US20140317126A1 - Determining measures of influence of users of a social network - Google Patents

Determining measures of influence of users of a social network Download PDF

Info

Publication number
US20140317126A1
US20140317126A1 US14/320,009 US201414320009A US2014317126A1 US 20140317126 A1 US20140317126 A1 US 20140317126A1 US 201414320009 A US201414320009 A US 201414320009A US 2014317126 A1 US2014317126 A1 US 2014317126A1
Authority
US
United States
Prior art keywords
influence
plurality
raters
endorsers
user
Prior art date
Legal status (The legal status is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the status listed.)
Abandoned
Application number
US14/320,009
Inventor
James Duncan Work
Allen Blue
Reid Hoffman
Current Assignee (The listed assignees may be inaccurate. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation or warranty as to the accuracy of the list.)
LinkedIn Corp
Original Assignee
LinkedIn Corp
Priority date (The priority date is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the date listed.)
Filing date
Publication date
Priority to US60704004P priority Critical
Priority to US62528704P priority
Priority to US11/219,035 priority patent/US8010460B2/en
Priority to US13/209,315 priority patent/US20120036127A1/en
Priority to US13/852,696 priority patent/US20130254192A1/en
Application filed by LinkedIn Corp filed Critical LinkedIn Corp
Priority to US14/320,009 priority patent/US20140317126A1/en
Assigned to LINKEDIN CORPORATION reassignment LINKEDIN CORPORATION ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS). Assignors: BLUE, ALLEN, HOFFMAN, REID, WORK, JAMES DUNCAN
Publication of US20140317126A1 publication Critical patent/US20140317126A1/en
Application status is Abandoned legal-status Critical

Links

Images

Classifications

    • G06F17/3089
    • GPHYSICS
    • G06COMPUTING; CALCULATING; COUNTING
    • G06FELECTRIC DIGITAL DATA PROCESSING
    • G06F16/00Information retrieval; Database structures therefor; File system structures therefor
    • G06F16/20Information retrieval; Database structures therefor; File system structures therefor of structured data, e.g. relational data
    • G06F16/24Querying
    • G06F16/245Query processing
    • G06F16/2457Query processing with adaptation to user needs
    • G06F16/24578Query processing with adaptation to user needs using ranking
    • GPHYSICS
    • G06COMPUTING; CALCULATING; COUNTING
    • G06FELECTRIC DIGITAL DATA PROCESSING
    • G06F16/00Information retrieval; Database structures therefor; File system structures therefor
    • G06F16/20Information retrieval; Database structures therefor; File system structures therefor of structured data, e.g. relational data
    • G06F16/23Updating
    • G06F16/2365Ensuring data consistency and integrity
    • GPHYSICS
    • G06COMPUTING; CALCULATING; COUNTING
    • G06FELECTRIC DIGITAL DATA PROCESSING
    • G06F16/00Information retrieval; Database structures therefor; File system structures therefor
    • G06F16/20Information retrieval; Database structures therefor; File system structures therefor of structured data, e.g. relational data
    • G06F16/24Querying
    • G06F16/248Presentation of query results
    • GPHYSICS
    • G06COMPUTING; CALCULATING; COUNTING
    • G06FELECTRIC DIGITAL DATA PROCESSING
    • G06F16/00Information retrieval; Database structures therefor; File system structures therefor
    • G06F16/90Details of database functions independent of the retrieved data types
    • G06F16/95Retrieval from the web
    • G06F16/951Indexing; Web crawling techniques
    • GPHYSICS
    • G06COMPUTING; CALCULATING; COUNTING
    • G06FELECTRIC DIGITAL DATA PROCESSING
    • G06F16/00Information retrieval; Database structures therefor; File system structures therefor
    • G06F16/90Details of database functions independent of the retrieved data types
    • G06F16/95Retrieval from the web
    • G06F16/953Querying, e.g. by the use of web search engines
    • G06F16/9535Search customisation based on user profiles and personalisation
    • GPHYSICS
    • G06COMPUTING; CALCULATING; COUNTING
    • G06FELECTRIC DIGITAL DATA PROCESSING
    • G06F16/00Information retrieval; Database structures therefor; File system structures therefor
    • G06F16/90Details of database functions independent of the retrieved data types
    • G06F16/95Retrieval from the web
    • G06F16/955Retrieval from the web using information identifiers, e.g. uniform resource locators [URL]
    • GPHYSICS
    • G06COMPUTING; CALCULATING; COUNTING
    • G06FELECTRIC DIGITAL DATA PROCESSING
    • G06F16/00Information retrieval; Database structures therefor; File system structures therefor
    • G06F16/90Details of database functions independent of the retrieved data types
    • G06F16/95Retrieval from the web
    • G06F16/958Organisation or management of web site content, e.g. publishing, maintaining pages or automatic linking
    • GPHYSICS
    • G06COMPUTING; CALCULATING; COUNTING
    • G06QDATA PROCESSING SYSTEMS OR METHODS, SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL, SUPERVISORY OR FORECASTING PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL, SUPERVISORY OR FORECASTING PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
    • G06Q10/00Administration; Management
    • GPHYSICS
    • G06COMPUTING; CALCULATING; COUNTING
    • G06QDATA PROCESSING SYSTEMS OR METHODS, SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL, SUPERVISORY OR FORECASTING PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL, SUPERVISORY OR FORECASTING PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
    • G06Q10/00Administration; Management
    • G06Q10/10Office automation, e.g. computer aided management of electronic mail or groupware; Time management, e.g. calendars, reminders, meetings or time accounting
    • G06Q10/105Human resources
    • G06Q10/1053Employment or hiring
    • GPHYSICS
    • G06COMPUTING; CALCULATING; COUNTING
    • G06QDATA PROCESSING SYSTEMS OR METHODS, SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL, SUPERVISORY OR FORECASTING PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL, SUPERVISORY OR FORECASTING PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
    • G06Q30/00Commerce, e.g. shopping or e-commerce
    • G06Q30/02Marketing, e.g. market research and analysis, surveying, promotions, advertising, buyer profiling, customer management or rewards; Price estimation or determination
    • G06Q30/0201Market data gathering, market analysis or market modelling
    • GPHYSICS
    • G06COMPUTING; CALCULATING; COUNTING
    • G06QDATA PROCESSING SYSTEMS OR METHODS, SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL, SUPERVISORY OR FORECASTING PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL, SUPERVISORY OR FORECASTING PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
    • G06Q50/00Systems or methods specially adapted for specific business sectors, e.g. utilities or tourism
    • G06Q50/01Social networking
    • HELECTRICITY
    • H04ELECTRIC COMMUNICATION TECHNIQUE
    • H04LTRANSMISSION OF DIGITAL INFORMATION, e.g. TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION
    • H04L51/00Arrangements for user-to-user messaging in packet-switching networks, e.g. e-mail or instant messages
    • H04L51/32Messaging within social networks
    • HELECTRICITY
    • H04ELECTRIC COMMUNICATION TECHNIQUE
    • H04LTRANSMISSION OF DIGITAL INFORMATION, e.g. TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION
    • H04L65/00Network arrangements or protocols for real-time communications
    • H04L65/40Services or applications
    • H04L65/403Arrangements for multiparty communication, e.g. conference
    • HELECTRICITY
    • H04ELECTRIC COMMUNICATION TECHNIQUE
    • H04LTRANSMISSION OF DIGITAL INFORMATION, e.g. TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION
    • H04L67/00Network-specific arrangements or communication protocols supporting networked applications
    • H04L67/22Tracking the activity of the user
    • HELECTRICITY
    • H04ELECTRIC COMMUNICATION TECHNIQUE
    • H04LTRANSMISSION OF DIGITAL INFORMATION, e.g. TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION
    • H04L67/00Network-specific arrangements or communication protocols supporting networked applications
    • H04L67/30Network-specific arrangements or communication protocols supporting networked applications involving profiles
    • H04L67/306User profiles

Abstract

A method and system for evaluating the reputation of a member of a social networking system is disclosed. Consistent with an embodiment of the invention, one or more attributes associated with a social networking profile of a member of a social network are analyzed. Based on the analysis, a ranking, rating or score is assigned to a particular category of reputation. When requested, the ranking, rating or score is displayed to a user of the social network.

