JP2008117321A - Auction evaluation support system - Google Patents

Abstract

<P>PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED: To provide an auction evaluation support system high in fairness of evaluation. <P>SOLUTION: When an auction is terminated, evaluation request processing 114a transmits an evaluation request to user terminals 130 of an exhibitor and a successful bidder. Evaluation registration processing 114b stores evaluation input from the user terminals 130, in an evaluation information database 113a etc. When evaluations are input from both the exhibitor and successful bidder, evaluation public opening processing 114c sets these evaluations as open objects. Even if evaluation is input from only one side, the input evaluation is set as the open object as to a transaction whose evaluation term has expired. Evaluation display processing 114d displays the evaluations which are set as the open objects, on each Web page. At this time, icons different according to the number of evaluations are also displayed on the Web page. <P>COPYRIGHT: (C)2008,JPO&INPIT

Description

  The present invention relates to an evaluation support system that supports exhibitors and successful bidders to mutually evaluate transactions in an online auction.

2. Description of the Related Art Conventionally, in an auction system performed on the Internet, an evaluation support system is used to assist a user who is an exhibitor and a user who is a successful bidder evaluate each other after the end of a transaction (for example, non-patent) References 1, 2).
The auction is evaluated as follows, for example. First, when the auction is completed, the exhibitor and the successful bidder can access the server of the auction system from a terminal such as a personal computer or a mobile phone and enter the rating from the web page (evaluation page) etc. Enter a rating for. For example, the evaluation is selected and input from options such as “good”, “normal”, and “bad” prepared in advance. The entered evaluation is sent to the server and registered in the database.
The registered evaluation is made public by displaying it on the web page of the auction system. Thereby, the other party of a transaction and other users can see evaluation which a certain user received so far.
In addition to the above-described evaluation, there is also a system that can input a comment to the other party, for example. Comments are also made available to other users in the same way as evaluations.

  According to such an evaluation support system, the user has been the user who is the seller of the product he / she wants to bid, the user who is bidding on the product he / she has submitted, or the user who is the winning bidder. It is possible to confirm whether the person has made such a transaction. This increases the sense of security for the transaction. Also, as a result of trying to make a good deal so that each user can receive a “good” evaluation from the other party, it contributes to improving the quality of the auction.

However, in the conventional evaluation support system, since the input evaluation is immediately released, the following problem occurs.
For example, the evaluation once inputted may be changed when the evaluation given by the other party is not liked. That is, for example, as shown in FIG. 1 (a), in user A and user B (one is an exhibitor and the other is a successful bidder) who have made an auction transaction, first, user A says "good" to user B. However, since user B gave user A an evaluation of “normal”, user A changed the evaluation of user B from “good” to “normal”. Is the case.
In addition, there is a case where the user waits without evaluating until the partner gives an evaluation when he / she tries to evaluate the other party after seeing the evaluation given to the other party. For example, as shown in FIG. 1B, the user B waits until the user A gives an evaluation. The user A gives the user B an evaluation of “bad”, and the user B who sees the user B Even if the user A thinks “good” regarding the auction transaction, the evaluation is “bad” for retaliatory.
As described above, in the conventional evaluation support system, there is a case where an evaluation unrelated to the transaction itself is given. Also, the user may forget to enter an evaluation. Therefore, a fair evaluation is not always performed, and troubles between users are likely to occur.

  Also, in inputting a comment, for example, it is necessary to consider a sentence that does not offend the other party, and it is troublesome for a user who makes a large number of transactions. Also, it is often troublesome for a user who makes a transaction from a mobile phone to input such text. Even if it is not necessary to input a comment in the evaluation support system, the user tends to have a sense of duty to input a comment because of feelings such as being rude to the other party.

`` Rakuten flea market '' http://furima.rakuten.co.jp/ “Yahoo! Auction” http://auctions.yahoo.co.jp/jp/

  An object of the present invention is to provide an auction evaluation support system with high fairness of evaluation to solve the above-mentioned problems.

  In order to solve the above-mentioned problems, the present invention is an auction evaluation support system on a server that supports an evaluation performed by a user who is an exhibitor and a user who is a successful bidder in an auction transaction against each other. The server includes at least user storage means for storing the user's ID and email address, evaluation information storage means for storing the evaluation from the user for each transaction, and the auction. When the transaction is completed, the evaluation request means that enables access to the evaluation page from the seller and the successful bidder, and transmits a standard evaluation request mail to the email addresses of the seller and the successful bidder, When receiving the evaluation page after access from the user, the content of the evaluation page is used as the evaluation to store the evaluation information. And when the evaluation information storage means stores the evaluations of both the seller and the successful bidder, the evaluation information storage means makes the evaluations of both of them public, and the evaluation page from both An auction evaluation support system comprising: an evaluation disclosure means for disabling access to an access; and an evaluation display means for reading out the evaluation to be disclosed from the evaluation information storage means and displaying it on a web page.

The evaluation information storage means further stores, as an evaluation deadline, a time when a predetermined period from the evaluation request expires, and the evaluation publication means further designates an evaluation that has reached the evaluation deadline as a publication target. In addition, access to the evaluation page from both users may be disabled.
The evaluation page may further include an optional evaluation column for the user to input points that the other party is excellent.
Furthermore, it is possible to provide evaluation number information storage means for storing the number of evaluations received by each user so far, and the evaluation display means may also display the evaluation number on the web page.
Furthermore, it comprises an evaluation icon image storage means for storing an image file of different evaluation icons according to the evaluation number, and the evaluation display means further displays the evaluation icon corresponding to the evaluation number. May be a feature.
The user storage means further stores a user classification, the evaluation icon of the evaluation icon image storage means further differs depending on the user classification, and the evaluation display means includes the user classification. The evaluation icon corresponding to the above may be displayed.
The evaluation page may further include an evaluation comment field in which the user writes an evaluation comment for the other party and / or selects a standard sentence of the evaluation comment.
The evaluation requesting unit may further send an e-mail indicating that an evaluation should be performed to the user's terminal when the user has not yet evaluated at a predetermined time before the evaluation deadline. .

  Further, the present invention is an auction evaluation support method on a server that supports an evaluation performed by a user who is an exhibitor and a user who is a successful bidder in an auction transaction with respect to each other. , Storing the user's ID and e-mail address in the user storage means, storing the evaluation from the user in the evaluation information storage means for each transaction, and when the auction transaction ends, An evaluation requesting step for enabling access to an evaluation page from an exhibitor and a successful bidder, and transmitting a standard evaluation request mail to the e-mail addresses of the seller and the successful bidder, and the access after the access from the user When the evaluation page is received, the evaluation registration storage for storing the contents of the evaluation page as the evaluation in the evaluation information storage means. When the evaluations of both the seller and the successful bidder are stored in the evaluation information storage means, both of the evaluations are made public and access to the evaluation page from both of them is made public. An auction evaluation support method comprising: an evaluation release step for disabling and an evaluation display step for reading out the evaluation to be released from the evaluation information storage means and displaying it on a web page.

