JP2006171817A - Web site evaluation system and method - Google Patents

Abstract

<P>PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED: To provide an improved plan effective for a user for automatically selecting highly effective evaluation items at the time of comparing the Web sites of others in the same line. <P>SOLUTION: This Web site evaluation system is provided with a DB for storing the category of business of an investigation object and the address of a Web site, a criteria table set for each business category, and classified into a plurality of hierarchized categories, wherein the lowest hierarchy is provided with evaluation items corresponding to those respective categories, a means for storing test items corresponding to the evaluation items, a means for temporarily registering inputted evaluation items in the criteria table, an investigation means for calculating the level of significance of the temporarily registered evaluation items, a site measuring means for executing the test items corresponding to the evaluation items of the category of business of the investigation object, and for storing the test results and a criteria updating means for deciding the validity of the evaluation items based on the test results, and for converting the temporary registration into main registration when it is decided that validity is present, and for erasing the evaluation items according to the lapse of a period decided based on the significance when it is decided valid. <P>COPYRIGHT: (C)2006,JPO&NCIPI

Description

  The present invention relates to a website evaluation system and method capable of evaluating and proposing effective websites by evaluating usability of websites on the Internet.

  Conventionally, in order to evaluate how to make a page of a website, for example, as described in Patent Document 1, a correspondence relationship between a domain and an evaluation item is stored, and a plurality of evaluation items are referred to by referring to the correspondence relationship. The method of extracting the evaluation items corresponding to the designated domain and evaluating the web page has been adopted.

  In addition, evaluation items for evaluating websites have been formulated by analyzing how to create websites using a usability test. This usability has been grasped by storing the user's operation history regarding the operation of the website and the number of times of return within the user's website. (See Patent Documents 3 to 5.)

For this reason, in the evaluation of a website, it took a lot of labor to find a truly effective evaluation item and construct an effective criterion (evaluation standard). In addition, even if the criteria that have been formulated are excellent, there are cases where no one in the same industry has implemented them for reasons such as cost, and those that are not meaningful as a relative evaluation are also included. There was a problem that would be.
JP 2003-330948 A JP 2002-123516 A JP 2003-316613 A JP 2004-13242 A JP 2003-281317 A

  The present invention has been made in view of the above-described circumstances, and can efficiently select evaluation items that are highly effective in the comparison of the websites of peers, and can provide an effective improvement plan to the user. It is an object to provide a site evaluation system and method.

  In order to achieve the above purpose, a website evaluation system for evaluating a website composed of one or more web pages, a survey target database for storing a survey target business type and a website address, and a business type Separately provided and divided into a plurality of hierarchical categories, the lowest hierarchy is a criteria table having one or more evaluation items corresponding to each category, and a test item storage for storing test items for the evaluation items Means, provisional registration means for temporarily registering evaluation items in the criterion table, evaluation item investigation means for calculating the importance of the temporarily registered evaluation items and storing the calculation results, Site measurement means for executing tests using test items for evaluation items and storing the test results, The effectiveness of the evaluation item is determined based on the test results. If there is validity, the temporary registration is converted into the real registration for the evaluation item, and if there is no validity, the evaluation item is converted immediately or after a certain period of time. It is characterized by comprising criteria updating means for deleting an evaluation item, and website evaluation means for executing evaluation of a website using the registered evaluation item.

  In the present invention, for the evaluation items temporarily registered by the criteria registration means, the evaluation item survey means performs a questionnaire or the like for all the survey subjects, determines the importance of the evaluation items, Test whether it is objectively effective. And, for the evaluation items that are objectively recognized as effective, this registration is made, and based on the criteria, it will be subject to the ranking survey of websites by industry and the analysis survey of individual websites. On the other hand, those for which the validity is not recognized are deleted after a predetermined period. As a method of determining the effectiveness, for example, there is a hypothesis testing method based on the null hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis.

  Building criteria that are effective in evaluating websites by linking importance assignments from the subjective viewpoint of evaluation items extracted through questionnaire surveys, etc., and evaluating effectiveness from an objective viewpoint Can be achieved.

  Here, “criteria” refers to an evaluation item group or an evaluation criterion composed of a plurality of evaluation items for evaluating a website. “Temporary registration” means a registration state before objective validity is recognized, and is used separately from the “main registration” state where objective validity is recognized.

  Further, the evaluation item surveying means of the website evaluation system according to the present invention is characterized in that at least the hierarchy to which the evaluation item provisionally registered by the criterion registration means belongs and the hierarchy higher than the hierarchy are relatively important between categories for each hierarchy. A degree is calculated, and the importance of the evaluation item is calculated by multiplying the relative importance of the category of each hierarchy to which the evaluation item belongs.

  In the present invention, the relative importance of the evaluation item is calculated based on the relative importance for each layer. Thereby, the subjective importance can be calculated accurately and efficiently from the relationship with other evaluation items.

  Further, the criteria update means of the website evaluation system according to the present invention is arranged such that the evaluation item temporarily stored by the criteria registration means is determined to be ineffective and the important item stored in the evaluation item survey means is stored. The evaluation item is deleted with the passage of a period determined based on the degree.

  In the present invention, even if a provisionally registered evaluation item is determined to be ineffective, it is subject to a test of effectiveness by a site measurement means during that period because the period until deletion is extended for those that are subjectively important. Is executed repeatedly. As a result, there is a possibility that the validity is recognized by the change in the preference of the site user group and the penetration of the evaluation items, and the registration is completed. On the other hand, those which are not subjectively important and whose effectiveness is not recognized are deleted early, so that the load on the system can be reduced and new evaluation items can be measured.

  Further, in the website evaluation system according to the present invention, the site measuring means stores evaluation items and operation pattern information, displays a web page that can collect operation records on the operation terminal of the subject, and displays the operation history of the subject. Having usability test means for storing, wherein the criteria update means determines the validity of the evaluation item by determining which of the operation patterns the operation history corresponds to, or The relative importance is changed.

  By determining which of the predetermined operation patterns the operation history of the subject corresponds to, it becomes easy to determine the validity of the evaluation item and change the relative importance.

  In the website evaluation system according to the present invention, the site measuring means further collects audience rating information of the website, and extracts a website audience rating for extracting a change point of the website where the change in the audience rating is a predetermined value or more. It has an investigation means, and the criteria update means adds an evaluation item related to the change to the criteria table.

