way, the system 100 forms a hierarchy, or a tree of elements, where branches of this hierarchy end at answer elements and result elements. These eventual answer elements and result elements have an effect on each ancestor element. For example, Result D 120 responds to Command D 118, which responds to Command C 114. In this way, Result D 120 helps users to select a response to Command C. This enables a complex question to be broken down into layers of more simple or limited questions; therefore, a detailed analysis of a more complex question at the top of a hierarchy can be answered by considering the lower levels of the hierarchy.

Referring to Figure 4A, the system 100 typically comprises one or more wrap elements, such as Wrap A 120. Wrap elements are linked descendants of question elements and contain references to the either a selected answer element for a question element or to a list of possible answer elements for a question element; for example Wrap A is a linked descendent of Question A 102 that contains a reference to Answer Al 104, Answer A2 106 and Answer A3 108 (Answer A3 is not shown in Figure 4a). Wrap elements are typically created/updated when answer elements are added and/or when an answer to a question has been selected. Therefore, a wrap element can be used to review the possible and/or chosen answers for a question.

In embodiments where multiple result elements can be used to respond to a single command element, wrap elements may also be a linked descendent for a command element, where these wrap elements reference the list of result elements for that command element.

In some embodiments, wrap elements are arranged to reference the wrap elements of a lower tier of the hierarchy. For example, Wrap A 120 may reference Wrap B. In this way, wraps can be used to quickly analyse elements in lower tiers.

Referring to Figure 4b, elements of the system 4b may also be linked via connections. In particular, elements may be linked via a supporting connection or a challenging connection.

A supporting connection is used to support an answer element or a result element based on another element of the system 100. For example, if a recent question element is similar to another question element that has been created previously, the selected answer element for this previous question element may be used to support an answer element for the more recent question element.

-12 -A challenging connection is used to challenge or refute a first element of the system 100 by referencing a second element of the system. For example, if a recently created answer element conflicts with an answer element elsewhere in the hierarchy, this recent answer element may be used to cast doubt on the validity of the other answer element.

In the example of Figure 4b, a question element Question Y 122 is used to support Result Cl 116 and an answer element Answer El 124 is used to challenge Result Cl Similarly, each element is typically arranged to enable comments to be placed on that element.

These comments may also be used to support an element or to cast doubt on that element.

Furthermore, the system may be arranged such that documents and/or links can be included on elements (similarly to comments). This can enable documents (e.g. design schematics) to be quickly updated based on inputs and elements. This may comprise a design schematic being included in a question element, where this design schematic can then be updated once an answer element is selected for that question element. This updating may be automatic, where each answer element may propose a modification to a document, with the modification of an agreed upon answer element automatically being implemented.

Referring to Figure 5, each element typically comprises an input component. For example Question A 102 comprises the input component QA_op 102a. The input component relates to the input of one or more users in relation to the element. For example, the input component QA_op may indicate that a certain user approves of the question or disapproves of the question. Each element may comprise a plurality of input components relating to the inputs of a plurality of users. Equally, a single input component may relate to the inputs of a plurality of users.

Typically, the input component enables a user to accept, abstain from, and/or reject an element (and these may be the only options). Typically, each user is able to provide an input for each element of the system.

Exemplary inputs that may be available include: Accept: this input indicates that a user thinks an element should be included in the system 100. This acceptance typically does not mean that the user agrees with any input expressed by the element (e.g. accepting an answer element may indicate that a user thinks this is an answer that should be voted on, but it does not mean that the user agrees with this answer).

Reject: this input indicates that a user does not think an element should be included in the system 100. This may, for example, be used for insincere question elements or answer elements that have no relevance to a parent element.

Approve: this input indicates that a user approves of an element. Typically, a single answer elements and/or command elements is selected to be the consensus answer element and/or approval element based on an approval rating.

-13 -Disapprove: this input indicates that a user disapproves of an element. A disapproving input may be used for valid answer elements with which a user disagrees (while a rejecting input would indicate the user thinks this answer element should not even be included in the system 100).

Abstain: this input indicates that a user does not have an approving or disapproving input for an element. This may be selected by a user that is indicating they are ambivalent as to how a question is answered. In some embodiments, each user must provide an input on each element; in such embodiments an abstaining input may be used to indicate the user has seen an element but has no input on this element.

In some embodiments, the accepting and approving inputs are combined into a single approving input and the rejecting and disapproving inputs are combined into a single disapproving input. Here, approving a query element may indicate that a user thinks a question should be included in the system whereas approving a response element may indicate that a user thinks the response element should be agreed on as the response for a related question element. Similarly, disapproving a query element may indicate that a user thinks a question should not be included in the system whereas disapproving a response element may indicate that a user thinks the response element should not be agreed on as the response for a related question element.

In some embodiments, only a subset of the users of the system are able to provide an input on a given element; for example, a user creating a question element may define a limited list of other users that are able to provide an input on that question element or on descendants of that question element. Equally, a manager may define a system in which each user has different positions; for example, every user may be able to provide inputs on elements, but only supervisors may be able to create elements (or vice versa).