  A program for causing a computer to function each means of the above-described auction evaluation support system is also the present invention.

According to the auction evaluation support system of the present invention, the evaluation is not disclosed until the evaluation from both the user who is the exhibitor and the user who is the successful bidder is registered. Also, once published, the evaluation cannot be changed. Therefore, we cannot retaliately give bad ratings to the other party or wait until there is an evaluation from the other party. For this reason, honest and fair evaluation of transactions is conducted. In addition, troubles between users due to retaliatory evaluation can be prevented.
Further, according to the present invention, even if the evaluation of either the seller or the successful bidder is registered, the evaluation is made public when a predetermined evaluation deadline arrives. After the evaluation is released, those who have not entered the evaluation can no longer enter the evaluation, and those who have entered the evaluation cannot change the evaluation. Thereby, the input evaluation can be disclosed without exception.
In addition to comprehensive evaluation (for example, selection from good, normal, and bad), option evaluation (in the example shown in the present invention, for example, “shipping is fast”, “product is clean”, “packaging is polite”, “expected” 4 items of “I was happy outside (surprise)”. The winning bidder can select one item suitable for the seller and give an evaluation. By publishing the attached option evaluation, it is possible for other users to determine at a glance how the user is superior.
Also, in the release of evaluation, different evaluation icons are displayed according to the total evaluation and the number of option evaluations acquired by the user so far. If it does so, it will become easy to see the degree of evaluation, and the game nature for obtaining a high score will also increase.
For example, by providing a user category such as whether the user is an individual or a store, it is possible to easily cope with system expansion such as changing an evaluation method and an evaluation icon according to the user category.
Further, in the present invention, a standard sentence for an evaluation comment is prepared, and the user can input a comment by himself / herself, and can select from a standard sentence, thereby reducing the trouble of inputting a comment.
In addition, when the evaluation deadline is approaching, an e-mail or the like that prompts the user who has not input the evaluation yet to input the evaluation is transmitted. This improves the input rate of evaluation and prevents troubles between users due to forgetting to input the evaluation.

  Hereinafter, exemplary embodiments of the auction evaluation support system of the present invention will be described in detail with reference to the drawings.

<1. Overview of Auction Evaluation Support System of this Embodiment>
First, an outline of processing performed by the auction evaluation support system of the present embodiment will be described.
When the auction transaction performed in the auction system is completed, the present embodiment makes an evaluation request to the user who is the exhibitor of the transaction and the user who is the successful bidder.
FIG. 2 is a diagram showing a flow from the start of the auction to the evaluation request of the present embodiment in the auction system.
First, a product as an exhibitor is exhibited at auction company (2-1). Bids are placed during the auction period, and the product is awarded (2-2). The user who becomes the winning bidder deposits the price of the item (successful bid amount) to the seller (2-3), and the seller sends the item in exchange (2-4). When the item is delivered to the winning bidder, the auction transaction ends.
These (2-1) to (2-4) are the same as the conventional auction system. Here, the deposit (2-3) and the merchandise shipment (2-4) may not be configured so that the exhibitor and the successful bidder directly conduct the transaction. In this embodiment, for example, by using an escrow service or the like, the exhibitor and the successful bidder do not directly send and receive the price and the product.

In the present embodiment, when the auction is completed, access to an evaluation page from a user who is an exhibitor and a user who is a successful bidder is made possible. Then, an evaluation request is made to both the exhibitor and the successful bidder (2-5).
The request for evaluation is made by automatically sending a fixed-form e-mail to a user's personal computer or mobile phone terminal. For example, the evaluation request is displayed on a dedicated web page accessible only by the user. You may make a request.
The request for evaluation is made at the following timing, for example. That is, when the auction price and the sending / receiving of the product are performed by the escrow service as in this embodiment, the delivery company that delivers the product is notified to the auction company that the product has been delivered to the successful bidder. For this reason, when the successful bidder receives the product, the auction company can automatically make an evaluation request to the exhibitor / successful bidder. This method is merely an example, and an evaluation request may be made at another timing.

The user (exhibitor and successful bidder) who has received the evaluation request (2-5) logs in to the auction evaluation support system of the server from the user's terminal and accesses the evaluation page. And it inputs into each input column of an evaluation page, and transmits to a server. The evaluation page will be described in detail later.
The content of the evaluation page transmitted to the server is registered in the database as an evaluation from the input user to the user of the trading partner.
Here, in this embodiment, in addition to the comprehensive evaluation (selection from good / normal / bad) used in the conventional evaluation support system, in what way the user of the trading partner was an excellent user An “option evaluation” is provided to evaluate In the present embodiment, for the user who is an exhibitor, for example, four option evaluations are provided: “Shipment is early”, “Goods are clean”, “Package is polite”, “I was happy unexpectedly (surprise)”. When the winning bidder inputs the above-described comprehensive evaluation, the winning bidder can further select and input one optional evaluation suitable for the seller.
Note that the option evaluation shown here is merely an example, and it may be freely determined by the system. Moreover, it is good also as a system which can select and attach several option evaluation, and you may provide the option evaluation (for example, kindness of correspondence, quick contact, quick payment, etc.) with respect to a successful bidder. Further, the number of evaluation items is not limited to four.

FIG. 3 is a diagram showing an example of the flow of inputting / disclosing evaluation in the present embodiment. Here, as in FIG. 1, evaluation by user A and user B (one is an exhibitor and the other is a successful bidder) is illustrated.
In this embodiment, after the evaluations of both the exhibitor and the successful bidder are input, both evaluations are disclosed. That is, as shown in FIG. 3 (a), when one (user A in this case) inputs an evaluation first, the evaluation is not yet released, but after that, when the other (user B) inputs an evaluation, Both assessments will be published simultaneously. Thereafter, access to the evaluation page from the exhibitor / successful bidder is prohibited. That is, after the release, neither the user A nor the user B can change the evaluation.
Therefore, according to the present embodiment, it is not possible to change the evaluation after seeing the other party's evaluation, or not to evaluate until the other party's evaluation is seen, as in the prior art.

On the other hand, disclosure of all entered evaluations contributes to the fairness of the evaluation. However, according to the mechanism of this embodiment shown in FIG. 3A, even if one inputs an evaluation, the evaluation is not disclosed unless the other inputs an evaluation.
Therefore, in this embodiment, even when only one evaluation is input, the time when a predetermined period from the request for evaluation (for example, 14 days in this embodiment) expires is set as the evaluation deadline. When the evaluation deadline arrives, the evaluation is made public. That is, as shown in the example of FIG. 3B, when only the user A has input the evaluation, when the evaluation deadline is reached, only the evaluation input by the user A is made public. Thereafter, access to the evaluation page from the exhibitor / successful bidder is disabled as in the case where both sides input the evaluation. That is, after the evaluation is released, the user A cannot change the evaluation, and the user B cannot input the evaluation. Of course, if neither of the evaluations is input before the evaluation deadline, nothing is disclosed, and both cannot input the evaluation when the evaluation deadline comes.