In the present invention, by monitoring changes in the site audience rating, evaluation items that can contribute to the audience rating improvement are extracted, and the criteria are updated. It should be noted that the change point of the website whose response is quick may be extracted using the response information of the site instead of the audience rating information.
Further, in the website evaluation system according to the present invention, the website evaluation unit gives points to the evaluation item based on the importance of the evaluation item stored by the evaluation item investigation unit, and further, the evaluation item The website is evaluated by calculating a point value for each category to which.

  In the website evaluation system according to the present invention, the survey target database stores a plurality of website addresses for each type of business, and the website evaluation means is configured to periodically or request each of the plurality of website addresses. The present invention is characterized by comprising ranking survey means for performing ranking of the website address using the evaluation item registered in the criteria table of the business category.

  In the present invention, since the ranking of the website is performed using the evaluation items that are objectively recognized and are registered, it is possible to present a highly reliable ranking.

  Preferably, in the ranking survey, an evaluation item with a high degree of achievement, that is, an evaluation item with a high number or rate of websites that have achieved the test item among the registered evaluation items is deleted. This makes it possible to eliminate any obsolete evaluation items that have been registered.

  Further, in the website evaluation system according to the present invention, the survey target database stores a customer's website address for each type of business, and the website evaluation means is configured based on the test result for the customer's website based on the test result. It is characterized by comprising individual website evaluation means for performing website evaluation based on the evaluation items designated among the evaluation items of the criteria table relating to the customer's industry.

  In the present invention, since the website analysis is individually performed for the designated evaluation items among the evaluation items registered in the criteria table, an analysis focusing on the evaluated evaluation item becomes possible. In addition, when displaying the calculation result of the point value for each category, a relatively inferior category can be easily recognized by showing the achievement level of the evaluation items normalized for each hierarchy in a chart.

  Preferably, an improvement method presenting means for outputting an improvement plan with a predetermined priority based on the relative importance and the countermeasure cost associated with the evaluation item of the criterion table is provided. As a predetermined priority, for example, if the user inputs a budget and presents from an improvement plan for an evaluation item that is highly effective within the budget, that is, a high score, the user can easily improve the cost performance. Can be selected.

  More preferably, the calculation of the importance of the evaluation item is executed and stored for each industry. By managing the importance level or category points based on the importance level by industry, it is possible to construct criteria that can accurately manage the actual status of the website.

  The website evaluation method according to the present invention is a website evaluation method for evaluating a website composed of one or two or more web pages. A step of storing a criterion composed of evaluation items and a test item for the evaluation item, a step of temporarily registering the evaluation item in the criterion table, and calculating the importance of the temporarily registered evaluation item. A step of saving the result, a test is performed on the evaluation item in the surveyed industry using the test item, the step of saving the test result, and the effectiveness of the evaluation item based on the test result. If there is validity, the temporary registration is converted to the real registration for the evaluation item, and if there is no validity, it is immediately or once converted. Characterized in that it comprises the steps of: performing an evaluation of the web site by using a step of deleting the endpoints after a period, the registered endpoints.

  According to the present invention, since the importance of the provisionally registered evaluation item is determined and the objective validity evaluation period is determined based on the importance, the evaluation item that is highly effective in the construction of the website criteria Can be sorted efficiently. Moreover, since the improvement plan is presented in a predetermined order based on the score of the evaluation item and the countermeasure cost, the user can make an effective improvement according to the budget.

  Hereinafter, a first embodiment of the present invention will be described. The web (Web) site evaluation system according to the present embodiment has two main survey functions, namely, a website ranking survey function and an individual website survey function, and further includes a usability test function. Website ranking surveys are conducted by surveying websites on the Internet for each type of business and ranking them.

  On the other hand, the individual website survey is a website survey for survey items desired by a customer in response to a customer survey request.

  FIG. 1 is a system configuration diagram of a survey content storage database (DB) server 3 and an analysis database (DB) server 2 of a website evaluation system 1 according to the present invention, and a customer terminal 10 and a monitor terminal 5 that communicate with this system. .

  In FIG. 1, a website evaluation system 1 is composed of a survey content storage DB server 3 and an analysis DB server 2. Each server is connected to a customer terminal 10 and a monitor terminal 5 via a communication network 4 such as the Internet. Yes. The servers 2 and 3 may be connected via a local area network (LAN) and connected to the communication network 4 via a gateway.

  The website evaluation system 1 is managed and operated by a company that provides website evaluation services. The customer terminal 10 is a terminal of a customer who desires a website evaluation service provided by the operator through the website evaluation system 1. The monitor terminal 5 is a monitor terminal for a subject who has received a request from a provider providing a website evaluation service to perform a usability test of the website. The monitor terminal 5 may be installed on the website evaluation system 1 side, or a simulation web page may be stored and used stand-alone.

  FIG. 2 is a functional block diagram of the analysis DB server 2. The analysis DB server 2 includes a transmission / reception unit 21 for transmitting / receiving data via the communication network 4, a central processing unit 22 for processing data received from the transmission / reception unit, a storage unit 24 for storing data, The input unit 25 and the display unit 26 are used to input / output data to / from the central processing unit 22.

  Further, the central processing unit 22 transmits / receives data to / from the transmitting / receiving unit 21, and input / output processing means (function) 222 performs data transfer with the input unit 25 or the display unit 26. , Evaluation request receiving means (function) 223 for receiving a website evaluation request input via the input unit 25 and the transmitting / receiving unit 21, a survey content setting means (function) 224 for setting the survey content, and a website usability test Usability test means (function) 220 for executing, evaluation item survey means (function) 225 for determining the importance of each evaluation item, site response measurement means (function) 226 for measuring website response, and Internet audience rating Internet audience rating survey means (function) 227 for conducting surveys, website contents About site content measuring means (function) 228 that evaluates, access number measuring means (function) 229 that analyzes an access log, site navigation evaluation means (function) 230 that evaluates the operability of a website, privacy and accessibility A privacy / accessibility measuring means (function) 231 for performing the evaluation and a survey result transmitting means (function) 232 for transmitting the website survey result to the survey content storage DB server 3 are provided. The storage unit 24 includes a marketing database (DB) 241 that stores question items related to marketing, a content database (DB) 242 that stores question items related to content, a navigation database (DB) 243 that stores question items related to navigation, and a technology. A technology / design database (DB) 244 for storing question items related to design is provided.

  FIG. 3 is a functional block diagram of the survey content storage DB server 3. The survey content storage DB server 3 includes a transmission / reception unit 31 for transmitting / receiving data via the communication network 4, a central processing unit 32 for processing data received from the transmission / reception unit, and a storage unit 34 for storing data. And an input unit 35 for inputting / outputting data to / from the central processing unit 32 and a display unit 36.