Description

    CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS Benefit Claim
  • This application is a Continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/852,696 filed Mar. 28, 2013; which is a continuation of Ser. No. 13/209,315, filed Aug. 12, 2011; which is a continuation of Ser. No. 11/219,035 filed Sep. 1, 2005, now U.S. Pat. No. 8,010,460 issued Aug. 30, 2011; which claim the benefit of provisional 60/625,287 filed Nov. 4, 2004 and 60/607,040 filed Sep. 2, 2004, the entire contents of which is hereby incorporated by reference for all purposes as if fully set forth herein. The Applicant hereby rescinds any disclaimer of claim scope in the parent applications or the prosecution history thereof and advise the USPTO that the claims in this application may be broader than any claim in the parent applications.
  • FIELD OF THE INVENTION
  • The present invention relates generally to systems and methods for reputation evaluation of online users in a social networking scheme.
  • BACKGROUND
  • Oftentimes the most relied on sources of information concerning the reputation of a person, organization or service are the recommendations of friends, family, neighbors and/or colleagues. For example if one needed to find a local dentist, he/she might ask friends and neighbors in the area who their dentist is or if they had any suggestions. Referrals provided via these trusted sources would tend to be highly regarded, though not necessarily because they are correct, but rather because they come from people the inquirer knows and trusts. Likewise, when a vice president of a company is seeking a new marketing manager, she may ask colleagues, employees and friends if they can recommend someone who has the right qualifications for the position. Again any recommendations from these sources may tend to be more highly regarded than, say referrals from professional recruiters, because the vice president knows and trusts the sources of the referrals. Indeed, the inquirer could gage her level of trust depending on how well she knows the person making the referral. In some ways, the subject of the referral becomes imbibed with the same attributes as the person making the referral, at least in the mind of the inquirer. Of course, the referral may not come from the inquirer's immediate contacts but instead from contacts of those contacts. For example if the vice president's immediate contacts do not know anyone with the qualifications she is looking for, these contacts could then consult their trusted contacts for someone who may be a fit. This process could continue for several iterations involving multiple degrees of connections until ultimately a candidate is found for the marketing manager position. This network of friends and other known and trusted individuals, and their friends and contacts, is a social network.
  • More generally, social networks may be regarded as networks of people connected by trust, shared values, and/or a mutual need for cooperation. Social communities, cooperative business relationships, and professional associations are all examples of social networks. Social networking systems create social networks to find business partners, clients and people with shared interests and values. Such systems are also used to share knowledge, build and strengthen communities, build teams, and map and analyze complex organizational networks.
  • This concept has expanded to online communities where people share and use these contacts to find new friends, romantic interests, and business partners or employees. This provides an easier and more organized way to manage and develop one's social network. A person may receive an invitation from a friend or colleague to join an online community or decide to join independently. To join a user must set up an account which may include an account name and password and the user may be required to set up a personal profile which lists activities and interests and/or resume details such as past positions and experiences. The user can then add contacts to his or her network, those contacts can add their contacts and so forth and so an entire online social network is created. A user can then use his/her network to search for a new friend, romantic interest, business partner or employee. Most online social networks show the links for each potential target listed in a search so the user knows how far removed the target is. The target may be a first-degree contact meaning he/she is within the user's immediate friends and contacts, or he/she may be a second, third or further removed contact.
  • In addition, many of these online communities have some sort of reputation system where a user can either write a testimonial about a person in their network or rate that individual based on several characteristics. The purpose of a reputation system is to build confidence and trust in and between users in the online community. Reputation systems store reference information plus evaluations and endorsements in electronic databases to be associated with users' profiles and resumes. Searchers use these stored references and endorsements to enhance their ability to find others who not only appear to match their requirements, but who have also received positive endorsements.
  • Many existing reputation systems in online communities suffer from the drawback that most people do not truly know one another, other than in the context of the online community. That is, the users have limited prior experience with and personal knowledge of other people in their community. For example, many online retail stores have reputation systems which permit customers to comment on a particular product they have purchased and/or rate the service or product based on some predetermined criteria. This data is then aggregated and a score is displayed (sometimes along with individuals' comments) next to a particular product. The data so collected, aggregated and ultimately displayed is based on transactions that occur only in the online community environment and there is no personal connection or network between the customers beyond interest in the same product or service. Thus to develop a reputation system, such online communities depend on ratings of content, immediate online behavior and results of online transactions, which are then aggregated into a statistically objective collective reputation.
  • Online social networking systems create additional, unique opportunities for a reputation system that is much more robust and accessible. Existing systems allow members of the community to write a testimonial or endorsement of certain people in their network of contacts. For example a user, Jane, may know that one of her contacts, Bob, is looking for a job. Since Jane has previously worked with Bob and knows him to be an excellent market research analyst as well as a hard worker and easy to get along with, she might write an endorsement about Bob that would be included as part of Bob's online profile. When a potential employer is searching the online network and comes across Bob's online profile the employer can immediately see the reference in Bob's profile.
  • The problem for the potential employer then becomes how to ensure such an endorsement is valid, complete, and accurate. More generally, uses of online social networks need mechanisms to build confidence in their system. The online community usually provides the “degree of connection” so the searcher can see how far removed the target and the endorser(s) are from her primary contacts. Typically, however, as these associations get more and more remote, the searcher's confidence level wanes. The endorsement may be written by someone unknown to the searcher such as a friend, of a friend, of a friend. How does the searcher know that this “friend” writing the endorsement is a trusted source and so the target is indeed a qualified individual? With many online communities now attracting hundreds of thousands of users, a typical search may return large lists of potential targets that are quite far removed from the searcher's most trusted and reliable contacts and so this problem is rapidly becoming one of significant importance.
  • It is also true that people have a tendency to write only positive endorsements, so it is not clear if one is getting accurate and complete information from the references. Some social networks provide a verification report that is created through an automated process of reference checking by sending emails to sources to verify certain information on a particular person. However this may only be helpful for verifiable information such as resume details like employers, clients, schools, test scores, degrees, certifications, published reviews and articles, and organization membership. The question of how to get more information about a person (such as the person's work ethic and style) when trying to fill a particular employment position, how to contact references who can speak about a person, or how to obtain more information on references provided by the person is left unresolved.
  • It is important to create a community where users have confidence that the reputation system provides accurate and valid information. Presently available reputation systems for online social network communities are inadequate to provide the appropriate level of confidence and validity and to allow further communication with an endorser of a person. The present invention addresses these inadequacies.
  • BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
  • The present invention is illustrated by way of example, and not limitation, in the figures of the accompanying drawings in which like reference numerals refer to similar elements and in which:
  • FIG. 1 illustrates a network environment, consistent with an embodiment of the invention, including clients and servers;
  • FIG. 2 illustrates one embodiment of a software architecture for supporting methods of the present invention;
  • FIG. 3 illustrates an example of various reputation indicators for a category of reputation measuring the number of direct member connections a particular user has established in a social networking community;
  • FIG. 4 illustrates a search results display, including a variety of reputation indicators, for a user interface of a social networking community, according to an embodiment of the invention;
  • FIG. 5 illustrates an example user interface showing detailed information about various reputation indicators for a particular user according to one embodiment of the present invention.
  • DETAILED DESCRIPTION
  • Methods and systems for reputation evaluation of online users in a social networking scheme are described herein. Although discussed with reference to certain illustrated embodiments, upon review of this specification, those of ordinary skill in the art will recognize that the present scheme may find application in a variety of systems. Therefore, in the following description the illustrated embodiments should be regarded as exemplary only and should not be deemed limiting in scope.
  • In the following description, for purposes of explanation, numerous specific details are set forth in order to provide a thorough understanding of the present invention. It will be evident, however, to one skilled in the art that the present invention may be practiced without these specific details. In some instances, well-known structures and devices are shown in block diagram form, rather than in detail, in order to avoid obscuring the present invention. These embodiments are described in sufficient detail to enable those skilled in the art to practice the invention, and it is to be understood that other embodiments may be utilized and that logical, mechanical, electrical, and other changes may be made without departing from the scope of the present invention.
  • Some portions of the detailed descriptions that follow are presented in terms of algorithms and symbolic representations of operations on data bits within a computer memory. These algorithmic descriptions and representations are the means used by those skilled in the data processing arts to most effectively convey the substance of their work to others skilled in the art. An algorithm is here, and generally, conceived to be a self-consistent sequence of acts leading to a desired result. The acts are those requiring physical manipulations of physical quantities. Usually, though not necessarily, these quantities take the form of electrical or magnetic signals capable of being stored, transferred, combined, compared, and otherwise manipulated. It has proven convenient at times, principally for reasons of common usage, to refer to these signals as bits, values, elements, symbols, characters, terms, numbers, or the like.
  • It should be borne in mind, however, that all of these and similar terms are to be associated with the appropriate physical quantities and are merely convenient labels applied to these quantities. Unless specifically stated otherwise as apparent from the following discussion, it is appreciated that throughout the description, discussions utilizing terms such as “processing” or “computing” or “calculating” or “determining” or “displaying” or the like, refer to the action and processes of a computer system, or similar electronic computing device, that manipulates and transforms data represented as physical (electronic) quantities within the computer system's registers and memories into other data similarly represented as physical quantities within the computer system memories or registers or other such information storage, transmission or display devices.
  • The present invention can be implemented by an apparatus for performing the operations described herein. This apparatus may be specially constructed for the required purposes, or it may comprise a general-purpose computer, selectively activated or reconfigured by a computer program stored in the computer. Such a computer program may be stored in a computer readable storage medium, such as, but not limited to, any type of disk including floppy disks, optical disks, CD-ROMs, and magnetic-optical disks, read-only memories (ROMs), random access memories (RAMS), EPROMs, EEPROMs, magnetic or optical cards, or any type of media suitable for storing electronic instructions, and each coupled to a computer system bus.
  • The algorithms and displays presented herein are not inherently related to any particular computer or other apparatus. Various general-purpose systems may be used with programs in accordance with the teachings herein, or it may prove convenient to construct a more specialized apparatus to perform the required method. For example, any of the methods according to the present invention can be implemented in hard-wired circuitry, by programming a general-purpose processor or by any combination of hardware and software. One of skill in the art will immediately appreciate that the invention can be practiced with computer system configurations other than those described below, including hand-held devices, multiprocessor systems, microprocessor-based or programmable consumer electronics, DSP devices, network PCs, minicomputers, mainframe computers, and the like. The invention can also be practiced in distributed computing environments where tasks are performed by remote processing devices that are linked through a communications network. The required structure for a variety of these systems will appear from the description below.
  • The methods of the invention may be implemented using computer software. If written in a programming language conforming to a recognized standard, sequences of instructions designed to implement the methods can be compiled for execution on a variety of hardware platforms and for interface to a variety of operating systems. In addition, the present invention is not described with reference to any particular programming language. It will be appreciated that a variety of programming languages may be used to implement the teachings of the invention as described herein. Furthermore, it is common in the art to speak of software, in one form or another (e.g., program, procedure, application . . . ), as taking an action or causing a result. Such expressions are merely a shorthand way of saying that execution of the software by a computer causes the processor of the computer to perform an action or produce a result.
  • It is to be understood that various terms and techniques are used by those knowledgeable in the art to describe communications, protocols, applications, implementations, mechanisms, etc. One such technique is the description of an implementation of a technique in terms of an algorithm or mathematical expression. That is, while the technique may be, for example, implemented as executing code on a computer, the expression of that technique may be more aptly and succinctly conveyed and communicated as a formula, algorithm, or mathematical expression. Thus, one skilled in the art would recognize a block denoting A+B=C as an additive function whose implementation in hardware and/or software would take two inputs (A and B) and produce a summation output (C). Thus, the use of formula, algorithm, or mathematical expression as descriptions is to be understood as having a physical embodiment in at least hardware and/or software (such as a computer system in which the techniques of the present invention may be practiced as well as implemented as an embodiment).
  • A machine-readable medium is understood to include any mechanism for storing or transmitting information in a form readable by a machine (e.g., a computer). For example, a machine-readable medium includes read only memory (ROM); random access memory (RAM); magnetic disk storage media; optical storage media; flash memory devices; electrical, optical, acoustical or other form of propagated signals (e.g., carrier waves, infrared signals, digital signals, etc.); etc.
  • One embodiment of the present invention may be implemented as computer software incorporated as part of an online social networking system. The system operates with a computer system using a Windows, Macintosh, UNIX, Linux or other operating system equipped with a Web browser application, or other Web-enabled device capable of connecting to the Internet or other network system. It should be noted that the term “Internet” is intended to encompass similar systems and nomenclature (i.e., World Wide Web or “www”) comprising the capability to communicate and access information through a network, telephone connections, ISDN connections, DSL connections, cable modem, fiber optic network, etc. The present invention should not be limited in its communication nomenclature; the present invention is applicable to any system that is accessible by means of a Web browser, or other means of communicatively coupling one device or server to another.
  • System Operation and Architecture
  • To better understand this system, consider first the illustration shown in FIG. 1. In FIG. 1, a network 10 includes a number of clients 12 and servers. The servers may be divided among primary hosts 14 and central servers 16. Primary hosts 14 may serve a number of local clients 12 while central servers 16 may interconnect a number of primary hosts 14 and/or serve various remote clients 12. Although only a limited number of clients 12, primary hosts 14 and central servers 16 are shown in this diagram, it should be understood that any number or configuration of these computer-based components may be used in various embodiments of the present invention. Further, some or all of these components may exist on mobile platforms, such as handheld computer systems and the like, and in peer-to-peer platforms. The network 10 may be a portion of a much larger computer network or networks, such as a corporate enterprise network or even the Internet. The clients 12 and various servers 14, 16 may be combinations of hardware and/or software configured in accordance with the teachings presented herein and the use of any specific programming language(s) and/or hardware platform(s) is not critical to the present invention.
  • From the diagram, it should be clear that various intercommunications amongst network elements might take place. For example, communication between clients 12 and primary hosts 14 are quite common, as are communications between primary hosts 14 and central server 16. So too are communications between various primary hosts 14 contemplated, as are communications between central server 16 and clients 12. Indeed, even peer-to-peer communications between clients 12 are contemplated within various embodiments of the present invention. The types of communication links that support these communication paths are not critical to the present invention and may include both wired and wireless communication links, with appropriate communication protocols. Further, the specific routing protocols that are used to ensure delivery of the messages among these network elements are not critical to the present invention and any appropriate routing protocols (e.g., TCP/IP, AppleTalk, etc.) may be used.
  • FIG. 2 illustrates one embodiment of a software architecture for supporting the methods of the present invention. Such a system is described in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/852,336 titled “Method and Apparatus for Internet-Based Human Network Brokering,” incorporated herein by reference. As shown in FIG. 2, client 12 includes a client application program 18, which may make use of a conventional Web browser 20, as discussed above. The client application 18 includes a personal profile builder 22, a personal gatekeeper (or “access agent”) 24, and a personal search agent 26. The personal building agent 22 guides users in the process of building profiles which are most effective when related to their objectives. The personal access agent 24 allows users to protect the information in their profiles and their attention from inappropriate access, and makes their personal profiles connectable. The personal search agent 26 is a tool that guides a user in constructing a profile for a search target.
  • The client application 18 may reside in on-board storage 28 (e.g., main memory and/or a hard drive or other long-term or non-volatile storage device), and this storage unit may also be used for temporary storage of variables, etc. in the conventional fashion. The server-side software (which may reside in primary hosts 14 and/or central servers 16) includes a conventional Web server application 30 (e.g., to manage http requests and other conventional Web server functions) and an application server 32 (which, as indicated above, may be based on Java programming technology).
  • Application server 32 includes various elements, such as search agents 34, access agents 36, network broker agents 38, verification agents 40, and a reputation system 41. The search agents 34 and access agents 36 act similar to the personal search and access agents described above. The network broker 38 is a network agent that emulates the function of a human broker negotiating between users' personal search and access agents. The verification agent 40 is a network agent that by automated process, authenticates and verifies information users have recorded in their profiles. The reputation system 41, discussed in greater detail below, can be integrated in the social networking system as shown in this example or can be implemented as a plug-in as a separate system outside the social networking system.
  • Servers 14, 16 also include (and/or have access to) one or more databases 42 which communicate with the http server 30 and the application server 32 and provide storage facilities for these applications. The types of information stored in database 42 by the application server 32 may contain a secure, composite data structure that maintains information about all users of the system plus a record of prior searches and matches, which the network broker agent 38 can access to learn and reapply successful search strategies.
  • Many components of the present system may be embodied as Java applets or applications to maintain the richness of an object-oriented approach while using a conventional web browser and HTML (hypertext mark-up language) and XML (extensible markup language) as the delivery platform for the user interface. For compatibility with Java-based interface agents that might be delivered through the user interface, Java application server 32 should dynamically generate the HTML (“compiled HTML”). There should be a high capacity database on or accessible to the server 14, 16, and more limited “persistent store” capabilities on the client-side 12.
  • The present invention is not limited to the above-described software architecture. In an alternative embodiment, server 14 may be a Web server having a server-side database, and client-side Web browsers may interact with server 14 using conventional Internet communication protocols. When interacting via a Web browser in this fashion, typically nothing is stored on the client side. All persistent user instructions are instead stored on server 14. In addition, message servers (such as e-mail servers) may facilitate sending invitations, acceptances, and requests and other messages between individuals, and also facilitate sending messages or instructions between the server 14 and clients 12. Embedded links in e-mails can be used to direct users, in context, to a particular page on the website, or activate server-based programs. In addition, software for use on client machines may be downloaded by a user from the Web server 12 and installed on the user's machine. This software can interface with desktop applications (such as Microsoft Outlook and other address books and personal information managers) so that much of the functionality and data storage described above can be incorporated on a user's client machine and without being connected to the Internet.
  • Social Networking System Operation
  • To join a social networking system a user may complete a registration page and enter a valid email address as a unique identifier, plus a private password. The user then may set up her profile and enter her contacts. The profile describes the user's background, experience, current and prior interests, capabilities, positions and tiles, skills, values, projects, goals, etc. A similar profile is created describing the user's employing organizations. The user can add contacts to her network by entering contact and relationship information, and profile information for the contact, or a link to the contact's own profile on the system. The contact information may also be automatically uploaded or extracted from other sources such as an electronic address book, and authorized by the user for use in the system. A user may not want her address book integrated in the system. In this case a user's address book would be uploaded, but not integrated into the system and possibly hidden from others. The profile and contact information may be stored in either a central database or in distributed databases 42.
  • The user can then invite contacts to become mutually confirmed direct contacts. To do so, person A would enter person B's name and email plus an invitation message. A message would be sent to B. If B is not a member of the system, the message to B would additionally include instructions and a link to allow B to join the system. If A's invitation is accepted, both profiles would be updated to show that A and B are mutually confirmed connections.
  • Once a user joins the online social network, the user can search for people who meet various requirements. For example an employer searching for a potential employee may enter an appropriate search query and launch a search. One or more targets found as part of the search may subsequently be displayed to the searcher. Targets may be users of the system or non-users of the system who are found in address books of users. The connection path between the searcher and the target may also be displayed for each target. A connection path is a chain of connections between the searcher and the target and may extend from one to several degrees of separation. For example, a three-degree connection would be where the searcher knows C1 (Connector 1) who knows C2 who knows the target. The connection path to each target can be displayed in the search results or included as an option a user can select for more information regarding the target.
  • The search results may include summary information about each target matching the search and targets may be sorted by one or more factors. Some factors may include length of connection path, strength of connections, percent relevance of the match, etc. The searcher may also be provided the option to view a full or a partial profile of any target.
  • Contact with a target can be requested by any appropriate means. For example, the searcher may be prompted to write a message to the target describing the purpose of the request, plus a message to any intervening connections (e.g., C1) that connect the searcher to a connection chain leading to a target. The message(s) may be sent via e-mail or other communication means either via the connectors or directly to the target according to various preferences of the searcher, connectors and target.
  • For example, if the searcher has a three-degree connection to the target (searcher.fwdarw.C1.fwdarw.C2.fwdarw.target), the request message may go first to C1, the searcher's direct connection. If C1 approves the request, it is then sent on to C2. If C2 approves the request, it is then sent to the target. If the target or any connections along the chain rejects the request, a message may be sent to the searcher stating the request was denied. Otherwise a message is sent to the searcher that the target accepted the request and the target would then contact the searcher or vice versa.
  • Reputation System
  • It is important that reputation systems for online social network communities provide features to create an environment of trust, build confidence in users, ensure accurate and valid information, and allow further communication between references/endorsers and users in general. This invention creates this environment by providing information regarding a searcher's relationship with a reference and providing means to determine the reliability of the reference's opinions about a target. Specifically, the present system provides methods to request and create endorsements, get more information about an endorser, make contact with an endorser, create sealed/hidden endorsements, find and make contact with likely endorsers, and verify and validate endorsers; provides an endorsement interface; and further describes strategies for measuring influence and reputation to create a more accurate and thus more trusted reputation system in a social networking community.
  • Reputation system 41 (of FIG. 2) stores reference information along with actual evaluations and endorsements in electronic databases 42 to be associated with users' profiles and resumes. These stored references and endorsements may be used so as to enhance the ability of searchers to find targets who not only appear to match their search requirements, but who have also received positive endorsements by others.
  • Further, using reputation system 41 a user can request endorsements from, and offer endorsements to other users in the system. For example, using appropriate menus or other interface elements (e.g., assuming a user interacts with the social networking system via a Web browser), a user can choose to request an endorsement from another user or write an endorsement for another user in the system. A user writing an endorsement (an endorser) can endorse a particular user's capabilities and qualities in general or endorse a particular element of the endorsee's profile. In some cases, the endorsee may be given the option to accept or decline the endorsement. In such cases, and if the endorsement is accepted, the endorsee's profile will be updated to include the new endorsement. In other cases, endorsee's may not be permitted to accept or decline endorsements, however, in such cases mechanisms (such as independent review or other filtering) may be provided to avoid potentially libelous material from becoming associated with a user's profile.
  • Assuming a user has one or more endorsements associated with his/her profile, now when that profile is selected (e.g., by a searcher seeking a target of a new search), some or all of the endorsements added by endorsers may be viewable. Each endorsement so viewable may include the endorsement itself (e.g., in the form of a free text message, response to prompts, categorized score (e.g., for one or more criteria), or various combinations of the foregoing). In addition, the endorser's name, a link for viewing more information about the endorser (e.g., the profile of the endorser), information on how to make contact with the endorser, the relationship of the endorser to the target (e.g., the endorser may be a client or supervisor of the target), how long the endorser and target have known each other, and the relationship of the target to the searcher may also be provided.
  • Using the facilities of the social networking system, the searcher may make contact with the endorser. In some cases, this contact may be made by first contacting the endorsee and having her forward a request for contact directly to the endorser, or it may be based on other conditions specified by the endorser. For example, an endorser may specify that any searcher should always make direct contact with her to discuss the endorsee, or that only those searchers within a certain degree of connection to the endorser should make direct contact.
  • Thus far, the endorsements that have been discussed are “open endorsements”, meaning that the endorsee can view the endorsement (though he/she may not be able to accept/reject it). To increase user confidence in the objectivity and completeness of endorsements, an endorsee may also choose to accept sealed endorsements. Sealed endorsements cannot be rejected by the endorsee nor, in some cases, be viewed by the endorsee. The endorser is fully in control over what appears in the endorsement.
  • A user may choose to accept such sealed endorsements by, say, setting an option in his/her profile or preferences (e.g., an accept “sealed endorsements” data field set to TRUE). This setting may then be used to display a special symbol that alerts searchers viewing the user's profile that he/she accepts sealed endorsements, and/or act as an additional weight when computing endorsement reliability scores.
  • A special case of sealed endorsements involves endorsers that wish to restrict viewing of an endorsement to only selected users (typically, not including the endorsee). This can be done by setting restrictive limits on who can access the endorsement (e.g., limiting viewing thereof to only first degree connections of the endorser). To create this hidden endorsement a special endorsements page would be displayed that only the endorser can view and edit. This page may be associated with a contact record in the endorser's address book. The endorser can either write an endorsement to be “hidden” or she can simply indicate that she is knowledgeable about the target contact and is willing to talk to certain people who may be interested. The endorser would then set appropriate access control parameters to determine who can view the endorsement. Based on the criteria set by the endorser, the sealed endorsements or endorser contact information would be displayed or kept hidden.
  • To provide for comparative scoring capabilities (e.g., to allow readers some common ground with which to evaluate endorsements), a form of questionnaire may be provided to a prospective endorser, to be completed when she is creating an endorsement. The questionnaire may contain questions to help further clarify the nature and degree of the endorsement such as rating the strength of the endorsement on a numerical scale and similar ratings for particular attributes such as competence, skills, ability to work with others, management capabilities, etc. The questionnaire may restrict the endorser to using only pre-defined responses, such as rankings or other numerical responses in addition or in the alternative to the written endorsement. The pre-set responses can then be counted and/or aggregated with other endorsements to provide an aggregate endorsement score. A threshold number of hidden endorsements may be required before reporting an aggregate score that includes scores form the hidden endorsements to prevent a user from deducing which endorser may have given the endorsee a neutral or negative score. To expose a negative distortion intended to harm the endorsee, a flag can be set or a score questioned that is significantly out of line with others, especially if out of line with the aggregate score of all the other endorsements. An endorser could also have the option of choosing “No rating” in response to certain questions if the endorser does not have enough information to rate the user on a particular attribute or if the endorser does not want to say what she really thinks. This data may also be displayed to a searcher along with the above-mentioned endorsement information.
  • In addition to any endorsers included in the target's profile, a searcher may want to find other individuals to provide information about the target. This may be done using the facilities of the social networking system to locate contacts of the target or other likely endorsers. For example, searches for people who list the target as a direct connection, list the target in their address book, work or have worked in any of the organizations described in the target's profile during the same time that the target worked there, and/or are connection of connections to the target may all be performed. Any search results may be returned in ranked order according to any desired criteria.
  • For example, to sort the results so that the best results appear at the top, the first order of search may be by degrees of connection between the searcher and the likely endorser. Within the results for each degree of separation, the following sort order may be used:
  • 1. People who list the target as a direct connection AND worked in any of the listed organizations at the same time as the target.
  • 2. People who list the target in their address book AND worked in any of the listed organizations at the same time as the target.
  • 3. People who list the target either as a direct connection OR in their address book AND who worked in any of the listed organizations within the last five years.
  • 4. People who worked in any of the listed organizations in the last five years.
  • 5. People who have listed people in their address book who now work in any of the listed organizations.
  • These results may be displayed to the searcher, who can then seek more information about the likely endorsers and make contact using any of the above-described means.
  • Several other methods may be used to verify or measure a target's reputation, which methods may also be used to verify or measure the reputations of endorsers of a target. Some of these methods involve reporting objective information that can be readily validated by an external trusted third party, including: academic degrees, test scores and certifications, honors, awards, published reviews and articles, memberships in organizations with verifiable membership and verification of resume details by employers, clients, schools, certification bodies, and background-checking agencies.
  • Other methods to verify or measure a target or endorser's reputation involve the use of social network analysis. One such method involves an analysis to measure what is referred to as the Network Measure of Influence. This measure is based on the proposition that people who are influential tend to have influential networks, and vice versa. These measures of collective influence of a user's networks may thus be good indicators of the user's influence and can also be used to measure the influence of other users who endorse the user. Two scores may be calculated: a collective influence of the user's endorsers, and a collective influence of the user's mutually-confirmed connections. Each of these scores may be based recursively on similar scores for each of the endorsers or mutual connections that make up the collective score. That is, they will take into account influence of people several degrees deeper than the profiled user's direct contacts. Influence scores may make use of known algorithms for measuring status, prestige, and influence within a social network, plus additional algorithms derived from analysis of user data from the social network system (see, e.g., the computations described below). Scores may include weighting to adjust for various factors, including: level of seniority (e.g., derived from current and recent titles, organization size and other measures of organizational prestige, and length of time spent in recent levels of seniority); independence (including role and cluster independence); relationships to a searcher (including roles, and degrees and strengths of connections); and endorsements and influence of endorsers. As above, each of these scores may be based recursively on similar scores for each of the endorsers or mutual connections that make up the collective score. Minimum criteria for displaying each score may include: having a minimum level of information required to derive a statistically valid score, having a minimum level of information required to protect user anonymity, and a profiled user's preference for showing or not showing the score.
  • Another method may involve measuring what is referred to as a person's Network Authentication Score. This score authenticates (to some degree) that the user is a real person and that the profiled user's mutual connections consist of similarly authenticated people. This score is derived by comparing analyses of the user's network to authentication standards derived from the entire network. Authentication standards are derived from assessments of the probability that a user's network could contain fraudulent nodes (people).
  • In another embodiment, yet another method may involve measuring what is referred to as a measure of Network Independence. Analysis of a person's network, and especially analysis of the networks of a person's endorsers can be used to reveal a degree of potential bias or lack of bias. For example, if a majority of a user's endorsers tend to know each other and especially if they also tend to endorse each other, then the potential for bias would be greater than if a user has a number of endorsers in unconnected isolates or groups, and if the profiled user does not reciprocally endorse a large percent of those who endorse him/her.
  • Furthermore, methods of analysis may measure what is referred to as Network Diversity Profiles and Metrics. A score for network diversity is not directly related to reputation; however, it may be included as a tool to evaluate a profiled user based on analysis of the user's network. Measures of network diversity may also be used as a component for authenticating a person's networks. This proposition assumes that highly diverse networks are harder to forge (and thus more likely to be real) than less diverse networks given a norm for an entire network. A single metric of network diversity may thus be computed for each profiled user and comparisons of a profiled user's network diversity to an appropriate norm derived from the entire network may be presented. An example of an algorithm for deriving normative diversity metrics is as follows:
  • For each user in the network, construct a network diversity profile by first counting the number of and percentage of contacts in a particular category of network diversity. Categories may include particular industries, professions, locations, interests and skills groups, and other relevant demographics.
  • Parse the total counts for each category into counts for each degree of relationship to the profiled user. That is, what number and percentage of contacts in each category are in the user's direct contacts, 2nd degree contacts, etc.
  • Uncover clusters of users with similar network diversity profiles using statistical modeling techniques.
  • Use similar techniques to construct normative network diversity profiles for various combinations of industry, profession, and location, and to also construct a normative network diversity profile for the entire network.
  • The network diversity profile for a particular individual will then be compared to appropriate normative diversity profiles and given a score based on the results of that comparison.
  • Still other methods involve use of objective measures derived from the target's activity within the social networking system include measures that give indications of the target's popularity and influence among other members of the social network. For example, people who are frequently invited to connect by others are typically considered to have high influence, especially if invited to connect by others who have high influence. Likewise, people whose invitations are more frequently accepted by others are considered to have high influence, again especially if those accepting also have high influence. In one embodiment, these measures may include:
  • Total requests for contact received by the target and percentage of those requests accepted by the target.
  • Total requests sent by the target and percentage of those requests that are accepted by the recipients.
  • Total requests to forward requests for contact received by target and the percentage of those requests that the target forwards.
  • Total requests forwarded by the user, and the percentage that are forwarded by the next person in chain.
  • The number of invitations received by the target and the percentage accepted.
  • The number of invitations sent by the target and the percentage accepted by the recipient.
  • Further, these measures can be used to more accurately measure a reputation of a user by giving higher weight to endorsements from people with high influence. Some assumptions for measuring influence are:
  • People with a large number of mutually confirmed connections tend to be influential and well connected.
  • People who receive large numbers of invitations tend to be more influential than people who receive few invitations.
  • People who receive more invitations than they send tend to be more influential than people who send more invitations than they receive.
  • People whose total invitations received and accepted are larger than the number of invitations sent and accepted tend to be more influential. (By not counting invitations that are not accepted by either party, this metric removes variances in invitation acceptance rates that are not related to levels of influence and popularity, for example influential people who automatically invite their entire contact list without filtering it for relationship strength.)
  • People with larger number of invitations accepted are more popular than those with lower numbers.
  • People whose invitation acceptance rate is closer to 1 (determined by a ratio of total invitations sent by target and accepted by recipients/total invitations sent by target (ISA/IS)) tend to be more influential than people with a smaller acceptance rate.
  • There are several likely exceptions to the basic assumptions listed above. These include:
  • People who are not active in the social network will have very few connections in the system. This has no reliable relation to their connectedness and influence in the “real world”.
  • Social networking “evangelists” may send as many or more invitations as they receive. They can be detected because they have both a high number of contacts and high acceptance rates.
  • Members who automatically invite their entire address book may have a high number of connections but will have lower than average acceptance rates and low average strength of connections. When members accept the invitations of people they do not know well, acceptance rates go up. However, this kind of acceptance is not a good measure of influence in the “real world”. When strength of connections is not readily measurable in the on-line community, this can be very hard to detect.
  • Highly influential and popular people who automatically invite their entire address books will have low acceptance rates, and low average strength of connections, but will also have a large number of strong connections. Thus their invitation acceptance rates will be higher than the majority of “invitation spammers” who are not influential.
  • Invitations sent to people who are currently not members of the social networking system will usually have lower acceptance rates than invitations sent to people who are already members, thus this factor must also be taken into account.