<2. System configuration>
Next, an example of a system configuration for realizing the mechanism of the present embodiment described with reference to FIGS. 2 and 3 will be described with reference to the drawings.
FIG. 4 is a diagram showing a system configuration example of the auction evaluation support system of the present embodiment.
In FIG. 4, a server 110 is a server that provides a user with the auction evaluation support system of the present embodiment (that is, the server 110 is a server operated by the auction company in FIG. 2). The server 110 stores a database storing information necessary for the auction evaluation support system of the present embodiment and a program for necessary processing.
On the other hand, the user terminal 130 is a terminal such as a personal computer or a mobile phone used by the user. The user terminal 130 is connected to the server 110 through the network 120 such as the Internet and uses the auction evaluation support system of this embodiment. The browser 131 is browser software installed on the user terminal 130.

In the server 110, the user database 111a is a database that stores user information.
FIG. 5 is a diagram showing main items of the user database 111a. The items of the user database 111a shown in the figure are examples of items essential to the auction evaluation support system of the present embodiment, and other items may be provided depending on the system. The same applies to the subsequent databases.
In the user database 111a, the “user ID” is an ID unique to the user. The “password” is a password for the user to log in to the auction system and the auction evaluation support system of the present embodiment.
The “nickname” is a user nickname displayed on each web page of the auction system and the auction evaluation support system of the present embodiment. In addition, it is good also as a system which displays the above-mentioned user ID instead of a nickname.
“Mail address” is the user's mail address.

The “user category” is a category of users provided in consideration of various types of users such as individuals and companies participating in the auction as exhibitors. In the present embodiment, the user is classified into “shop”, “auction shop”, and “individual”, and the evaluation methods and the like are distinguished.
A shop is a user who has a contract with an auction company as a store (for example, a store that also opens a store in an Internet mall), and performs only listing. In an auction in which the shop is an exhibitor, no rating is given to the seller, and a “good” rating is automatically given to the winning bidder. An auction shop is a user who makes a large number (more than a predetermined number in the system) in an auction regardless of whether it is an individual or a company. Individuals are users other than those described above. These three sections are examples, and can be freely determined by the system. Moreover, it is good also as a system which does not provide a division to a user.
Each item of the user database 111a is the same as that used in the auction system.

In the present embodiment, on the web page where the evaluation is disclosed, an icon (hereinafter referred to as “evaluation icon”) that is different in stages according to the number of evaluations is displayed together with the number of evaluations that the user has received so far. .
FIG. 11 is a diagram showing an example of correspondence between the number of evaluations and evaluation icons for each user category.
As described above, since the shop does not receive an evaluation, an evaluation icon is not prepared. For auction shops and individuals, different evaluation icons are prepared according to the number of evaluations received so far.
As shown in FIG. 11, “trust mark” and “exhibitor level” are prepared as the evaluation icons. The “trust mark” is an evaluation icon displayed corresponding to the number of comprehensive evaluations (overall evaluation selected from good, normal, and bad). In the present embodiment, the difference between the “good” evaluation number and the “bad” evaluation number received so far is used as the total evaluation number. Here, the total number of evaluations is not the total number of people, but the latest evaluation is adopted when one user gives a plurality of evaluations. This is an example in the present embodiment, and other calculation methods may be used. “Exhibitor level” is an evaluation icon displayed corresponding to the number of evaluations received for each option evaluation.
In the present embodiment, different evaluation icons are prepared for the auction shop and the individual. Also, the correspondence between the range of evaluation numbers and the evaluation icons is different. That is, since the auction shop has a greater number of auction transactions than individuals, the number of evaluations necessary to raise the level of the evaluation icon is increased.
Thus, by displaying the evaluation number with the evaluation icon, it is possible to know at a glance the reliability of the user and the point at which the seller is good.

Returning to FIG. 4, the evaluation icon image file 112 is a storage area in which an image file of evaluation icons is stored. The evaluation icon database 111b is a database that stores file names, display conditions, and the like of evaluation icon images.
FIG. 6 is a diagram showing the main items of the evaluation icon database 111b. The “icon user category” is classified into three categories: shop, auction shop, and individual. This is because, as shown in FIG. 11 described above, the evaluation icon varies depending on the user category. “Icon type classification” is divided into five categories: comprehensive evaluation and four option evaluations (fast shipment, clean product, careful packing, and surprise). This is because, as shown in FIG. 11 described above, the evaluation icon varies depending on the icon type division.
The “evaluation level category” is the level shown in FIG. “Evaluation level range FROM” and “evaluation level range TO” are ranges of evaluation numbers corresponding to the levels. The “icon image file name” is the file name of the icon image stored in the evaluation icon image file 112.

Returning to FIG. 4, the evaluation comment template sentence database 111 c is a database that stores a standard sentence of an evaluation comment. In addition to inputting a sentence by himself / herself when inputting a comment, the user can select and input from a fixed sentence stored in the evaluation comment fixed sentence database 111c.
FIG. 7 is a diagram showing the main items of the evaluation comment fixed phrase database 111c.
The “exhibitor category” is the user category of the exhibitor. That is, in the present embodiment, different fixed phrases are prepared depending on whether the exhibitor is an auction shop or an individual. As described above, when the exhibitor is a shop, the seller cannot be evaluated, and the successful bidder is automatically given a “good” rating, and therefore no evaluation comment is input.
The “evaluation score category” is a category of comprehensive evaluation (good / normal / bad). That is, different fixed sentences can be prepared according to the evaluation.
“Evaluation comment number” is a serial number assigned to an evaluation comment in a certain exhibitor category + evaluation score category. The “evaluation comment” is the text of the standard sentence.

Returning to FIG. 4, the evaluation information database 113a is a database that stores information for each evaluation. That is, for one auction transaction, two pieces of evaluation information, i.e., evaluation from the seller to the winning bidder and evaluation from the winning bidder to the seller, are stored. The evaluation information is generated at the end of the auction (at the time of an evaluation request), and is updated when the user inputs an evaluation.
FIG. 8 is a diagram showing main items of the evaluation information database 113a. The “order number” is a number unique to an auction transaction. The “evaluator user ID” and the “evaluator user ID” are the user IDs of the user who is the evaluation subject and the user who is the evaluator, respectively. For example, in the case of evaluation information for evaluation from a successful bidder to an exhibitor, the evaluation subject is the seller and the evaluator is the successful bidder. The “evaluator nickname” and the “evaluator nickname” are nicknames of the user who is the evaluator and the user who is the evaluator.
“Exhibitor category” and “Exhibitor user ID” are the user category and user ID of the user who is an exhibitor. “Product name” is the product name of the auction product. “Transaction end date and time” is the date and time when the auction transaction ends. In the present embodiment, for example, the date and time when the auction company receives a notification from the delivery company that the product has been delivered to the successful bidder.
“Evaluation date and time” is the date and time when the user can input the evaluation (in this embodiment, 14 days from the evaluation request).
Information from the auction system is received and set in each item of the order number to the transaction end date and time. Further, the evaluation date and time is set to a date and time after a certain period from the evaluation request (14 days in the present embodiment).