Referring to Figure 6, there is shown an exemplary hierarchy that is created using the elements described herein. In this hierarchy, there is a highlighted element, which is Question J 126. In practice, the system is typically implemented using a computer device and a user is typically able to highlight a single element to see more information about this element. This information may include the contents of the element, any comments or inputs for the element, and information relating to the ancestor and descendent elements of the highlighted element. From Figure 6, it can be seen that for the highlighted element there is a single parent element, which itself has a single parent element (and so on). In other words, each element has an unbroken chain of ancestors of a single unit of width. In contrast, Question J has a plurality of descendent elements. While the example of Figure 6 shows that Question J has a single child element Question L 154, it will be appreciated that Question J may have a plurality of child elements. With this example, before consensus is reached for Question A 102, and for the system as a whole, there may need to be an answer element created that addresses the question posed by Question J. -14 -The elements above Question J 126 in the hierarchy can be considered to be contextualising elements; these elements explain the context in which Question J has been posed. For example, Command H 128 provides the context in which Question J is answered (e.g. if Command H says "Ask John for his preference", question H might simply say "What are his options?"). The elements below Question J in the hierarchy can be considered to be analysing elements. These elements provide information that helps a user to provide an answer to Question J. With this example, it can be seen that a question element Question L 130 has been created and linked to Question J; Question L poses a question the answer of which will help to address Question J. It can also be seen that an answer element Answer L1 132 has been created for Question L; once Question L has been addressed, a user may create an answer element that responds to Question J, which created answer element takes into account Answer L1.

Figure 7 shows the hierarchy of Figure 6 presented in a list format. In practice, a user of the computer device 1000 is typically able to switch between formats as desired and/or is able to select an element to focus on that element.

In typical embodiments of the system 100, one or more of the following elements is present: Question elements: question elements contain a question for which an answer is sought. Question elements may be linked parents of other question elements, answer elements, and/or command elements. Each completed question element (one for which an answer has been approved) is the parent of a wrap element (uncompleted question elements may also be the parents of wrap elements).

Answer elements: answer elements are linked children of question elements. That is, each answer element responds to a question element. Answer elements typically cannot have child elements.

Command elements: command elements relate to an action. Command elements may be linked parents of question elements, result elements, and/or other command elements.

Result elements: result elements are linked children of command elements. That is, each result element responds to a command element. Typically, result elements cannot have child elements.

Wrap elements: wrap elements are linked children of question elements or command elements. Wrap elements reference an approved answer element and/or a list of possible answer elements of a question element. Equally, wrap elements may reference an approved result element and/or a list of possible result elements for a command element.

Furthermore, the elements may each comprise an input that indicates the input of one or more of the users of the system for that element. Yet further, the system 100 may comprise one or more connections, which connections link two elements of the system -in particular connections may be used to support or refute an element by referencing a different element.

-15 -The system 100 can be arranged in a hierarchy comprised of a plurality of tiers. With the system of Figures 6 and 7, Question A 102 is in a first tier, Answer Al 104, Answer A2 106, and Command C 114 are in a second tier, and so on. Furthermore, Answer Al, Answer A2 and Command C are in a lower tier than, and in particular the child tier of, Question A. Each element apart from that element at the top of the hierarchy has a parent element (e.g. Question A 102 is the parent element of Answer Al 104). Furthermore, elements may have child elements (e.g. Answer Al is a child element of Question A). More generally, elements have ancestor elements and descendent elements, where Question A is an ancestor element of Command H 128 and Command H is a descendent element of Question A. Similarly elements may have: brother/sister elements (e.g. elements in the same tier that are linked to the same parent element); aunt/uncle elements (e.g. elements in a higher tier that are not the parent element); and niece/nephew elements (e.g. elements in a lower tier that are not child elements).

In use, the system 100 may be used to determine an answer to a posed question. For example, referring to the system 100 of Figures 6 and 7, a user poses a question A 102. In response, other users create Answer Al 104 and Answer A2 106. Furthermore, a user creates Command C 114, which requests that an action is taken to provide information that will help in the answering of Question A. Moving through one branch of the hierarchy of the system 100, in order to answer Command C 114, a user may create Command H 128. In order to respond to Command H, a user may pose question J 126. In order to answer Question J, a user may pose Question L 130. Finally, a user may submit an Answer [1132 to Question L. Users are able to provide an input on one or more of these elements. For example, users are able to approve of Answer [1132. If Answer L1 gains sufficient approval (e.g. approval from a threshold percentage of the total users) this answer is taken as an agreed answer and Wrap L 134 is created/updated so that users can identify the agreed answer element Answer L1 and view the list of possible answers. For example, Wrap L may list all possible answers along with a score relating to those answers (e.g. an approval percent).

Once Answer L1 132 has been accepted agreed, this answer is useable to help answer Question L 130 and therefore (moving up the hierarchy of the system 100) to answer Question J 126, Command H 128, Command C 114, and Question A 102.

Referring to Figure 8, there is described a method 200 of altering the state of an element of the system 100. This method is typically carried out by a computer device of a user and/or a computer device that is a centralised server arranged to receive information from one or more users.

-16 -In a first step 201, an input of at least one user relating to an element is determined. Typically, this comprises a computer device (e.g. a centralised server) receiving an input of a user in relation to an element.

In a second step 202, a state of an element is altered in dependence on the input. This element may be the element to which the input relates, or may be a different element (e.g. a parent or child element of the element to which the input relates) Typical states that may be held by elements include: - Accepted: an element being accepted indicates that the element will be included in the system and/or that users may provide an approving or disapproving input on the element. Typically, an element is accepted as soon as it is created; however in some embodiments this is not the case. For example, an element may need to be accepted by the creator of a parent element and/or by a certain number of users before approving or disapproving inputs can be registered.

- Agreed: an element being agreed indicates that a consensus has been reached on the element. This typically comprises an element obtaining a favourable input (e.g. approval) from a threshold number of users.

- Open: an element that is open can be edited. Typically, the element can only be edited by the party that created the element. This enables elements to be altered once further information has become available.