  • Using these assumptions and exceptions, various means can be used to derive measures of influence from a user's social networking activity. In one embodiment, people with “high” influence may be determined using (i) a ratio of total invitations received and accepted by target to total invitations sent by target and accepted by recipients (IRA/ISA), and (ii) a ratio of ISA/total invitation sent by target (ISA/IS). Where both of these measures are in some specified upper percentile (e.g., 20%) of the total user population, the associated user will be deemed to have high influence within the community. People with still higher scores (e.g., the top 20% of top 20%) will be considered to have “very high” influence. People who qualify as having “very high” influence based on only one of the two scores and who do not qualify at all based on the other score, will be considered to have “high” influence. These scores may be further refined by recursively examining the subject users to determine whether or not they maintain a minimum number of connections with other influential people.
  • To adjust for the first exception discussed above (i.e., users that are not particularly active in the on-line community), scores may not be calculated or reported for users with a number of mutual connections that is below a minimum threshold (e.g., 50 connections). Likewise, scores may only be reported for users with either “High” or “Very High” influence. Users will be alerted that while a high influence score is a good indication of influence, absence of an influence score does NOT indicate lack of influence.
  • To adjust for the second exception, influential social networking evangelists will be identified by looking for users with a minimum threshold of invitations sent (e.g., 100) plus a minimum threshold of invitations sent that are accepted by recipients (e.g., 60%) AND/OR a minimum threshold of invitations received and a minimum value for the ratio of IRA/ISA (e.g., 0.8). Any person with this indication may be measured for influence based solely on ISA/IS.
  • To adjust for the third and forth exceptions, people who send very large numbers of invitations (“big inviters”) will be identified as users who exceed a threshold for invitations sent (e.g., 300). These people may be measured for influence based on a lower minimum ISA/IS score than people who invite fewer than the big inviter threshold. They will be considered to be influential if their invitation acceptance rate is in a significantly high percentile for other “big inviters”.
  • To adjust for the fifth exception, invitations accepted by people who are not currently members of the social networking system will be weighted more highly than invitations sent to those who are already members. For example, such weighting may be based on a comparison of average acceptance rates for all invitations sent through the system to members vs. to non-members.
  • As will be described in greater detail below, these measures can be further refined in several ways. One example is collecting data on various measures related to invitation acceptance, such as total mutual connections, IS, ISA, total invitations received, IRA, date registered, date of first invitation, average invitations batch size, title, company size, country, state, and industry. Another is to include a large sample of invitation spammers and add a new variable to indicate whether a member is an invitation spammer. Spammers can be identified based on measures such as very large numbers of invitations sent, low acceptance rates, little evidence of influence based on title, company size, and name recognition. A better test is to use strength of connections to identify spammers by looking for a large percentage of invitations sent to people with low connection strength. This test will also allow adjustment of abnormally low or high scores of invitation spammers, and others, by discounting invitations sent to people with little or no relationship strength. To do this, a large sample of members who have uploaded analysis of email transactions and contact lists may be used. Then a minimum test of closeness of the relationship based on frequency and reciprocity of emails to a specific contact may be made. Measures of strength of relationship to invitation acceptance rates given various total number of invitations sent may then be correlated and used to more precisely adjust the scores. Invitations sent to people that the sender does not know well may and perhaps should be ignored. Another possible indicator of weak connections is acceptance of a high percent of invitations received by people who send a high number of invitations.
  • A further refinement of the above technique is to include another large sample of people who are categorized based on apparent degree of influence, for example: very high, high, moderate, and low. Heuristics may be used based on name recognition, title and organization size to categorize people into these different groups.
  • Still another refinement involves the use of muti-variant analysis to determine correlations between the level of influence and indications of invitation spamming to various factors and test measures of influence, and/or derive best measures of influence. Similarly, measures of influence can be determined by request and forwarding activity. Assumptions here are that people are more influential if their requests are forwarded by their first degree contacts, their requests reach the target, their requests are accepted by the target, requests they forward are forwarded by their contacts, requests that they forward reach the target, requests that they forward are accepted by the target, and the percentage of times a user is chosen to forward a request when the user is one of several of the sender's direct contacts that the sender can choose to ask to forward the request.
  • An endorsement interface may be used to display some or all of the various measures described above. Various views of the information may be so provided; among them a short summary form, which may include the number of endorsements, the number of sealed endorsements, the aggregate endorsement score, and the aggregate influence score. An option may be provided to allow a user to obtain further detail regarding some or all of these metrics, which detail can include some or all of the data and measures described above (such as reputation indicators related to a target's networks and/or reputation indicators related to a target's social networking activity). For example, a list with a comparison of all endorsers for a target may be displayed. This can include the strength of the endorsement, the relationship of the endorser to the target, the relationship of the endorser to the searcher, an apparent reliability score, a quick link to the endorsement, a quick contact link, an indication of whether or not there is a role or relationship between the endorser and the target that is related to the searcher's purpose, the degrees of connection between the endorser and the searcher, an indication of whether or not there is an apparent independence of the endorser from the endorsed, apparent independence of the endorser from other endorsers, and the endorsement reputation score for the endorser. The user may be permitted to customize these views to remove items she is not interested in.
  • Information about the endorser can also be customized to the searcher. The concept of “reputation” is often understood to be relative to the person who is interested in the reputation (i.e., here the searcher). For this reason an interface may be included that presents information about endorsers and endorsements that are especially relevant to the searcher. In one embodiment, the reputation system 41 may compare the relationship of the endorser to the endorsee to the relationship most likely intended between the searcher and endorsee and highlight or present those endorsers where the match is most relevant. In addition (or as an alternative), the reputation system 41 may highlight endorsers that are especially close to the searcher based on degrees and/or strength of connections, and/or other affinities (e.g., having membership in the same trusted group).
  • In some or all of the above-described embodiments, aggregate, rather than raw, endorsement or reputation scores may be used/provided. Many forms of such aggregation are possible, among them:
  • An average of all endorsements,
  • An average of sealed endorsements (which may be reported if a sufficient number of sealed endorsements exist),
  • An aggregate weighted score for independence (e.g., including role and cluster independence),
  • An aggregate weighted score for relationships to the searcher (e.g., including role and degrees/strengths of connections), and
  • An aggregate weighted score for endorsements of endorsers.
  • Reputation Indicators in a Social Networking Scheme
  • According to one embodiment of the invention, various reputation indicators are generated to reflect different categories and levels of reputation for an individual user of the social networking community. For example, according to one embodiment of the invention, a reputation indicator may include a graphic image, or icon, to communicate a type, or category, of reputation. In addition, the graphic image representing the particular category of reputation may vary to indicate the overall level, or measure, of reputation for a particular user with respect to that particular category of reputation.
  • In one embodiment, for each user of the social networking community, an underlying aggregate score is computed for each reputation category. A user's aggregate score for a particular category of reputation is then used to determine what variation of a particular reputation indicator should be displayed for that user. For example, a user's aggregate score for a particular category of reputation may be compared to a range of scores. Depending upon the range in which the user's aggregate score falls, a particular reputation indicator will be displayed to indicate the reputation category, as well as the range in which the user's aggregate score falls. Accordingly, in one embodiment of the invention, a user may search to find other members of the social networking community having an aggregate score for a particular category of reputation that is within the same range as the user's aggregate score.
  • In one embodiment of the invention, for one or more categories of reputation, a threshold value is established. Accordingly, the threshold value may be utilized to determine whether a particular reputation indicator for a particular reputation category should be displayed. For example, in one embodiment of the invention, if a user's aggregate score for a particular category of reputation does not exceed the threshold value, then no reputation indicator for that particular category of reputation is displayed.
  • In one embodiment of the invention, additional information may be displayed along with a particular reputation indicator. For example, when an aggregate score for a particular category of reputation is useful in communicating a precise measure, then the aggregate score, indicated by a number, may be included with the display of the reputation indicator. Furthermore, additional information for a particular reputation indicator may be communicated via one or more associated links displayed with the reputation indicator. For example, an interactive link (e.g., a hypertext link, or hyperlink) may be displayed along with a reputation indicator. Alternatively, in one embodiment, the graphic or icon that is the reputation indicator may itself be a hyperlink. In either case, when selected, the hyperlink may lead to the display of additional information, such as details regarding the meaning of the reputation indicator, or what factors (e.g., metrics) are used to calculate the aggregate score for the reputation indicator.
  • FIG. 3 illustrates an example of various reputation indicators 50 for a category of reputation measuring the number of direct member connections a particular user has established in a social networking community. For example, in one embodiment of the invention, a category of reputation may be based on the number of member connections an individual user of the community has established with other members. A direct connection may be established in one of a variety of ways. For example, a member of the social networking community may send an email inviting a friend to register with the social networking community. By accepting the invitation and registering with the online social networking community, the member's friend establishes a direct between the two. Accordingly, a reputation indicator for member connections will reflect that the user has a direct connection with the friend.
  • As illustrated in FIG. 3, in one embodiment of the invention, the reputation indicators for member connections appear as circular icons. In each circle, a central dot is shown with one or more spokes connecting the central dot to a smaller dot. Accordingly, each smaller dot may represent a member to which the user has established a direct connection. Moreover, in one embodiment of the invention, when an icon for member connections is displayed, it is displayed along with the label (e.g., “1 CONNECTION”) shown in FIG. 3. Alternatively, in one embodiment, the icon representing the reputation indicator for member connections is displayed without a label. In one embodiment, the icon may be a hyperlink directed to an Internet document (e.g., web page), including further information about that particular user's direct connections, including the user's actual aggregate score (e.g., number of connections) for the reputation category for member connections.
  • In one embodiment of the invention, the reputation indicator for member connections indicates an exact number of direct connections that a particular member has established. For example, in FIG. 3, the reputation indicators with reference number 52 are pictorially accurate in the sense that each spoke represents a direct member connection. Accordingly, for a particular user with an aggregate score of five for the reputation category for member connections, the corresponding reputation indicator will display five spokes.
  • Alternatively, the reputation indicator may indicate a range. For example, in FIG. 3, the reputation indicators with reference number 54 may be utilized to indicate a range in which a user's aggregate score for member connections falls. For example, if a user has established twelve direct connections with other members of the social networking community, the first icon with the label “7-15 CONNECTIONS” may be displayed to communicate that the user has established a number of connections within that particular range. The icon 54 labeled with “500+CONNECTIONS” may be displayed when a particular user's aggregate score for member connections exceeds a threshold value of five hundred.
  • It will be appreciated that the particular icons illustrated in FIG. 3 have been provided as examples and are in no way meant to limit the present invention. In different embodiments of the invention, a wide variety of graphics, symbols, text, and/or icons having one or more of the qualities and/or characteristics described herein may be used as reputation indicators for the reputation category for member connections.
  • In one embodiment of the invention, reputation indicators are used to communicate various qualities or attributes associated with a particular member of the social networking community. For example, as described above, a reputation indicator for member connections may be used to communicate the number of direct connections a member of the community has established with other members of the community. Accordingly, a member of the social networking community may perform a search, based on one or more reputation indicators, to identify other members with particular qualities or attributes. In this context, and for purposes of describing aspects of the invention, a user searching may be referred to as a viewer, and the person being sought may be referred to as a target. For example, a viewer may perform a search to identify all targets within the social networking community with over five hundred direct member connections.
  • Reputation Indicators in Search Results
  • FIG. 4 illustrates a search results display, including a variety of reputation indicators, for a user interface of a social networking community, according to an embodiment of the invention. The search results display illustrated in FIG. 4 includes a variety of information about a member of the social networking community. In one embodiment of the invention, the information displayed may include information from the user's profile, including, but not limited to, information relating to: the member's career (e.g., current or former title, employer, and/or industry), the member's education (e.g., schools attended, degrees received), areas of interest, and a wide variety of other information. In one embodiment, the search results display may include a digital photograph or picture of the member. In addition, according to one embodiment of the invention, a variety of reputation indicators for various reputation categories may be displayed. For example, in the particular search results display 58 illustrated in FIG. 4, reputation indicators for the following categories of reputation are displayed: network indicator 60, endorsement indicator 62, access indicator 64, activity indicator 66, and verification indicator 68.
  • One category of reputation indicators, which was briefly described above, is a member connections category. Accordingly, the member connections category is an indicator of reputation based on the number of direct connections a particular member has established with other members of the social networking community. The member connections reputation indicator is one measure of the member's reputation within the network. In another embodiment of the invention, the member connections category may be referred to as the network reputation indicator, or network indicator 60. Accordingly, the network reputation indicator 60 may be based on considerations other than the number of direct connections a particular member has established with other members of the network.
  • In one embodiment, the network reputation indicator 60 is based on a more complex analysis of a member's network connections. For example, in one embodiment of the invention, the aggregate score for a member's network reputation indicator 60 may be based on any one or more of the following:
  • Seniority of positions of direct (first degree) and extended contacts (2nd, 3rd, and 4th degree contacts).
  • Measures of influence of the member's direct and extended network.
  • Diversity of the member's direct and extended network.
  • Overall, aggregated measures of the member's direct and extended networks. These various factors, in addition to the number of direct connections, may be given different weights and combined to arrive at a member's aggregate score for a network reputation indicator 60, as described above.
  • In one embodiment of the invention, the system allows each viewer to customize the particular function or formula used to arrive at an aggregate score for one or more reputation indicators. For example, for each type of aggregate score related to a particular category of reputation, a viewer may customize the score in order to emphasize factors of most interest to the viewer. If a viewer is especially interested in finding targets (e.g., other members) with high network strength related to a particular industry or industries, the user will be able to make those kinds of customizations. Alternatively, if the user is most interested in finding targets with rich access to senior-level contacts with high influence, those types of customizations may be made.
  • Similarly, each type of aggregate score associated with a particular category of reputation may be automatically customized to reflect typical interests related to particular kinds of searches. For example, the behavior of users of the system may reveal that users searching for software engineers care less about finding targets with high-influence networks than do users searching for business development candidates. Customizations in the algorithms employed to calculate aggregate scores may thus be derived from various data collection methods, including explicit user testing and analyzing user behavior on the system.
  • Referring again to FIG. 4, another category of reputation for which a reputation indicator is displayed on the search results display is endorsements. The endorsement indicator 62 (e.g., the checkmark in FIG. 4) represents a measure of reputation derived from an analysis of endorsements and references provided by other members of the social networking community. For example, in one embodiment of the invention, a member may endorse another member, or refer a member. The endorsement or reference may be broad and general in nature, or, alternatively, the endorsement or reference may be associated with a particular aspect (e.g., a service or product) of the member. In one embodiment, the endorsement reputation indicator 62 is displayed only when a member has at least one endorsement or reference. In addition, in one embodiment of the invention, additional information may be displayed along with the icon for the endorsement reputation indicator 62. For example, in one embodiment, a simple score showing the number of endorsements received by the user may be displayed. In addition or as an alternative, a more complex aggregate score may be calculated and reported to reflect a combination of factors, such as:
  • A summary score of endorsement ratings provided by endorsers.
  • The aggregated reputation scores for endorsers.
  • Analysis of reputation of endorsers' direct and extended networks of contacts.
  • Measures of independence and objectivity of endorsers derived from network analysis.
  • Measures of extent of endorsers' qualifications and relevance to the type of search conducted by the viewer.
  • Measures of closeness of endorsers' relationship to the viewer.
  • In one embodiment of the invention, as illustrated in FIG. 4, the search results display includes a reputation indicator representing the level of access a member has to another member. Accordingly, such a reputation indicator may be referred to as an access indicator 64.
  • One of the main advantages of social networking systems for enhancing reputation information is that social networking systems not only provide unique reputation metrics, but they also help users gain trusted access to additional information they need to complete their evaluations. For example, if two members have a common friend, and each member has established a direct connection to that friend via the social networking system, then there may be an inherent level of trust between the two members via their common connection to their friend. The common friend provides a path of trusted connections between the two members, and accordingly, the trust and potential forthrightness between the two members is likely to increase. Consequently, the social networking system may prove a powerful tool in providing one member with trusted access to another member. Of course, this may also provide each member with access to the other member's network. The access indicator 64 allows a viewer to quickly see how closely connected he or she is to a target, endorsers of the target, and other likely references. For example, the social networking system may also be a powerful tool that provides the viewer with trusted access not only to the target, but also to other people who know the target and who would be willing to act as a reference, including people who have publicly endorsed the target, as well as those who have not.
  • The factors that may be included in an algorithm for computing an aggregate score for an access reputation indicator 64 include, but are not limited to, the following:
  • Closeness of a viewer to a target.
  • Closeness of a viewer to endorsers of the target.
  • Closeness of a viewer to likely references for the target, for example, people who may know the target because of being employed in the same company or due to other likely relationships.
  • The algorithm for calculating closeness may include a combination of any one or more of the following factors:
  • Degrees between viewer and the other party.
  • Measures of strength of relationship between parties in the connection path between the viewer and the other party.
  • Measures of strength of relationship between parties that includes one or more connections due to common group memberships, especially group memberships where members of the group give special access to other members of the group on the basis of group affinity, even without establishing a direct connection path between them.
  • Whether the other party to which the viewer is connected is the target, an endorser, or a likely reference.
  • To further illustrate how access reputation indicators 64 may be utilized in a social networking scheme, table 1 (below) illustrates several different relationships between a viewer and a target that can be used to obtain reputation-related information.
  • TABLE-US-00001 TABLE 1 ##STR00001## V=Viewer; C=Connector; T=Target; E=Endorser; AC=Affinity Connector; LR=Likely Reference
  • In Table 1, the first example illustrates a viewer connected to a target through two other members, referred to as connectors. Consequently, in the first example, the viewer is considered to be three degrees from the target. Similarly, in example two, the viewer is three degrees from an endorser. In the third example, the viewer is shown to be three degrees away from both the target and the endorser. In the fourth example, the viewer is connected to a target via a group contact. For example, the viewer may not have established a direct connection to the target, but instead the viewer may belong to one or more of the same organizations, clubs, or groups, as the target. In example five, the viewer is shown to be three degrees away from a likely reference.
  • In one embodiment of the invention, an aggregate score for an access indicator 24 may be based on one or more of the following factors:
  • Count of the number of degrees in shortest path between the viewer and the target.
  • Count of the number of degrees in the shortest path between the viewer and an endorser.
  • Count of the number of degrees in the shortest path between the viewer and a likely reference.
  • If any of the above counts is 3 degrees or less, or if two or more of the above counts are 4 degrees or less, then display the Access icon in the reputation summary display.
  • The above algorithms may be adjusted to introduce other factors as well. For example, in one embodiment of the invention, an affinity group connection may be given the same weight as a direct connection. An affinity group connection may exist where two members of the social networking community are also both members of the same group, and each member has agreed to provide access to other members within the group.
  • An example of a more complex algorithm combining some of the factors described above is as follows:
  • Find all connection paths between target and viewer. Strongest paths are those that have the highest minimum strength of connection between any two connecting parties in the chain.
  • If necessary adjust numeric values for closeness and strength of connections such that fewer degrees and stronger connections are higher than more degrees and weaker connections. For example, if there is a possibility for up to 4 degrees of connection (closeness) and 4 measures of strength of relationship (including a common affinity group membership as one of these measures of strength of relationship), use the following valuations shown in table 2 (below):
  • TABLE-US-00002 [0152] TABLE 2 Closeness Strength Degrees Value Strength Value 1 10 High 10 2 8 Medium 7 3 5 Affinity Contact 5 4 3 Everyone else 3
  • For each path found, multiply the closeness value by the strength value to get an overall access score for that path. For example, if the closeness value is 8 and the strength value is 7, the access score would be 56 compared to the maximum score of 100.
  • Calculate an adjusted access score by taking the highest access score among all the paths found and multiplying this by a factor that increases the access score by up to 50% based on presence of multiple paths that are same strength or within 75% of the same strength.
  • Repeat steps 1 through 4 for each other type of connection, (i.e., between viewer and a) endorsers, and b) likely references). For likely references it will first be necessary to find all likely references and then find paths between viewer and likely references.
  • Combine adjusted access scores for each type of connection by adding them together with an adjusting weight applied to each. For example, the adjusting weight for access directly to the target or endorsers may be 1, for access to likely references, the adjusting weight may be 0.6.
  • Adjust weights and scores described above based on a) explicit user preferences, or b) automated analysis of relevance across clusters of similar users and types of searches.
  • In one embodiment of the invention, access reputation indicators 24 may indicate a particular relationship between two members. For example, the aggregate score representing an access indicator level may increase, not only when two people have a close connection path, but also when they have common interests, backgrounds, or other indicators of affinity. In one embodiment of the invention, some affinity indicators also serve to act as an extra type of endorsement. For example, people who have graduated from highly regarded universities may evaluate others more highly if they have graduated from the same university, or other universities with similar reputations. As another example, people who have been active in supporting certain social causes may have a higher level of trust and empathy for others who have similar interests and experiences.
  • In one embodiment of the invention, when a viewer looks at another member's profile or performs a search for other members, the system will automatically search for a match on likely affinity attributes, such as schools attended, group memberships, active social causes, and/or personal and professional interests. In one embodiment of the invention, an affinity reputation indicator may be related to an access indicator, but it will not affect the overall aggregate score for the access indicator. Instead, if there is at least one indicator of affinity between the viewer and another member's profile, an affinity indicator will be displayed along with the access indicator. In another embodiment, a matching affinity attribute affects (e.g., increases) the aggregate score for the access reputation indicator 4. For example, as illustrated in the example user interface of FIG. 5, the affinity indicator may appear as a hyperlinked text string, such as the link 72 that reads “What you and Jane have in common”.
  • In one embodiment of the invention, a reputation indicator reflecting a member's activity within the social networking community may be displayed. For example, such a reputation indicator may be referred to as an activity indicator 26. Activity by individuals within the social networking system may give important clues regarding reputation and overall reliability. When properly analyzed and filtered, these clues may, when presented to a viewer, allow the viewer to make the following kinds of decisions regarding the actions of a particular target:
  • Does the member's activity suggest the member may have a good reputation and be highly influential?
  • Does the member's activity suggest the member may be responsive, and thus likely to accept or forward requests from others in the member's network?
  • Does the member have a completed profile, including information that is up-to-date?
  • Is the member in good-standing with the social networking community and respectful of community rules of behavior?
  • Analysis of members' activity may also provides the social networking system with metrics that can be used to automatically weight and sort multiple search paths to a target. For example, if a search returns a target person who matches the search and also indicates that there are multiple paths between the searcher and the target, then analysis of the prior activity of members who are represented in the various search path options can be used to rank the search paths based on which are most likely to be successfully forwarded by the intermediary connectors and accepted by the target.
  • In one embodiment of the invention, several types of activities may be measured and analyzed, including, but not limited to: invitation behavior (e.g., actions related to inviting, accepting, declining, and ignoring invitations), request behavior (e.g., actions related to sending, forwarding, declining to forward, accepting, declining to accept, and/or ignoring requests), searching, viewing user profiles, completing user's own profile, sponsoring advertisements on the system, sponsoring advertisements that are frequently clicked on, and/or upgrading to, and being accepted for, premium services on the system. In one embodiment, activity may then be monitored and collected when a user is either the actor or the object of the action (e.g., has been invited by another user, or has had an invitation accepted or declined by another user).
  • In one embodiment of the invention, various factors may influence the aggregate score for an activity indicator 26. For example, in one embodiment, the factors, or measures, that affect the activity indicator 26 may be broken down into the following categories: 1) factors that reflect or indicate influence, 2) factors that reflect or indicate reputation, 3) factors that reflect or indicate responsiveness, 4) factors that indicate complete and current information in a user's profile, and 5) factors that indicate whether a user is abiding by, or not abiding by, the rules of user conduct. The following lists several factors, broken down by the categories suggested above, that may be given weight in a function or formula for an aggregate score for an activity indicator 26:
  • Factors that reflect or indicate influence:
  • The frequency with which a user is invited to establish a direct connection with another member.
  • The adjusted percentage of invitations accepted.
  • The frequency with which a user receives requests from other members.
  • The number of times a user's profile is viewed by others within a various time period.
  • The frequency with which a user is asked to forward a request.
  • The frequency with which a user is asked to forward requests when there are multiple paths to a target.
  • Factors that reflect or indicate reputation:
  • Evidence that a target's contacts and endorsers are discriminating when making ‘trusted’ connections with others (e.g., declines some connections).
  • Evidence that a target's contact, who has forwarded a request to the target, is generally discriminating about which requests to forward (e.g., doesn't forward nearly all requests received from all connections).
  • Measures that indicate that a target is responsive:
  • Frequency of accepting, declining and ignoring invitations.
  • Frequency of forwarding, declining, and ignoring requests.
  • Factors that indicate complete and current information in a user's profile:
  • Length of description of current position and specialties (e.g., above a minimum).
  • Number of current and prior positions provided.
  • Education section completed.
  • Date of last update to contact information entered by user (including current company and position).
  • Comparison of contact information completed by user to date and contents of contact information contributed by other users.
  • Evidence that user is abiding by, or not abiding by, the rules of user conduct:
  • Frequency of complaints received.
  • Number of people who have broken connection with person.
  • Number of investigated and upheld complaints.
  • Evidence that a user has invited people to connect whom the user doesn't know.
  • Spamming other users (e.g., using the social networking community to find people and then sending unsolicited messages not through the social networking system).
  • Data-mining (high-volume searches and little else)
  • Being a robot (very high-volume searches and other activities)
  • Verified posting of offensive content.
  • Being abusive toward other users.
  • As with other reputation indicators, not all of the above factors need be included in determining the aggregate score for the activity indicator 26, and/or whether to display an activity indicator 26. In various embodiments of the invention, the formula for determining the aggregate score, as well as the lower threshold value that may be used to determine whether an activity indicator 26 is displayed, will vary. In one embodiment, the lower threshold and aggregate score will be based on a combination of an analysis of user behaviors and implied preferences, as well as explicit user preferences.
  • Another reputation indicator that may be utilized in an embodiment of the invention is a verification indicator 28. A verification indicator 28 may indicate the extent to which information that has been provided by a particular user has been verified, for example, by a third party. For example, in one embodiment, the verification indicator 28 will be based on an aggregate score that takes into consideration various types of verifications, including those similar to the following examples:
  • A social network analysis showing that an individual and that individual's network have a high probability of being real. The score used depicts a level of confidence, from 1% to 100%. If the confidence level is 70 or higher, confidence will be reported as “High”, and otherwise the score will not be included in the aggregate “Verified” score.
  • Email confirmation of profile by references provided by user. A “High” score for this will be reported if over 50% of references respond positively and none respond negatively for example, if there is no evidence of significant inaccuracies.
  • Third-party verification of basic contact and current employment information. A positive confirmation with no reported significant inaccuracies will generate a “High” score for this measure.
  • Third-party verification of full resume, including employment history, education and professional certifications. A positive confirmation with no reported significant inaccuracies will generate a “High” score for this measure.
  • Authenticated member of an authenticated group related to user's profession. If user is an authenticated member of at least one such authenticated group, a “High” score will be generated for this measure.
  • Authenticated member of another authenticated group. If a user is an authenticated member of at least one such authenticated group, a “High” score will be generated for this measure.
  • Publications, including material the user has written, or in which a user has been interviewed or cited. A “High” score will be given for the publications measure if the user's profile has listed at least 3 publications, or at least 1 publication with an audited count of over 10,000 readers or subscribers. a. In one embodiment of the invention, the verification indicator 28 may be displayed when any one or more of the above verification measures has a “High” level, or value. In an alternative embodiment, the verification indicator 28 may have a variety of intensities. For example, the verification indicator value may have different icons for different levels of aggregate score. Accordingly, if only one measure from the above list has a value of “High” then an icon representing the lowest level of verification may be presented. However, if several measures from above have “High” levels, then an icon representing a higher level of verification may be displayed. Furthermore, in one embodiment, the icon or graphic for the verification indicator may vary if the verification is from a third party, acting in independence. Moreover, in one embodiment of the invention, the aggregate score for the verification indicator 28 may be customized by explicit user preferences, for example, if a user indicates that some measures should receive higher, lower, or zero weight in calculating the aggregate verification score. In addition, the aggregate score may also be customized by analysis to calculate weights assigned to verification scores for various types of search objectives or other objectives.
  • In one embodiment, any of the underlying values (e.g., rating or score) associated with a reputation indicator described herein may also be used as a parameter or search criteria in a search. That is, when performing a search for a person having particular attributes, the searcher may specify that the potential target have a reputation score or rating that exceeds a particular threshold, or is within a particular range. For example, a searcher may specify as search criteria a desired minimum number of direct connections that a user has established. Accordingly, only users of the social networking system who have established the desired minimum number of connections will satisfy the searcher's search criteria. Moreover, any one of the previously described scores or ratings associated with a reputation indicator may be used as search criteria in a user's search.
  • Detailed Display of Reputation Indicators
  • In one embodiment of the invention, after a viewer has identified a target of interest in a search results display 16 such as that illustrated in FIG. 2, the viewer may select a link (e.g., a hyperlink) to view detailed information about one or more of that target's reputation scores associated with the target's reputation indicators. For example, the viewer may select the “VIEW REPUTATION DETAILS” link 30 shown in FIG. 2. Accordingly, a reputation indicator details page 32, such as that illustrated in FIG. 3 may be shown to the viewer.
  • As illustrated in FIG. 3, a detailed reputation indicator display 32 includes detailed information about various reputation indicators and their underlying aggregate score. For each type, or category, of reputation indicator, additional information, including links to yet greater detailed information, is displayed. Each reputation indicator shown on the display in FIG. 3 corresponds with a reputation indicator illustrated in the search results display illustrated in FIG. 2. Furthermore, for one embodiment of the invention, for each reputation indicator, or section, shown in FIG. 3, one or more items may be selected (e.g., clicked with a pointer device) to generate a new view (e.g., open a new window) focusing only on that section/indicator (e.g., Connections and Networks; Endorsements and Endorsers; etc.). Moreover, for one embodiment, one or more sections of the display illustrated in FIG. 3 may include one or more sub-sections, and in some cases summary scores for those subsections. For example, a sub-section may exist where an aggregate score is based on several measures. Each sub-section may be associated with a measure that makes up part of the aggregate score. For one embodiment of the invention, reputation indicators will only be displayed if the underlying aggregate score for the indicator is over a threshold level needed to report the reputation indicator.
  • Referring again to FIG. 3, for one embodiment of the invention, when a user selects (e.g., clicks) on an interactive link under one of the section headings, the user may be directed to a new page, specific location on the page, or a section of a page focusing on the corresponding indicator or sub-indicator. In one embodiment of the invention, the details page for each indicator/sub-indicator may include:
  • Details and scores for each sub-measure, or factor, that is used to determine the aggregate score for that indicator.
  • Explanations or links to explanations regarding how a sub-score or aggregate score is calculated.
  • Interface items or links to a new page where the user can customize the algorithms for calculating scores and displaying indicators (e.g., by adding, removing, or changing the weights applied to sub-section indicators).
  • In one embodiment of the invention, each reputation indicator is displayed along with additional information. For example, in the “Connections and Network” section, summary information may be displayed related to a user's level of seniority. In one embodiment of the invention, a table may be displayed showing how much experience the user has had in different levels of seniority during the past five years, and simultaneously showing the level of prestige of the user's organization as indicated by organization size and/or other measures. For example, in one embodiment, a table such as table 3, below, may be shown:
  • TABLE-US-00003 TABLE 3 Within the last five years: CEO/President 2 years in organization with 50-100 employees CXO/EVP/SVP 3 years in organizations with 1000-5000 employees
  • In one embodiment of the invention, a link may be included for additional information related to the level of diversity of a user's network. Information about a user's network diversity may be displayed as illustrated in table 4 (below):
  • TABLE-US-00004 TABLE 4 Diversity 1st degree 1st and 2nd Degree User's Total parameter Connections connections Network Industries # and % # and % # and % Industry with Information Information Information most contacts. Technology Technology Technologoy Industry with Finance Accounting Legal next most
  • A user performing a search may also like to know how rich and influential a profiled user's network is in a few particular parameters that the searcher is interested in. For example, the searcher may be looking for business development specialists in the aerospace industry, so the search will especially be interested in the richness and influence of a profiled user's network related to that industry.
  • In one embodiment of the invention, the profiled user's network strength will be automatically calculated for parameters specified in the searcher's search instructions. For example, if a search is performed for aerospace engineers in Denver, then the number and percentage of the user's contacts, by degree, will be shown for aerospace engineers, and for people living in Denver. Accordingly, this automatic calculation and display will be augmented by a search tool for displaying a user's network for a particular parameter. For example, the user may enter an industry, profession, or location and see the number and percentage of contacts among a user's mutual connections, endorsers, 1st and 2nd degree connections, and entire network. This allows a searcher to take a look at the user's connections and endorsers within a specific parameter related to the searcher's interests.
  • Additional information may be displayed in the “Endorsements and Endorsers” section as well. For example, in one embodiment, the following information may be displayed, in table format, or otherwise:
  • Endorser's name (and link to more information about endorser, including endorser's own reputation)
  • Position endorsed
  • Relationship to profiled user
  • Relationship to the current viewer (Searcher)
  • Endorsement date
  • Link to endorsement text
  • Rating (if available)
  • Endorser's own reputation score
  • Endorser's independence score (independence from profiled user and other endorsers)
  • In one embodiment of the invention, particularly when additional information is displayed in a table format, a user may be able to easily customize the view of endorsement data by the following methods:
  • Sorting or filtering the table based on contents of any of the columns in the table.
  • Clicking on a button or link (“Endorsements related to your search”) to only show endorsers that had a relationship to the endorsed that is related to the viewer's purpose. For example, if the viewer is looking for a consultant, then the viewer will be especially interested in endorsements by clients; and if the viewer is looking for a an employee, the viewer will especially be interested in endorsements by supervisors or peers of the profiled user.
  • Clicking on a button or link (“Endorser's Close to You”) to only show endorsers that are within a specified degree of connection to the Viewer.
  • In one embodiment of the invention, along with the reputation indicators, there may be displayed a section (e.g., the “Take Action” section illustrated in FIG. 3) associated with various actions the viewer can take. In one embodiment of the invention, a link may be displayed that allows the viewer to make contact with the target or one or more endorsers. For example, if a network analysis reveals one or more close endorsers, a section may be displayed allowing the user to initiate contact with one or more of these endorsers. In one embodiment, the interface may show what methods for contact are available, for example:
  • Request contact directly with the endorser (if permitted by the endorser and/or the person endorsed).
  • Request contact through the person endorsed.
  • Request contact through a chain of connections between the viewer and the endorser, with options of choosing connection paths that will not go through the endorsed, or that will go through the endorsed.
  • The interface may also include sample text to include in a message to the endorser, with data automatically filled in to let the endorser easily see who the sender (e.g., searcher) is, who the person endorsed is, and what the nature of the search is.
  • Thus, methods and systems for reputation evaluation of online users in a social networking scheme have been described.