The “latest comprehensive evaluation score category” is the latest comprehensive evaluation (either good, normal, or bad) assigned by the evaluator. In the present embodiment, the user who has input the evaluation first can change the evaluation until the evaluation is released. The “option evaluation category” is an option evaluation category (any one of fast delivery, clean product, careful packing, and surprise) assigned by the evaluator. “Evaluation date and time” is the date and time when the evaluator inputs the evaluation (registered in the evaluation information database 113a).
Each item of the latest comprehensive evaluation score category to evaluation date and time is set when an evaluation is input from the user.
Further, the “evaluation release date” is the date on which the evaluation is disclosed. In this embodiment, when the evaluation of both the exhibitor and the successful bidder is registered, or when only one of the evaluations is registered but the evaluation deadline has arrived, the date and time is set as the evaluation release date. The evaluation for which the evaluation release date and time is set becomes a publication target and is displayed on a web page or the like thereafter.

Returning to FIG. 4, the evaluation comment information database 113 b is a database that stores comments input by the user. In the present embodiment, a comment (hereinafter referred to as “evaluation comment”) can be input at the time of inputting an evaluation, and a reply (hereinafter referred to as “response comment”) can be made only once with respect to the evaluation comment to the user after the evaluation is disclosed. The number of comments is not limited to this.
FIG. 9 is a diagram showing main items of the evaluation comment information database 113b.
The “order number” and “evaluation target user ID” are the same as those in the evaluation information database 113a. The “comment category” is a category indicating whether this comment is an evaluation comment or a response comment. “Evaluation / response comment” is an input comment. "Evaluation / response comment input date" is the date when this comment was input.
In this embodiment, the evaluation comment information database 113b is separated from the above-described evaluation information database 113a. However, these may be managed by one database.

Returning to FIG. 4, the evaluation number information database 113 c is a database that stores, for each user, the number of evaluations that the user has received so far.
FIG. 10 is a diagram showing main items of the evaluation number information database 113c. “User ID” is the user ID of the user.
The “total evaluation number” is the difference between the “good” evaluation number received so far and the “bad” evaluation number as described above with reference to FIG. The “number of good seller evaluators”, “number of normal seller evaluators” and “number of bad seller evaluators” are the number of evaluations this user has received for an auction that is an exhibitor. Further, “the number of good successful bidder evaluators”, “the number of normal successful bidder evaluators” and “the number of bad successful bidder evaluators” are the number of evaluations this user has received for the auction which is the successful bidder. In addition, each number of these good exhibitor evaluator numbers to bad successful bidder evaluator numbers is not the total number of people as described in FIG. 11 described above, but when a single user gives a plurality of evaluations. Adopts the latest evaluation.
The total number of people with fast evaluation, the total number of products with good evaluation, the total number of people with careful evaluation with packing, and the total number of surprise evaluations with this user are “fast shipment” and “good product,” respectively. ”,“ Package is polite ”, and“ I was happy unexpectedly (surprise) ”.

Returning to FIG. 4, the evaluation request process 114a is a program for transmitting an evaluation request to the exhibitor and the successful bidder after the auction is completed.
The evaluation registration process 114b is a program for registering the evaluation and comments input by the user from the user terminal 130 in the evaluation information database 113a and the evaluation comment information database 113b.
The evaluation disclosure process 114c is performed when the evaluation of the users of both the exhibitor and the successful bidder is registered, or when only one of them inputs the evaluation but the evaluation deadline (14 days from the evaluation request in this embodiment) has arrived. In addition, the program updates the evaluation number in the evaluation number information database 113c and makes the evaluation information in the evaluation information database 113a public.
The evaluation display process 114d is a program that reads an evaluation to be disclosed from a database and displays it on a web page.
Hereinafter, each of these processes will be described in detail in order.

<3. Evaluation Request>
As described above, in this embodiment, when the auction is completed, first, the seller and the winning bidder can access the evaluation page, and the seller and the winning bidder make an evaluation request. The evaluation request is performed by the evaluation request process 114a.
FIG. 12 is a flowchart showing a procedure of processing performed at the end of the auction by the auction evaluation support system of the present embodiment. Note that the end of the auction indicates not the end of the auction holding period but the timing at which the transaction after the successful bid ends. First, when the fact that the auction has ended is received from the auction system (S1205), the server 110 activates the evaluation request process 114a and determines the user category of the auction exhibitor (S1210). As described above, in this embodiment, the user is classified into a shop, an auction shop, and an individual, and it can be determined by looking at the user classification of each user.
When the seller is not a shop (No in S1210), that is, when the user who is the seller and the user who is the winning bidder evaluate each other, the evaluation information of both the seller and the winning bidder is newly updated. It is generated and registered in the evaluation information database 113a (S1215).
As described above with reference to FIG. 8, the evaluation information is set from the order number to the transaction end date and time from the auction system, and the evaluation date and time is set to the date and time 14 days after the end of the auction (evaluation request). To do. On the other hand, since the user has not yet evaluated, nothing is set yet in the latest comprehensive evaluation score category, option evaluation category, evaluation date / time, and evaluation release date / time.
Next, access to the evaluation page from the exhibitor / successful bidder is made possible, and an evaluation request is transmitted to the user terminal 130 of both the exhibitor / successful bidder (S1220). In this embodiment, the evaluation request is made by sending an e-mail. For example, it may be displayed on a dedicated page that can be browsed only by the user himself / herself.
Thereafter, the exhibitor and the successful bidder can access the evaluation page and input the evaluation.

On the other hand, if the seller is a shop (Yes in S1210), the seller is not evaluated, and a “good” rating is automatically given to the winning bidder.
Therefore, the server 110 first activates the evaluation registration process 114b, generates evaluation information with the winning bidder as the evaluation target, and stores it in the evaluation information database 113a (S1225). That is, the evaluation registration process 114b sets the above-described values for the order number to the evaluation deadline date, sets “good” for the latest comprehensive evaluation score category, and sets the current date for the evaluation date. Since the evaluation subject is a successful bidder, nothing is set in the option evaluation category. The evaluation release date and time is set in the following step S1235. Since the evaluation is automatically input, the successful bidder cannot input the evaluation (access to the evaluation page).
Next, the server 110 activates the evaluation disclosure process 114c to make the evaluation public (S1230 to S1235). That is, the evaluation disclosure process 114c updates the evaluation number information database 113c and increments the “total evaluation number” and the “number of good successful bidder evaluators” of the winning bidder by 1 (S1230). As described above, since the evaluation is not a total number of people, if the winning bidder to be evaluated in step S1230 has already made a successful bid for the item that the seller has exhibited at least once in the auction, The “number of evaluations” and the “number of good successful bidder evaluators” do not increase and remain as they are.
Then, the evaluation information database 113a is updated, and the current date and time are set as the evaluation disclosure date and time (S1235). Thereafter, this evaluation will be made public.