  Further, the central processing unit 32 is a transmission / reception processing means (function) 321 for exchanging data with the transmission / reception section 31, and an input / output processing means (function) 322 for exchanging data with the input section 35 or the display section 36. , Criteria registration means (function) 320 for creating the criteria by registering the evaluation item information of the website inputted from the input section 35, criteria updating means (function) 326 for updating the criteria, and the customer received by the transmission / reception section 31 Customer information receiving means (function) 323 for registering information, evaluation request transmitting means (function) 324 for transmitting an evaluation request for a website transmitted from a customer to the analysis DB server 3, and a website performed by the analysis DB server 3 Survey result receiving means (function) 325 for receiving the survey results of the web site for analyzing the survey results of the website Evaluation means (function) 327, and an improved method of presenting means (function) 328 to present a method of improving the web site. In addition, the storage unit 34 includes a customer database (DB) 341 that stores information about customers, a criteria table 342 that stores website evaluation items for each type of industry, and a criteria check table 343 that stores information on whether the criteria are met. , Evaluation analysis table 344 for storing evaluation results, proposal content database (DB) 345 for storing website improvement proposals, analysis result report storing database (DB) 346 for storing analysis results of website evaluation results, A ranking database (DB) 347 that stores information ranking the evaluation results is provided. Among these DBs, the customer DB 341 and the ranking DB 347 have information on the type of business to be surveyed and the website, and have significance as the database to be surveyed.

  Further, the customer terminal 10 transmits data between the transmission / reception unit 11 for transmitting / receiving data via the communication network 4, the central processing unit 12 for processing data from the transmission / reception unit 11, and the central processing unit 12. It is comprised from the input part 15 and the display part 16 which input / output these.

  The monitor terminal 5 includes a transmission / reception unit 53 for transmitting / receiving data via the communication network 4, a central processing unit 52 for processing data from the transmission / reception unit 51, and data input between the central processing unit 52. An input unit 55 for performing output and a display unit 56 are included.

<1. Function overview>
[1.1 Usability test function]
In the above configuration, the operation of the usability test unit 220 will be described first.
When the usability test is performed by the survey content setting unit 224, the set question item is transmitted to the monitor terminal 5 by the transmission / reception processing unit 221 and the transmission unit 21.

The question items transmitted from the analysis DB server 2 are received by the transmission / reception unit 51 of the monitor terminal 5 via the communication network 4. The monitor answers the question items while browsing the designated URL transmitted from the analysis DB server 2 on the monitor terminal 5 with a browser.
The operation screen when the monitor makes an answer to the question item is recorded and transmitted to the analysis DB server 2 together with the answer to the question item. By analyzing the movement of the pointer from the recorded monitor operation, it is possible to measure the site response, site navigation, privacy accessibility, and the like of the surveyed website.

  A usability test will be described with a specific example. When the website to be surveyed is a website of a financial institution, the question item is a question regarding a functional expression such as “check account number”.

  FIG. 10 is a data configuration example of a usability test table. In this figure, the question item, the monitor verification result for the question item, the number of rework, the required time, the access time, the impression of the monitor, etc. are stored. It should be noted that an average value of the question items in the business category may be calculated based on the table data to create an industry standard web page pattern.

  Based on the industry standard value for the question item (test item) and the monitor impression, the system administrator inputs the evaluation item, the related question content and the importance from the input unit 25 and reflects them in the criteria table 342 by the criteria registration means 320. .

  The usability test may be performed by transmitting the question item group to the monitor terminal 5 as described above, but may be performed by a simulation website stored in advance in the monitor terminal.

  Next, an overview of the ranking survey function and the individual website survey function, which are the main functions of the website evaluation system 1, will be described.

[1.2 Ranking survey function]
FIG. 4 is a flowchart for explaining the processing outline of the ranking survey function.
In the ranking survey, first, the URL of the ranking target site is registered by the customer information receiving means 323 or from the input unit 35 (S101). Next, ranking survey acceptance processing is performed (S102). This reception is performed by a preset period or a request from a customer or a system administrator. When the ranking survey is accepted, a new survey field is created by the evaluation request transmission means 324 (S103). Next, the survey content setting unit 224 selects the measurement means 225 to 231 to be activated and extracts / determines survey content / question items (S104). Then, the question / survey contents are distributed to the selected measuring means 225 to 231 (S105). Thereafter, site measurement means such as evaluation item investigation means 225, site response measurement means 226, net audience rating investigation means 227, site content measurement means 228, access count measurement means 229, site navigation evaluation means 230, privacy / accessibility measurement means 231, etc. A website survey is performed by 235 and the survey result is transmitted to the survey content storage DB server 3. The survey result is also stored in the analysis DB server 2 as industry data 245 so that an answer can be immediately transmitted by an inquiry from the survey content storage DB server 3.

  When the survey result storage DB server 3 receives the survey result by the survey result receiving means 325, it is stored in each evaluation item area for each website provided in the survey field (S106). Next, the website evaluation means 327 determines whether each evaluation item area is satisfied (S107). If there is an unsatisfied area, the process returns to step S105, and the process is repeated for the evaluation item. If each item area is satisfied, the results for the survey contents / question items are totaled (S108), and the achievement level of each evaluation item is determined (S109). The degree of achievement is determined for each evaluation item by the ratio of websites that satisfy the question contents of the evaluation items in all the surveyed websites. If the achievement level of a certain evaluation item exceeds a predetermined range, the criterion update unit 326 deletes the evaluation item from the criterion table 342. Then, the website evaluation means 327 announces rankings of evaluation items whose achievement level is within a predetermined range based on the point value assigned to each evaluation item (S110).

[1.3 Individual website survey function]
Next, an outline of processing of the individual website survey function will be described with reference to FIG.
First, the survey content storage DB server 3 performs input of survey evaluation items (S201) and ranking survey acceptance processing as necessary (S202). Then, a new investigation field is created by the evaluation request transmission means 324 (S203), and an evaluation request is sent to the analysis DB server 2. When the evaluation request receiving unit 223 of the analysis DB server 2 receives the evaluation request, the survey content setting unit 224 is activated to extract / determine the survey content / question item according to the evaluation item (S204). Then, the question / investigation content is assigned to each evaluation item (S205).

  This distribution setting is performed with reference to category DBs 241 to 244 in which evaluation items, question items, and site measurement means 235 to be activated are provided in advance for each category.