Locked: an element being locked indicates that that element and/or inputs for that element can no longer be altered.

- Deleted: an element may be deleted if it is no longer relevant and/or if it receives an unfavourable input from a threshold number of users.

It will be appreciated that a number of other states are possible Furthermore, in some embodiments an element may hold a plurality of states (e.g. an element may be both agreed and 25 open).

The criteria for altering a state of an element may depend on one or more of: - A number of users providing a certain input (e.g. a number of users providing a favourable input for an element). This number may be a proportion of total users, or an absolute number. Furthermore, this number may relate to a subset of the total users of the system 100, e.g. a question element may be posed for a certain group of users where a certain number of these users are required to give an approving input to an answer element for answer element to become agreed).

A number of active users providing a certain input. For example, each user that has been active in the previous week may be required to give an approving input to an answer element for answer element to become agreed.

-17 -A characteristic of the users providing a given input. In particular, each user may have a certain score or reputation. This score may depend on previously submitted answers, so that a user who has submitted a number of accurate and/or popular answers previously has a high score and a higher influence on the state of elements. Equally, this score may depend on the background of a user (e.g. their qualifications) or the confidence of a user. An element being accepted and/or agreed may be dependent on the scores of users, for example agreement may require: Ei oi * 5'1 > threshold, where 0 is a value relating to the input of a user i (e.g. an approving input may have a value 0 = 1, an abstaining input may have a value 0 = 0, and a disapproving input may have a value 0 = -1) and S is a score relating to a user i. The scores for each user may be normalised; for example, the scores may be normalised such that Ei Si = 1.

A state and/or input for another element. For example, an element may only be lockable once agreement has been reached for its parent element. Similarly, an element may only be lockable once its parent element has been locked. Equally, an element may be deleted if any of its ancestor elements are deleted.

The type of element in question. The criteria for changing state may depend on the type of the element (e.g. questions, commands, answers, and results).

The presence of a connection. For example, a refuting connection being provided for an agreed element may result in that element being switched to an un-agreed state -this enables the element to be re-reviewed in light of the refuting connection.

A parameter set by a user. For example, the creator of a question element may be able to set a required approval percentage or threshold for an answer element that is linked to the question element.

A time. In particular, there may be a time limit for leaving inputs on an element so that, after a certain time has passed, an element with the most approving inputs (out of a number of possible elements) is agreed, even if this element does not have a threshold number of approving inputs. For example, an answer element may be agreed at any time if it receives approving inputs from more than 50% of users. If after a week has passed since the creation of a parent question element, the linked answer element with the most approving inputs may be agreed even if this answer element has approving inputs from less than 50% of users.

In some embodiments, only a single answer element may be agreed for each question element. In some embodiments, a plurality of answer elements may be agreed for a given question element; there may be a requirement for this plurality of answer elements to be compatible, for example the plurality of answer elements may be required to be in the form of an unstructured and/or non-conflicting list.

-18 -In some embodiments, elements may be specified to be incompatible or compatible; for example an answer element may be specified to be incompatible with a contrasting answer element but compatible with an unconnected answer element. The inputs on these elements may be related, so that a user can submit concurring inputs only on compatible elements (e.g. a user can approve of two compatible answers but cannot approve of two incompatible answers).

Referring to Figure 9, a method of altering the state of question elements and/or command elements is described.

Question elements and command elements are typically placed in an agreed state once they have reached a certain threshold of approval. In this embodiment, a question element or command element is agreed once either: at least half of a total number of users have submitted an input approving of the element; or all of the users who have been active in the past seven days have submitted an input approving of the element.

Query elements (e.g. question elements and command elements) are typically locked once they have reached an agreed state and once their parent element has reached a locked state. A question element or command element being locked means that this question or command can no longer be altered. Typically, each locked question element and command element requires an agreed child answer element or result element before consensus can be reached on the system as a whole.

Therefore, for question elements and command elements locking moves from the top of a hierarchy downwards (e.g. from an element to its child elements and then to further descendants).

This means that an initially posed question element must be locked before a descendent question element can be locked and thereby avoids the problem where the initially posed question element is altered once the descendent question element has been locked.

In some embodiments, question elements and command elements are automatically approved. In some embodiments, only certain users are able to create question elements and/or command elements; this can be used so that a manager can pose questions where each staff member is able to create answers but must seek approval to pose new questions.

Referring to Figure 10, a method of changing the state of answer elements and/or result elements is described.

Answer elements and results elements are typically agreed once they have received a certain amount of approval (e.g. half of a total number of users).

Answer elements and result elements are typically locked once they have reached an agreed state and once their parent element has reached a locked state.

-19 -In some embodiments, answer elements and result elements are only locked once each answer element and result element in a parent tier has reached an agreed state (e.g. including aunt and uncle elements).

The locking of answer elements and result elements may also require one or more of: A single answer element and/or command element to be agreed for a given question element and/or command element.

-All descendent elements to be in an agreed and/or locked stare Typically, for answer elements and command elements locking moves from the bottom of a hierarchy upwards. This means that before an answer element can be locked before each answer element in the lower (descendent) tiers must be locked. This avoids the problem where an answer element is locked based on incomplete knowledge. In practice, this may result in many answer elements reaching an agreed state and remaining in an agreed state for a substantial duration due to an answer element in a descendent tier not yet being locked -when this descendent answer element is eventually locked, these many answer elements may rapidly be moved to a locked state.

Locking may be entirely irreversible such that once an element is locked it cannot be unlocked. In some embodiments, locking is reversible. In particular, in some embodiments locking for answer elements and result elements is reversible until a certain ancestor element is locked (e.g. a parent element and/or an element at the top of the hierarchy).

Typically, the locking of wrap elements is dependent on the locking of related answer elements, where a wrap element is locked when an answer element to which the wrap element refers is locked (e.g. when an answer element is approved).

It will be appreciated that the agreement and locking criteria described with reference to Figures 9 and 10 are purely exemplary and that systems are envisaged with different criteria Furthermore, different states are possible. For example, an element may reach a state of deletion.

An element is typically deleted when: the element's approval count reaches zero; or the element's approval count is one and the element has been rejected by more than half of the users. Therefore, even if the creator approves of the element it can still be deleted. It will be appreciated that other thresholds may be used (e.g. if more than half of the users reject an element it may be deleted regardless of the number of users approving that element).

Referring to Figure 11, there is described a method 210 of determining a score for a user based on the inputs of other users. This method is typically carried out by a computer device of a user -20 -and/or a computer device that is a centralised server arranged to receive information from one or more users.

The alteration of the state of an element depends on the inputs submitted for that element and/or for other related elements. This alteration may also depend on a characteristic of the users submitting those inputs.

In particular, each user may have a score that affects a weighting of the input of that user. Such a weighting can be used so that users with historically popular answers have a greater effect on the state of elements than users with historically less popular answers (where this weighting may be reset periodically to avoid older users having a dominating effect).

The use of a score may also enable top contributors to be identified. This can enable a manager to reward top contributors.

In order to determine a score for a first user, in a first step 211 an input of the first user is determined 211. For example, it may be determined that the first user has approved of an answer element.

In a second step 212, an input of at least one other user is determined. For example, it may be determined that a second user has also approved of the answer element and a third user has disapproved of the answer element.

In a third step 213, a score is determined for the first user based on the inputs of the other user(s). Typically, an existing score for the first user is increased if other users concur with their input and is decreased if other users disagree with their input. The effect of concurrence or disagreement typically depends on the order of the inputs. Inputs that are submitted early typically have more of an effect on the score of a user than those inputs that are submitted later on.

In some embodiments, inputs that are submitted on controversial elements (e.g. those elements that do not have a substantial net approval and/or net disapproval at the time of the input being submitted) have a greater effect on the score of a user than inputs on those elements where there is already a prevailing input.

Typically, the user's score is determined based on a plurality of elements, where the user receives a score for each element and these element scores are combined (e.g. summed). The weighting of each element score may depend on a number of factors, such as those mentioned below.

More generally, the score determined for a first user in relation to an input submitted on an element may depend on one or more of: -The time of submission of the input of the first user; The inputs of other users; The inputs of other users submitting an input after the first user; A status and/or net input of the element at the time of the first user submitting their input; -21 -A type of the element (e.g. submitting an input on answer elements may have a greater effect on a user's score than submitting an input on a command element).

A number of alternative options (e.g. where there are three possible answer elements for a question element, the effect of placing an input on one of these elements may be greater than or less than the effect when there are only two possible answer elements).

A number of other users submitting a concurring and/or disagreeing input; The position of the element in a hierarchy. For example, the effect of placing an input may be greater for elements higher in the hierarchy (e.g. the effect may be greater for a parent element than for the child element).

Typically, a user that submits an input on an element soon after the element is created and/or before a prevailing input is clear experiences a greater change in score than a user that submits an input to an older element and/or an element for which public input is already clear. This prevents users from gaining a high score by merely agreeing with an existing crowd and rewards users who are willing to risk rejection (by participating early on or in potentially controversial situations).

In an example of calculating a score based on the inputs of four users: At a first time, a first user submits approval of the element -typically, this first user is the user who has created the element.

-At a second time, which is later than the first time, a second user submits approval of the element.

-At a third time, which is later than the second time, a third user submits approval of the element.

- At a fourth time, which is later than the third time, a third user submits approval of the element.

The score received by each user in relation to each other user is related to the time at which that other user concurred with the first user. In this example, the score received for each user is score' = xi-fort >1, where ni is the rank of the user i (e.g. the first responder has a rank

-

of 1, the second responder a rank of 2, and so on). Typically, only the responses of later users contribute to the score of each user.

Therefore: The first user receives a score of 1 +1 +1 = (1 in relation to the second user, 1/2 in relation 2 3 6 to the third user, and 1/3 in relation to the fourth user). 1 1 5

The second user receives a score of -2 ±-3=-6 (1/2 in relation to the third user, and 1/3 in relation to the fourth user).

-22 -The third user receives a score of 1 = (1/3 in relation to the fourth user). 3 6

The fourth user receives a score of 0 This score is typically combined with an existing score. This may comprise adding the score to an existing score, so that users that participate in the system build up a score over time and in relation to a plurality of elements. In some embodiments, the score is arranged to remain in a certain range; for example, the score may be arranged to remain between 0 and 1 or the score may be averaged over a number of responses.

In some embodiments, the scores of the users are arranged so that E./score' = 1; this enables users scores to be easily compared. In such an embodiment, and using the example above, the normalised score for each user is calculated by score, -(ni-1) for i >1; therefore, n-1 continuing with the example above: The first user receives a normalised score of 11 --6 * 3 =8.

The second user receives a normalised score of 2*2 = 6 3 18 The third user receives a normalised score of 1*1 = L. 3 3 18 -The fourth user receives a normalised score of 0.

In some embodiments, users may receive a negative reward or no reward depending on the inputs of other users (e.g. if a fifth user were to submit an abstaining input this may have no effect on the scores of the other users). In such embodiments, it may still be desirable to normalise the scores of each user, so that more generally a normalised score may be determined as score] = scorei Eiscorei.

If one of the users changes their input, the scores for each other participant may be recalculated.

With the above example, if any of the users changes their input the score of each other user would decrease by 1/3 (with the exception of the fourth user, whose score would remain at zero even if another user changes their input).

In another example of calculating a score based on the inputs of four users: At a first time, a first user submits approval of the element.

At a second time, which is later than the first time, a second user submits disapproval of the element.

At a third time, which is later than the second time, a third user submits disapproval of the element.

A dissenting input typically acts to reduce the score of a user; therefore: -23 - - The first user receives a score of -1 -7 +7 = --7 (-1 in relation to the second user who 2 3 6 disagreed with the first user, -1/2 in relation to the third user who disagreed with the first user, and +1/3 in relation to the fourth user who agreed with the first user).

- The second user receives a score of 7-7 = (112 in relation to the third user who agreed with 2 3 6 the second user, and -1/3 in relation to the fourth user who disagreed with the first user). 1 2

The third user receives a score of --3 = --6 (-1/3 in relation to the fourth user who disagreed with the third user).

The fourth user receives a score of 0.

In this embodiment, it is possible to have a negative score. A normalised score (between 0 and 1) n may still be determined as score] -score j-mm (scorei). For the example above: Eiscorei -min (score) - The first user receives a normalised score of (-7 +1)* 6 6 4 - The second user receives a normalised score of (1 +1)* 1 = = 12

-

6 6 4 24.

The third user receives a normalised score of (-7+ 1) *7 = 3 6 4 24 The fourth user receives a normalised score of (0 + 1) = 6 4 24 It will be appreciated that he examples given above are merely examples of how a score could be determined and that numerous other methods of determining scores are possible. For example, users may receive a positive reward for concurring inputs and no reward (not even a negative reward) for disagreeing inputs).

In more simple embodiments, the user may simply receive a score from other users and/or from an administrator e.g. using a system of upvotes and downvotes.

The scores determined for each user may depend on the scores of the other users. For example, if th second user has a previously low score (e.g. because they have previously held unpopular inputs) and the fourth user has a previously high score (e.g. because they have previously held unpopular inputs), then the score for the first user may be determined to be -1/x -1/2 +y/3. Where x is a factor relating to the second user and y is a factor relating to the fourth user and both x and y are positive.

Typically, each user is given a score. This score may be determined based on the user's interactions with the elements of the systems (e.g. their inputs on question elements, answer elements, command elements, result elements, and wrap elements).

The rules for determining a score for a user may include one or more of: -24 -Whenever a user registers a positive input for an element (e.g. accepts and/or approves an element), one positive unit of reward is shared amongst the other users who have already registered a positive input for that element.

Whenever a user registers a negative input for an element (e.g. rejects and/or disapproves an element) one positive unit of reward is shared amongst the other users who have already registered a negative input for that element.

- Whenever a user registers a positive input for an element (e.g. accepts and/or approves an element), one negative unit of reward is shared amongst the other users who have already registered a negative input for that element.

Whenever a user registers a negative input for an element (e.g. rejects and/or disapproves an element) one negative unit of reward is shared amongst the other users who have already registered a positive input for that element.

- Whenever a user changes their input from positive to negative, the awarded rewards may be rescinded. Equally, a negative reward may be shared amongst the other participants who are left with a positive input for that element Cif there are any).

Typically, the scores for each user are publicly accessible. This may comprise the scores being transmitted to the computer device of another user periodically and/or on request.

In some embodiments, rewards and/or scores are valid for a limited time; for example, the reward for a certain input may only effect the score of a user for a month after the registering of that input.

This rewards continuous contribution and continuous popularity.

Typically, one or more of the following is implemented: a user's score is based, optionally solely, on the actions of other users (e.g. a user's actions do not change that user's own score).

Input and score changes are reversible -there may be certain inputs/scores that are reversible and certain inputs/scores that are not (e.g. when an element is locked as is described further below any rewards relating to that element may become irreversible) - Rejection/disagreeing inputs do not affect a user's score (so there are no negative reward contributions).

There is no score for connections and comments.

In some embodiments, connections and comments may provide a reward/score for the user who creates a connection or comment. For example, users may be able to approve of a comment or a connection so as to indicate that this comment/connection is useful. Similarly, a user may be able to disapprove of a comment or connection. This may result in the user that created the -25 -comment/connection receiving an award that affects their score (this reward may be positive or negative).

Referring to Figure 12a, there is described a method 220 of updating a state of an element based on the inputs of users of the system.

In a first step 221, an element of the system 100 is identified.

In a second step 222, one or more inputs for the element are identified.

In a third step 223, a change in the inputs for the element is determined. Where the element has just been created, this change may be the submission of the first input. Thereafter, the change may be the addition or alteration of an input. Typically, the addition or alteration of an input triggers the performance of the method 220; for example, a server may be arranged to receive an input and then to perform the method 220 to determine the effect of these inputs on the state of the elements of the system.

In a fourth step 224, the scores of the users and the inputs for the elements are updated. As has been explained with reference to the method 210 of Figure 11, a change in the inputs for an element may affect the scores of the users who have previously submitted an input for that element. Equally, a change in the inputs for an element may have an effect on the inputs of other elements.

Using the second example described with reference to Figure 11 (in which the first to fourth users 12 5 have the normalised scores 0, -, and 7 71), and considering an agreement criteria that requires 24 24 a total normalised score of at least 1⁄2, if the second user approves of an element that element may be approved. However, if the first and third users approve of an element, that element may not yet be approved.

Considering an agreement criteria that instead requires a total approval percentage of at least 'A, if the first user approves of an element that element may not yet be approved. However, if the first and third users approve of an element, that element may be approved.

In a fifth step 225, it is determined if a state changing criteria has been achieved for any element. As has been explained previously, this may comprise an element being approved and/or locked if positive inputs have been submitted. Equally this may comprise an element being deleted if negative inputs have been submitted.

In a sixth step 226, if a state changing criteria has been achieved, then a state of a relevant element is updated.

In a seventh step 226, if a state changing criteria has not been achieved, then the method returns to the third step 223.

-26 -Following the sixth step 226, the method typically returns to the third step 223 so that the states of the elements are continuously updated as inputs are updated. Once a final state has been reached in which all locked question elements and command elements have been satisfactorily answered, the method 220 ends and a final system is provided.

As has been described above, the state of an element may depend on the states of other elements.

Therefore, the method 220 of Figure 12a may comprise determining whether a change in the state of an element effects other elements (e.g. if the sixth step 226 results in an answer element being locked, there may be performed a step of determining whether any elements in the parent tiers of this locked answer element should also be locked).

Referring to Figure 12b, in some embodiments, the fifth step 225 of determining whether a state changing criteria has been received comprises determining 235a whether a locking criteria has been achieved and determining 235b whether a deletion criteria has been achieved. The sixth step 236 then comprises locking 236a and/or deleting 237a the element as appropriate.

Referring to Figures 13a -13j, the system disclosed herein is described using an example of this system being used to select an engine for a car.

In a first step, as shown in Figure 13a, a user creates a question element that contains the question: "Which engine should we use?".

In a second step, as shown in Figure 13b, other users accept and/or approve of the question element. Typically, this comprises the other users registering an accepting and/or approving input of the question element. Once a threshold number of users have registered an accepting input for the question element, the state of the question element becomes accepted. The users who have created and/or voted on the question element may then receive a reward, such as an increased score, based on the inputs of other users. For example, the first user who registers an accepting input may receive a greater score increase than the second user who registers an accepting input.

In the second step, users create answer elements that are linked to the question element, which answer elements include answers for the initial question element. In this example, the proposed answers are: "V6", "V8", and "V12".

Furthermore, users may add further question elements, such as "How heavy is the car?" and "What colour is the car'. These further question elements enable users to provide well-reasoned answer 30 elements.

In a third step, as shown in Figure 13c, the original question element, which has previously been accepted, is locked.

Furthermore, users submit inputs for the question elements in the second tier of the hierarchy. In this example, a threshold number of users submit accepting opinions for the question element containing the question "How heavy is the car", indicating that the users think this question should -27 -be answered. In contrast, a threshold number of users submit rejecting opinions for the question element containing the question "What colour is the car?" since the colour of the car has no bearing on a suitable choice for the engine.

Furthermore, users add response elements relating to the question of "How heavy is the car?", these response elements include answer elements of "300kg" and "700kg -1200kg". Yet further, users add command elements for "Ask the interior department for their latest specifications" and "Ask the chassis department for their latest specifications".

In a fourth step, as shown in Figure 13d, the question element in the second tier containing the question "How heavy is the car?" is locked. This locking is based on a threshold number of users accepting this question element as well as the parent element (the question element in the higher tier) already being locked.

Furthermore, the command elements are accepted by the users and results for these command elements are created Since the question element containing the question "What colour is the car?" has been rejected by the users, this question element is deleted.

In a fifth step, as shown in Figure 13e, the answer of 300kg is approved for the question element containing the question "How heavy is the car?" While this answer element is approved this answer element is not locked since there exist unlocked elements in a lower tier. In this regard, the result elements in the fourth tier have been accepted but have not yet been locked -since these result elements may affect the user's inputs on the second tier question element of "How heavy is the car?", an answer element for this second tier question element cannot be locked.

In a sixth step, as shown in Figure 13f, the result elements in the fourth tier are both locked. Furthermore, a user includes a connection from the result element stating "Done, the chassis weighs 600kg" to the answer element "300kg". This connection is a refutation and indicates that a user disagrees with the answer of the car weighing 300kg. This refutation can be seen by other users who might then alter their inputs for the answer element containing the answer "300kg".

The user who submitted the refutation may receive a reward (e.g. a score benefit) if this refutation is deemed to be useful (e.g. if other users submit approving inputs for the refutation).

In a seventh step, as shown in Figure 13g, users change their inputs for the answer element containing the answer "300kg" to disapprove of this answer. This change of input is based on the refutation connection that is linked to the result element containing the result "Done, the chassis weighs 600kg".

The users also submit approving inputs of the answer element containing the answer "700kg -1200kg". -28 -

In an eighth step, as shown in Figure 13h, the answer element containing the answer "700kg -1200kg" is locked since this answer element has achieved a threshold number of approving inputs and each element in the tier below has been locked.

Since the question element containing the question "How heavy is the car?" has been answered, a wrap element is created. This wrap element identifies that the answer element containing the answer "300kg" has been rejected and the answer element containing the answer "700kg" has been approved.

In a ninth step, as shown in Figure 13i, users submit approving inputs for the answer element containing the answer "V8". In a tenth step, as shown in Figure 13j, since the answer element containing the answer "V8" has reached a threshold approval and since each relevant element in the lower tiers has been locked, the answer element containing the answer "V8" is locked. The system is now complete and locked since the top answer element of "Which engine should we use?" has been answered.

As can be seen with this example, in this way engineers are able to determine an appropriate engine to use in a car based on the system. These engineers are able to identify that the weight of the car is relevant to the choice of engine and then to determine an appropriate engine given an estimated weight.

This method of reaching consensus is superior to simply asking a group of engineers to select an engine, since the consensus system as disclosed enables engineers to collaborate to find out important information that affects the engine choice. This collaboration contains a competitive edge, since each user ends up with a score that depends on their submissions; this competitive edge encourages the users of the system to act quickly to provide good answers that will be met with approval.

As has been explained above, e.g. with reference to Figure 11, each user that participates in the system may receive a score based on their inputs. For example, the user who creates the answer element "V8" and first approves of that answer element may receive a higher score than the users who only approve of this answer element later. The use of the score can be used to reward users externally to the system (e.g. a bonus may be based on a user's score at the end of a year). Equally a user's score may affect their interactions with the system -for example, a minimum score may be required to create elements (so that a user must vote on elements for a certain time before being able to create elements). Furthermore, the score of a user may affect their influence on the agreement and locking of an element -for example, for an element to be approved it may require approving inputs from users with a certain combined score.

This system therefore encourages both collaboration and competition. Users are incentivised to submit competing answers, so that optimal answers are submitted. Users are also incenfivised to -29 -collaborate to agree on an answer, since the score that a user receives is dependent on their approving answers that other users also approve.

It will be appreciated that the example of Figures 13a -13g in which an engine is selected is a simple example. In practice, the system may have many more elements and/or tiers. Furthermore, the evidence and comments provided may be more complex -for example, the system could contain experimental results, the results of computer analysis, CAD files etc. The elements in this example are text, but it will be appreciated that these elements could be in another format -for example, the answer elements relating to the type of engine could include CAD files for that engine, where the system can be used to refine the design of the engine (e.g. to make modifications to a CAD file of an existing engine based on supporting experimental data).

In such a way, this system can be used to reach a consensus on a design, such as the technical design of parts.

Each of the elements of the system (e.g. the states of the elements, the scores of the users, and/or the inputs of the users) may be output to a user. In particular, a user may be notified of a change in state of an element when that element has changed. This can be used to inform the user that a consensus has been reached for a given element. This consensus may, for example, relate to a design being agreed upon.

In some embodiments, the changing of the state may result in the alteration of a design or a document; for example, a design may be altered following a change in the state of an element (e.g. the design may be altered based on an agreed-upon answer element). This altered design may then be output to a user (e.g. using the display 1016).

In some embodiments, the changing of the state results in an alarm being sounded; for example, the changing of the state may be used to identify a potential problem with an existing design, such that an alarm may be sounded to indicate that action is needed in relation to this existing design.

Alternatives and modifications It will be understood that the present invention has been described above purely by way of example, and modifications of detail can be made within the scope of the invention.

For example, in various embodiments, the locking criteria for elements comprise one or more of the following: -For query elements locking flows downwards from the top of the element hierarchy (e.g. a query element may only become locked when its parent element is locked; -For response elements and/or wrap elements: o locking flows upwards from the bottom of the element hierarchy (e.g. a response element and/or wrap element may only be locked when each of its child elements (and/or niece/nephew elements) is locked; and/or -30 -o locking of a response element and/or wrap element also depends on each response and/or wrap element on a higher tier of the hierarchy (except at the top). For example, a response element may be agreed/approved based on consensus being reached on said response element, but may only be locked when its parent and/or uncle/aunt elements are agreed on; and/or o once response elements are locked the wrap elements that reference these response elements are modified/deleted. In particular, a wrap element for a query element may reference a list of possible response elements for that query element until one of the response elements has reached approval. When this occurs, the wrap element may be modified to reference only the approved response element.

For query elements, locking of a query element may require: -the parent element to be locked, and/or - the query element to be approved by more than half of the participants (or more broadly by a threshold number of participants); and/or -the query element to be approved by all participants who have been active in the last seven days (or more broadly by a threshold number of active participants); and/or -the query element to be approved by 3 or more participants (or more broadly by a threshold number of participants).

The agreement criteria for response elements may include: The query element to which they relate is locked; and/or (for result elements) only one linked result element can be is in an agreed state for each command element; and/or - the response element is approved by more than half of the participants (or more broadly by a threshold number of participants); and/or the response element to be approved by all participants who have been active in the last seven days (or more broadly by a threshold number of active participants); and/or the response element to be approved by 3 or more participants (or more broadly by a threshold number of participants); and/or each brother/sister element is in an agreed state.

The agreement/approval criteria for response elements and/or wrap elements may include: - The query element to which they relate is locked; and/or only one linked wrap element can be in an agreed state for each query element; and/or -31 -a wrap element and the response element that it references are all put in an agreed state at the same time; and/or - the response element and/or wrap element is approved by more than half of the participants (or more broadly by a threshold number of participants); and/or the response element and/or wrap element to be approved by all participants who have been active in the last seven days (or more broadly by a threshold number of active participants); and/or - the response element and/or wrap element to be approved by 3 or more participants (or more broadly by a threshold number of participants); and/or - each brother/sister element is in an agreed state.

The locking criteria for the response elements and/or wrap elements at the top of the hierarchy may include: - The element is in an agreed state.

At the top of the hierarchy, the locking criteria may be the same as the agreement/approval criteria.

The locking criteria for response elements and/or wrap elements may include: they are is in an agreed state; and/or the response and/or wrap elements in the tier above (their aunt/uncle elements) are is in an agreed state.

In some embodiments, once response elements are locked the wrap elements that reference them are deleted.

Reference numerals appearing in the claims are by way of illustration only and shall have no limiting effect on the scope of the claims.

Claims

-32 -Claims 1. An apparatus comprising: a processor for: providing a query element; and providing a response element that is linked to the query element; and a communication interface for receiving inputs from a plurality of users, each input relating to the query element and/or the response element; wherein the processor is arranged to alter a state of one of the elements based on the inputs; and wherein the processor and/or the communication interface is arranged to output: the altered state; and/or the element for which the state has been altered.
2 The apparatus of any preceding claim, wherein the processor is arranged to determine a score for a first user based on the inputs of the remainder of the plurality of users, preferably wherein the processor is arranged to output the score.
3. The apparatus of any preceding claim, wherein the processor is arranged to alter the state in dependence on the score of one or more users.
4. The apparatus of any preceding claim, wherein the processor is capable of providing a connection between two elements, preferably wherein the processor is arranged to connect two elements so as to support and/or refute a first element by reference to a second element, more preferably wherein the apparatus is arranged to determine the connection based on a signal received at the communication interface from one of the users.
5. The apparatus of any preceding claim, wherein the query element is capable of being linked to a further query element.
6 The apparatus of any preceding claim, wherein the response element is arranged so as not to be linkable to further descendent elements.
7. The apparatus of any preceding claim, wherein the possible states comprise one or more of: an open state in which: the element can be altered; and/or inputs relating to the element can be altered; a locked state in which: the element cannot be altered; and/or inputs relating to the element cannot be altered; -33 -an accepted state; an agreed state, a rejected state, and a deleted state
8. The apparatus of any preceding claim, wherein users are not able to alter their inputs for elements in a locked state.
9. The apparatus of any preceding claim, wherein for each query element only one linked response element can be in an agreed and/or locked state.
10. The apparatus of any preceding claim, wherein the criteria for locking the query element includes the parent element of the query element being in a locked state.
11. The apparatus of any preceding claim, wherein the criteria for locking the response element includes one or more of: each child element of the response element being in a locked state; and each element of a lower tier of elements being in a locked state.
12. The apparatus of any preceding claim, wherein the criteria for locking an element comprises a threshold number of users submitting an approving input for the element, preferably wherein the threshold relates to at least half of the users.
13. The apparatus of any preceding claim, wherein the change in the state of an element is dependent on one or more of: a proportion and/or number of users submitting an approving input for the element; a proportion and/or number of active users submitting an approving input for the element; a score of one or more users submitting the input; a number of users submitting inputs; a characteristic of the users submitting inputs; a type of the element; a connection relating to the element; and a state of an ancestor element and/or descendant element.
14. The apparatus of any preceding claim, comprising determining a score for a/the first user in dependence on one or more of: a number of other users who concur with the input of the first user; a number of subsequent users who concur with the input of the first user; the scores of the other users who concur with the input of the first user; -34 -a number of other users who disagree with the input of the first user; a number of subsequent users who disagree with the input of the first user; the scores of the other users who disagree with the input of the first user; and the time and/or order in which the first user submits an input.
15. The apparatus of any preceding claim, wherein the possible inputs include one or more of: an accepting input; a rejecting input; an approving input; a disapproving input; and an abstaining input.
16. The apparatus of any preceding claim, wherein the communication interface is arranged to receive a plurality of inputs for each element, with each input relating to a different user.
17. The apparatus of any preceding claim, wherein the processor is arranged to determine a score for each of the users.
18. The apparatus of any preceding claim, wherein the score for a first user submitting a first input for an element is based on the further inputs of one or more following users, in dependence on the submission of said further inputs occurring after the submission of the first input.
19. The apparatus of any preceding claim, wherein the contribution to the score of the first user in relation to any of the other users is dependent on the number of users submitting an input before the first user.
20. The apparatus of any preceding claim, wherein the submission of an input by a first user for an element results in a reward being divided between other users who have previously submitted inputs for said element, preferably between other users who have previously submitted concurring inputs for said element, more preferably wherein the previous users receive a reward in dependence on, and/or in proportion to, their time of submitting an input, more preferably wherein the earlier submitters receive a greater proportion of the reward.
21. The apparatus of any preceding claim, wherein the processor is arranged to determine a normalised score for each of the users of the system.
22. The apparatus of any preceding claim, wherein the processor is arranged to provide a wrap element, wherein the wrap element is a linked child element of the query element and wherein -35 -the wrap element comprises one or more of: references to one or more response elements, which response elements are also linked children of the query element; an indication of a selected and/or approved response element relating to the query element; and a list of possible and/or accepted response elements for the query element.
23. An apparatus comprising: a processor for: providing a query element; and providing a response element that is linked to the query element; and a communication interface for receiving inputs from a plurality of users, each input relating to one of the elements; wherein the processor is arranged to determine a score for a first user based on the inputs of the remainder of the plurality of users; and wherein the processor and/or the communication interface is arranged to output the score.
24. A computer-implemented consensus method of reaching consensus, the method comprising: providing a query element; providing a response element that is linked to the query element; receiving inputs from a plurality of users, each input relating to the query element and/or the response element; altering a state of one of the elements based on the inputs; and outputting the state and/or the element for which the state has been altered.
25. A computer-implemented method of reaching consensus, the method comprising: providing a query element; providing a response element that is linked to the query element; receiving inputs from a plurality of users, each input relating to one of the elements; determining a score for a first user based on the inputs of the remainder of the plurality of users; and outputting the score.