<4. Registration and release of evaluation>
The process of registering the evaluation entered by the user in the database is performed by the evaluation registration process 114b. Also. The process for making the registered evaluation public is performed by the evaluation public process 114c. Hereinafter, the registration / publication of evaluation will be described in detail with reference to the drawings.

(4-1. Input of evaluation by user)
The user who has received the evaluation request accesses the evaluation page from the user terminal 130 and inputs an evaluation and an evaluation comment for the other party. In the present embodiment, the evaluation page includes an evaluation input page shown in FIG. 15, an evaluation comment selection page shown in FIG. 16, an evaluation input confirmation page shown in FIG. 17, and an evaluation input completion page shown in FIG. . The page configuration is not limited to this.
In addition, it is not possible to access an evaluation page of a transaction for which an evaluation request has not yet been transmitted (auction has not ended) or a transaction whose evaluation deadline has passed. That is, it is not possible to input or change an evaluation or an evaluation comment before the end of the auction and after the evaluation is disclosed.
FIG. 15 is a diagram illustrating an example of an evaluation input page. For example, the evaluation input page 1500 is obtained by selecting a corresponding auction from an unlisted listing end list page (list page of auctions that have been exhibited and completed) or a list page after a successful bid (list page of auctions that the user has successfully bid). Is displayed.
In the evaluation input page 1500, the same item of the evaluation information database 113a is read and displayed in the product name display column 1511 and the transaction end date / time display column 1512.
The comprehensive evaluation input field 1521 displays “good”, “normal”, and “bad” options. The user selects one of these.
If the user performing the evaluation here is a successful bidder, an option evaluation input field 1531 is displayed. In the option evaluation input field 1531, the options of “early shipment”, “good product”, “poor packing”, “unexpectedly happy (surprise)”, and “none” are displayed. The user selects one of these.
In addition, when preparing the option evaluation (for example, quick contact, quick payment, etc.) to the successful bidder in the system, an option evaluation input field 1531 is also displayed on the evaluation input page 1500 displayed to the seller.

The evaluation comment input selection field 1541 displays options of “no comment” (not input), “select from a fixed phrase”, and “enter by yourself” as a method of inputting an evaluation comment. When the user selects “no comment” and clicks the “next” button 1543, the screen transitions to an evaluation input confirmation page shown in FIG. 17 described later, and the input content can be confirmed. Also, when “input by yourself” is selected, an evaluation comment is input in the comment input field 1542 and the “next” button 1543 is clicked, the screen transitions to the evaluation input confirmation page shown in FIG. 17 and the input content is confirmed. be able to. Further, when “Select from standard text” is selected and a “Next” button 1543 is clicked, a transition is made to an evaluation comment selection page shown in FIG. 16 to be described later, and a standard text of an evaluation comment can be selected.
Returning to the evaluation input page 1500 shown in FIG. 15 and clicking on the “Exhibition End List” link 1581, a transition is made to an exhibition end list page (a list page of auctions that have been submitted and completed) (not shown). Further, when a “go to successful bid list” link 1582 is clicked, a transition is made to a post-successful bid list page (a list page of auctions for which a bid has been made) not shown.

FIG. 16 is a diagram illustrating an example of an evaluation comment selection page. In the evaluation comment selection page 1600, fixed phrases are read from the evaluation comment fixed phrase database 111c and displayed in a list in the fixed phrase list display column 1611. At this time, the seller category matches the user category of the seller of the auction, and the evaluation score category matches the overall rating entered in the overall rating input field 1521 of the rating input page 1500 in FIG. Read and display the sentence. Radio buttons etc. are displayed on the left side of each fixed phrase.
Here, when the “input by yourself” link 1681 is clicked, the screen returns to the evaluation input page 1500 in FIG. 15 and a comment can be input by himself. If “return” link 1682 is clicked on, it returns to evaluation input page 1500 in FIG.
On the other hand, when the user selects one fixed sentence in the fixed sentence list display field 1611 and clicks the “Confirm” button 1612, the screen transitions to an evaluation input confirmation page shown in FIG.

FIG. 17 is a diagram showing an example of the evaluation input confirmation page. In the evaluation input confirmation page 1700, the product name 1711 and the transaction end date 1712 are the same as those in the evaluation input page 1500 of FIG.
In the comprehensive evaluation display field 1721, the option evaluation display field 1722, and the evaluation comment display field 1723, the comprehensive evaluation, option evaluation, and evaluation comment input on the evaluation input page 1500 in FIG. 15 are displayed, respectively.
When the user confirms the displayed content and clicks a “register” button 1731, the input evaluation and evaluation comment are registered in each database. Specific database update will be described in detail in the next section (4-2. Registration / Publication of Evaluation).
When the database is updated, a transition is made to the evaluation input completion page informing that the evaluation registration is completed.
FIG. 18 is a diagram showing an example of the evaluation input completion page. On the evaluation input completion page 1800, when a “go to listing list” link 1882 is clicked, a transition is made to a listing page that is not shown (a listing page of auctions that have been submitted and completed). In addition, when a “to list after successful bid” link 1881 is clicked, a transition is made to a list page after successful bid (not shown) (a list page of auctions for which a bid has been made).
In the present embodiment, the user who has input the evaluation first can change the input evaluation until the other user inputs the evaluation (that is, the evaluation is made public). The evaluation is changed by, for example, displaying an evaluation input page 1500 (see FIG. 15) in which information already input is displayed in each column on the user terminal 130, and the user changing each column as necessary. .

(4-2. Registration and release of evaluation)
The evaluation page on which the user inputs the evaluation and the evaluation comment is transmitted to the server 110 and registered in each database of the server 110. Registered assessments and comments are published when both have entered assessments or when only one assessment has been entered but the assessment deadline has arrived. After the release, access to the evaluation page from both users is disabled. That is, the user cannot input or change the evaluation and the evaluation comment after the evaluation is disclosed.