  Then, the website survey is performed by the evaluation item survey unit 225, the site response measurement unit 226, the net audience rating survey unit 227, the site content measurement unit 228, the access number measurement unit 229, the site navigation evaluation unit 230, and the privacy / accessibility measurement unit 231. And the survey result is transmitted to the survey content storage DB server 3. In the survey content storage DB server 3, the survey result is stored in each evaluation item area of the survey field by the survey result receiving means 325 (S206). Next, the website evaluation unit 327 determines whether each item is satisfied (S207). If each item is not satisfied, the process returns to step S205 and is repeated. If each item is satisfied, the website evaluation means 327 aggregates the results for the survey contents / question items (S208). Then, chart creation and improvement proposal extraction are performed and stored in the analysis result report DB 346. Then, the individual website analysis result report is presented to the customer terminal 10 by the improvement method presentation means 328.

  The overview of the ranking survey function and the individual website survey function has been described above. Next, the processing contents of each investigation function will be described in detail.

<2. System operation>
[2.1 Ranking survey function]
(Basic information setting process)
First, we will focus on the ranking survey function. First, customer information for a ranking survey is input by the system administrator via the input unit 35 of the survey content storage DB server 3. The website evaluation system 1 conducts a ranking survey at an arbitrary time designated by the system administrator or periodically for each customer for which customer information is input.

  FIG. 6 is a data configuration example of the customer DB 341. In this figure, a customer ID for identifying a customer and information such as a customer name, an e-mail address, a login name, a password, a business type ID, and an evaluation request content associated therewith are stored. In the case of a ranking survey, the contents of evaluation requests are set by the system administrator, but special evaluation items may be set according to user requests.

  The content of the evaluation request stores information such as a survey ID for identifying a survey and a survey purpose, a survey company name, a survey request date, a survey item, a target site, and a survey category associated with the survey ID. The survey category consists of categories such as marketing, content, navigation, technology and design.

  When the ranking survey is started, the evaluation request transmission means 323 creates a new survey field for the survey target website in the ranking DB 347 arranged in the storage unit 34 of the survey content storage DB 3. At the same time, the evaluation item ID is extracted from the criteria table 342 based on the customer's industry ID.

FIG. 7 is a data configuration example of the criteria table 342. This criteria table is provided for each type of industry. In the table, the evaluation item ID (identification information) for identifying the evaluation item, the evaluation item associated therewith, and the major classification and middle classification of the criterion are included. The weight for each category is stored.
In this figure, the evaluation item ID, A-001 evaluation item is an evaluation item that displays all pages of the company name and site name (logo allowed). Marketing (ID-01), content service, which is a major classification of this evaluation item (ID-02), Navigation (ID-03), Navigation (ID-03), and Technology / Design (ID-04) have weights of 4.5, 1.5, ▲ 1, 5 respectively. It is expressed that.
In addition, weights are also arranged for each item of the medium category constituting the large category.

(Criteria extraction processing)
Next, the processing procedure of the criteria extraction function of the evaluation request transmission unit 324 will be described with reference to FIG. First, it is determined whether the currently executed survey is a ranking survey (S501). If the determination result is not a ranking survey, it is determined whether customer information has been input (S505), and if customer information has not been input, customer information is input (S509). If customer information has been input, a customer ID is input from the customer terminal 10 (S506).

  Next, an investigation target item is input (S507). Based on the customer ID, the business type ID and site URL are extracted from the customer DB (S508). Then, the process proceeds to step S503.

  If it is a ranking survey, the customer ID, industry ID, and site URL of the survey target site are extracted from the ranking DB (S502). An evaluation item ID is extracted from the criteria table based on the industry type ID (S503). Then, the evaluation item ID is transmitted to the analysis DB server 2 (S504).

(Evaluation request processing)
The plurality of normal evaluation item IDs extracted in step S503 are transmitted to the analysis DB server 2 via the communication network 4 by the evaluation request transmission unit 324 and the transmission / reception processing unit 321 together with the URL of the website to be ranked.

(Investigation execution process)
The site URL and the evaluation item ID transmitted from the survey content storage DB server 3 are received and processed by the transmission / reception unit 21 and transmission / reception processing unit 221 of the analysis server 2 and temporarily stored in the storage unit 24 by the evaluation request reception unit 223. Next, the survey content setting means 224 is activated and should be activated with the question items stored in the marketing DB 241, content DB 242, navigation DB 243, and technology / design DB 244 in the storage unit 24 based on the received evaluation item ID. The site measurement means number is extracted. The survey content setting unit 224 includes an evaluation item survey unit 225, a site response measurement unit 226, a net audience rating survey unit 227, a site content measurement unit 228, an access count measurement unit 229, a site navigation evaluation unit 230, and a privacy / accessibility measurement unit 231. Etc., the site measurement means corresponding to the extracted number is activated, and the question items extracted as operation parameters and other information necessary for the operation are delivered.

  FIG. 9 is a data configuration example of the marketing DB 241, the content DB 242, the navigation DB 243, and the technology / design DB 244. In this figure, each DB is composed of an evaluation item ID and question information associated therewith. Each question information stores information such as a question ID, a site measurement means number to be activated, question items, and points. In order to reduce the load of delivery between the servers 2 and 3, the evaluation items may be grouped, a survey ID may be added, and an evaluation request and a survey result may be returned using this survey ID. .

  The activated site measuring means determines whether or not the survey target website satisfies these question items, and if satisfied, adds points to the question items.

(Survey result transmission process)
When the website analysis (data collection) by each measuring unit is completed, the result is transmitted to the survey content storage DB server 3 by the survey result transmitting unit 232.

  The site analysis result transmitted from the analysis DB server 2 is received by the transmission / reception unit 31 and the transmission / reception processing unit 321 of the survey content storage DB 3 and stored in the evaluation analysis table 334 by the survey result reception unit 325.

  FIG. 11 is a data configuration example of the evaluation analysis table 334. In this figure, the name of the customer to be surveyed and the evaluation result of the customer's website are the overall points for each category such as marketing, content services, navigation, and technical design, and the medium categories such as brands, campaigns, and emails that make up the category Every one is remembered.

(Website evaluation process)
When the site analysis result is stored in the evaluation analysis table 334, the website evaluation means 327 is activated, and the site analysis result in the evaluation analysis table 334 is analyzed or pointed for each category. Each website is ranked based on the points, and the analysis results are stored in the ranking DB 347.