Claims (30)

What is claimed is:
1. A computer-implemented method for determining a measure of influence of a particular member of a social network, the method comprising:
determining a collective influence of a plurality of endorsers of the particular member of the social network, wherein determining the collective influence of the plurality of endorsers of the particular member of the social network includes excluding measures of influence of endorsers having fewer than a minimum number of connections;
calculating the measure of influence of the particular member of the social network based on the collective influence of the plurality of endorsers.
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising calculating a collective influence of a plurality of connections of the particular member, wherein calculating the measure of influence of the particular member of the social network is further based on the collective influence of the plurality of connections of the particular member.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein determining the collective influence of the plurality of endorsers of the particular member of the social network is based, at least in part, on a popularity of each of the plurality of endorsers of the particular member of the social network.
4. The method of claim 3, further comprising determining the popularity of each of the plurality of endorsers within the social network based on at least one of:
a first frequency at which other members of the social network invite each endorser of the plurality of endorsers to connect, or
a second frequency at which the other members of the social network accept invitations by each endorser of the plurality of endorsers to connect.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein determining the collective influence of the plurality of endorsers of the particular member of the social network includes giving a higher weight to endorsers, of the plurality of endorsers, that have a higher influence than other endorsers of the plurality of endorsers.
6. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
generating a ranking of the measure of influence of the particular member of the social network in comparison to measures of influence of additional members of the social network.
7. One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions for determining a measure of influence of a particular member of a social network, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause:
determining a collective influence of a plurality of endorsers of the particular member of the social network, wherein determining the collective influence of the plurality of endorsers of the particular member of the social network includes excluding measures of influence of endorsers having fewer than a minimum number of connections;
calculating the measure of influence of the particular member of the social network based on the collective influence of the plurality of endorsers.
8. The one or more computer-readable media of claim 7, further comprising calculating a collective influence of a plurality of connections of the particular member, wherein calculating the measure of influence of the particular member of the social network is further based on the collective influence of the plurality of connections of the particular member.
9. The one or more computer-readable media of claim 7, wherein determining the collective influence of the plurality of endorsers of the particular member of the social network is based, at least in part, on a popularity of each of the plurality of endorsers of the particular member of the social network.
10. The one or more computer-readable media of claim 9, further comprising determining the popularity of each of the plurality of endorsers within the social network based on at least one of:
a first frequency at which other members of the social network invite each endorser of the plurality of endorsers to connect, or
a second frequency at which the other members of the social network accept invitations by each endorser of the plurality of endorsers to connect.
11. The one or more computer-readable media of claim 7, wherein determining the collective influence of the plurality of endorsers of the particular member of the social network includes giving a higher weight to endorsers, of the plurality of endorsers, that have a higher influence than other endorsers of the plurality of endorsers.
12. The one or more computer-readable media of claim 7, further comprising:
generating a ranking of the measure of influence of the particular member of the social network in comparison to measures of influence of additional members of the social network.
13. A method for determining a measure of influence of a particular user of an online service, the method comprising:
determining a collective influence of a plurality of raters of the particular user of the online service,
wherein determining the collective influence of the plurality of raters of the particular user of the online service includes excluding or reducing, from the collective influence, measures of influence of raters that satisfy one or more criteria;
calculating the measure of influence of the particular user of the online service based on the collective influence of the plurality of raters;
wherein the method is performed by one or more computing devices.
14. The method of claim 13, wherein the raters that satisfy the one or more criteria include raters that rate each other to a certain degree or raters that the particular user has rated.
15. The method of claim 13, wherein determining the collective influence of the plurality of raters of the particular user of the online service includes giving a higher weight to raters, of the plurality of raters, that have a higher influence than other raters of the plurality of raters.
16. The method of claim 13, further comprising:
generating a ranking of the measure of influence of the particular user of the online service in comparison to measures of influence of additional users of the online service.
17. The method of claim 13, wherein calculating the measure of influence of the particular user of the online service is with respect to a particular skill, of multiple skills, of the particular user of the online service.
18. The method of claim 13, further comprising:
receiving, from a set of raters, a plurality of ratings of users of the online service;
storing rating data that indicates, for each user of said users, one or more ratings of the plurality of ratings;
wherein the rating data for the particular user of the online service indicates the plurality of raters.
19. The method of claim 13, wherein determining the collective influence of the plurality of raters of the particular user of the online service is based, at least in part, on a popularity of each of the plurality of raters.
20. The method of claim 19, further comprising determining a popularity of each of the plurality of raters based on at least one of:
a first frequency at which other users of the online service invite each rater of the plurality of raters to connect, or
a second frequency at which the other users of the online service accept invitations by each rater of the plurality of raters to connect.
21. The method of claim 13, further comprising:
calculating a collective influence of a plurality of connections of the particular user, wherein calculating the measure of influence of the particular user of the online service is further based on the collective influence of the plurality of connections of the particular user.
22. One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions for determining a measure of influence of a particular user of an online service, wherein the instructions, when executed by one or more processors, cause:
determining a collective influence of a plurality of raters of the particular user of the online service,
wherein determining the collective influence of the plurality of raters of the particular user of the online service includes excluding or reducing, from the collective influence, measures of influence of raters that satisfy one or more criteria;
calculating the measure of influence of the particular user of the online service based on the collective influence of the plurality of raters;
wherein the method is performed by one or more computing devices.
23. The one or more computer-readable media of claim 22, wherein the raters that satisfy the one or more criteria include raters that rate each other to a certain degree or raters that the particular user has rated.
24. The one or more computer-readable media of claim 22, wherein determining the collective influence of the plurality of raters of the particular user of the online service includes giving a higher weight to raters, of the plurality of raters, that have a higher influence than other raters of the plurality of raters.
25. The one or more computer-readable media of claim 22, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause:
generating a ranking of the measure of influence of the particular user of the online service in comparison to measures of influence of additional users of the online service.
26. The one or more computer-readable media of claim 22, wherein calculating the measure of influence of the particular user of the online service is with respect to a particular skill, of multiple skills, of the particular user of the online service.
27. The one or more computer-readable media of claim 22, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause:
receiving, from a set of raters, a plurality of ratings of users of the online service;
storing rating data that indicates, for each user of said users, one or more ratings of the plurality of ratings;
wherein the rating data for the particular user of the online service indicates the plurality of raters.
28. The one or more computer-readable media of claim 22, wherein determining the collective influence of the plurality of raters of the particular user of the online service is based, at least in part, on a popularity of each of the plurality of raters.
29. The one or more computer-readable media of claim 28, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause determining a popularity of each of the plurality of raters based on at least one of:
a first frequency at which other users of the online service invite each rater of the plurality of raters to connect, or
a second frequency at which the other users of the online service accept invitations by each rater of the plurality of raters to connect.
30. The one or more computer-readable media of claim 22, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause:
calculating a collective influence of a plurality of connections of the particular user, wherein calculating the measure of influence of the particular user of the online service is further based on the collective influence of the plurality of connections of the particular user.
US14/320,009 2004-09-02 2014-06-30 Determining measures of influence of users of a social network Abandoned US20140317126A1 (en)

Priority Applications (6)

Application Number Priority Date Filing Date Title
US60704004P true 2004-09-02 2004-09-02
US62528704P true 2004-11-04 2004-11-04
US11/219,035 US8010460B2 (en) 2004-09-02 2005-09-01 Method and system for reputation evaluation of online users in a social networking scheme
US13/209,315 US20120036127A1 (en) 2004-09-02 2011-08-12 Method and system for reputation evaluation of online users in a social networking scheme
US13/852,696 US20130254192A1 (en) 2004-09-02 2013-03-28 Determining measures of influence of users of a social network
US14/320,009 US20140317126A1 (en) 2004-09-02 2014-06-30 Determining measures of influence of users of a social network

Applications Claiming Priority (1)

Application Number Priority Date Filing Date Title
US14/320,009 US20140317126A1 (en) 2004-09-02 2014-06-30 Determining measures of influence of users of a social network

Related Parent Applications (1)

Application Number Title Priority Date Filing Date
US13/852,696 Continuation US20130254192A1 (en) 2004-09-02 2013-03-28 Determining measures of influence of users of a social network

Publications (1)

Publication Number Publication Date
US20140317126A1 true US20140317126A1 (en) 2014-10-23

Family

ID=35941200

Family Applications (20)

Application Number Title Priority Date Filing Date
US11/219,035 Active 2029-02-06 US8010460B2 (en) 2004-09-02 2005-09-01 Method and system for reputation evaluation of online users in a social networking scheme
US13/209,315 Abandoned US20120036127A1 (en) 2004-09-02 2011-08-12 Method and system for reputation evaluation of online users in a social networking scheme
US13/852,262 Abandoned US20130212033A1 (en) 2004-09-02 2013-03-28 Determining reputation of users with respect to skills
US13/852,997 Abandoned US20130290325A1 (en) 2004-09-02 2013-03-28 Providing search results based on network diversities
US13/851,998 Abandoned US20130290420A1 (en) 2004-09-02 2013-03-28 Determining reputations of users based on endorsements
US13/852,166 Abandoned US20130212180A1 (en) 2004-09-02 2013-03-28 Validating achievements of users of a social network
US13/852,008 Abandoned US20130226910A1 (en) 2004-09-02 2013-03-28 Representing connection paths between users of a social network
US13/852,612 Abandoned US20130297589A1 (en) 2004-09-02 2013-03-28 Identifying people a person may know
US13/852,725 Abandoned US20130290448A1 (en) 2004-09-02 2013-03-28 Generating network activity indicators for users of a social network
US13/852,696 Pending US20130254192A1 (en) 2004-09-02 2013-03-28 Determining measures of influence of users of a social network
US14/231,145 Abandoned US20140258288A1 (en) 2004-09-02 2014-03-31 Determining measures of influence of users of a social network
US14/320,009 Abandoned US20140317126A1 (en) 2004-09-02 2014-06-30 Determining measures of influence of users of a social network
US14/675,623 Abandoned US20150205800A1 (en) 2004-09-02 2015-03-31 Reputation evaluation of online users in a social networking scheme
US14/675,677 Abandoned US20150269165A1 (en) 2004-09-02 2015-03-31 Identifying people a person may know
US14/675,652 Abandoned US20150269530A1 (en) 2004-09-02 2015-03-31 Representing connection paths between users of a social network
US14/675,681 Abandoned US20150278223A1 (en) 2004-09-02 2015-03-31 Generating network activity indicators for users of a social network
US14/675,723 Pending US20150205872A1 (en) 2004-09-02 2015-03-31 Providing search results based on network diversities
US14/675,668 Abandoned US20150278964A1 (en) 2004-09-02 2015-03-31 Determining reputation of users with respect to skills
US14/675,662 Abandoned US20150278290A1 (en) 2004-09-02 2015-03-31 Validating achievements of users of a social network
US14/675,636 Abandoned US20150271289A1 (en) 2004-09-02 2015-03-31 Determining reputations of users based on endorsements

Family Applications Before (11)

Application Number Title Priority Date Filing Date
US11/219,035 Active 2029-02-06 US8010460B2 (en) 2004-09-02 2005-09-01 Method and system for reputation evaluation of online users in a social networking scheme
US13/209,315 Abandoned US20120036127A1 (en) 2004-09-02 2011-08-12 Method and system for reputation evaluation of online users in a social networking scheme
US13/852,262 Abandoned US20130212033A1 (en) 2004-09-02 2013-03-28 Determining reputation of users with respect to skills
US13/852,997 Abandoned US20130290325A1 (en) 2004-09-02 2013-03-28 Providing search results based on network diversities
US13/851,998 Abandoned US20130290420A1 (en) 2004-09-02 2013-03-28 Determining reputations of users based on endorsements
US13/852,166 Abandoned US20130212180A1 (en) 2004-09-02 2013-03-28 Validating achievements of users of a social network
US13/852,008 Abandoned US20130226910A1 (en) 2004-09-02 2013-03-28 Representing connection paths between users of a social network
US13/852,612 Abandoned US20130297589A1 (en) 2004-09-02 2013-03-28 Identifying people a person may know
US13/852,725 Abandoned US20130290448A1 (en) 2004-09-02 2013-03-28 Generating network activity indicators for users of a social network
US13/852,696 Pending US20130254192A1 (en) 2004-09-02 2013-03-28 Determining measures of influence of users of a social network
US14/231,145 Abandoned US20140258288A1 (en) 2004-09-02 2014-03-31 Determining measures of influence of users of a social network

Family Applications After (8)

Application Number Title Priority Date Filing Date
US14/675,623 Abandoned US20150205800A1 (en) 2004-09-02 2015-03-31 Reputation evaluation of online users in a social networking scheme
US14/675,677 Abandoned US20150269165A1 (en) 2004-09-02 2015-03-31 Identifying people a person may know
US14/675,652 Abandoned US20150269530A1 (en) 2004-09-02 2015-03-31 Representing connection paths between users of a social network
US14/675,681 Abandoned US20150278223A1 (en) 2004-09-02 2015-03-31 Generating network activity indicators for users of a social network
US14/675,723 Pending US20150205872A1 (en) 2004-09-02 2015-03-31 Providing search results based on network diversities
US14/675,668 Abandoned US20150278964A1 (en) 2004-09-02 2015-03-31 Determining reputation of users with respect to skills
US14/675,662 Abandoned US20150278290A1 (en) 2004-09-02 2015-03-31 Validating achievements of users of a social network
US14/675,636 Abandoned US20150271289A1 (en) 2004-09-02 2015-03-31 Determining reputations of users based on endorsements

Country Status (4)

Country Link
US (20) US8010460B2 (en)
EP (1) EP1787251A2 (en)
DE (1) DE202005022098U1 (en)
WO (1) WO2006029149A2 (en)

Cited By (5)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US20110161469A1 (en) * 2008-03-13 2011-06-30 Claudio Luis De Amorim Method for building spontaneous virtual communities based on common interests using interest bands
US20140172996A1 (en) * 2012-12-14 2014-06-19 Facebook., Inc. Sending Notifications to Members of Social Group in a Social Networking System
US8990191B1 (en) * 2014-03-25 2015-03-24 Linkedin Corporation Method and system to determine a category score of a social network member
US9858317B1 (en) * 2012-12-03 2018-01-02 Google Inc. Ranking communities based on members
WO2019152586A1 (en) * 2018-01-31 2019-08-08 Dotalign, Inc. Method, apparatus and computer-readable medium for leveraging connections

Families Citing this family (551)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US20040073617A1 (en) 2000-06-19 2004-04-15 Milliken Walter Clark Hash-based systems and methods for detecting and preventing transmission of unwanted e-mail
US9959700B2 (en) * 2007-09-07 2018-05-01 Veritone, Inc. System and method for secured delivery of creatives
US8590013B2 (en) 2002-02-25 2013-11-19 C. S. Lee Crawford Method of managing and communicating data pertaining to software applications for processor-based devices comprising wireless communication circuitry
US7458098B2 (en) * 2002-03-08 2008-11-25 Secure Computing Corporation Systems and methods for enhancing electronic communication security
US7937480B2 (en) * 2005-06-02 2011-05-03 Mcafee, Inc. Aggregation of reputation data
US8578480B2 (en) * 2002-03-08 2013-11-05 Mcafee, Inc. Systems and methods for identifying potentially malicious messages
US7870203B2 (en) * 2002-03-08 2011-01-11 Mcafee, Inc. Methods and systems for exposing messaging reputation to an end user
US7903549B2 (en) 2002-03-08 2011-03-08 Secure Computing Corporation Content-based policy compliance systems and methods
US8561167B2 (en) 2002-03-08 2013-10-15 Mcafee, Inc. Web reputation scoring
US8635690B2 (en) * 2004-11-05 2014-01-21 Mcafee, Inc. Reputation based message processing
US6941467B2 (en) * 2002-03-08 2005-09-06 Ciphertrust, Inc. Systems and methods for adaptive message interrogation through multiple queues
US8132250B2 (en) * 2002-03-08 2012-03-06 Mcafee, Inc. Message profiling systems and methods
US20060015942A1 (en) * 2002-03-08 2006-01-19 Ciphertrust, Inc. Systems and methods for classification of messaging entities
US7693947B2 (en) * 2002-03-08 2010-04-06 Mcafee, Inc. Systems and methods for graphically displaying messaging traffic
US7124438B2 (en) * 2002-03-08 2006-10-17 Ciphertrust, Inc. Systems and methods for anomaly detection in patterns of monitored communications
US20030172291A1 (en) * 2002-03-08 2003-09-11 Paul Judge Systems and methods for automated whitelisting in monitored communications
USRE45770E1 (en) 2003-11-28 2015-10-20 World Assets Consulting Ag, Llc Adaptive recommendation explanations
US8600920B2 (en) * 2003-11-28 2013-12-03 World Assets Consulting Ag, Llc Affinity propagation in adaptive network-based systems
USRE44559E1 (en) 2003-11-28 2013-10-22 World Assets Consulting Ag, Llc Adaptive social computing methods
USRE44967E1 (en) 2003-11-28 2014-06-24 World Assets Consulting Ag, Llc Adaptive social and process network systems
US8566263B2 (en) * 2003-11-28 2013-10-22 World Assets Consulting Ag, Llc Adaptive computer-based personalities
USRE44966E1 (en) 2003-11-28 2014-06-24 World Assets Consulting Ag, Llc Adaptive recommendations systems
USRE44968E1 (en) 2003-11-28 2014-06-24 World Assets Consulting Ag, Llc Adaptive self-modifying and recombinant systems
US7526458B2 (en) * 2004-11-04 2009-04-28 Manyworlds, Inc. Adaptive recommendations systems
US7526459B2 (en) * 2004-11-04 2009-04-28 Manyworlds, Inc. Adaptive social and process network systems
WO2005116852A2 (en) * 2004-05-20 2005-12-08 Manyworlds, Inc. Adaptive recombinant processes
US8010458B2 (en) 2004-05-26 2011-08-30 Facebook, Inc. System and method for managing information flow between members of an online social network
US8635217B2 (en) * 2004-09-15 2014-01-21 Michael J. Markus Collections of linked databases
US8880521B2 (en) * 2004-09-15 2014-11-04 3Degrees Llc Collections of linked databases
US8412706B2 (en) * 2004-09-15 2013-04-02 Within3, Inc. Social network analysis
US8577886B2 (en) * 2004-09-15 2013-11-05 Within3, Inc. Collections of linked databases
FI20041323A (en) * 2004-10-12 2006-04-13 Xtract Oy The analyzer, system and method for determining a desired number of users
US10395326B2 (en) * 2005-11-15 2019-08-27 3Degrees Llc Collections of linked databases
US20060122974A1 (en) * 2004-12-03 2006-06-08 Igor Perisic System and method for a dynamic content driven rendering of social networks
US20060123127A1 (en) * 2004-12-08 2006-06-08 Evil Twin Studios, Inc. System and method for organizing online communities and virtual dwellings within a virtual environment
US8713000B1 (en) 2005-01-12 2014-04-29 Linkedin Corporation Method and system for leveraging the power of one's social-network in an online marketplace
US8175726B2 (en) 2005-01-24 2012-05-08 Microsoft Corporation Seeding in a skill scoring framework
US8374973B2 (en) * 2006-02-16 2013-02-12 Microsoft Corporation Reputation system
US20060200374A1 (en) * 2005-03-01 2006-09-07 Yoram Nelken Automatic scheduling method and apparatus
US20070088652A1 (en) * 2005-03-30 2007-04-19 Firmage Jonathan D Apparatus, system, and method for internet trade
US7519562B1 (en) * 2005-03-31 2009-04-14 Amazon Technologies, Inc. Automatic identification of unreliable user ratings
WO2007005463A2 (en) * 2005-06-29 2007-01-11 S.M.A.R.T. Link Medical, Inc. Collections of linked databases
US7761400B2 (en) 2005-07-22 2010-07-20 John Reimer Identifying events
US8190681B2 (en) 2005-07-27 2012-05-29 Within3, Inc. Collections of linked databases and systems and methods for communicating about updates thereto
US7565358B2 (en) * 2005-08-08 2009-07-21 Google Inc. Agent rank
JP2007058443A (en) * 2005-08-23 2007-03-08 Fuji Xerox Co Ltd Personal connection network analysis device and method
US7831535B2 (en) * 2005-11-02 2010-11-09 Manyworlds, Inc. Adaptive knowledge lifecycle management aligned with assessed financial value based on organizing structure of knowledge assets
US20070130349A1 (en) * 2005-11-07 2007-06-07 Wong Meng W Systems and methods for reputational analysis of network content
US8571999B2 (en) 2005-11-14 2013-10-29 C. S. Lee Crawford Method of conducting operations for a social network application including activity list generation
WO2007070676A2 (en) 2005-12-14 2007-06-21 Facebook, Inc. Systems and methods for social mapping
EP1971911A2 (en) 2005-12-23 2008-09-24 Facebook Inc. Systems and methods for generating a social timeline
US8756501B1 (en) 2005-12-30 2014-06-17 Google Inc. Method, system, and graphical user interface for meeting-spot-related introductions
US7620636B2 (en) * 2006-01-10 2009-11-17 Stay Awake Inc. Method and apparatus for collecting and storing information about individuals in a charitable donations social network
US20070179942A1 (en) * 2006-01-27 2007-08-02 Heggem Richard A Enhanced buyer-oriented search results
US9336333B2 (en) * 2006-02-13 2016-05-10 Linkedin Corporation Searching and reference checking within social networks
US8122019B2 (en) 2006-02-17 2012-02-21 Google Inc. Sharing user distributed search results
US8862572B2 (en) * 2006-02-17 2014-10-14 Google Inc. Sharing user distributed search results
US7844603B2 (en) * 2006-02-17 2010-11-30 Google Inc. Sharing user distributed search results
US7764701B1 (en) 2006-02-22 2010-07-27 Qurio Holdings, Inc. Methods, systems, and products for classifying peer systems
US7779004B1 (en) 2006-02-22 2010-08-17 Qurio Holdings, Inc. Methods, systems, and products for characterizing target systems
US9070101B2 (en) 2007-01-12 2015-06-30 Fatdoor, Inc. Peer-to-peer neighborhood delivery multi-copter and method
US9373149B2 (en) 2006-03-17 2016-06-21 Fatdoor, Inc. Autonomous neighborhood vehicle commerce network and community
US9064288B2 (en) 2006-03-17 2015-06-23 Fatdoor, Inc. Government structures and neighborhood leads in a geo-spatial environment
US9037516B2 (en) 2006-03-17 2015-05-19 Fatdoor, Inc. Direct mailing in a geo-spatial environment
US9071367B2 (en) 2006-03-17 2015-06-30 Fatdoor, Inc. Emergency including crime broadcast in a neighborhood social network
US9459622B2 (en) 2007-01-12 2016-10-04 Legalforce, Inc. Driverless vehicle commerce network and community
US8965409B2 (en) 2006-03-17 2015-02-24 Fatdoor, Inc. User-generated community publication in an online neighborhood social network
US9002754B2 (en) 2006-03-17 2015-04-07 Fatdoor, Inc. Campaign in a geo-spatial environment
US7856411B2 (en) * 2006-03-21 2010-12-21 21St Century Technologies, Inc. Social network aware pattern detection
US8332386B2 (en) * 2006-03-29 2012-12-11 Oracle International Corporation Contextual search of a collaborative environment
US9077715B1 (en) * 2006-03-31 2015-07-07 Symantec Corporation Social trust based security model
WO2008060643A2 (en) * 2006-04-21 2008-05-22 21St Century Technologies, Inc. Sna-based anomaly detection
US20080040428A1 (en) * 2006-04-26 2008-02-14 Xu Wei Method for establishing a social network system based on motif, social status and social attitude
US20100280976A1 (en) * 2007-04-30 2010-11-04 E*Trade Financial Corporation Systems and methods for recommending investment positions to investors
WO2007130338A2 (en) * 2006-05-01 2007-11-15 Portfolia, Inc. Consolidation, sharing and analysis of investment information
GB2440592A (en) * 2006-05-02 2008-02-06 Skype Ltd Synchronising contacts
WO2007139857A2 (en) * 2006-05-24 2007-12-06 Archetype Media, Inc. Storing data related to social publishers and associating the data with electronic brand data
US7792841B2 (en) * 2006-05-30 2010-09-07 Microsoft Corporation Extraction and summarization of sentiment information
US20070288464A1 (en) * 2006-06-12 2007-12-13 Jill Silver Profile rating and verification system
US20080010598A1 (en) * 2006-07-10 2008-01-10 Webdate, Inc. Dedicated computer client application for searching an online dating database
US8225376B2 (en) 2006-07-25 2012-07-17 Facebook, Inc. Dynamically generating a privacy summary
US7797256B2 (en) * 2006-08-02 2010-09-14 Facebook, Inc. Generating segmented community flyers in a social networking system
US8171128B2 (en) * 2006-08-11 2012-05-01 Facebook, Inc. Communicating a newsfeed of media content based on a member's interactions in a social network environment
US7827208B2 (en) * 2006-08-11 2010-11-02 Facebook, Inc. Generating a feed of stories personalized for members of a social network
US7669123B2 (en) 2006-08-11 2010-02-23 Facebook, Inc. Dynamically providing a news feed about a user of a social network
US8402094B2 (en) * 2006-08-11 2013-03-19 Facebook, Inc. Providing a newsfeed based on user affinity for entities and monitored actions in a social network environment
KR100754433B1 (en) * 2006-08-18 2007-08-27 삼성전자주식회사 Method for information sharing using near radio communication in mobile terminal
US20080046317A1 (en) * 2006-08-21 2008-02-21 The Procter & Gamble Company Systems and methods for predicting the efficacy of a marketing message
US7739231B2 (en) 2006-08-28 2010-06-15 Manyworlds, Inc. Mutual commit people matching process
US20090012954A1 (en) * 2006-08-29 2009-01-08 Jobster Incorporated Electronic profile ranking
US7596597B2 (en) * 2006-08-31 2009-09-29 Microsoft Corporation Recommending contacts in a social network
US8726169B2 (en) * 2006-09-05 2014-05-13 Circleup, Inc. Online system and method for enabling social search and structured communications among social networks
US7801971B1 (en) 2006-09-26 2010-09-21 Qurio Holdings, Inc. Systems and methods for discovering, creating, using, and managing social network circuits
US8249903B2 (en) * 2006-10-10 2012-08-21 Accenture Global Services Limited Method and system of determining and evaluating a business relationship network for forming business relationships
US7945653B2 (en) * 2006-10-11 2011-05-17 Facebook, Inc. Tagging digital media
US20080109491A1 (en) * 2006-11-03 2008-05-08 Sezwho Inc. Method and system for managing reputation profile on online communities
US20080109245A1 (en) * 2006-11-03 2008-05-08 Sezwho Inc. Method and system for managing domain specific and viewer specific reputation on online communities
US20080109244A1 (en) * 2006-11-03 2008-05-08 Sezwho Inc. Method and system for managing reputation profile on online communities
US8578501B1 (en) 2006-11-14 2013-11-05 John W. Ogilvie Anonymous social networking with community-based privacy reviews obtained by members
US7509230B2 (en) * 2006-11-17 2009-03-24 Irma Becerra Fernandez Method for rating an entity
US20080133747A1 (en) * 2006-11-21 2008-06-05 Fish Russell H System to self organize and manage computer users
US20080120411A1 (en) * 2006-11-21 2008-05-22 Oliver Eberle Methods and System for Social OnLine Association and Relationship Scoring
WO2008068766A1 (en) * 2006-12-07 2008-06-12 Famillion Ltd. Methods and systems for secure communication over a public network
US20080140506A1 (en) * 2006-12-08 2008-06-12 The Procter & Gamble Corporation Systems and methods for the identification, recruitment, and enrollment of influential members of social groups
US7886334B1 (en) 2006-12-11 2011-02-08 Qurio Holdings, Inc. System and method for social network trust assessment
US20080235338A1 (en) * 2006-12-14 2008-09-25 Robert Cary Maleeny Apparatus, systems, and methods to facilitate the interaction between parties
US8135800B1 (en) 2006-12-27 2012-03-13 Qurio Holdings, Inc. System and method for user classification based on social network aware content analysis
US9195996B1 (en) 2006-12-27 2015-11-24 Qurio Holdings, Inc. System and method for classification of communication sessions in a social network
US20080030496A1 (en) 2007-01-03 2008-02-07 Social Concepts, Inc. On-line interaction system
US20080172335A1 (en) * 2007-01-11 2008-07-17 Chi-Chen Cheng User credit rating system to protect digital data
US7523138B2 (en) * 2007-01-11 2009-04-21 International Business Machines Corporation Content monitoring in a high volume on-line community application
US7949716B2 (en) * 2007-01-24 2011-05-24 Mcafee, Inc. Correlation and analysis of entity attributes
US8179798B2 (en) * 2007-01-24 2012-05-15 Mcafee, Inc. Reputation based connection throttling
US8763114B2 (en) 2007-01-24 2014-06-24 Mcafee, Inc. Detecting image spam
US8214497B2 (en) * 2007-01-24 2012-07-03 Mcafee, Inc. Multi-dimensional reputation scoring
US7779156B2 (en) * 2007-01-24 2010-08-17 Mcafee, Inc. Reputation based load balancing
US8166407B2 (en) * 2007-01-25 2012-04-24 Social Concepts, Inc. Apparatus for increasing social interaction over an electronic network
US8027975B2 (en) * 2007-01-31 2011-09-27 Reputation.Com, Inc. Identifying and changing personal information
US20080183694A1 (en) * 2007-01-31 2008-07-31 Daniel Cane Method and system presenting search results using relationship information
US8620822B2 (en) * 2007-02-01 2013-12-31 Microsoft Corporation Reputation assessment via karma points
US20080189292A1 (en) * 2007-02-02 2008-08-07 Jed Stremel System and method for automatic population of a contact file with contact content and expression content
WO2008094168A1 (en) * 2007-02-02 2008-08-07 Facebook, Inc. System and method for giving gifts and displaying assets in a social network environment
US8296373B2 (en) * 2007-02-02 2012-10-23 Facebook, Inc. Automatically managing objectionable behavior in a web-based social network
US20080275969A1 (en) * 2007-02-02 2008-11-06 Blaksley Ventures 108, Llc System and method for managing a plurality of network clusters
US8204952B2 (en) 2007-02-02 2012-06-19 Facebook, Inc. Digital file distribution in a social network system
WO2008094155A1 (en) * 2007-02-02 2008-08-07 Facebook, Inc. System and method for determining a trust level in a social network environment
US8549651B2 (en) * 2007-02-02 2013-10-01 Facebook, Inc. Determining a trust level in a social network environment
US20070124226A1 (en) * 2007-02-08 2007-05-31 Global Personals, Llc Method for Verifying Data in a Dating Service, Dating-Service Database including Verified Member Data, and Method for Prioritizing Search Results Including Verified Data, and Methods for Verifying Data
US20070219994A1 (en) * 2007-02-13 2007-09-20 Lemelson Greg M Methods and systems for displaying media utilizing user-generated data
US20080201433A1 (en) * 2007-02-15 2008-08-21 Mcdonald Stephen Metric-based electronic mail system
US8832556B2 (en) 2007-02-21 2014-09-09 Facebook, Inc. Systems and methods for implementation of a structured query language interface in a distributed database environment
US7809805B2 (en) * 2007-02-28 2010-10-05 Facebook, Inc. Systems and methods for automatically locating web-based social network members
US8244599B2 (en) 2007-02-28 2012-08-14 Ebay Inc. Methods and systems for social shopping on a network-based marketplace
US7680882B2 (en) * 2007-03-06 2010-03-16 Friendster, Inc. Multimedia aggregation in an online social network
US20080229424A1 (en) * 2007-03-13 2008-09-18 Fatdoor, Inc. Dispute resolution in a geo-spatial environment
WO2008112293A1 (en) 2007-03-13 2008-09-18 Facebook, Inc. Systems and methods for network authentication
US7827265B2 (en) * 2007-03-23 2010-11-02 Facebook, Inc. System and method for confirming an association in a web-based social network
WO2008118114A1 (en) * 2007-03-23 2008-10-02 Facebook, Inc. System and method for confirming an association in a web-based social network
US8583564B2 (en) * 2007-03-26 2013-11-12 Microsoft Corporation Differential pricing based on social network standing
US8527355B2 (en) 2007-03-28 2013-09-03 Article One Partners Holdings, Llc Method and system for requesting prior art from the public in exchange for a reward
US8775561B2 (en) * 2007-04-03 2014-07-08 Yahoo! Inc. Expanding a social network by the action of a single user
WO2008124099A1 (en) * 2007-04-06 2008-10-16 Mainstream Holdings, Inc. A system and method for managing online networking information
US8677479B2 (en) * 2007-04-16 2014-03-18 Microsoft Corporation Detection of adversaries through collection and correlation of assessments
US7953969B2 (en) * 2007-04-16 2011-05-31 Microsoft Corporation Reduction of false positive reputations through collection of overrides from customer deployments
US8200663B2 (en) * 2007-04-25 2012-06-12 Chacha Search, Inc. Method and system for improvement of relevance of search results
AU2008257165B2 (en) 2007-05-24 2012-11-22 Facebook, Inc. Systems and methods for providing privacy settings for applications associated with a user profile
CN101681346A (en) 2007-05-24 2010-03-24 费斯布克公司 Personalized platform for accessing internet applications
US7895177B2 (en) * 2007-05-29 2011-02-22 Yahoo! Inc. Enabling searching of user ratings and reviews using user profile location, and social networks
US8249943B2 (en) * 2007-05-31 2012-08-21 Facebook, Inc. Auction based polling
JP5324567B2 (en) * 2007-06-12 2013-10-23 フェイスブック,インク. Personalized application content for social networks
US20090006115A1 (en) * 2007-06-29 2009-01-01 Yahoo! Inc. Establishing and updating reputation scores in online participatory systems
US7783620B1 (en) * 2007-06-29 2010-08-24 Emc Corporation Relevancy scoring using query structure and data structure for federated search
US7783630B1 (en) * 2007-06-29 2010-08-24 Emc Corporation Tuning of relevancy ranking for federated search
US8849909B2 (en) * 2007-07-06 2014-09-30 Yahoo! Inc. Real-time asynchronous event aggregation systems
US9098545B2 (en) 2007-07-10 2015-08-04 Raj Abhyanker Hot news neighborhood banter in a geo-spatial social network
US8732846B2 (en) 2007-08-15 2014-05-20 Facebook, Inc. Platform for providing a social context to software applications
US8027943B2 (en) * 2007-08-16 2011-09-27 Facebook, Inc. Systems and methods for observing responses to invitations by users in a web-based social network
US9245252B2 (en) 2008-05-07 2016-01-26 Salesforce.Com, Inc. Method and system for determining on-line influence in social media
US20090049127A1 (en) * 2007-08-16 2009-02-19 Yun-Fang Juan System and method for invitation targeting in a web-based social network
CA2637975A1 (en) * 2007-08-16 2009-02-16 Radian6 Technologies Inc. Method and system for determining topical on-line influence of an entity
AU2008288885B2 (en) * 2007-08-20 2012-12-06 Facebook, Inc. Targeting advertisements in a social network
US8386313B2 (en) 2007-08-28 2013-02-26 The Nielsen Company (Us), Llc Stimulus placement system using subject neuro-response measurements
US8392255B2 (en) 2007-08-29 2013-03-05 The Nielsen Company (Us), Llc Content based selection and meta tagging of advertisement breaks
US8296356B2 (en) 2007-08-31 2012-10-23 Microsoft Corporation Rating based on relationship
US20100318375A1 (en) * 2007-09-07 2010-12-16 Ryan Steelberg System and Method for Localized Valuations of Media Assets
US8341162B2 (en) * 2007-09-19 2012-12-25 Intercept, Llc Social network for travelers with layovers
US9325755B1 (en) 2007-09-19 2016-04-26 Intercept, Llc Social network for travelers with layovers
WO2009046224A1 (en) 2007-10-02 2009-04-09 Emsense Corporation Providing remote access to media, and reaction and survey data from viewers of the media
WO2009049293A1 (en) * 2007-10-12 2009-04-16 Chacha Search, Inc. Method and system for creation of user/guide profile in a human-aided search system
US20090100136A1 (en) * 2007-10-15 2009-04-16 Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications Ab Intelligent presence
US20090100052A1 (en) * 2007-10-16 2009-04-16 Stern Edith H Enabling collaborative networks
US7991841B2 (en) * 2007-10-24 2011-08-02 Microsoft Corporation Trust-based recommendation systems
CN101425065B (en) * 2007-10-31 2013-01-09 日电(中国)有限公司 Entity relation excavating method and device
US9123079B2 (en) 2007-11-05 2015-09-01 Facebook, Inc. Sponsored stories unit creation from organic activity stream
US8799068B2 (en) * 2007-11-05 2014-08-05 Facebook, Inc. Social advertisements and other informational messages on a social networking website, and advertising model for same
US8185930B2 (en) * 2007-11-06 2012-05-22 Mcafee, Inc. Adjusting filter or classification control settings
US8045458B2 (en) * 2007-11-08 2011-10-25 Mcafee, Inc. Prioritizing network traffic
US9367823B1 (en) 2007-11-09 2016-06-14 Skyword, Inc. Computer method and system for ranking users in a network community of users
US8620996B2 (en) * 2007-11-19 2013-12-31 Motorola Mobility Llc Method and apparatus for determining a group preference in a social network
US7895284B2 (en) * 2007-11-29 2011-02-22 Yahoo! Inc. Social news ranking using gossip distance
US8583633B2 (en) * 2007-11-30 2013-11-12 Ebay Inc. Using reputation measures to improve search relevance
US8676887B2 (en) 2007-11-30 2014-03-18 Yahoo! Inc. Social news forwarding to generate interest clusters
US20090150166A1 (en) * 2007-12-05 2009-06-11 International Business Machines Corporation Hiring process by using social networking techniques to verify job seeker information
US8126882B2 (en) * 2007-12-12 2012-02-28 Google Inc. Credibility of an author of online content
US7954058B2 (en) * 2007-12-14 2011-05-31 Yahoo! Inc. Sharing of content and hop distance over a social network
US8260882B2 (en) * 2007-12-14 2012-09-04 Yahoo! Inc. Sharing of multimedia and relevance measure based on hop distance in a social network
US9305087B2 (en) * 2007-12-20 2016-04-05 Google Technology Holdings Method and apparatus for acquiring content-based capital via a sharing technology
US8296245B2 (en) * 2008-01-03 2012-10-23 Kount Inc. Method and system for creation and validation of anonymous digital credentials
US20100011059A1 (en) * 2008-01-13 2010-01-14 Byungwook Christopher Han Self-Marketing System and Method
US8160975B2 (en) * 2008-01-25 2012-04-17 Mcafee, Inc. Granular support vector machine with random granularity
US20090192848A1 (en) * 2008-01-30 2009-07-30 Gerald Rea Method and apparatus for workforce assessment
US20090204471A1 (en) * 2008-02-11 2009-08-13 Clearshift Corporation Trust Level Based Task Assignment in an Online Work Management System
US8090666B2 (en) 2008-02-15 2012-01-03 Your Net Works, Inc. System, method, and computer program product for providing an association between a first participant and a second participant in a social network
US20090216608A1 (en) * 2008-02-22 2009-08-27 Accenture Global Services Gmbh Collaborative review system
WO2009105277A1 (en) * 2008-02-22 2009-08-27 Socialrep, Llc System and method for measuring and managing distributed online conversations
US9298815B2 (en) * 2008-02-22 2016-03-29 Accenture Global Services Limited System for providing an interface for collaborative innovation
US20090216578A1 (en) * 2008-02-22 2009-08-27 Accenture Global Services Gmbh Collaborative innovation system
US8972177B2 (en) 2008-02-26 2015-03-03 Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc System for logging life experiences using geographic cues
US8015144B2 (en) 2008-02-26 2011-09-06 Microsoft Corporation Learning transportation modes from raw GPS data
US8966121B2 (en) 2008-03-03 2015-02-24 Microsoft Corporation Client-side management of domain name information
US8838646B2 (en) * 2008-03-05 2014-09-16 International Business Machines Corporation Using social networking thresholds in access control decisions
US8489517B2 (en) * 2008-03-30 2013-07-16 Cachinko Llc Method, system, and storage device for clique based social networking and social graphing
US8887066B1 (en) 2008-04-02 2014-11-11 Facebook, Inc. Communicating plans for users of a social networking system
US8589503B2 (en) 2008-04-04 2013-11-19 Mcafee, Inc. Prioritizing network traffic
US8397168B2 (en) 2008-04-05 2013-03-12 Social Communications Company Interfacing with a spatial virtual communication environment
US8191001B2 (en) 2008-04-05 2012-05-29 Social Communications Company Shared virtual area communication environment based apparatus and methods
US20090259505A1 (en) * 2008-04-09 2009-10-15 Vali Tadayon Inventory management system and method
US20090265326A1 (en) * 2008-04-17 2009-10-22 Thomas Dudley Lehrman Dynamic personal privacy system for internet-connected social networks
US8490004B2 (en) * 2008-04-17 2013-07-16 Gary Stephen Shuster Evaluation of remote user attributes in a social networking environment
US20090265319A1 (en) * 2008-04-17 2009-10-22 Thomas Dudley Lehrman Dynamic Personal Privacy System for Internet-Connected Social Networks
US20090265604A1 (en) * 2008-04-21 2009-10-22 Microsoft Corporation Graphical representation of social network vitality
US20090265198A1 (en) * 2008-04-22 2009-10-22 Plaxo, Inc. Reputation Evalution Using a contact Information Database
EP2300976A4 (en) * 2008-05-05 2011-08-03 Thomson Reuters Glo Resources Systems and methods for integrating user-generated content with proprietary content in a database
US8543929B1 (en) * 2008-05-14 2013-09-24 Adobe Systems Incorporated User ratings allowing access to features for modifying content
US8266284B2 (en) * 2008-05-16 2012-09-11 Microsoft Corporation System from reputation shaping a peer-to-peer network
US20090306996A1 (en) * 2008-06-05 2009-12-10 Microsoft Corporation Rating computation on social networks
US8688841B2 (en) * 2008-06-05 2014-04-01 Modena Enterprises, Llc System and method for content rights based on existence of a voice session
US9002820B2 (en) * 2008-06-05 2015-04-07 Gary Stephen Shuster Forum search with time-dependent activity weighting
US20090307057A1 (en) * 2008-06-06 2009-12-10 Albert Azout Associative memory operators, methods and computer program products for using a social network for predictive marketing analysis
US20090319929A1 (en) * 2008-06-22 2009-12-24 Microsoft Corporation Interface for multiple user spaces
US20090319914A1 (en) * 2008-06-23 2009-12-24 Microsoft Corporation Assessing relationship between participants in online community
US9342833B2 (en) * 2008-06-25 2016-05-17 Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc Method of aggregating business and social networks
US20090327054A1 (en) * 2008-06-27 2009-12-31 Microsoft Corporation Personal reputation system based on social networking
US20090326970A1 (en) * 2008-06-30 2009-12-31 Microsoft Corporation Awarding users for discoveries of content based on future popularity in a social network
US9009082B1 (en) 2008-06-30 2015-04-14 Amazon Technologies, Inc. Assessing user-supplied evaluations
US20100010987A1 (en) * 2008-07-01 2010-01-14 Barry Smyth Searching system having a server which automatically generates search data sets for shared searching
US7930255B2 (en) * 2008-07-02 2011-04-19 International Business Machines Corporation Social profile assessment
US20100015975A1 (en) * 2008-07-17 2010-01-21 Kota Enterprises, Llc Profile service for sharing rights-enabled mobile profiles
US20100015976A1 (en) * 2008-07-17 2010-01-21 Domingo Enterprises, Llc System and method for sharing rights-enabled mobile profiles
US20100042618A1 (en) * 2008-08-12 2010-02-18 Peter Rinearson Systems and methods for comparing user ratings
US8245282B1 (en) 2008-08-19 2012-08-14 Eharmony, Inc. Creating tests to identify fraudulent users
US9064021B2 (en) * 2008-10-02 2015-06-23 Liveramp, Inc. Data source attribution system
US20100088246A1 (en) * 2008-10-02 2010-04-08 Lim Michael Z System for, and method of, managing a social network
US20100104081A1 (en) * 2008-10-22 2010-04-29 Comverse, Ltd. Subscriber rating system
US8386534B2 (en) * 2008-10-30 2013-02-26 At&T Intellectual Property I, L.P. Automatic gleaning of semantic information in social networks
US20100111372A1 (en) * 2008-11-03 2010-05-06 Microsoft Corporation Determining user similarities based on location histories
US20100119053A1 (en) * 2008-11-13 2010-05-13 Buzzient, Inc. Analytic measurement of online social media content
US8086680B2 (en) * 2008-11-14 2011-12-27 International Business Machines Corporation Community-defined and managed communication network
US8055750B2 (en) * 2008-11-14 2011-11-08 International Business Machines Corporation Autonomous management of a communication network
CN102362283A (en) * 2008-12-05 2012-02-22 社会传播公司 Managing interactions in a network communications environment
US9063226B2 (en) * 2009-01-14 2015-06-23 Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc Detecting spatial outliers in a location entity dataset
JP5218080B2 (en) * 2009-01-15 2013-06-26 ソニー株式会社 Electronic coupon processing system, user management server device, service providing method, and program
WO2010088701A1 (en) * 2009-02-02 2010-08-05 Asurion Corporation Method for integrating applications in an electronic address book
US20100205254A1 (en) * 2009-02-06 2010-08-12 Reinvent, Inc. Method and system of tracking content in a social network
US20100228726A1 (en) * 2009-02-06 2010-09-09 Slinker Scott W Determining associative intent in a database containing linked entities
US8312276B2 (en) * 2009-02-06 2012-11-13 Industrial Technology Research Institute Method for sending and receiving an evaluation of reputation in a social network
US8214253B1 (en) * 2009-02-20 2012-07-03 Sprint Communications Company L.P. Identifying influencers among a group of wireless-subscription subscribers
US9288638B2 (en) * 2009-02-23 2016-03-15 Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development Lp Social networking of mobile devices
US8805996B1 (en) 2009-02-23 2014-08-12 Symantec Corporation Analysis of communications in social networks
WO2010099631A1 (en) * 2009-03-03 2010-09-10 Google Inc. Adheat advertisement model for social network
US9996845B2 (en) * 2009-03-03 2018-06-12 Google Llc Bidding on users
US8600812B2 (en) * 2009-03-03 2013-12-03 Google Inc. Adheat advertisement model for social network
US20100235886A1 (en) * 2009-03-16 2010-09-16 International Business Machines Corporation Automated relationship management for electronic social networks
US20100241580A1 (en) * 2009-03-19 2010-09-23 Tagged, Inc. System and method of selecting a relevant user for introduction to a user in an online environment
US9817872B2 (en) * 2009-03-26 2017-11-14 International Business Machines Corporation Method and apparatus for social trust networks on messaging platforms
WO2010109332A1 (en) * 2009-03-27 2010-09-30 Pharos Global Strategies Ltd. System, method, and computer program product for verifying the identity of social network users
US8176057B2 (en) * 2009-04-01 2012-05-08 Korea Institute Of Science And Technology Assessment of a user reputation and a content reliability
US20100268574A1 (en) * 2009-04-17 2010-10-21 Microsoft Corporation Tracking user profile influence in a digital media system
US20100285818A1 (en) * 2009-05-08 2010-11-11 Crawford C S Lee Location based service for directing ads to subscribers
US20100306672A1 (en) * 2009-06-01 2010-12-02 Sony Computer Entertainment America Inc. Method and apparatus for matching users in multi-user computer simulations
US20130066719A1 (en) * 2009-06-03 2013-03-14 Digg, Inc. Determining advertisement preferences
US20100325057A1 (en) * 2009-06-17 2010-12-23 Microsoft Corporation Leveraging social capital on a website
US20110004692A1 (en) * 2009-07-01 2011-01-06 Tom Occhino Gathering Information about Connections in a Social Networking Service
US8943211B2 (en) * 2009-07-02 2015-01-27 Microsoft Corporation Reputation mashup
US8458604B2 (en) * 2009-07-06 2013-06-04 Fairwinds Partners Llc Methods and apparatus for determining website validity
US8661050B2 (en) * 2009-07-10 2014-02-25 Microsoft Corporation Hybrid recommendation system
US8793319B2 (en) 2009-07-13 2014-07-29 Microsoft Corporation Electronic message organization via social groups
EP3009975A1 (en) 2009-07-16 2016-04-20 Bluefin Labs, Inc. Automatic correlation of text-based media to video-based media
US10108616B2 (en) * 2009-07-17 2018-10-23 International Business Machines Corporation Probabilistic link strength reduction
US9423539B2 (en) 2009-07-17 2016-08-23 Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development Lp Non-periodic grating reflectors with focusing power and methods for fabricating the same
JP5304509B2 (en) * 2009-07-23 2013-10-02 コニカミノルタ株式会社 Authentication method, authentication apparatus, and authentication processing program
US20110035386A1 (en) * 2009-08-07 2011-02-10 Hsiao Ipai Terry System and Method to Manage and Utilize "Social Dynamic Rating" for Contacts Stored by Mobile Device Users
JP5519792B2 (en) * 2009-08-12 2014-06-11 テルコーディア テクノロジーズ インコーポレイテッド Social network privacy by how to develop access control
US20110061004A1 (en) * 2009-09-04 2011-03-10 Microsoft Corporation Use of Communicator Application to Establish Communication with Experts
WO2011037563A1 (en) 2009-09-23 2011-03-31 Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. Optical devices based on diffraction gratings
US9009177B2 (en) 2009-09-25 2015-04-14 Microsoft Corporation Recommending points of interests in a region
US20110078188A1 (en) * 2009-09-28 2011-03-31 Microsoft Corporation Mining and Conveying Social Relationships
US8959079B2 (en) * 2009-09-29 2015-02-17 International Business Machines Corporation Method and system for providing relationships in search results
JP5735969B2 (en) 2009-09-30 2015-06-17 エバン ブイ チュラプコ, System and method for analyzing social graph data for determining connections within a community
US9119027B2 (en) * 2009-10-06 2015-08-25 Facebook, Inc. Sharing of location-based content item in social networking service
US20110099164A1 (en) 2009-10-23 2011-04-28 Haim Zvi Melman Apparatus and method for search and retrieval of documents and advertising targeting
US9560984B2 (en) 2009-10-29 2017-02-07 The Nielsen Company (Us), Llc Analysis of controlled and automatic attention for introduction of stimulus material
US20110125793A1 (en) * 2009-11-20 2011-05-26 Avaya Inc. Method for determining response channel for a contact center from historic social media postings
US20110125697A1 (en) * 2009-11-20 2011-05-26 Avaya Inc. Social media contact center dialog system
US20110145719A1 (en) * 2009-12-14 2011-06-16 International Business Machines Corporation People recommendation indicator method and apparatus in a social networking site
US20110161159A1 (en) * 2009-12-28 2011-06-30 Tekiela Robert S Systems and methods for influencing marketing campaigns
US8952403B2 (en) 2010-01-29 2015-02-10 Hewlett-Packard Development, L.P. Optical devices based on non-periodic sub-wavelength gratings
US8850304B2 (en) * 2010-02-05 2014-09-30 Kip Medv Pi Lp System and method for visually mapping and automatically completing electronic forms
US8606792B1 (en) 2010-02-08 2013-12-10 Google Inc. Scoring authors of posts
US8249996B1 (en) * 2010-02-18 2012-08-21 Bank Of America Corporation Artificial intelligence for social media
US8612134B2 (en) * 2010-02-23 2013-12-17 Microsoft Corporation Mining correlation between locations using location history
US9261376B2 (en) 2010-02-24 2016-02-16 Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc Route computation based on route-oriented vehicle trajectories
US10288433B2 (en) 2010-02-25 2019-05-14 Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc Map-matching for low-sampling-rate GPS trajectories
WO2011115671A2 (en) * 2010-03-15 2011-09-22 Ribbit Corporation Voting communicating system
EP2550608A1 (en) 2010-03-22 2013-01-30 Heystaks Technologies Limited Systems and methods for user interactive social metasearching
US20110258042A1 (en) * 2010-04-16 2011-10-20 Google Inc. Endorsements Used in Ranking Ads
US20110264596A1 (en) * 2010-04-26 2011-10-27 Wayne Joseph Shifflett Social referral networks
US8719198B2 (en) 2010-05-04 2014-05-06 Microsoft Corporation Collaborative location and activity recommendations
US9400550B2 (en) * 2010-05-06 2016-07-26 Nokia Technologies Oy Apparatus and method providing viewer feedback of observed personal user data
US8484080B2 (en) * 2010-05-10 2013-07-09 Nahu BVBA System and method for social product information sharing
US8621638B2 (en) 2010-05-14 2013-12-31 Mcafee, Inc. Systems and methods for classification of messaging entities
US8874727B2 (en) * 2010-05-31 2014-10-28 The Nielsen Company (Us), Llc Methods, apparatus, and articles of manufacture to rank users in an online social network
US9593957B2 (en) 2010-06-04 2017-03-14 Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc Searching similar trajectories by locations
US20110307397A1 (en) * 2010-06-09 2011-12-15 Akram Benmbarek Systems and methods for applying social influence
US20110307340A1 (en) * 2010-06-09 2011-12-15 Akram Benmbarek Systems and methods for sharing user or member experience on brands
US8359328B2 (en) * 2010-06-15 2013-01-22 International Business Machines Corporation Party reputation aggregation system and method
WO2012012453A2 (en) * 2010-07-19 2012-01-26 Echidna, Inc. Use of social ranks to find providers of relevant user-generated content
US8931048B2 (en) 2010-08-24 2015-01-06 International Business Machines Corporation Data system forensics system and method
CN103221967A (en) 2010-09-11 2013-07-24 社会传播公司 Relationship based presence indicating in virtual area contexts
US8700636B2 (en) 2010-09-16 2014-04-15 Facebook, Inc. Action clustering for news feeds
US20120227115A1 (en) * 2010-09-28 2012-09-06 Adam Kidron License management platform apparatuses, methods and systems
US9208239B2 (en) 2010-09-29 2015-12-08 Eloy Technology, Llc Method and system for aggregating music in the cloud
US8800029B2 (en) * 2010-10-04 2014-08-05 International Business Machines Corporation Gathering, storing and using reputation information
US20120095846A1 (en) * 2010-10-13 2012-04-19 Derek John Leverant Systems and methods for providing social networking, wherein a user can create multiple profiles within a single account
US9043220B2 (en) * 2010-10-19 2015-05-26 International Business Machines Corporation Defining marketing strategies through derived E-commerce patterns
US8601002B1 (en) * 2010-10-30 2013-12-03 Jobvite, Inc. Method and system for identifying job candidates
US9324112B2 (en) 2010-11-09 2016-04-26 Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc Ranking authors in social media systems
US8909612B2 (en) * 2010-11-12 2014-12-09 Contacts Count, LLC Method, system and program product to improve social network systems
US20120197881A1 (en) 2010-11-23 2012-08-02 Allen Blue Segmentation of professional network update data
US9229900B2 (en) * 2011-01-20 2016-01-05 Linkedin Corporation Techniques for ascribing social attributes to content
US8910052B2 (en) * 2010-12-04 2014-12-09 Facebook, Inc. Tagging users of a social networking system in an experience in a user's user profile
US9292602B2 (en) * 2010-12-14 2016-03-22 Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc Interactive search results page
US9990652B2 (en) 2010-12-15 2018-06-05 Facebook, Inc. Targeting social advertising to friends of users who have interacted with an object associated with the advertising
US9201952B1 (en) * 2010-12-21 2015-12-01 Google Inc. User interface for activity status and history
US9286619B2 (en) 2010-12-27 2016-03-15 Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc System and method for generating social summaries
US8978893B2 (en) * 2010-12-28 2015-03-17 Facebook, Inc. Adding a compliment to a user's experience on a user's social networking profile
US8688691B2 (en) 2011-01-13 2014-04-01 International Business Machines Corporation Relevancy ranking of search results in a network based upon a user's computer-related activities
US9172762B2 (en) 2011-01-20 2015-10-27 Linkedin Corporation Methods and systems for recommending a context based on content interaction
US10440402B2 (en) 2011-01-26 2019-10-08 Afterlive.tv Inc Method and system for generating highlights from scored data streams
US20120197993A1 (en) * 2011-01-27 2012-08-02 Linkedln Corporation Skill ranking system
US20120203831A1 (en) 2011-02-03 2012-08-09 Kent Schoen Sponsored Stories Unit Creation from Organic Activity Stream
US20120210240A1 (en) * 2011-02-10 2012-08-16 Microsoft Corporation User interfaces for personalized recommendations
EP2673744A4 (en) * 2011-02-11 2015-12-30 Hewlett Packard Development Co Determining characteristics of participants in a social network
US8543454B2 (en) * 2011-02-18 2013-09-24 Bluefin Labs, Inc. Generating audience response metrics and ratings from social interest in time-based media
US8290981B2 (en) * 2011-03-08 2012-10-16 Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., Ltd. Social network system and member searching and analyzing method in social network
US20120239494A1 (en) * 2011-03-14 2012-09-20 Bo Hu Pricing deals for a user based on social information
US20120264101A1 (en) * 2011-03-16 2012-10-18 Logi-Serve Llc System and method for assessment testing and credential publication
US9286299B2 (en) 2011-03-17 2016-03-15 Red Hat, Inc. Backup of data items
US8694457B2 (en) 2011-03-29 2014-04-08 Manyworlds, Inc. Adaptive expertise clustering system and method
US8843433B2 (en) 2011-03-29 2014-09-23 Manyworlds, Inc. Integrated search and adaptive discovery system and method
US8600926B2 (en) 2011-03-29 2013-12-03 Manyworlds, Inc. Integrated interest and expertise-based discovery system and method
WO2013062620A2 (en) * 2011-04-04 2013-05-02 Northwestern University Methods and systems for analyzing data of an online social network
US20130132547A1 (en) * 2011-05-09 2013-05-23 Respect Network Corporation Apparatus and Method for Address Book Automation Over a Trust Network
US20120290427A1 (en) * 2011-05-09 2012-11-15 Respect Network Corporation Apparatus and Method for Managing a Trust Network
WO2012159200A1 (en) * 2011-05-23 2012-11-29 Coursepeer Inc. Recommending students to prospective employers based on students' online content
US9632972B1 (en) * 2011-05-31 2017-04-25 Google Inc. Determining influence in a social community
US9811783B2 (en) 2011-06-24 2017-11-07 Jobvite, Inc. Method and system for channel optimization
US20130013680A1 (en) * 2011-07-07 2013-01-10 International Business Machines Corporation System and method for determining interpersonal relationship influence information using textual content from interpersonal interactions
US9846916B2 (en) * 2011-07-10 2017-12-19 Facebook, Inc. Clustering a user's connections in a social networking system
US9092491B2 (en) * 2011-07-11 2015-07-28 International Business Machines Corporation Searching documentation across interconnected nodes in a distributed network
US20130017872A1 (en) * 2011-07-12 2013-01-17 Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. Method and system for tag-based grouping of online communities
US9576434B2 (en) 2011-07-25 2017-02-21 Sony Interactive Entertainment Inc. Implementing computer activity-based challenges
US9846694B1 (en) * 2011-08-11 2017-12-19 IVP Holdings III LLC Patent related literature assisted user profiling, matching, and classification
US20180253739A1 (en) * 2011-08-21 2018-09-06 Google Inc. Automated Endorsement Prompting
US20130054706A1 (en) * 2011-08-29 2013-02-28 Mary Graham Modulation of Visual Notification Parameters Based on Message Activity and Notification Value
US10102502B2 (en) 2011-08-31 2018-10-16 Jobvite, Inc. Method and system for source tracking
US9141656B1 (en) * 2011-09-06 2015-09-22 Google Inc. Searching using access controls
US8943047B1 (en) * 2011-09-09 2015-01-27 Intuit Inc. Data aggregation for qualifying a partner candidate
CN103931174B (en) * 2011-09-30 2018-02-06 P·巴茨 For contact management and the system and method for recommended engine
KR101510647B1 (en) * 2011-10-07 2015-04-10 한국전자통신연구원 Method and apparatus for providing web trend analysis based on issue template extraction
US8966643B2 (en) * 2011-10-08 2015-02-24 Broadcom Corporation Content security in a social network
US9754292B1 (en) 2011-10-13 2017-09-05 Google Inc. Method and apparatus for serving relevant ads based on the recommendations of influential friends
US8825644B1 (en) * 2011-10-14 2014-09-02 Google Inc. Adjusting a ranking of search results
US20130103762A1 (en) * 2011-10-24 2013-04-25 Jobdiva, Inc. Resume Robotically Builds the Network
US20130110732A1 (en) * 2011-10-27 2013-05-02 NetOrbis Social Media Private Limited System and method for evaluating trustworthiness of users in a social network
US20130124644A1 (en) * 2011-11-11 2013-05-16 Mcafee, Inc. Reputation services for a social media identity
US9087273B2 (en) * 2011-11-15 2015-07-21 Facebook, Inc. Facial recognition using social networking information
US9836721B2 (en) 2011-11-21 2017-12-05 Facebook, Inc. Defining future plans in connection with objects in a social networking system
US20130132195A1 (en) * 2011-11-22 2013-05-23 Yahoo! Inc. Methods and systems for creating dynamic user segments based on social graphs
US9754226B2 (en) 2011-12-13 2017-09-05 Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc Urban computing of route-oriented vehicles
US9378287B2 (en) * 2011-12-14 2016-06-28 Patrick Frey Enhanced search system and method based on entity ranking
US8725728B1 (en) 2011-12-16 2014-05-13 Michael A. Colgan Computer based method and system of generating a visual representation of the character of a user or business based on self-rating and input from other parties
US9002753B2 (en) * 2011-12-16 2015-04-07 At&T Intellectual Property I, L.P. Method and apparatus for providing a personal value for an individual
US20130166358A1 (en) * 2011-12-21 2013-06-27 Saba Software, Inc. Determining a likelihood that employment of an employee will end
US20130166188A1 (en) 2011-12-21 2013-06-27 Microsoft Corporation Determine Spatiotemporal Causal Interactions In Data
US20130166466A1 (en) * 2011-12-22 2013-06-27 Joan Sanger Social networks and career management
US8886651B1 (en) 2011-12-22 2014-11-11 Reputation.Com, Inc. Thematic clustering
TWI482108B (en) * 2011-12-29 2015-04-21 Univ Nat Taiwan To bring virtual social networks into real-life social systems and methods
US20130252221A1 (en) * 2012-01-17 2013-09-26 Alibaba.Com Limited Question generation and presentation
US9772830B2 (en) 2012-01-19 2017-09-26 Syntel, Inc. System and method for modeling cloud rules for migration to the cloud
US9720975B2 (en) * 2012-01-30 2017-08-01 Massachusetts Institute Of Technology Dynamic influence tracking engine and method
US9420060B2 (en) * 2012-01-31 2016-08-16 Talent Earth, Inc. Collaborative expertise networking system and method
US8984049B1 (en) 2012-02-01 2015-03-17 Linkedin Corporation Online address book with multi-use input bar and profile bookmarking
US8943004B2 (en) 2012-02-08 2015-01-27 Adam Treiser Tools and methods for determining relationship values
EP2812857A4 (en) * 2012-02-08 2015-11-04 Adam Treiser Tools and methods for determining relationship values
US9430738B1 (en) 2012-02-08 2016-08-30 Mashwork, Inc. Automated emotional clustering of social media conversations
US8341101B1 (en) * 2012-02-08 2012-12-25 Adam Treiser Determining relationships between data items and individuals, and dynamically calculating a metric score based on groups of characteristics
US8478702B1 (en) 2012-02-08 2013-07-02 Adam Treiser Tools and methods for determining semantic relationship indexes
US9569986B2 (en) 2012-02-27 2017-02-14 The Nielsen Company (Us), Llc System and method for gathering and analyzing biometric user feedback for use in social media and advertising applications
US9390243B2 (en) * 2012-02-28 2016-07-12 Disney Enterprises, Inc. Dynamic trust score for evaluating ongoing online relationships
US8595022B1 (en) 2012-03-05 2013-11-26 Reputation.Com, Inc. Follow-up determination
US8688796B1 (en) * 2012-03-06 2014-04-01 Tal Lavian Rating system for determining whether to accept or reject objection raised by user in social network
US9105043B2 (en) * 2012-03-06 2015-08-11 Postrel Richard Method and system for providing incentives to members of a social network
US20130249928A1 (en) * 2012-03-21 2013-09-26 Sony Computer Entertainment America Llc Apparatus and method for visual representation of one or more characteristics for each of a plurality of items
US10186002B2 (en) 2012-03-21 2019-01-22 Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC Apparatus and method for matching users to groups for online communities and computer simulations
US10130872B2 (en) * 2012-03-21 2018-11-20 Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC Apparatus and method for matching groups to users for online communities and computer simulations
US9218630B2 (en) * 2012-03-22 2015-12-22 Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc Identifying influential users of a social networking service
US9262791B2 (en) * 2012-03-23 2016-02-16 Facebook, Inc. Targeting stories based on influencer scores
US9971993B2 (en) 2012-03-26 2018-05-15 Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc Leveraging a social graph for use with electronic messaging
US20130290050A1 (en) * 2012-04-04 2013-10-31 NetClarify, Inc. System and method for assessing employability or admitability of an individual and enabling modification or removal of related information
US9609081B2 (en) * 2012-04-11 2017-03-28 QiuYuan Liu Method for managed social networking services
US20130282812A1 (en) * 2012-04-24 2013-10-24 Samuel Lessin Adaptive audiences for claims in a social networking system
US9978106B2 (en) 2012-04-24 2018-05-22 Facebook, Inc. Managing copyrights of content for sharing on a social networking system
US10325323B2 (en) 2012-04-24 2019-06-18 Facebook, Inc. Providing a claims-based profile in a social networking system
US20150088927A1 (en) * 2012-04-27 2015-03-26 Blackberry Limited Systems and Methods for Establishing and Using a Personal Linking Graph
US8719179B2 (en) * 2012-04-30 2014-05-06 Gild, Inc. Recruiting service graphical user interface
US9413710B1 (en) * 2012-06-23 2016-08-09 Microstrategy Incorporated Targeted content delivery
US9111319B2 (en) * 2012-06-26 2015-08-18 Researchgate Gmbh System, computer program product and computer-implemented method for sharing academic user profiles and ranking academic users
US9088620B2 (en) * 2012-06-28 2015-07-21 Fujitsu Limited System and method of recommending actions based on social capital of users in a social network
US8918312B1 (en) 2012-06-29 2014-12-23 Reputation.Com, Inc. Assigning sentiment to themes
EP2680173A3 (en) * 2012-06-29 2014-01-15 Orange Determining implicit social networking relationships and organization
US20140017646A1 (en) * 2012-07-11 2014-01-16 Robert C. Seitzberg, III System and method for receiving and providing anonymous character feedback
US20140019537A1 (en) * 2012-07-13 2014-01-16 Microsoft Corporation Configurable Community Platform
US9275149B2 (en) 2012-08-22 2016-03-01 International Business Machines Corporation Utilizing social network relevancy as a factor in ranking search results
US9224130B2 (en) * 2012-08-23 2015-12-29 Oracle International Corporation Talent profile infographic
US20150066940A1 (en) * 2012-09-10 2015-03-05 Google Inc. Providing relevant online content
US20140074620A1 (en) * 2012-09-12 2014-03-13 Andrew G. Bosworth Advertisement selection based on user selected affiliation with brands in a social networking system
US20140089818A1 (en) * 2012-09-24 2014-03-27 Myspace, Llc System and method for connecting users to other users and objects in a social network
US9705963B2 (en) * 2012-09-28 2017-07-11 Thomson Reuters Global Resources Unlimited Company Systems, methods and interfaces for evaluating an online entity presence
US9235865B1 (en) * 2012-10-26 2016-01-12 Sprint Communications Company L.P. Identifying influencers using social information
US10379910B2 (en) 2012-10-26 2019-08-13 Syntel, Inc. System and method for evaluation of migration of applications to the cloud
US20140122577A1 (en) * 2012-10-26 2014-05-01 Syntel, Inc. System and method for evaluating readiness of applications for the cloud
US8977617B1 (en) * 2012-10-31 2015-03-10 Google Inc. Computing social influence scores for users
US9654592B2 (en) * 2012-11-08 2017-05-16 Linkedin Corporation Skills endorsements
US20180052807A1 (en) * 2012-11-14 2018-02-22 Google Inc. Endorsement smearing among related webpages
US9002852B2 (en) * 2012-11-15 2015-04-07 Adobe Systems Incorporated Mining semi-structured social media
WO2014076846A1 (en) * 2012-11-19 2014-05-22 株式会社I&Gパートナーズ Recruitment assistance system, server, network system, program, and recruitment assistance method
KR20140068299A (en) * 2012-11-26 2014-06-09 한국전자통신연구원 Social network forensic apparatus and method for analyzing sns data using the said apparatus
KR101285832B1 (en) * 2012-11-27 2013-07-12 전승훈 Member matchmaker system of website and app
US9473583B2 (en) 2012-12-10 2016-10-18 Linkedin Corporation Methods and systems for providing decision-making support
US9483806B2 (en) * 2012-12-12 2016-11-01 Linkedin Corporation Aggregating content related to a notable individual
US8744866B1 (en) * 2012-12-21 2014-06-03 Reputation.Com, Inc. Reputation report with recommendation
US20140180945A1 (en) * 2012-12-21 2014-06-26 Sap Ag Identifying endorsers for a candidate
US8805699B1 (en) * 2012-12-21 2014-08-12 Reputation.Com, Inc. Reputation report with score
US20140185954A1 (en) * 2012-12-28 2014-07-03 Industrial Technology Research Institute Influence-based social media interventions in healthcare
US9294576B2 (en) 2013-01-02 2016-03-22 Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc Social media impact assessment
US8973100B2 (en) * 2013-01-08 2015-03-03 Facebook, Inc. Trust-based authentication in a social networking system
US9311682B2 (en) * 2013-01-10 2016-04-12 The Nielsen Company (Us), Llc Systems and methods to identify candidates for targeted advertising in an online social gaming environment
US9009180B2 (en) * 2013-01-11 2015-04-14 Ge Zhao System and method for providing extending searches
US10032234B2 (en) * 2013-01-29 2018-07-24 Facebook, Inc. Ranking search results using diversity groups
US20140244531A1 (en) * 2013-02-28 2014-08-28 Linkedin Corporation Techniques for using social proximity scores in recruiting and/or hiring
US9166943B2 (en) * 2013-03-12 2015-10-20 International Business Machines Corporation Systems and methods for using social network analysis to schedule communications
US20150012451A1 (en) * 2013-03-12 2015-01-08 Scala Hosting Llc Social network prestige program
US20140278821A1 (en) * 2013-03-12 2014-09-18 Salesforce.Com, Inc. System and method for generating and managing social employee profiles
US10165065B1 (en) * 2013-03-12 2018-12-25 Facebook, Inc. Abusive access detection in a social networking system
US9446310B2 (en) * 2013-03-13 2016-09-20 Facebook, Inc. Suggesting friends for playing a game
US20140279616A1 (en) * 2013-03-14 2014-09-18 Ebay Inc. System and method of utilizing information from a social media service in an ecommerce service
US8925099B1 (en) 2013-03-14 2014-12-30 Reputation.Com, Inc. Privacy scoring
US20140324528A1 (en) * 2013-03-14 2014-10-30 Adaequare Inc. Computerized System and Method for Determining an Action's Relevance to a Transaction
US9818131B2 (en) 2013-03-15 2017-11-14 Liveramp, Inc. Anonymous information management
US20140279625A1 (en) * 2013-03-15 2014-09-18 Louis Levine Carter Social Network Based Skill Rating and Performance Feedback System
US10075384B2 (en) 2013-03-15 2018-09-11 Advanced Elemental Technologies, Inc. Purposeful computing
US9378065B2 (en) 2013-03-15 2016-06-28 Advanced Elemental Technologies, Inc. Purposeful computing
US9721086B2 (en) 2013-03-15 2017-08-01 Advanced Elemental Technologies, Inc. Methods and systems for secure and reliable identity-based computing
GB2515449A (en) * 2013-03-15 2014-12-31 Wonga Technology Ltd Method and system for User Acceptability
US9904579B2 (en) 2013-03-15 2018-02-27 Advanced Elemental Technologies, Inc. Methods and systems for purposeful computing
CN105378790A (en) 2013-03-15 2016-03-02 索库里公司 Risk assessment using social networking data
US9210119B2 (en) 2013-03-29 2015-12-08 Garret J. LoPorto Automated triggering of a broadcast
US20140337090A1 (en) * 2013-05-08 2014-11-13 Visa International Service Association Systems and methods to measure influcence power
US20140344206A1 (en) * 2013-05-16 2014-11-20 International Business Machines Corporation Verifying legitimate followers in social networks
KR101438354B1 (en) * 2013-05-21 2014-09-16 숭실대학교산학협력단 Method and server for providing social network service
WO2014193968A1 (en) * 2013-05-28 2014-12-04 Reputation Rights, LLC Method, system and computer program product for monitoring online reputations with the capability of creating new content
US8812690B1 (en) * 2013-07-22 2014-08-19 Linkedin Corporation Method and system to provide reputation scores for a social network member
US20160162488A1 (en) * 2013-07-24 2016-06-09 Enrico L. Corradi Method and system for scoring on-line profiles
US20150066948A1 (en) * 2013-08-27 2015-03-05 Adobe Systems Incorporated Influence Scoring for Social Media Authors
US9292885B2 (en) * 2013-08-27 2016-03-22 Unittus, Inc. Method and system for providing social search and connection services with a social media ecosystem
US20150067505A1 (en) * 2013-08-28 2015-03-05 Yahoo! Inc. System And Methods For User Curated Media
US9094389B2 (en) 2013-09-04 2015-07-28 Facebook, Inc. Systems and methods for authenticating nodes
US9665883B2 (en) 2013-09-13 2017-05-30 Acxiom Corporation Apparatus and method for bringing offline data online while protecting consumer privacy
US9697472B2 (en) 2013-09-20 2017-07-04 Linkedin Corporation Skills ontology creation
JP5731608B2 (en) * 2013-10-02 2015-06-10 グーグル・インコーポレーテッド Adheat advertising model for social networks
US9576326B2 (en) * 2013-10-03 2017-02-21 Linkedin Corporation Identification of a propagator-type leader in a social network
US9547877B2 (en) * 2013-10-03 2017-01-17 Linkedin Corporation Identification of a trigger-type leader in a social network
US9582836B2 (en) * 2013-10-03 2017-02-28 Linkedin Corporation Identification of a broker-type leader in a social network
US20150100576A1 (en) * 2013-10-09 2015-04-09 Foxwordy, Inc. Default Network
US9380073B2 (en) * 2013-10-09 2016-06-28 Foxwordy Inc. Reputation system in a default network
KR20150042894A (en) 2013-10-11 2015-04-22 삼성전자주식회사 System and method for sharing profile image card
WO2015074030A2 (en) * 2013-11-18 2015-05-21 Antoine Toffa A system and method for enabling pseudonymous lifelike social media interactions without using or linking to any uniquely identifiable user data and fully protecting users' privacy
CN103631901B (en) * 2013-11-20 2017-01-18 清华大学 One kind of rumor control method for a user based on trust largest network spanning tree
US9218468B1 (en) * 2013-12-16 2015-12-22 Matthew B. Rappaport Systems and methods for verifying attributes of users of online systems
US9645221B1 (en) 2013-12-17 2017-05-09 Booie LLC Communication system and method
US20150187024A1 (en) * 2013-12-27 2015-07-02 Telefonica Digital España, S.L.U. System and Method for Socially Aware Recommendations Based on Implicit User Feedback
US9292616B2 (en) * 2014-01-13 2016-03-22 International Business Machines Corporation Social balancer for indicating the relative priorities of linked objects
US10002127B2 (en) * 2014-01-17 2018-06-19 Intel Corporation Connecting people based on content and relational distance
CN103812696B (en) * 2014-01-28 2017-07-28 河南科技大学 One kind of things SFLA node evaluation method based on reputation
US9990404B2 (en) * 2014-01-30 2018-06-05 Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc System and method for identifying trending topics in a social network
JP5943356B2 (en) * 2014-01-31 2016-07-05 インターナショナル・ビジネス・マシーンズ・コーポレーションInternational Business Machines Corporation Information processing apparatus, information processing method, and program
US9325726B2 (en) 2014-02-03 2016-04-26 Intuit Inc. Method and system for virtual asset assisted extrusion and intrusion detection in a cloud computing environment
US9439367B2 (en) 2014-02-07 2016-09-13 Arthi Abhyanker Network enabled gardening with a remotely controllable positioning extension
US10437912B2 (en) * 2014-02-28 2019-10-08 International Business Machines Corporation Sorting and displaying documents according to sentiment level in an online community
US9531793B2 (en) 2014-02-28 2016-12-27 Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc Displaying and navigating implicit and explicit enterprise people relationships
US20150254679A1 (en) * 2014-03-07 2015-09-10 Genesys Telecommunications Laboratories, Inc. Vendor relationship management for contact centers
US10015770B2 (en) * 2014-03-24 2018-07-03 International Business Machines Corporation Social proximity networks for mobile phones
US9021040B1 (en) 2014-03-28 2015-04-28 Linkedin Corporation Automatically selecting addressees for receiving a content item
US20150286928A1 (en) * 2014-04-03 2015-10-08 Adobe Systems Incorporated Causal Modeling and Attribution
US20150286723A1 (en) * 2014-04-07 2015-10-08 Microsoft Corporation Identifying dominant entity categories
US10124253B2 (en) 2014-04-16 2018-11-13 Zynga Inc. Systems and methods of automatic game creation
US20150304343A1 (en) 2014-04-18 2015-10-22 Intuit Inc. Method and system for providing self-monitoring, self-reporting, and self-repairing virtual assets in a cloud computing environment
US9457901B2 (en) 2014-04-22 2016-10-04 Fatdoor, Inc. Quadcopter with a printable payload extension system and method
US9004396B1 (en) 2014-04-24 2015-04-14 Fatdoor, Inc. Skyteboard quadcopter and method
US9022324B1 (en) 2014-05-05 2015-05-05 Fatdoor, Inc. Coordination of aerial vehicles through a central server
US10331764B2 (en) 2014-05-05 2019-06-25 Hired, Inc. Methods and system for automatically obtaining information from a resume to update an online profile
US20150339630A1 (en) * 2014-05-20 2015-11-26 Eyal Grayevsky Method and System for Skill-Based Endorsement and Credential Validation
US10372735B2 (en) 2014-05-20 2019-08-06 Google Llc Generating activity summaries
US10248729B2 (en) 2014-05-28 2019-04-02 Bari Enterprises, Inc. Method and system of quantifying and qualifying athletic skills and competitive results in a social network
US9342690B2 (en) 2014-05-30 2016-05-17 Intuit Inc. Method and apparatus for a scoring service for security threat management
US9147117B1 (en) 2014-06-11 2015-09-29 Socure Inc. Analyzing facial recognition data and social network data for user authentication
US9441981B2 (en) 2014-06-20 2016-09-13 Fatdoor, Inc. Variable bus stops across a bus route in a regional transportation network
US9971985B2 (en) 2014-06-20 2018-05-15 Raj Abhyanker Train based community
US9451020B2 (en) 2014-07-18 2016-09-20 Legalforce, Inc. Distributed communication of independent autonomous vehicles to provide redundancy and performance
US20160026632A1 (en) * 2014-07-23 2016-01-28 Linkedin Corporation Seniority standardization model
US20160035046A1 (en) * 2014-07-31 2016-02-04 Linkedln Corporation Influencer score
US20160035045A1 (en) * 2014-07-31 2016-02-04 Linkedln Corporation Identifying occupation of a professional using profile and social data
US9542451B2 (en) * 2014-09-05 2017-01-10 Google Inc. Mobile application search ranking
US9070088B1 (en) * 2014-09-16 2015-06-30 Trooly Inc. Determining trustworthiness and compatibility of a person
US20160140503A1 (en) * 2014-11-18 2016-05-19 Salesforce.Com, Inc. Database systems and methods for using credibility ratings of users to process online resumes in a social networking environment
US10083295B2 (en) * 2014-12-23 2018-09-25 Mcafee, Llc System and method to combine multiple reputations
US10097665B2 (en) 2015-01-09 2018-10-09 International Business Machines Corporation Numerical computation of profiled degrees of alignment in social networking
US10382577B2 (en) * 2015-01-30 2019-08-13 Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc Trending topics on a social network based on member profiles
US10007719B2 (en) 2015-01-30 2018-06-26 Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc Compensating for individualized bias of search users
US10007730B2 (en) * 2015-01-30 2018-06-26 Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc Compensating for bias in search results
US9578043B2 (en) * 2015-03-20 2017-02-21 Ashif Mawji Calculating a trust score
US20160283548A1 (en) * 2015-03-27 2016-09-29 International Business Machines Corporation Recommending connections in a social network system
US9792588B2 (en) * 2015-03-31 2017-10-17 Linkedin Corporation Inferring professional reputations of social network members
US9936031B2 (en) * 2015-03-31 2018-04-03 International Business Machines Corporation Generation of content recommendations
US10049223B1 (en) * 2015-04-14 2018-08-14 Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc Analyzing address book upload requests
US9331973B1 (en) * 2015-04-30 2016-05-03 Linkedin Corporation Aggregating content associated with topics in a social network
US20160337303A1 (en) * 2015-05-14 2016-11-17 Sony Mobile Communications Inc. Method and system for approving or disapproving connection requests
US9936250B2 (en) 2015-05-19 2018-04-03 The Nielsen Company (Us), Llc Methods and apparatus to adjust content presented to an individual
US10198512B2 (en) * 2015-06-29 2019-02-05 Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc Search relevance using past searchers' reputation
US20170031915A1 (en) * 2015-07-31 2017-02-02 Linkedin Corporation Profile value score
US9929909B2 (en) 2015-08-31 2018-03-27 International Business Machines Corporation Identifying marginal-influence maximizing nodes in networks
US10176263B2 (en) 2015-09-25 2019-01-08 Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc Identifying paths using social networking data and application data
US10089363B2 (en) * 2015-10-15 2018-10-02 At&T Intellectual Property I, L.P. Method and apparatus for identifying users who know each other
US20170124160A1 (en) * 2015-10-30 2017-05-04 International Business Machines Corporation Collecting social media users in a specific customer segment
US20170147155A1 (en) * 2015-11-23 2017-05-25 Verizon Patent And Licensing Inc. Generating and verifying a reputational profile
EP3398128A1 (en) * 2015-12-28 2018-11-07 Telecom Italia S.p.A. Method for managing the reputation of members of an online community
CN105846856B (en) * 2015-12-31 2018-05-18 北京邮电大学 Construction of electric power communication network mode evaluation method and device
US10079817B2 (en) * 2016-02-29 2018-09-18 Dropbox, Inc. Techniques for invite enforcement and domain capture
US9679254B1 (en) 2016-02-29 2017-06-13 Www.Trustscience.Com Inc. Extrapolating trends in trust scores
US9721296B1 (en) 2016-03-24 2017-08-01 Www.Trustscience.Com Inc. Learning an entity's trust model and risk tolerance to calculate a risk score
US10063572B2 (en) * 2016-03-28 2018-08-28 Accenture Global Solutions Limited Antivirus signature distribution with distributed ledger
US10091318B2 (en) * 2016-03-30 2018-10-02 Facebook, Inc. Content-based notification delivery
US10255586B2 (en) * 2016-06-30 2019-04-09 Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc Deriving multi-level seniority of social network members
US10390212B2 (en) 2016-09-15 2019-08-20 Proximity Grid, Inc. Tracking system having an option of not being trackable
US10015630B2 (en) 2016-09-15 2018-07-03 Proximity Grid, Inc. Tracking people
US9860280B1 (en) * 2016-09-19 2018-01-02 International Business Machines Corporation Cognitive authentication with employee onboarding
US10380552B2 (en) 2016-10-31 2019-08-13 Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc Applicant skills inference for a job
US10282598B2 (en) 2017-03-07 2019-05-07 Bank Of America Corporation Performing image analysis for dynamic personnel identification based on a combination of biometric features
US10180969B2 (en) 2017-03-22 2019-01-15 Www.Trustscience.Com Inc. Entity resolution and identity management in big, noisy, and/or unstructured data
US20180330325A1 (en) 2017-05-12 2018-11-15 Zippy Inc. Method for indicating delivery location and software for same

Citations (2)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US6892179B1 (en) * 2000-06-02 2005-05-10 Open Ratings Inc. System and method for ascribing a reputation to an entity
US20060009994A1 (en) * 2004-07-07 2006-01-12 Tad Hogg System and method for reputation rating

Family Cites Families (38)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US5659731A (en) * 1995-06-19 1997-08-19 Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. Method for rating a match for a given entity found in a list of entities
US5926794A (en) * 1996-03-06 1999-07-20 Alza Corporation Visual rating system and method
US6112181A (en) * 1997-11-06 2000-08-29 Intertrust Technologies Corporation Systems and methods for matching, selecting, narrowcasting, and/or classifying based on rights management and/or other information
US20010032170A1 (en) * 1999-08-24 2001-10-18 Sheth Beerud D. Method and system for an on-line private marketplace
US7725525B2 (en) * 2000-05-09 2010-05-25 James Duncan Work Method and apparatus for internet-based human network brokering
US20020049751A1 (en) * 2000-09-01 2002-04-25 Mei-Na Chen Managing contact information through a communication network
CA2361022A1 (en) * 2000-11-03 2002-05-03 Charles Allan Armstrong Knowledge management system
US20020116458A1 (en) * 2000-12-14 2002-08-22 Jonathan Bricklin Web-based dating service
US20020133365A1 (en) * 2001-03-19 2002-09-19 William Grey System and method for aggregating reputational information
US7124372B2 (en) * 2001-06-13 2006-10-17 Glen David Brin Interactive communication between a plurality of users
EP1442411A4 (en) * 2001-09-30 2006-02-01 Realcontacts Ltd Connection service
EP1449127A1 (en) * 2001-11-29 2004-08-25 Trucost Plc Method and system for calculating an environmental score for a business unit
US7516163B1 (en) * 2001-12-13 2009-04-07 At & T Delaware Intellectrual Property, Inc. Wireless device address book updates
AU2002357833A1 (en) * 2001-12-14 2003-06-30 The Primiter Group, Llc System for identifying data relationships
US7539697B1 (en) * 2002-08-08 2009-05-26 Spoke Software Creation and maintenance of social relationship network graphs
KR20050109919A (en) * 2002-12-10 2005-11-22 텔어바웃 인크 Content creation, distribution, interaction, and monitoring system
US20040122803A1 (en) * 2002-12-19 2004-06-24 Dom Byron E. Detect and qualify relationships between people and find the best path through the resulting social network
JP2004252947A (en) * 2003-01-27 2004-09-09 Fuji Xerox Co Ltd Evaluation device and method
US7472110B2 (en) * 2003-01-29 2008-12-30 Microsoft Corporation System and method for employing social networks for information discovery
US20040205002A1 (en) * 2003-04-10 2004-10-14 Platinum Edge, Inc. System and method for enabling more informed relationship decisions
US20050015432A1 (en) * 2003-05-13 2005-01-20 Cohen Hunter C. Deriving contact information from emails
US20050021522A1 (en) * 2003-05-16 2005-01-27 Mark Herman Apparatus, method and computer readable medium for evaluating a network of entities and assets
US20040259641A1 (en) * 2003-06-23 2004-12-23 Ho David Yc Method and system for enabling and managing a networking database and system supporting a multi-user network game
WO2005006138A2 (en) * 2003-06-30 2005-01-20 Idocuments, Llc Worker and document management system
US7512653B2 (en) * 2003-08-11 2009-03-31 Sony Corporation System and method for dynamically grouping messaging buddies in an electronic network
US8554601B1 (en) * 2003-08-22 2013-10-08 Amazon Technologies, Inc. Managing content based on reputation
US7213206B2 (en) * 2003-09-09 2007-05-01 Fogg Brian J Relationship user interface
US7693827B2 (en) * 2003-09-30 2010-04-06 Google Inc. Personalization of placed content ordering in search results
US20050131716A1 (en) * 2003-12-15 2005-06-16 Hanan Martin D. Method for determining compatibility
US8015119B2 (en) * 2004-01-21 2011-09-06 Google Inc. Methods and systems for the display and navigation of a social network
US8010459B2 (en) * 2004-01-21 2011-08-30 Google Inc. Methods and systems for rating associated members in a social network
US7269590B2 (en) * 2004-01-29 2007-09-11 Yahoo! Inc. Method and system for customizing views of information associated with a social network user
US20050177405A1 (en) * 2004-02-11 2005-08-11 Turner Julie A. Method and apparatus for enhancing influence
US8010458B2 (en) * 2004-05-26 2011-08-30 Facebook, Inc. System and method for managing information flow between members of an online social network
US8572221B2 (en) * 2004-05-26 2013-10-29 Facebook, Inc. System and method for managing an online social network
US8825639B2 (en) * 2004-06-30 2014-09-02 Google Inc. Endorsing search results
US7865457B2 (en) * 2004-08-25 2011-01-04 International Business Machines Corporation Knowledge management system automatically allocating expert resources
US8412706B2 (en) * 2004-09-15 2013-04-02 Within3, Inc. Social network analysis

Patent Citations (2)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US6892179B1 (en) * 2000-06-02 2005-05-10 Open Ratings Inc. System and method for ascribing a reputation to an entity
US20060009994A1 (en) * 2004-07-07 2006-01-12 Tad Hogg System and method for reputation rating

Cited By (7)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US20110161469A1 (en) * 2008-03-13 2011-06-30 Claudio Luis De Amorim Method for building spontaneous virtual communities based on common interests using interest bands
US9858317B1 (en) * 2012-12-03 2018-01-02 Google Inc. Ranking communities based on members
US20140172996A1 (en) * 2012-12-14 2014-06-19 Facebook., Inc. Sending Notifications to Members of Social Group in a Social Networking System
US10397162B2 (en) * 2012-12-14 2019-08-27 Facebook, Inc. Sending notifications to members of social group in a social networking system
US8990191B1 (en) * 2014-03-25 2015-03-24 Linkedin Corporation Method and system to determine a category score of a social network member
US9418119B2 (en) 2014-03-25 2016-08-16 Linkedin Corporation Method and system to determine a category score of a social network member
WO2019152586A1 (en) * 2018-01-31 2019-08-08 Dotalign, Inc. Method, apparatus and computer-readable medium for leveraging connections

Also Published As

Publication number Publication date
US20150271289A1 (en) 2015-09-24
US20150269165A1 (en) 2015-09-24
US20150278290A1 (en) 2015-10-01
US20130254192A1 (en) 2013-09-26
US20150278223A1 (en) 2015-10-01
US20130290448A1 (en) 2013-10-31
US20060042483A1 (en) 2006-03-02
US20130290420A1 (en) 2013-10-31
US20130212033A1 (en) 2013-08-15
US20120036127A1 (en) 2012-02-09
US20130297589A1 (en) 2013-11-07
US20150269530A1 (en) 2015-09-24
DE202005022098U1 (en) 2013-08-06
US20150205872A1 (en) 2015-07-23
US20130212180A1 (en) 2013-08-15
US20130290325A1 (en) 2013-10-31
US20150278964A1 (en) 2015-10-01
US8010460B2 (en) 2011-08-30
EP1787251A2 (en) 2007-05-23
US20140258288A1 (en) 2014-09-11
US20130226910A1 (en) 2013-08-29
WO2006029149A2 (en) 2006-03-16
US20150205800A1 (en) 2015-07-23

Similar Documents

Publication Publication Date Title
Brachos et al. Knowledge effectiveness, social context and innovation
Leonardi Ambient awareness and knowledge acquisition: using social media to learn ‘who knows what’and ‘who knows whom’
Van Selm et al. Conducting online surveys
Kim Self-perception-based versus transference-based trust determinants in computer-mediated transactions: A cross-cultural comparison study
Culnan et al. How large US companies can use Twitter and other social media to gain business value.
US8170898B2 (en) System and method for facilitating bilateral and multilateral decision-making
Men Strategic internal communication: Transformational leadership, communication channels, and employee satisfaction
US9305003B2 (en) Relationship confirmation in an online social network
US8364605B2 (en) Calculating connectivity, social proximity and trust level between web user
US7747648B1 (en) World modeling using a relationship network with communication channels to entities
Ponzi et al. RepTrak™ pulse: Conceptualizing and validating a short-form measure of corporate reputation
US9536269B2 (en) Method and apparatus for analyzing and applying data related to customer interactions with social media
US6393423B1 (en) Apparatus and methods for electronic information exchange
US20080077517A1 (en) Reputation, Information & Communication Management
US20180158028A1 (en) System and method for evaluating job candidates
JP2015057718A (en) Ranking and selecting entities based on calculated reputation or influence scores
CA2657495C (en) System and method for creating a dynamic customized employment profile and subsequent use thereof
Saxton et al. New dimensions of nonprofit responsiveness: The application and promise of Internet-based technologies
US8266156B2 (en) Collaborative content evaluation
US20070127693A1 (en) Consumer feedback method and apparatus
Drnevich et al. Clarifying the conditions and limits of the contributions of ordinary and dynamic capabilities to relative firm performance
He et al. The role of trust in promoting organizational knowledge seeking using knowledge management systems: An empirical investigation
Simsek et al. The electronic survey technique: An integration and assessment
US7881969B2 (en) Trust based architecture for listing service
US20020116466A1 (en) Characterizing relationships in social networks

Legal Events

Date Code Title Description
AS Assignment

Owner name: LINKEDIN CORPORATION, CALIFORNIA

Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNORS:WORK, JAMES DUNCAN;BLUE, ALLEN;HOFFMAN, REID;REEL/FRAME:033306/0247

Effective date: 20050901

STCB Information on status: application discontinuation

Free format text: ABANDONED -- FAILURE TO RESPOND TO AN OFFICE ACTION