FIG. 13 is a flowchart illustrating a procedure of processing performed when the auction evaluation support system according to the present embodiment inputs an evaluation.
First, the server 110 receives, from the user terminal 130, an evaluation page in which an evaluation (overall evaluation and option evaluation) is input (S1305). In the present embodiment, an evaluation comment can be arbitrarily input on the evaluation page (the user himself can input a sentence or select from a fixed sentence).
Upon receiving the evaluation page, the server 110 activates the evaluation registration process 114b and registers the content (evaluation) of the received evaluation page in the evaluation information database 113a (S1310). Specifically, the evaluation registration process 114b includes the received comprehensive evaluation (either good, normal, or bad) in the latest comprehensive evaluation score category and option evaluation category of the evaluation information generated above (S1215 in FIG. 12) and Register option evaluation (fast shipment, clean product, careful packing, or surprise). Also, the current date and time is registered as the evaluation date and time.
If an evaluation comment is also input, one evaluation comment is added to the evaluation comment information database 113b. At this time, the order number is the auction order number, the evaluation target user ID is the evaluation subject user ID, the comment category is the evaluation comment, and the evaluation comment is input to the evaluation / response comment. The current date / time is set as the evaluation / response comment input date / time.

Next, it is determined whether the evaluation of both the exhibitor and the successful bidder has been registered (whether this time is the second registration) (S1315). If both evaluations have not yet been registered (this is the first registration) (No in S1315), the process ends without doing anything.
On the other hand, if both evaluations are registered (Yes in S1315), the evaluation disclosure process 114c is activated to update both evaluation numbers (S1320) and the evaluations (S1325).
Specifically, first, the evaluation number information database 113c is updated to increase or decrease the overall evaluation number of the exhibitor (+1 if the overall evaluation is “good”, −1 if “bad”, “normal”. If there is no increase / decrease if there is, then the corresponding one of the number of good seller evaluators, number of normal seller evaluators, and number of bad seller evaluators is increased by one. Also, if option evaluation has been made, the corresponding number is increased by one among the total number of evaluations that are shipped quickly, the total number of products that are cleanly evaluated, the total number of packages that are carefully evaluated, and the total number of surprise evaluations. Further, the overall evaluation number of the winning bidder is increased or decreased (the method of increasing or decreasing is the same as that of the exhibitor). Thereby, both evaluation numbers are updated (S1320).
Next, the evaluation information database 113a is updated, and the current date and time are registered in the evaluation release date and time of both. Thereby, both evaluations can be disclosed (S1325).
After the evaluation is released, access to the evaluation page from both users is disabled and the evaluation cannot be updated (S1330). For example, even if the URL of the evaluation page is accessed, a page is displayed informing that the evaluation can no longer be input / changed because the evaluation has been made public. Note that access to the evaluation page may be disabled by other methods.

(4-3. When the evaluation deadline has arrived)
In this embodiment, even if only one of the sellers / successful bidders has entered the evaluation, if the evaluation deadline (14 days from the evaluation request in this embodiment) has arrived, the entered evaluation is disclosed. set to target. Thereby, the input evaluation can be disclosed without exception.
FIG. 14 is a flowchart showing a procedure of processing performed by the auction evaluation support system according to the present embodiment when the evaluation time limit has come. In practice, for example, this processing may be performed in a batch once a day, and the corresponding evaluation may be disclosed.
First, the evaluation information database 113a is searched for evaluations whose evaluation deadline has arrived, but have not yet been made public (specifically, the evaluation release date / time is not set) (S1405).
Next, the server 110 determines whether the evaluation of either the seller or the successful bidder is registered (S1410). If both evaluations are registered, the evaluation is made public by the process of FIG. If no evaluation is registered (No in S1410), the process ends without doing anything. Here, the evaluation information for which these evaluations are not registered may be deleted from the evaluation information database 113a. Also in this case, since the evaluation deadline has arrived, access to the evaluation page from both users is disabled.
On the other hand, if any evaluation is registered (Yes in S1410), the evaluation disclosure process 114c is activated to update the evaluation number of the user who has received the evaluation (S1415) and release the evaluation. (S1420) is performed. The specific method of updating the evaluation number and disclosing the evaluation is the same as S1320 to S1325 in FIG.
After the evaluation is released, access to the evaluation page from both users is disabled and the evaluation cannot be updated (S1425). That is, the user who has input the evaluation cannot change the evaluation as described above, and the user who has not input the evaluation cannot input the evaluation. Also in this case, for example, when accessing the URL of the evaluation page, it is possible to disable access to the evaluation page by displaying a page informing that the evaluation can no longer be input / changed because the evaluation deadline has passed. it can.

(4-4. Prompt user for input of evaluation)
Further, in the present embodiment, in order to prompt the user to input an evaluation, a notice that the evaluation should be input on a dedicated page that can be browsed only by the user until the user inputs the evaluation at the auction. And so on. For example, it may be displayed on the above-mentioned exhibition end list page (not shown), list page after successful bid, or the like.
Note that this notification means is an example, and other methods may be used for notification. For example, when the evaluation deadline is approaching (in this embodiment, for example, when 10 days have passed since the evaluation request), an e-mail that prompts the user to input an evaluation is sent to the user terminal 130 who has not yet input the evaluation You may make it do. Further, when the first person enters an evaluation, an e-mail may be sent to the other person. Further, when the first person puts an evaluation, it may be displayed on the other dedicated page. A plurality of these methods may be used in combination.

(4-5. Entering responses to evaluation comments)
In this embodiment, a reply comment can be input only once for an evaluation comment attached to the user. The system may be able to respond as many times as necessary, or may be a system that does not permit the reply.
FIG. 19 is a diagram showing an example of a response input page for inputting a response to the evaluation comment. In order to display the response input page 1900, for example, a “Reply” link 2329 is clicked on an evaluation list (reception) page shown in FIG.
In the response input page 1900, the product name display field 1911 and the transaction end date 1912 are the same as those in the evaluation input page 1500 in FIG.
The comprehensive evaluation display column 1921 shows the overall evaluation (good / normal / bad), the evaluator display column 1922 shows the evaluator's nickname, the evaluation date / time display column 1923 shows the evaluation date / time, and the evaluation information database. Read from 113a and display. In the evaluation comment display field 1924, the input evaluation comment is read from the evaluation comment information database 113b and displayed.
When the user inputs in the reply comment input field 1931 and clicks the “Register” button 1932, the screen shifts to a reply input confirmation page for confirming the input content.
When a “return to evaluation list” link 1981 is clicked, a transition is made to an evaluation list (receiving) page as shown in FIG.

FIG. 20 is a diagram showing an example of a reply input confirmation page. In the response input confirmation page 2000, the response comment display field 2011 displays the input response comment. When the user clicks a “register” button 2021, a reply comment is registered. Specifically, one item is added to the evaluation comment information database 113b. The order number is an auction order number, the evaluation subject user ID is an evaluation subject user ID, and the comment category is a reply comment. To this effect, the input response comment is set in the evaluation / response comment, and the current date / time is set in the evaluation / response comment input date / time.
When registration in the evaluation comment information database 113b is completed, the screen transitions to a response input completion page. On the other hand, when a “return” link 2081 is clicked, the screen returns to the response input page 1900 of FIG. 19 and the response comment can be corrected.
FIG. 21 is a diagram showing an example of a response input completion page. When a “to attached evaluation list” link 2181 is clicked on the reply input completion page 2100, a transition is made to an evaluation list (receiving) page shown in FIG.

<5. Display of evaluation>
As described above, the registered and published evaluation is displayed on each web page of the net auction thereafter. The process of reading each item of evaluation from the database and displaying it on the web page is performed by the evaluation display process 114d.
Thereby, the user can browse evaluations of other users (evaluations received by the other users and evaluations given by the other users). You can also browse your own evaluations (the evaluations you have received and the evaluations you have given).
Hereinafter, the release of the evaluation will be described with reference to a diagram showing an example of a web page. Here, a page when the user terminal is a mobile phone will be described as an example. When the user terminal is a personal computer, a lot of information can be easily displayed on one page, so the layout may be changed.

FIG. 22 is a diagram illustrating an example of a comprehensive evaluation (reception) page that comprehensively displays evaluations received by a certain user (user a). On the comprehensive evaluation (reception) page 2200, when the "evaluation attached to the trading partner by user a" link 2211 is clicked, a transition is made to the comprehensive evaluation (attachment) page of FIG. In the evaluation number display column 2221, the information of the user a (see FIG. 10) is read from the evaluation number information database 113c, the total evaluation number is displayed in the total evaluation column so far, and the good evaluation column ( The number of good seller evaluators + the number of good successful bidder evaluators is displayed, the (normal seller evaluators + normal successful bidder evaluators) is displayed in the normal evaluation column, and the bad evaluation column is ( The number of bad seller evaluators + bad number of successful bidder evaluators) is displayed.
The option evaluation icon display field 2222 reads the total number of evaluations from the evaluation number information database 113c for each of the option evaluations (in this embodiment, shipment is fast, the product is clean, the packaging is polite, and the surprise), and the corresponding evaluation is performed. An icon (see FIG. 11) is displayed. When the “view icon details” link 2223 is clicked, the total number of evaluations and the corresponding evaluation icons (trust mark in FIG. 11), the total number of option evaluations and the corresponding evaluation icons (exhibition in FIG. 11). Transition to a page (not shown) that displays the user level. In the evaluation history display field 2224, for example, a comprehensive evaluation that is tabulated for the past month, the past three months, and the past year is displayed.
When the “view evaluation list” link 2225 is clicked, the screen transitions to an evaluation list (receiving) page displaying a list of evaluations attached to the user a.

FIG. 23 is a diagram showing an example of the evaluation list (reception) page of the user a. In the evaluation list (reception) page 2300, evaluations can be narrowed down according to conditions and displayed in a list.
The display method selection list 2311 is a list for selecting items to be displayed in the list. For example, options such as “all”, “evaluation from successful bidder”, and “evaluation from exhibitor” are prepared in the list. FIG. 23 shows a display example when “all” is selected. For example, if “evaluation from the winning bidder” is selected, only the rating given by the winning bidder is displayed, and the rating given by the seller is Do not show.
The narrowing condition selection list 2312 is a list for selecting narrowing conditions. Options such as “all evaluations”, “good evaluations only”, and “bad evaluations only” are prepared in the list.
When conditions for evaluation to be browsed in these lists are selected and a “list search” button 2313 is clicked, evaluations matching the conditions are searched from the evaluation information database 113a and displayed in a list.
The number-of-items display field 2314 displays the number of evaluations and the number of pages that have been displayed as search results. Below that, the evaluations of the display objects are displayed in order, for example, from recently published ones.

The evaluation icon 2321 displays an icon indicating a comprehensive evaluation (good / normal / bad). The option evaluation icon 2322 displays an icon indicating which option evaluation has been made among fast shipment, clean product, careful packing, and surprise.
A comprehensive evaluation (good / normal / bad) is displayed in the comprehensive evaluation display field 2323. In the evaluator display field 2324, the nickname and comprehensive evaluation of the evaluator (here, user b) are displayed. The evaluator display field 2324 is a hyperlink, and when clicked, the comprehensive evaluation (reception) page 2200 of the user b is displayed. When the “evaluation list from this user” link 2325 is clicked, all the evaluations that the user a has received from the user b so far are displayed.
The product name display field 2326 displays the product name of the auction. In the evaluation comment display field 2327, an evaluation comment from the user b is displayed. In the reply comment display field 2328, reply comments made by the user a to the user b are displayed.
If no reply comment has been made yet, nothing is displayed in the reply comment display field. Here, when the person (user a) is browsing this page, a “reply” link 2329 may be displayed. When the “Reply” link 2329 is clicked, the screen changes to the response input page shown as an example in FIG.

The above-described evaluation icon 2321 to response comment display field 2328 (or “reply” link 2329) is displayed for all evaluations displayed in the list.
Also, the “view icon details” link 2315 is the same as the “view icon details” link 2223 shown in the overall evaluation (reception) page 2200 of FIG.
If a “to comprehensive evaluation” link 2381 is clicked, the display returns to the comprehensive evaluation (reception) page 2200 of FIG.

Returning to FIG. 22, when the “evaluation given by user“ a ”to a trading partner” link 2211 is clicked, a transition is made to a comprehensive evaluation (attachment) page that comprehensively displays evaluations given to other users by user “a”.
FIG. 24 is a diagram illustrating an example of the comprehensive evaluation (attachment) page of the user a. When the “evaluation attached to user a” link 2411 is clicked on the comprehensive evaluation (attachment) page 2400, a transition is made to the comprehensive evaluation (reception) page 2200 of FIG. 22.
In the evaluation number display field 2421, the number of comprehensive evaluations (good / normal / bad) that the user a has given to the other party is displayed. When the “view evaluation list” link 2422 is clicked, the screen transitions to an evaluation list (attachment) page that displays a list of evaluations that user a has assigned to other users.

FIG. 25 is a diagram showing an example of the evaluation list (attachment) page of the user a. The display method selection list 2511, the narrow-down condition selection list 2512, the “search list” button 2513, and the number display column 2514 on the comprehensive evaluation (attachment) page 2500 of the user “a” are the same as the evaluation list (receive) page 2300 in FIG. .
Below that, evaluations given to other users by the user a are displayed, for example, in the order in which they were recently released.
Each of the evaluation icon 2521 and the option evaluation icon 2522 displays an icon corresponding to the attached evaluation. In the comprehensive evaluation display field 2523, the comprehensive evaluation given to the user b by the user a is displayed. In the evaluation target person display field 2524, the nickname of the evaluation target person (here, user b) and the total evaluation number are displayed. The evaluation target person display column 2524 is a hyperlink, and when clicked, displays the comprehensive evaluation (reception) page 2200 of the user b.
When the “evaluation list for this user” link 2525 is clicked, the evaluations that the user a has given to the user b so far are displayed in a list.
The product name display field 2526, the evaluation comment display field 2527, and the response comment display field 2528 are the same as the evaluation list (receive) page 2300 in FIG.
If “to comprehensive evaluation” link 2581 is clicked, it returns to comprehensive evaluation (attachment) page 2400 in FIG.

  Thus, in this embodiment, a user can browse not only evaluations given by other users but also evaluations given to other users. Thereby, the user who performs a transaction can perform the transaction after knowing the characteristics of the user who gives the evaluation. In addition, since the evaluation and the number of evaluations are displayed as icons, it is possible to determine at a glance what kind of user (whether the overall evaluation is high, what kinds of optional evaluations are obtained, etc.) it can. As the number of evaluations increases, the icons change and stand out from other users, so the game is easy to level up.

It is the figure which showed the example of the flow of the input / release of evaluation in the conventional auction evaluation support system. It is the figure which showed the flow from the auction start in the auction system to the evaluation request of this embodiment. It is the figure which showed the example of the flow of input / publication of evaluation in this embodiment. It is the figure which showed the system configuration example of the auction evaluation assistance system of this embodiment. It is the figure which showed the main items of the user database. It is the figure which showed the main items of the evaluation icon database. It is the figure which showed the main items of the evaluation comment fixed phrase database. It is the figure which showed the main items of the evaluation information database. It is the figure which showed the main items of the evaluation comment information database. It is the figure which showed the main items of the evaluation number information database. It is the figure which showed the example of a response | compatibility of the number of evaluations and an evaluation icon for every user division. It is the flowchart which showed the procedure of the process performed at the end of an auction. It is the flowchart which showed the procedure of the process performed when a user inputs evaluation. It is the flowchart which showed the procedure of the process performed when an evaluation time limit comes. It is the figure which showed the example of the evaluation input page. It is the figure which showed the example of the evaluation comment selection page. It is the figure which showed the example of the evaluation input confirmation page. It is the figure which showed the example of the evaluation input completion page. It is the figure which showed the example of the reply input page. It is the figure which showed the example of the reply input confirmation page. It is the figure which showed the example of the reply input completion page. It is the figure which showed the example of the comprehensive evaluation (reception) page. It is the figure which showed the example of the evaluation list (reception) page. It is the figure which showed the example of the comprehensive evaluation (attachment) page. It is the figure which showed the example of the evaluation list (attachment) page.

Explanation of symbols

110 Server 111a User database 111b Evaluation icon database 111c Evaluation comment fixed phrase database 112 Evaluation icon image file 113a Evaluation information database 113b Evaluation comment information database 113c Evaluation number information database 114a Evaluation request processing 114b Evaluation registration processing 114c Evaluation disclosure processing 114d Evaluation Display Processing 120 Network 130 User Terminal 131 Browser 1500 Evaluation Input Page 1600 Evaluation Comment Selection Page 1700 Evaluation Input Confirmation Page 1800 Evaluation Input Completion Page 1900 Response Input Page 2000 Response Input Confirmation Page 2100 Response Input Completion Page 2200 Comprehensive Evaluation (Receiving) Page 2300 Evaluation List (Receiving) Page 2400 General Evaluation (Appending) Page 2500 Evaluation List Give) page

Claims (10)

An auction evaluation support system on a server that supports an evaluation performed by a user who is an exhibitor and a user who is a successful bidder in an auction transaction against each other,
The server includes
User storage means storing at least the user ID and email address;
Evaluation information storage means storing the evaluation from the user for each transaction;
Upon completion of the auction transaction, evaluation request means for enabling access to the evaluation page from the seller and the successful bidder and transmitting a standard evaluation request mail to the mail addresses of the seller and the successful bidder When,
When receiving the evaluation page after access from the user, evaluation registration means for storing the content of the evaluation page in the evaluation information storage means as the evaluation;
When the evaluations of both the seller and the successful bidder are stored in the evaluation information storage means, the evaluations of both of the evaluations are made public and the access to the evaluation page from both of them is disabled. Public means,
An auction evaluation support system comprising: an evaluation display unit that reads out the evaluation to be disclosed from the evaluation information storage unit and displays the evaluation on a web page. In the auction evaluation support system according to claim 1,
The evaluation information storage means further stores, as an evaluation deadline, a time when a predetermined period from the evaluation request expires,
The evaluation disclosure means further makes an evaluation whose evaluation deadline has been made public, and disables access to the evaluation page from both users. In the auction evaluation support system according to claim 1 or 2,
The evaluation page further includes an option evaluation column in which the user inputs points that the user is superior to. In the auction evaluation support system according to any one of claims 1 to 3,
Furthermore, it comprises evaluation number information storage means for storing the number of evaluations each user has received so far,
The auction evaluation support system, wherein the evaluation display means also displays the evaluation number on the web page. In the auction evaluation support system according to claim 4,
Furthermore, it comprises an evaluation icon image storage means for storing image files of different evaluation icons according to the number of evaluations,
The auction evaluation support system, wherein the evaluation display means further displays the evaluation icon corresponding to the evaluation number. The auction evaluation support system according to claim 5,
The user storage means further stores user classifications,
The evaluation icon of the evaluation icon image storage means is further different depending on the user category,
The auction evaluation support system, wherein the evaluation display means displays the evaluation icon corresponding to the user category. In the auction evaluation support system according to any one of claims 1 to 6,
The evaluation page further includes an evaluation comment field in which the user writes an evaluation comment for the other party and / or selects a standard sentence of the evaluation comment. In the auction evaluation support system according to any one of claims 2 to 7,
The evaluation requesting means further transmits an e-mail indicating that an evaluation should be made to the user's terminal when the user has not yet evaluated at a predetermined time before the evaluation deadline. Evaluation support system. An auction evaluation support method on a server that supports an evaluation performed by a user who is an exhibitor and a user who is a successful bidder in an auction transaction against each other,
The server includes
At least the user's ID and email address are stored in a user storage means;
For each transaction, the evaluation from the user is stored in evaluation information storage means,
Upon completion of the auction transaction, the evaluation request step for enabling access to the evaluation page from the seller and the successful bidder and transmitting a standard evaluation request mail to the mail addresses of the seller and the successful bidder When,
Upon receiving the evaluation page after access from the user, an evaluation registration step of storing the content of the evaluation page as the evaluation in the evaluation information storage unit;
When the evaluations of both the seller and the successful bidder are stored in the evaluation information storage means, the evaluations of both of the evaluations are made public and the access to the evaluation page from both of them is disabled. Publishing step;
An auction evaluation support method comprising: an evaluation display step of reading out the evaluation to be disclosed from the evaluation information storage means and displaying it on a web page.   A program for causing a computer to function each means of the auction evaluation support system according to claim 1.