  FIG. 12 is a data configuration example of the ranking DB 347. In this figure, information such as a business type ID for identifying a business type, a customer ID for identifying a customer and a site URL associated therewith, a survey date, a site name, a total point, and an overall ranking are stored. The total point area is further linked to a point area for each category such as a marketing point, a content point, a navigation point, and a technology / HTML point. In the following, links are made to the point areas of the lower categories in order. Each point area is composed of an ID and a point value.

(Other examples of ranking survey procedures)
Next, the processing procedure of the ranking survey function based on the evaluation request from the user will be described with reference to FIG.

  First, the customer ID, the business type, and the site URL of the survey target site are extracted from the ranking DB by the evaluation request transmitting unit (S301). An evaluation item ID is extracted from the criteria table based on the industry type ID (S302). The customer ID and site URL of the customer to be investigated and the evaluation item ID extracted in step 302 are transmitted to the analysis DB (S303). The customer ID, site URL, and evaluation item ID transmitted from the survey content storage DB server 3 are received by the evaluation request receiving means 223 (S304). Then, based on the received evaluation item ID, the survey content setting unit 224 extracts the site measurement unit number to be activated and the question item from the marketing DB, content DB, navigation DB, and technology / design DB (S305). The extracted question items are investigated by means of an evaluation item investigation means, a site response measurement means, a net audience rating investigation means, a site content measurement means, an access count measurement means, a site navigation evaluation means, and a privacy / accessibility measurement means (S306). ). Then, the survey result transmission means 232 transmits the survey result for the question item to the survey content storage DB server 3 (S307). The survey content storage DB server 3 receives the survey result by the survey result receiving means 325 and stores it in the evaluation analysis table 344 (S308). Next, it is determined whether or not there is a website showing an increase rate of a certain number of accesses (S309). If there is no website with an increase rate of a certain value or more, the process of step S312 is performed, and the growth rate is determined. If there is a website with a certain value or more, the website is analyzed to extract a change point (S310), and the weight value of the evaluation item related to the change point is changed (S311). Then, ranking is performed based on the survey result, the ranking is stored in the ranking DB (S312), and ranking information is output (S313).

  Of the above, step S309 to step S311 may be executed by the criteria updating means.

[2.2 Criteria update function]
Next, the criteria update function will be described.
When the ranking is completed, the achievement level of each question item is evaluated by the criteria update unit 326, and the evaluation items in the criteria table 342 are updated. For multiple websites, if the achievement level of a certain evaluation item is lower than a predetermined value, it is determined that the evaluation item is not suitable as a survey item, while if the achievement level of a certain evaluation item is higher than a predetermined value, Since the evaluation item has already been standardized on the website and does not make sense as a survey item, a warning message is output to the display unit 36 of the survey content storage DB server 3 and is determined by the system administrator via the input unit 35. The evaluation item is deleted.

  When changing the weight value of another evaluation item by deleting the evaluation item, the system administrator can change the evaluation item to be changed and the major classification to which the evaluation item belongs from the input unit 35 of the survey content storage DB server 3 Enter the weight value for the middle category. The input weight value is reflected in the criteria table 342 by the criteria update unit 326. It should be noted that for an evaluation item whose achievement level is within a predetermined range, the weight may be automatically determined according to the achievement level.

  Here, another processing procedure of the criteria updating unit will be described with reference to FIG. First, the access count is measured by the access count measuring means (S601). Next, it is determined whether or not there is a website showing an increase rate of the website access rate measured by the number-of-accesses measuring means greater than or equal to a predetermined value (S602). If there is a website showing an increase rate of the access rate equal to or higher than a predetermined value, the website of the company is analyzed to extract a change point (S603). The changed point is added to the criterion table as an evaluation item (S604).

[2.3 Individual website survey function]
Next, the processing procedure of the individual website survey function will be described in detail with reference to FIG.
First, it is determined whether customer information has been input (S401). If customer information has already been input, the customer terminal 10 is made to input a customer ID and a survey item for requesting website evaluation. The customer information receiving unit 323 sets a flag in the criterion check table 343 according to the survey item input by the customer. (S402). If customer information has not been entered, customer information is entered from the customer terminal 10 (S409). The input customer information is stored in the customer DB 341 by the customer information receiving means 323 (S408). The business type ID is extracted from the customer DB 341 based on the input customer ID (S403). Based on the extracted industry ID and the survey item, the evaluation request transmission means 324 extracts the evaluation item ID from the criteria table 342 (S404), and the customer ID and site URL of the customer to be surveyed and the extracted evaluation item ID are obtained. The data is transmitted to the analysis DB server 2 (S405).

  In the analysis DB server 2, based on the evaluation item ID sent from the survey content storage DB 3, the survey content setting means 224 uses the marketing DB, content DB, navigation DB, and technology / design DB to ask questions and start site measurement. A means number is extracted (S406). Thereafter, after the survey by the site measuring means is executed (S407), the survey result transmission means 232 transmits the survey result for the question item to the survey content storage DB (S408). Then, the survey result receiving means 325 of the survey content storage DB server 3 receives the survey result and stores it in the evaluation analysis table 344 (S408). Thereafter, points are totaled for each item of the survey results stored in the evaluation analysis table 344 by the website evaluation unit 327 (S410).

  Next, a chart is created based on the points tabulated in step S410, and improvement proposals are extracted from the proposal content table (S411). The improvement proposal extracted from the chart created in step S411 and the proposal content table 345 is stored in the analysis result report DB 346 (S412). And the analysis result report is transmitted to the customer terminal 10 by the improvement method presenting means 328 (S413).

  FIG. 16 is a data configuration example of the criteria check table 343. An evaluation item ID for identifying each evaluation item and a flag indicating which customer measures the evaluation item are stored. Based on the presence or absence of the flag, the evaluation item is extracted from the criteria table 342 by the evaluation request transmission means 324.

  FIG. 17 is a data configuration example of the proposal content table 345. It stores the general points of marketing, content / service, navigation, and technical design, as well as the points of middle categories such as brands, campaigns, and emails that make up each major category, and suggested comments. These may be provided for all the scoring patterns, and the random number vote corresponding to the pattern of the survey result may be output, or provided for each evaluation item, for the evaluation item with a low score. Proposals may be output preferentially. In addition, the proposed comments may be stored in a hierarchical manner, and the proposed comments may be output in the descending order of the score for each layer.

  The category-specific evaluation chart created by the website evaluation means 327, the chart representing the comprehensive evaluation, and the improvement proposal extracted from the proposal content table 335 are stored in the analysis result report DB 346, and the improvement method presentation means 328 provides the customer terminal 10 Are displayed on the display unit 16.

FIG. 18 is a screen view of an evaluation report for individual website analysis. In this screen diagram, marketing, content / service, navigation, technology / design, and comprehensive analysis items are evaluated in eight stages as a comprehensive evaluation for the site and displayed in a chart. In addition, each analysis item representing the top of the comprehensive evaluation chart is further scored with the contents of the surveys constituting them, and is displayed as a chart as an evaluation by category.
From these comprehensive evaluations and category-based evaluations, items to be noted and specific improvement plans are displayed as individual issues and proposals.

  According to the present embodiment, since the evaluation item established by the usability test is updated based on the result of the ranking survey, an effective criterion can be constructed. Moreover, if the improvement proposals are output in descending order of the points within the budget input by the user based on the evaluation item or the point allocation information (point value) of the category of each hierarchy and the cost required for the improvement, the user can You can choose a cost-effective improvement measure. In particular, it is possible to easily recognize a category that is relatively inferior by showing the achievement level of the evaluation items normalized for each layer in a chart, and it is easy to grasp the detailed information by further hierarchizing.

  In addition, because the criteria are stored, the survey content storage DB server that summarizes the survey results and the analysis DB server that executes the survey for each criterion evaluation item are divided into the evaluation items or groups of evaluation items, and the evaluation request is made. The system load can be reduced, and the analysis DB server does not need to hold detailed information on the criteria for each industry, so security can be ensured even if the operators managing and managing each server are different. it can.

Next, a second embodiment of the present invention will be described focusing on differences from the first embodiment.
In the first embodiment, criteria are updated according to the achievement level of each evaluation item for each industry to be surveyed, but this embodiment combines a questionnaire survey result and verification procedure for the industry and its users. It is characterized by building effective criteria.

The configuration of the website evaluation system according to the present embodiment is the same as the configuration of the first embodiment shown in FIGS.
In this configuration, registration and update processing of evaluation items in the criteria table 342 will be described mainly with reference to FIG.
First, with regard to the website, evaluation items are discovered by conducting questionnaires to users and collecting expert opinions. FIG. 20 shows an example of a questionnaire. Additional functions of the website can be selected according to the type of industry, and can be filled in as a free opinion. Questionnaires shall be appropriately conducted not only on paper media but also on Internet homepages and e-mails. Based on the results of the questionnaire, an evaluation item for that industry (online securities in the example of FIG. 20) is created based on popular functions and added to the criteria table 342 with a registration type of “temporary”. (Register) (S701), and the questions regarding this evaluation item are stored in the DBs 241 to 244 of each category. One evaluation item is associated with one or more questions, and each question is set with a point when the question is satisfied.

  On the other hand, in the ranking survey, first, the URL of the ranking target site is registered (S702). Next, when a ranking survey is started (S703), a survey field is created (S704). Next, the survey content (evaluation item) is extracted by the survey content setting means 224 (S705). Then, a question regarding the survey content is extracted with reference to each category DB 241 to 244, and the question / survey content is assigned to each evaluation item of the site measuring means 235 (S706). At this time, first, the evaluation item investigation means 225 makes a question about the temporarily registered evaluation item to the customer group (including the potential customer group) of the surveyed industry through the communication network, and based on the answer result. The importance of the evaluation item is calculated, that is, weighting is performed.

Hereinafter, the evaluation item survey and the calculation method of the importance of the evaluation item will be described with reference to FIGS.
First, as shown in FIG. 23, in the evaluation item survey, arbitrary two categories are compared (paired comparison) for each of the categories divided into a plurality of layers, and are subjected to relative evaluation.

  For example, in the online securities industry website, when the evaluation item is whether or not “login input on the top page” is performed, this evaluation item is classified into a category “navigation” and a medium category “usability”. It is positioned as a subcategory below. In the navigation DB 243, a question “Is there a login button on the top page?” Is stored for this evaluation item.

  The comparison evaluation of the category for each layer is performed in the form of an evaluation table as shown in FIG. In this figure, for each category of major classification, evaluation is made as to which is more important when compared to marketing and content, and all combinations of categories belonging to the major classification are compared such as when comparing marketing and navigation. When there are four major categories, a total of six pair comparisons are performed.

  An example of the result of this pair comparison is shown in FIG. In this example, for example, marketing and content in the first line are flagged where content is much more important, the relative importance of marketing to content is 1/3, and conversely the relative importance of content to marketing is A number of 3 is assigned. (See the evaluation table in the figure).

  Such relative evaluation is executed for all combinations in the same layer, the geometric average is taken for all survey subjects, and finally normalized weight values are calculated.

  When the above-described processing is completed for the large classification, pairwise comparison is performed in the same manner for each of the large classification categories and the middle classification category below. For example, a total of three pair comparisons are performed for the three categories of brand, price, and campaign under marketing, and then a total of three pair comparisons are performed for the search function, information amount, and support under the contents. Similarly, paired comparison of categories belonging to the same upper layer is performed.

  After calculating the relative importance for all categories, then for the lowest layer, multiply the relative importance of all the upper layers to which that layer belongs and multiply the importance (weight value) of the lowest layer Is calculated.

  FIG. 24 is an example of relative importance calculated by performing a paired comparison. Here, the weight value of the subcategory “account input on the top page”, which is the lowest layer, is set to have a relative importance of 0.5 for navigation, a relative importance of usability of 0.2, and a relative importance of 0.5. When these are multiplied, the result is 0.05. This is stored as a weight value.

  Returning to FIG. 19, after calculating the weight value of each evaluation item in this way, the site response measurement unit 226, the site content measurement unit 228, the access number measurement unit 229, and the site navigation evaluation unit 230 for the question item for each evaluation item. The degree of achievement is checked by the site measuring means 235 such as the privacy / accessibility measuring means 231 and stored in a temporary file (S707, S708). As the degree of achievement, for example, when a certain question item is achieved for a site to be surveyed, points are set in association with the question.

  Further, this survey result is transmitted to the survey content storage DB server 3, and the survey content storage DB server 3 stores the points of each evaluation item in the evaluation analysis table 344 for each survey target (company) by the survey result receiving means 325. At the same time, the points are totaled for each category (S709).

  Then, the website evaluation unit 327 determines how many companies have achieved the evaluation item for each evaluation item (S710), and the degree of achievement is equal to or higher than a predetermined value, that is, a predetermined number of companies or more determine the evaluation item. If it has been achieved, the evaluation item is deleted from the criteria table 342 (S717). On the other hand, if the degree of achievement is less than or equal to the predetermined value, then a significance test is performed to determine whether the evaluation item is significant (S711).

Hereinafter, an example of the significance test process will be described with reference to FIG.
In the significance test process, first, a survey criterion is selected (S801), and a hypothesis is set (S802). For example, in an online brokerage company, when verifying whether or not "the number of accounts of a brokerage company increases by attaching a login button to the top page", this is used as a survey criterion, and the hypothesis is the null hypothesis. Set an alternative hypothesis. For example, the null hypothesis is "There is no difference in the number of accounts of a brokerage firm if there is no login button on the top page", and the alternative hypothesis is that the average number of accounts of a brokerage firm that has a login button on the top page is It is more than ○○ account ”.

  Next, a test statistic is selected (S803), and its critical value and rejection area are set (S804). Then, a rejection area is calculated (S805).

  Returning to FIG. 19 again, the calculation result of step S805, that is, whether a null temporary or a conflict temporary is adopted is determined (S712).

  If it is determined that there is no significant difference, that is, if the null hypothesis is adopted, it is next determined whether or not the weight value is equal to or greater than a predetermined value (S715). Delete from the criteria table (S717). On the other hand, if the weight value is equal to or greater than the predetermined value, it is next determined whether or not a period determined based on the weight value has passed (S716). (S717).

  On the other hand, if it is determined in step S712 that there is a significant difference, that is, if an alternative hypothesis is adopted, the registration type of the evaluation item in the criterion table is changed to main registration (S713). If the period has not elapsed in step S716, the temporary registration state remains in the criteria table 342.

  Then, ranking of survey target companies is executed using only the evaluation items of the main registration (S714).

  In this ranking, the point values for each category are compared, and the ranking is performed from the highest total point that is the sum of the point values of the highest category. The point value of the category is calculated by checking whether the surveyed website satisfies (or achieves) the contents of the test items (question items) for the evaluation items belonging to the lowest category. Is satisfied, the relative importance of the evaluation item is added as the point value of the category. When there are multiple test items for one evaluation item, the relative importance is divided by the number of test items. At this time, according to the importance of the test item, it may be distributed with a certain weight. Then, the point value of the lowest category is first calculated, and the point values of the categories belonging to the same upper category are summed to obtain the point value of the upper category. In this way, points are assigned to all of the plurality of hierarchized categories. The relative importance may be multiplied by a constant, or may be corrected to a point value that is easy to recognize by performing a certain conversion.

  Using the relative importance obtained by the evaluation item survey as described above, the point value for each category of the website to be surveyed is calculated.

  In step S714, ranking may be performed including evaluation items for provisional registration, and the ranking may be output in comparison with ranking using only the evaluation items for main registration. In this way, it is possible to predict future changes in ranking.

  The criteria addition / update process has been described above. Other processes such as the individual website survey and the improvement proposal process are the same as those in the first embodiment.

(Other examples of criteria update processing)
FIG. 19 is a form in which criteria update is executed in conjunction with the ranking survey. The ranking survey processing and criteria update, in particular, the significance of the provisionally registered evaluation items are tested to determine the evaluation items. It is also possible to separate the process of whether or not to make a main registration or delete and execute each independently.

  The criteria update process at this time will be described with reference to FIG. FIG. 26 is a flowchart showing the processing procedure of the criteria update means. In this figure, first, it is assumed that evaluation items are provisionally registered in the criteria table 342 by the criteria registration means 320. In this situation, when the criteria update unit 326 is activated, a survey field is first created (S901), and the survey content (evaluation item) is extracted by the survey content setting unit 224 (S902). Then, referring to each category DB 241 to 244, a test item is assigned to each evaluation item (S903), the evaluation item investigation means 225 is activated, and an investigation using a net questionnaire or the like is executed (S904). Then, the importance (weight) of the evaluation item is calculated based on the questionnaire result of each test item (S905). Since the calculation method of importance is the same as that described with reference to FIGS. 21 to 23 described above, a description thereof will be omitted.

  Then, it is determined whether or not the result of each test item is stored for all the target evaluation items. If “NO”, the processing from step S903 (or S904) is repeated. On the other hand, if “YES” in the step S906, the survey result and industry data effective for the significance determination are sent to the survey content storage DB 3.

  The survey content storage DB server 3 receives the survey results and totals them (S907). Then, a significance test is performed to determine whether the value item is significant (S909). Since the significance test process is the same as described above, the description is omitted.

  If it is determined in step S909 that there is no significant difference, it is next determined whether or not the weight value is equal to or larger than a predetermined value (S911). If the weight value is equal to or smaller than the predetermined value, the evaluation item is deleted from the criterion table (S913). ). On the other hand, if the weight value is equal to or greater than the predetermined value, it is next determined whether or not a period determined based on the weight value has elapsed (S912). (S913).

  On the other hand, if it is determined in step S909 that there is a significant difference, the registration type of the evaluation item in the criteria table 342 is changed to main registration (S910). If the period has not elapsed in step S912, the temporary registration state remains in the criteria table 342.

  The ranking survey or individual website survey process is started independently of the criteria update process, and is executed based on, for example, the flowchart shown in FIG. 4 or FIG.

  According to this embodiment, since the period of significance evaluation is lengthened according to the importance of the temporarily registered evaluation item, an effective criterion can be constructed without imposing a load on the system.

  The present invention is not limited to the above-described embodiment, and can be implemented with various modifications. For example, in the usability test means 220, evaluation items and operation patterns are stored in advance, a web page that can collect operation records is displayed on the operation terminal of the subject, and the operation history of the subject is stored. 326 may determine the validity of the evaluation item by determining which of the operation patterns the operation history corresponds to, or may change the relative importance of the evaluation item. In addition, by monitoring changes in the site audience rating, evaluation items that can contribute to the audience rating improvement may be extracted to update the criteria.

1 is a system configuration diagram of a website evaluation system according to an embodiment of the present invention. It is a functional block diagram of the analysis DB server 2 of FIG. It is a functional block diagram of the investigation content preservation | save DB server 3 of FIG. It is a flowchart explaining the outline | summary of the ranking investigation and criteria update process in the 1st Embodiment of this invention. It is a flowchart explaining the process outline | summary of the individual website investigation in embodiment of this invention. It is a data structural example of customer DB of FIG. It is a data structural example of the criteria table of FIG. It is a flowchart explaining the processing procedure of the criteria extraction function of the evaluation request transmission means of FIG. 3 is a data configuration example of a marketing DB, a content DB, a navigation DB, and a technology / design DB in FIG. 2. It is an example of a data structure of a usability test table. It is an example of an evaluation analysis table data structure of FIG. It is a data structural example of ranking DB of FIG. It is a flowchart explaining the processing procedure of the criteria update means (criteria addition by access number measurement) of FIG. It is a flowchart explaining the processing procedure of the ranking investigation by embodiment of this invention. It is a flowchart explaining the process sequence of the individual website investigation by embodiment of this invention. It is a data structural example of the criteria check table of FIG. It is a data structural example of the proposal content table of FIG. It is a screen figure of the evaluation report of an individual website analysis. It is a flowchart which shows the procedure of the addition and update process of the criteria by the 2nd Embodiment of this invention. It is explanatory drawing of the example of a questionnaire by the 2nd Embodiment of this invention. It is explanatory drawing of the questionnaire survey for the importance determination by the evaluation item investigation means of the 2nd Embodiment of this invention. It is explanatory drawing of the relative importance calculation process by the evaluation item investigation means of the 2nd Embodiment of this invention. It is explanatory drawing of the classification | category classification and relative importance calculation by the 2nd Embodiment of this invention. It is a data structural example of the criteria table by the 2nd Embodiment of this invention. It is a flowchart which shows the procedure of the significance test process of the criteria update means by the 2nd Embodiment of this invention. It is a flowchart which shows the process sequence of the criteria update means by the other Example of the 2nd Embodiment of this invention.

Explanation of symbols

1 Website evaluation system
2 analysis DB server 3 investigation content storage DB server 4 communication network 5 monitor terminal 10 customer terminal 11 21 31 51 transmission / reception unit 12 22 32 52 central processing unit 24 34 storage unit 15 25 35 55 input unit 16 26 36 56 display unit 220 Usability test means 221 321 Transmission / reception processing means 222 322 Input / output processing means 223 Evaluation request receiving means 224 Investigation content setting means 225 Evaluation item investigation means 226 Site response measurement means 227 Net audience rating investigation means 228 Site content measurement means 229 Access count measurement means 230 Site navigation evaluation means 231 Privacy / accessibility measurement means 232 Survey result transmission means 235 Site measurement means 241 Marketing DB
242 Content DB
243 Navigation DB
244 Technology / Design DB
245 Industry data 320 Criteria registration means 323 Customer information reception means 324 Evaluation request transmission means 325 Survey result reception means 326 Criteria update means 327 Website evaluation means 328 Improvement method presentation means 341 Customer DB
342 Criteria table 343 Criteria check table 344 Evaluation analysis table 345 Proposed content table 346 Analysis result report DB
347 Ranking DB

Claims (11)

A website evaluation system for evaluating a website composed of one or more web pages,
A survey database that stores the surveyed industry and website address,
A criteria table that is provided by industry and divided into a plurality of hierarchical categories, and the lowest hierarchy has one or more evaluation items corresponding to each category,
Test item storage means for storing test items for the evaluation items;
Criteria registration means for temporarily registering evaluation items in the criteria table;
An evaluation item investigation means for calculating the importance of the temporarily registered evaluation item and storing the calculation result,
A site measurement means that performs tests using the test items on the evaluation items of the surveyed industry and stores the test results;
Based on the test results, the validity of the evaluation item is determined. If there is validity, the temporary registration is converted into the main registration for the evaluation item, and if there is no validity, immediately or after a certain period of time has passed. Criteria updating means for deleting the evaluation item;
A website evaluation system comprising: website evaluation means for executing an evaluation of a website using the registered evaluation items.   The evaluation item investigation means calculates a relative importance between categories for each hierarchy for at least a hierarchy to which the evaluation item temporarily registered by the criteria registration means and a hierarchy above the hierarchy, and each evaluation item belongs to 2. The website evaluation system according to claim 1, wherein the importance of the evaluation item is calculated by multiplying the relative importance of the category of the hierarchy.   The criteria update means, when it is determined that the evaluation item provisionally registered by the criteria registration means is not valid, elapse of a period determined based on the importance stored in the evaluation item survey means The website evaluation system according to claim 1 or 2, wherein the evaluation item is deleted. The site measuring means includes usability test means for storing evaluation items and operation pattern information, displaying a web page on which the operation record can be collected on the test terminal of the test subject, and storing the test history of the test subject,
The criteria update means determines the validity of the evaluation item by determining which of the operation patterns the operation history corresponds to, or changes the relative importance of the evaluation item. The website evaluation system according to any one of claims 1 to 4, wherein the website evaluation system is characterized in that: The site measuring means includes a website audience survey means for collecting audience rating information of a website and extracting a change point of the website where the audience rating change is equal to or greater than a predetermined value.
5. The website evaluation system according to claim 1, wherein the criteria update unit adds an evaluation item related to the change to the criteria table. 6.   The website evaluation unit gives points to the evaluation item based on the importance of the evaluation item stored by the evaluation item survey unit, and further calculates a point value for each category to which the evaluation item belongs. The website evaluation system according to claim 1, wherein the website is evaluated.   The survey target database stores a plurality of website addresses for each type of industry, and the website evaluation means stores the criteria table of the type of industry for each of the plurality of website addresses periodically or upon request. 7. The website evaluation system according to claim 1, wherein ranking of the website address is performed using an evaluation item. The survey database stores customer website addresses by industry,
The website evaluation means performs website evaluation based on an evaluation item designated among evaluation items of a criterion table related to the industry of the customer based on the test result for the customer's website. The website evaluation system according to any one of claims 1 to 7.   9. The website according to claim 8, further comprising improvement method presenting means for outputting an improvement plan with a predetermined priority based on a relative importance and a countermeasure cost associated with an evaluation item of the criteria table. Evaluation system.   The website evaluation system according to any one of claims 1 to 8, wherein the calculation of the importance of the evaluation item is executed and stored for each type of business. A website evaluation method for evaluating a website composed of one or more web pages,
Storing a website address to be investigated, a criterion composed of a plurality of evaluation items stratified by industry, and a test item for the evaluation items;
Temporarily registering an evaluation item in the criteria table;
Calculating the importance of the temporarily registered evaluation item and storing the calculation result;
Performing a test using the test item on the evaluation item of the surveyed industry, and storing the test result;
Based on the test results, the validity of the evaluation item is determined. If there is validity, the temporary registration is converted into the main registration for the evaluation item, and if there is no validity, immediately or after a certain period of time has passed. Deleting the evaluation item;
And executing a website evaluation using the registered evaluation items. A website evaluation method comprising: