WO2013026095A1 - Social rating system - Google Patents

Social rating system Download PDF

Info

Publication number
WO2013026095A1
WO2013026095A1 PCT/AU2012/000984 AU2012000984W WO2013026095A1 WO 2013026095 A1 WO2013026095 A1 WO 2013026095A1 AU 2012000984 W AU2012000984 W AU 2012000984W WO 2013026095 A1 WO2013026095 A1 WO 2013026095A1
Authority
WO
WIPO (PCT)
Prior art keywords
social
rating
value
link
person
Prior art date
Application number
PCT/AU2012/000984
Other languages
French (fr)
Inventor
Yashimasa MATSUMOTO
John Hunt
Jef VAN ACOLEYEN
Original Assignee
Matsumoto Yashimasa
John Hunt
Van Acoleyen Jef
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 US201161527119P priority Critical
Priority to US61/527,119 priority
Application filed by Matsumoto Yashimasa, John Hunt, Van Acoleyen Jef filed Critical Matsumoto Yashimasa
Publication of WO2013026095A1 publication Critical patent/WO2013026095A1/en

Links

Classifications

    • 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

Abstract

A social rating method using at least one of a trust rating and a reputation rating to create a score based thereon.

Description

Social Rating System

Background ol the Invention:

It is known that there are rating systems available on the Internet that use past performance of participants as an indication of future performance for other participants on an internet based service platform. These rating systems are designed to deter negative behaviour that will hinder participants in order to maximize the utility of the service provided, Still, the said rating systems do not prevent participants from engaging in negative behaviour such as false representation and low performance on the service agreed.

As a result of current rating systems neither preventing nor deterring negative behaviour of participants, the policing cost to prevent bad behaviours and cost to catch ill-doing participants is high for the service provider.

There are organisations that are using rating systems which allow participants to rate the perceived performance of another participant, such as, but not limited to, e-bay, amazon, Epinions.com, Shopzilla, Slashdpt, yahoo answers, Yelp, e-lancer, 99 design, hot or not, Digg.com, reddit, Friendster, livejournal, Everything2, Kuro5hin, scoop, etaFilter, CouchSurfing, GlObalGiving, ProZ.com, Linkedln and Facebook. These rating systems are designed to show other participants the potential outcome of the transaction based on the past performance. They may deter negative behaviour that will hinder participants to maximize the utility of the service provided. Still, the said rating systems do not prevent or strongly deter participants to engage in negative behaviour such as false representation and low performance on the service agreed. Furthermore, these systems are vulnerable to an optimism bias (i.e. rate me well and I will rate you well) they are also open to attack (such as a "Sybil attack"). Furthermore, these rating systems do not discourage negative behaviour by the participants through a rating system that facilitates social contracting because the goals of the individual and of the collective are neither matched nor are they dependent on one another. Whilst there are automated rating systems whereby the assigned rating occurs through an algorithm such as for example, Xbox Live, TrustedSource, advogato and web of trust, these rating systems still do not prevent or effectively deter negative behaviour by the participants because these rating systems do not discourage negative behaviour by the participants through a rating system that facilitates social contracting because the goals of the individual and of the collective are neither matched nor are they dependent on one another.

It is also known that 'Six Degrees of Separation' is a concept that everyone is on average approximately six steps away from any other person on Earth, which was originally set out by Frigyes Karinthy. Still, application of social degree of separation to a rating system has not been made.

The reference to any prior art in this specification is not, and should not be taken as, an

acknowledgement or any form of suggestion that the prior art forms part of the common general knowledge. Social Rating System

Summary of the Invention:

According to one aspect of the invention, there is provided a social rating method comprising using at least one of a trust rating and a reputation rating to create a score based thereon.

In another aspect of the invention, there is provided a social contract method comprising use of at least one of a social degree of separation or a level of performance of a task to inform a social contract.

In another aspect of the invention, there is provided a social networking method comprising one or more of an associate Link, a testimonial Link and a sponsorship Link.

In another aspect of the invention, there is provided a method of calculating a social contract value according to the formula:

Social Contract Value Sn = Trust Rating(a)+Social Links 50n(Y)t Task Reputation Rating(p) and optionally creating a simple weighted average of Trust Rating, type of Social Links 50n and Reputation Rating.

In another aspect of the invention, there Is provided a method of calculating a social contract value according to the formula:

Social Contract Value Sn = Social Degree of Separation(a)+Social Links 50n(v)+ Task Reputation Ratlng(p)

and optionally creating a simple weighted average of Social Degree of Separation, type of Social Links 50n and Reputation Rating.

In another aspect of the invention, there is provided a method of calculating a social contract value according to the formula:

Sn = f(Un) x f(Wn)

Social Contract Value Sn is a function of Separation Weighting Un and Social Link Weighting Wn. Whereas function of Un and function of Wn can be and not limited to ratio, average, weighted average, exponential, minimum, maximum, mode, median and/or multiple.

Furthermore, a set of Un as weighing to represent Trust Rating or Social Degree of Separation and a set of Wn as weighting to represent types of social link, can be linear or non-linear in weighting allocation to reflect users' needs and/or system administrator's needs.

In another aspect of the invention, Sn can be modified to a set of standardised score. The standardised score will most likely be compatible with how Task Reputation Rating and/or Trust Rating are standardisedized. For example, Sn can be standardised score of 1 to 5 where 5 is the highest rating for social contracting along with Task Reputation Rating using same standardised score. The two standardised scores can be used to derive an average score.

In another aspect of the invention, there is provided a system for calculating an Adjusted Social Contract Value comprising computational means to calculate the Adjusted Social Contract Value (ASn) according to the formula: ASn = Sn x Qn x (Sn / fSn) where fSn is function of Sn including and not limited to ratio, Social Rating System average, weighted average, exponential, minimum, maximum, mode, median and/or multiple. (Sn / fSn) is referred to as Social Contract Multiple.

In another aspect of the invention, ASn can be modified to a set of standardised score. The standardised score will most likely be compatible with how Task Reputation Rating and/or Trust Rating are standardisedized. For example, ASn can be standardised score of 1 to 5 where 5 is the highest rating for social contracting along with Task Reputation Rating using same standardised score.

In another aspect of the invention, there is provided a method of calculating a trust rating comprising assigning a value to a social degree of separation and creating a trust rating therefrom.

In another aspect of the invention, there is provided a method of calculating a social degree of separation between a first and second person (or group of people) comprising measuring a social distance between that first and second person.

In another aspect of the invention, there is provided a method of calculating a reputation rating comprising assigning a value to a person (or group of persons) reputation based on performance . according to one or more criteria and calculating a reputation rating therefrom.

In another aspect of the invention, there is provided a method that generates Social Link Value and Social Separation Value as a set of identification code. This code is Social Identification Code.

In another aspect of the invention, there is provided a social rating system comprising computational means to calculate a reputation rating based on at least one of a trust rating or a reputation rating.

In another aspect of the invention, there is provided a social contract system comprising computational means to perform a calculation in relation to a social degree of separation and or a level of

performance and thereby inform a social contract.

In another aspect of the invention, there is provided a social networking system comprising a computer network and computational means to electronically provide one or more of an associate Link, a testimonial Link and a sponsorship Link,

In another aspect of the invention, there is provided a system for calculating a social contract value comprising computational means to calculate a social contract value according to the formula:

Social Contract Value Sn = Trust Rating(a)+Social Links 50η(γ)+ Task Reputation Rating(P) and optionally creating a simple weighted average of Trust Rating, type of Social Links 50n and

Reputation Rating.

In another aspect of the invention, there is provided a method of calculating a social contract value according to the formula:

Social Contract Value Sn = Social Degree of Separation(a)tSocial Links 50n(y)t Task Reputation Ratlng(p)

and optionally creating a simple weighted average of Social Degree of Separation, type of Social Links 50n and Reputation Rating. Social Rating System

' In another aspect of the invention, there is provided a method of calculating a social contract value according to the formula:

Sn = f(Un) x f(Wn)

Social Contract Value Sn is a function of Separation Weighting Un and Social Link Weighting Wn.

Whereas function of Un and function of Wn can be and not limited to ratio, average, weighted average, exponential, minimum, maximum, mode, median and/or multiple,

Furthermore, a set of Un as weighing to represent Trust Rating or Social Degree of Separation and a set of Wn as weighting to represent types of social link, can be linear or non-linear in weighting allocation to reflect users' needs and/or system administrator's needs.

In another aspect of the invention, Social Contract Value Sn can be modified to a set of standardised score. The standardised score will most likely be compatible with how Task Reputation Rating and/or Trust Rating are standardisedized. For example, Social Contract Value Sn can be standardised score of 1 to 5 where 5 is the highest rating for social contracting along with Task Reputation Rating using same standardised score. The two standardised scores can be used to derive ah average score.

In another aspect of the invention, there Is provided a system for calculating an Adjusted Social Contract Value comprising computational means to calculate the Adjusted Social Contract Value (ASn) according to the formula: ASn = Sn x Qn x (Sn / fSnj where fSn is function of Sn including and not limited to ratio, average, weighted average, exponential, minimum , maximum, mode, median and/or multiple. (Sn / fSn) is referred to as Social Contract Multiple.

In another aspect of the invention, ASn can be modified to a set of standardised score. The standardised score will most likely be compatible with how Task Reputation Rating and/or Trust Rating are standardisedized. For example, ASn can be standardised score of 1 to 5 where 5 is the highest rating for social contracting along with Task Reputation Rating using same standardised score.

In another aspect of the invention, there is provided a system for calculating a trust rating comprising computational means to create a trust rating from a value assigned to a social degree of separation.

In another aspect of the invention, there is provided a system for calculating a social degree of separation between a first and second person (or group of people) comprising computational means to measure a social distance between that first and second person.

In another aspect of the invention, there is provided a system for calculating a reputation rating comprising computational means to calculate a reputational rating based on a value assigned to a , person (or group of persons) reputation.

In some aspects of the invention, there is provided a rating system comprised of Trust Rating, Task Reputation Rating, Social Contract Value and Social Equity, which in combination or in derivative lead to social contracting of participants within a social network. The rating system aligns individual interest to collective interest of the social group that the individual belongs to or wants to belong to. The rating Social Rating System system significantly reduces the policing cost of bad behaviours and false representation, by facilitating social contracting among the participants and between individuals and a social group;

In some aspects of the invention, notification to inform users of the potential outcomes in a social network will be provided to enforce social contracting. Nature of the notification will depend on users' types of social link, past and current Task Reputation Ratings, past and current Trust Rating and/or Social Degree of Separation.

The rating methods are comprised of measuring Social Degree of Separation (Trust Rating) and level of performance (Task Reputation Rating);

Our novel rating system incorporates the concept of social degree of separation in a novel manner to measure the trust level of participants to other participants in the social network.

In some aspects, the disclosed invention Is a rating system that discourages and prevents negative behaviour by participants through ratings that facilitate social contracting, Social contracting occurs when the goals of the individual and of the collective are matched and preferably dependent on each other. According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary, social contract is: "an actual or hypothetical agreement among the members of an organized society or between a community and Its ruler that defines and limits the rights and duties of each"

By binding participants in a social contract, a rating system according to the invention will significantly decrease the policing cost for the service providers and reduce the economic opportunity costs of participants, especially for the participants who are worried about, but not limited to, untrustworthy transactions, agreements and/or job performances. This rating system effectively determines participant's risk and benefit of bad and good performance in an organized society, for example, but not limited to, a social network, by clearly showing how the organized society will react if a participant behaved in a certain way. In other words, this rating system identifies reputation between/among individuals and or groups as a collateral for participants to perform duty within one's organized society. If bad performance is recorded, not only the reputation of a participant is at stake but the reputation of the entire group and/or other participants who gave recommendation or sponsorship to the participant are at stake also,

The derived Social Equity Z and Task Reputation Rating can be applied to identifying, sorting, filtering and/or ranking users, participants, services, groups, and social networks for trustworthy transactions. In another aspect of the invention, there is provided a system that generates Social Link Value and Social Separation Value as a set of identification code. This code is Social Identification Code.

In another aspect, there is provided a computer-implemented method, comprising: outputting by a server device a rating interface, the rating interface for display by a client device and providing a user with the ability to rate a person, the person optionally associated with a social network, the social network comprising a computer network connecting the server device and a plurality of client devices; receiving Social Rating System by the server device one or more ratings by the user, associating by the server device the ratings with the chosen person(s) and optionally contacting the person(s) to communicate the fact of their rating to them.

In another aspect, there is provided a computer-readable storage medium containing machine- executable instructions for outputting by a server device a rating interface, the rating interface for display by a client device and providing a user with the ability to rate a person, the person optionally associated with a social network, the social network comprising a computer network connecting the server device and a plurality of client devices; receiving by the server device one or more ratings by the user, ■ associating by the server device the ratings with the chosen person(s) and optionally contacting the person(s) to communicate the fact of their rating to them.

In another aspect, there is provided an apparatus, comprising: a storage device; and a processor coupled to the storage device, wherein the storage device stores a program for controlling the processor, and wherein the processor, being operative with the program, is configured to cause output by a server device of a rating interface, the rating interface for display by a client device and providing a user with the ability to rate a person, the person optionally associated with a social network, the social network comprising a computer network connecting the server device and a plurality of client devices; receive by the server device one or more ratings by the user, associate the ratings with the chosen person(s) and optionally contact the person(s) to communicate the fact of their rating to them.

In another aspect, there is provided a computer-implemented method for enabling rating of a person comprising the steps of: receiving into a data store, data in relation to a rating of a person by a user said data comprising one or more of social distance data, trust data, reputation data, social contract data, testimonial data, thereby calculating by a server device a rating in respect of the person.

In another aspect, there is provided instructions stored on a computer readable medium, the instructions for a method for enabling rating of a person comprising the steps of; receiving into a data store, data in relation to a rating of a person by a user said data comprising one or more of social distance data, trust data, reputation data, social contract data, testimonial data, thereby calculating by a server device a rating in respect of the person.

In another aspect, there is provided an apparatus, comprising: a storage device; and a processor coupled to the storage device, wherein the storage device stores a program for controlling the processor, and wherein the processor, being operative with the program, is configured to: receive into a data store, data in relation to a rating of a person by a user said data comprising one or more of social distance data, trust data, reputation data, social contract data, testimonial data, and thereby calculate by a server device a rating in respect of the person.

Throughout this specification (including any claims which follow), unless the context requires otherwise, the word 'comprise', and variations such as 'comprises' and 'comprising', will be understood to imply the Social Rating System inclusion of a stated integer or step or group of integers or steps but not the exclusion of any other integer or step or group of integers or steps.

Brief description of the drawings:

Figure 1 : Illustrates an example system according to the invention.

Figure 2a: Depicts an example Associate Link and how it describes the social distances between each user in a social network.

Figure 2b: Depicts an example situation where the social degree of separation between users is equal.

Figure 3: Depicts an example Testimonial Link, which is formed when a participant, member, social group, social network or peer network, makes a recommendation over the task performance of another participant, member, social group, social network.

Figure 4a: Depicts an example Sponsorship Link when a member of a private social group invites a participant to join the private social group.

Figure 4b: Depicts an example of severing of a Sponsorship Link when a member cannot meet the Task Reputation Ratings and/or Social ontract Value of a private social group.

Figure 5: Depicts example types of Social Degree of Separation and of the level of trust between two different types of users, member, social group, social network or peer network.

Figure 6: Depicts an example of Social Degree of Separation.

Figure 7: Depicts an example matrix, which houses the components to measure Social Contract Values, Adjusted Social Contract Value, Social Link Value, Social Contract Value and Social Equity.

Figure 8a: Depicts an example matrix defining Social Equity to rate and rank Worker A and Employer X.

Figure 8b: Depicts an example matrix defining Social Equity to rate and rank Worker B and Employer X.

Figure 8c: Depicts an example of the effect of Social Link severance on Social Contract Value SB and Social Equity Z,

Figure 8d: Depicts a matrix that defines Social Contract Values Sn, Adjusted Social Contract Value (ASn), Social Link Value SLV, Social Contract Value SSV and Social Equity Z to rate and rank Work Group C from the perspective of Employer X

Figure 9a: Depicts an example notice sent to Worker A and Employer X in Figure 8a on the social contract between each other when hiring is made.

Figure 9b: Depicts an example notice sent to Worker B and Employer X in Figure 8b on the social contract between each other when hiring is made. Social Rating System

Figure 9c: Depicts another example notice sent to Worker A and Employer X in Figure 6a on the social contract between each other when hiring is made.

Detailed description of exemplary embodiments:

It is convenient to describe the invention herein in relation to particularly preferred embodiments.

However, the invention is applicable to a wide range of applications and it is to be appreciated that other ' constructions and arrangements are also considered as failing within the scope of the invention. Various modifications, alterations, variations and or additions to the construction and arrangements described herein are also considered as falling within the ambit and scope of the present invention.

■ In some aspects, the invention provides a novel rating system comprised of rating methods that measures trustworthiness and performance reputation of users within a social network. This rating system facilitates behaviors that meet the user's Individual objective and the social objective. This Is accomplished by creating a social contract between participating individuals and other individuals and/or the collective social group that the individuals belongs to or want to belong to;

· A novel rating system that will significantly reduce the policing cost of negative behaviors that will not contribute to the collective goal of individuals with social links, the social group and/or social network;

• A novel rating system comprised of various links, which synchronize and tie users' ratings and which contrast with ratings required by the social group to facilitate social contracting;

· The novel rating system creates a social contract amongst users in a social network so that the users are socially bound to behave in a way that will promote trust and reputation of the individuals and the social group that the Individuals belong to or want to belong to;

• A novel rating system that can measure overall trust and performance rating of a social group within a social network;

· A novel rating system that can be used by any users in any type of social network and social groups within a large social network;

• A novel rating system that can be used on PC, smartphone, cell phones, internet and on any Social Network in analog or digital form;

• A novel rating system that can be used on social network service such as Facebook, Linkedln and Qoogle+.

• A participant or user is comprised of any individual participating in a social network and social

groups within a large social network, Participants or users can be using various services offered on the social network and social groups within a large social network; Social Rating System

■ A Social Group is comprised of person, people, entity, entities, social group or social groups in any form of grouping resulting from social activity. Two or more users can form a Social Group;

• For example but not limited to this example is a social group of carpenters within a larger social network.

· A Social Network is comprised of users who are connected via varying degrees of cognitive

identification of other users within society. It is possible to have users residing in a Social Network without knowing each other;

• A Social Link is comprised of type of various social connections a person, people, entity, entities, social group or social groups have with other person, people, entity, entities, social group or social groups.

• Social Equity is comprised of social network users' acknowledgment of user's contribution to a social network In terms of trust building and task performance. This includes various types and frequency of Social Links and reputations associated to the Social Link;

• A novel rating system that builds Social Equity of a person, people, entity, entities, social group or social groups within a Social Network.

• A novel user identification system that identifies users and associated social group by verifying

social links with the other users that have social link with the user.

• For example but not limited to this example, a social identity of a carpenter can be verified by

Testimonial Links from customers, employers and employees and Sponsorship Link from other carpenters to join a carpenter group. Associate Link can also be use if the links are present abundantly.

System Where Rating. Ranking and Social Contract Can Take Place

Figure 1 illustrates an example system 10 according to the invention,

The system 10 includes a plurality of media controllers 12A - 12E (generally, media controller 12 or media controllers 12). The media controllers 12 may comprise of any device that is providing, presenting, or otherwise causing the display of content upon request, such as, for example (but not limited to), a personal computer or a notebook, a smartphone, such as an Apple® iPhone® or Samsung® Galaxy®, a tablet, such as an Apple® iPad® or Samsung® Galaxy®, gaming console such as Microsoft® Xbox® or Sony® PlayStation®.

The media controllers 12 provide content to one or more corresponding users 14A-14E (generally, users 14 or participant 14) causing a display on the respective display devices 16A - 16E (generally display device 16 or display devices 16). A plurality of users 14 can form a peer network 1 and a plurality of peer networks 11 can form a social network 20 as can a plurality of users 1 . form a social network 20 Social Rating System

The display device 16 may comprise any display technology, such as a television, a computer monitor, notebook screen, smartphone screen, tablet screen or projector, or the like. By "causing" or "cause" to display It is meant that the media controllers 12 generate output streams that are provided to output connections on the media controllers 12 (not Illustrated), which are directed to a corresponding display device 16, typically via a cable or other signal-carrying mechanism. While tor purposes of illustration the media controllers 1 and display devices 16 are illustrated as devices, which are separate from one another, the display devices 1 may be integral with the media controller 12. For example, a single unit may include both a media controller 12, and a display device 16 such as a smartphone. Where a media controller 12 and a display device 16 are integral, the signal-carrying connection between the two may not be a connection cable, but rather by an internal bus or other signal-carrying mechanism.

The network 26B may comprise, for example, the Internet. The network 26A may use any suitable message transport protocol to enable the media controllers 12A-12D to communicate with the social network service 24. A communication link 28 may comprise of any suitable technology to for accessing network 26A-26B, such as, for example, Wi-Fi, an Ethernet cable, and the like.

The media controller 12 receives content from the applications 20A-20E (generally, applications 18). Applications 18 are software that receive data from the Social Network Server 32 and translate It into a format that can be interpreted by the media controller 12, such as internet browsers Google® Chrome® or ozilla Firefox or smartphone applications such as Google Androicr or Apple iOS which can then be displayed on a display device 16.

The social network service 24 may include one or more social network servers 32 that couple to the network 26B and provide social network services to the users 1 . The social network server 32 may be coupled to a storage 34 that contains data, such as, for example, membership data 36 that contains information about each user of the social network service 24 that contains such as billing information, demographic information, user Identification and authentication information, and the like. The storage 34 may also include employment data 38 that contains worker employment preferences and employer employment preferences, and the like. The storage 42 may also include social ranking data 42 that contains such information as task reputation rating, trust rating, social degree of separation, and the like.

Associate Link. Testimonial Link and Sponsorship Link

A novel rating system is comprised of Associate, Testimonial and Sponsorship Links that are further measured with Social Degree of Separation, Trust Rating and Task Reputation Rating. Social Degree of Separation, Trust Rating and Task Reputation Rating provide components of quantitative and/or qualitative levels of trust and reputation on tasks or agreements delivered by a person, people, entity, entities, social group or social groups for other person, people, entity, entities, social group or social groups. These measurements support the establishment of Social Contract and Social Equity, Social Rating System

A novel rating system that is comprised of Associate, Sponsorship and Testimonial links between social network participants. These links signify social behaviors and types of relationships individuals have in the social network. Furthermore, these links can be used to verify the identity of a user or a social group;

Combinations of Social Degree of Separation, Trust Rating and Task Reputation Rating are

measurements of Social Equity of a person, people, entity, entities, social group or social groups have a Social Network relative to participants or users share on a Social Network.

Associate Link

Associate Link Is comprised of any passive links among participants of a social network. Social Degree of Separation is determined by an Associate Link (Figure 2a). Through a series of associate links, a peer network is created, whereby each participant is able to determine the Social Degree of Separation to another participant. By way of example only, an Associate Link is established when a worker applies to a job request and gets accepted by an employer. Social Degree of Separation defines the perception of how trustworthy the person is.

Along the Associate Link, Task Reputation Rating is linked from recipient (who is rated by creator) to creator (who rates other recipient) or from creator to recipient to facilitate performance rating and social contract.

Associate Link may be severed or kept in-severable depending on the social network design. Once the link is severed, that person is no longer part of the contacts list. The link can be created again at any time. By way of example only, severance can be made based on lack of common interest, lack of task accomplished together, agreements not being met and declining frequency and volume of

communication. Still, the severed link can be re-instated once the factor that lead to severance gets resolved.

Associate Link can be made in-severable to preserve the history and record of trustworthiness and/or reliability within a social network.

The number of Associate Link that can be created is unlimited. Associate Links define the boundary of social contracting because they define the direct extent of relationship where social contracting will take place.

Associate Link also creates a basic understanding that individuals linked with Associate Link know each other. Associate Link is a basic form of identity of an individual In a social network.

Figure 2a depicts an Associate Link and how It describes the social distances between each user in a social network.

System 10A depicts a social network 20 that describes the social distances each user 14. System 10A includes a plurality of users 14A-14C (generally users 14 or user 14). A social network 20 (generally, Social Rating System social network 20 or social networks 20) includes a plurality of peer networks 1 1 (generally, peer network 11 or peer networks 1 1). Conversely a peer network 11 can contain a plurality of social networks 20.

A social network 14 can be comprised of a plurality of users 14 or of a plurality of social group 54.

Associate Link 51 is comprised of any social link 50 among users 14 or social groups 54 within a social network 11. Associate link 51 could form the basis for the level of trust between users 14 and/or social groups 54 and other users 14 and/or social groups 54. By way of example only, user 14A has an associate link with user 14B, and user 14B has an associate link with user 14C. User 14A does not have an associate link with user 1 C but has an indirect relationship with user 14C through user 14B. In this example, user 1 A is said to know user 14B more than user 14A knows user 14C.

It is possible to sever Associate Unk 51 or to keep it non-severable. An associate link 51 can be created again at any time. A user 14 or social group 54 has the ability to block another user 1 or social group 54 from creating/requesting an associate link 51 with them .

In Figure 2a, participant 14A knows participant 14B but does not know participant 14C directly. This means that participant 14A is not socially separated from participant 14B but is socially separated from participant 14C. Participant A knows participant 14C through participant 14B. if there is an adequate need, participant 14B can introduce participant 14C to participant 14A. This will create an Associate Link between participant 14A and 14C. Now the social degree of separations between 14A, 14B and C are equal. These links would form the basis of a contacts list and the level of trust towards other participants, Figure 2b depicts a situation where the social degree of separation between users is equal. System 10B depicts a situation where the social degree of separation 21 between users 14 is equal. System 10B includes a plurality of users 14A-14C (generally users 14 or user 14)

In this situation, but not limited to this situation, user 14A has an associate link with user 14B, user 14B has an associate link with user 14C and user 14A has an associate link with user 14C. Then this occurs, it can be said that users 14A-14C know each other equally with a social degree of separation 21 of one- person.

Tmimonlftl Linh

Testimonial Link is comprised of a testimony of performance between participants or users. For example, after part time work, the employee gave a performance rating to a worker. Employer provides a testimony of performance. Therefore, there is a testimony link between the employee and a worker. This testimony can cause positive (a recommendation), neutral or negative effects on Task Reputation Rating.

Testimonial Link can be a recommendation provided between participants in a social network where one participant vouches (recommends or not recommend) another participant for a task. Social Rating System

When a Testimonial Link is created, participant recommending another participant due to his/her ongoing or completed task quality will provide a Task Reputation Rating, which measures the quality of the task, delivered. In doing so, the person who provided the testimonial links their Task Reputation Rating to the Task Reputation Rating of the person receiving the recommendation. For example but not limited to this example , user's weighted average of historical Task Reputation Rating can change via future Testimonial Links created between participants.

Changes In Task Reputation Rating affecting the rating of the participants along the Association Link can:

• Flow from recipient of Testimonial Link to the creator but not from the creator to the recipient;

· or

• Flow from recipient of Testimonial Link to the creator and from the creator to the recipient.

Testimonial Link can enhance Trust Rating as it changes the nature of the relationship between two individuals, as the presence of a testimonial link strengths the bond between two individuals;

Testimonial Link Is possible to sever. Severance' can be facilitated by the participants or by the rating system, Such facilitation will depend on how the social contracting will be facilitated. For example but not limited to this examples, severance can be made based on unacceptable performance on subsequent tasks, lack of task accomplished together, agreements not being met and; declining frequency and volume of communication.

Testimonial link can be made in-severable to preserve the history of association and ongoing liability between participants or groups. Once the Testimonial Link is severed, the link turns into an Associate link.

The number of Testimonial Links that can be created is not limited, however, they can only be created for relationships, in which one provides a testimonial, and the other received such testimonial.

Testimonial Link facilitates social contracting because it links the Task Reputation Rating of an individual and Task Reputation Ratings of another individual, which may or may not be within the same social group, but will affect the Task Reputation Rating of any group that the participant is in. The way the participants are affected will be different depending on the flow of how the Task Reputation Rating is affected through a Testimonial Link. Task Reputation can be affected from the testimony recipient to the provider or it can be in a reciprocal manner.,

By way of example only, if a social group requires all participants to perform at 75% Task Reputation Rating score or higher, participating individual or group of individuals which did not score higher will be in probation to be severed from the social network If low performance continues. Risk of severance from a group facilitates social contracting. Social Rating System

Testimonial Link provides an advanced link between individuals for verif ing identity. This is because individuals with Testimonial Link have engaged in activities that are more than just knowing each other (Associate Link).

■Establishing Testimonial Link also establishes Associate Link.

Figure 3. depicts a Testimonial Link, which is formed when a participant, member, social group, social network or peer network, makes recommendation over the task performance of another participant, member social group in a social network.

System 10E depicts a Testimonial Link 53, which is formed when a participant 1 (generally user 14 or participant 14), member 55, social group 54, social network 20 or peer network 11, makes

recommendation over the task performance of another participant 14, member 55, social group 54, social network 20 or peer network.

System 10E includes a plurality of participant 14A-14C (generally, participant 14). A Testimonial Link 53 is comprised of a testimony of performance between participant 14, member 55, social group 54, social network 20 or peer network.

For example, A Testimonial Link 53 could be established when Participant 1 A, has hired Participant 14B. Participant 14A is satisfied with the performance and trustworthiness of Participant 14B, so a recommendation is given to Participant 1 B, and the like. In doing so, any changes in Task Reputation rating 71 and/or the Social Contract Value 70 of Participant 14B will affect Task Reputation rating 71 and/or the Social Contract Value 70 of Participant A. Whilst the Testimonial Link 53 is in place, all future employers of Participant 14B can see the recommendation from Participant 14A.

To extend this example further, Participant 14B is now hired by Participant 14C and the performance of Participant 1 B, in the Perspective of Participant 14C, is not satisfactory. As such, Participant 14C may choose to provide a low Task Reputation Rating 71 to Participant 14B. In this example, the low Task Reputation rating 71 and/or the Social Contract Value 70 of Participant 1 B feeds back to, and reduces the Task Reputation Rating 71 and/or the Social Contract Value 70 of Participant 14A.

For example but not limited to this example, Figure 3 shows a Testimonial Link established by

Participant 1 A, who hires a carpenter Participant 14B. A is satisfied with 14B's performance and trustworthiness, so a recommendation is given to Participant 14B. Task Reputation Rating of 14B increases and the recommendation is seen by luture employers.

In Figure 3, if Participant 14C hired 14B but the performance of 14B is not satisfactory. Participant 14C gives a negative rating to 14B. 14B's low performance feeds back as a negative weighting to Participant 14A and lowers 14A's Task Reputation Score and/or the Social Contract Value 70 as 4A is tied to 4B with Testimonial Link with recommendation-. .

In Figure 3, Participant 14B's identity can be verified from past interactions with 14A and 14C.

Sponsorship Link ^ „ Social Rating System

Sponsorship Link occurs when a participant or a social group provides an invitation to another participant or another social group to join a group and the invited participant or the group joins the group.

Sponsorship Link can also be comprised of participants within a group. Entrance to such group can be selective by existing members of the group. Entrance into a group can be invitation-oniy, whereby access to the group can only be achieved by invitation from an existing member. Therefore a private group is created via a series of Sponsorship Links.

For example but not limited to this example, Figure 4a and Figure 4b show the invitation, membership and severance phases of Participant 14D.

In the invitation phase, Participant 14C invites Participant 14D with buy-ins (agreement) from

Participants 14A and 14B. Participant 14D is a plumber that Is invited to a private group of carpenters which believes that a good plumber will enhance their Task Reputation Ratings and/or Social Contract Value as individual rating and/or as group rating. Therefore, Participant C sponsors 14D into this private group. 1

In the membership phase, Participant 14D enters the private group and established a Sponsorship Link with all the group members. The collective interest of the group is to perform well individually so that both the Individual and the group Task Reputation Rating and/or Social Contract Value are increased or at least maintained at competitive level. Especially, when there is a competing carpenter group in the market.

In the severance stage, Participant 14D does not perform well and his Task Reputation Rating is lowering both the members' ratings and the group's rating. Participant HD's performance Is causing dire risk for the competing carpenter group to increase market share. Members decide to sever Participant 14D and the Sponsorship Links is lost but Associate Links remain.

What is important in this mechanism is that Participant 14D can be clearly notified that his next performance must be a value higher than the group's minimum viable rating compared to a competing carpenter group. This notification binds Participant 1 D into a social contract, as not only he is lowering the future job prospects, he is endangering the future job prospects of the entire group also. Participant HD's reputation as a plumber Is on the line with the group's reputation.

Furthermore, members of the carpenter group are better off to support HD to do better in future work so that the collective rating of the group is maintained at competitive level compared to competing groups of carpenters. The reciprocal understanding to perform better strengths the social contract.

With a Sponsorship Link you are proposing another participant into a social group whereby the Task Reputation Rating of one participant impacts the aggregate Task Reputation Rating of the whole social group. For example and not limited to this example, upon receiving membership, the Task Reputation Rating of all members of a group are linked to one another; that is, if one member is not performing, then Social Rating System all members are negatively affected, similarly, if one member is performing well, then all members benefit.

Sponsorship Link is possible to sever. Severance can be facilitated by the participants or by the rating system. Such facilitation will depend on how the social contracting will be facilitated. For example but not limited to these examples, severance can be made based on lack of common interest, lack of tasks accomplished together, agreements not being met and; declining frequency and volume of

communication.

Sponsorship Link also can be made in-severable to preserve the history of association within a social network.

Once the link is severed, the link turns into an Associate link or a Testimonial Link If past testimony exists.

Establishing a Sponsorship Link can also (but not necessarily) establish an Associate Link or a

Testimonial Link depending on the context of Social Link and how the Social Contract and Social Equity are derived.

Sponsorship Link provides an advanced link between individuals for verifying identity. This Is because individuals with Sponsorship Link have engaged in activities that are more than just knowing each other (Associate Link).

Figure 4a depicts a Sponsorship Link when a member of a private social group invites a participant to join the private social group. System 10C depicts a Sponsorship Link 52 when member 55 of a private social group 55A invites a participant 14 (generally, user 14 o participant 14), to join the private social group 54A. System 10C includes a plurality of participant 1 A- 4D (generally, participant 14). Upon joining the private social group 54A that participant 14 becomes a member 55 of that private social group 54A.

A Sponsorship Link 52 occurs when a member 55 or a social group 54 provides invitation to another participant 14 or another social group 54 to join the social group 54 and the invited participant 54 or the social group 54 joins the social group 54.

A social group 54, which can be either a private social group 54A (generally, private groups 54A or Private social groups 54A) or a pubiio group (not illustrated). Private social groups 54A are created via a series of Sponsorship Links 52. Private social groups 54A consist of a plurality of members 55.

Participants 14 within a Private social groups 54A are called members 55 (generally, member 55 or members 55).

A Sponsorship Link 54A is formed with a member 55 proposes a participant 1 into a Private social group 54A converting the participant 14 into a member 55 of that Private social group 54A.

Upon receiving membership to a Private social group 54A, the Task Reputation Ratings 71 and/or Social Contract Value 70 of each member 55 is linked to either both the group aggregate Task Reputation Social Rating System

Ratings 71 and/or Social Contract Value.70 and/or t e Task Reputation Ratings 71 and/or Social Contract Value 70 of each member 55.

That is, if one member 55 Is not performing, then potentially all the Task Reputation Ratings 71 and/or Social Contract Value 70 of each member 55, and/or the private social group 54A, is negatively affected it Is also possible that upon receiving membership to a Private social group 54A, all existing associate link 51 and/or testimonial link 53 between the new member 55 and existing member 55 convert into a Sponsorship Link 52.

By way of example only,, participant 14C sponsors participant 14D into a social group 54A comprised of member 55A, 55B, 55C. In doing so, participant 1 D becomes part of this private social group 54A and all social link 50 to existing private social group 54A members 55 changes to a sponsorship link 52, Participant 14C invited Participant 14D, and Participant 14C may have received 'buy-in' from

Participants 14A and 14B. Therefore, Participant 14D is invited to join a private social group 54A because the members 55 believe that participant 1 D will enhance the Task Reputation Ratings 71 and/or Social Contract Value 70 of either the members 55 and/or the private social group 54A.

Therefore, Participant 14C sponsors participant 14D into a private social group 54A. Participant 14D enters the private social group 54A and establishes a Sponsorship Link 51 with all the members 55 of the private social group 54A. The collective interest of the private social group 54A is to perform well individually so that Task Reputation Rating 71 and/or Social Contract Value 70 of both the members 55 and the private social group 54A is increased br at least maintained.

Figure 4b depicts the severing of a Sponsorship Link when member of a private social goup invites a participant to join the private social group. System 10D depicts the severing of a Sponsorship Link 52 when a member 55 cannot meet the Task Reputation Ratings 71 and/or Social Contract Value 70 of a private social group 54A.

System 10D includes a plurality of participant 14A-14D (generally, participant 14)

Severance can be facilitated by a member 55 or by a private social group 54A.

A severed Sponsorship link 52 can become an Associate Link 51 with the member 55 that had originally invited the rejected member 55. For other members 55 of the private social group 54A any social link can be severed. It is also possible that upon leaving a Private social group 54A, all existing social links 51 become a Associate Link 51.

For example Participant 1 D does not perform well and his Task Reputation Rating 71 is lowering the Task Reputation Ratings 71 and/or Social Contract Value 70 of the members' 55 and /or the private social group 64A.

Members 55 decide to eject Participant 14D and the Sponsorship Link 52 is changed to an Associate Links 51. It is possible for Members 55 to be notified that their next Task Reputation Ratings 71 and/or Social Contract Value 70 must be a value higher than the Task Reputation Ratings 71 and/or Social Social Rating System

Contract Value 70 private social group 54A or they risk being ejected. This notification mechanism binds Participant 1 D into a social contract 74, as not only is Participant 14D lowering the future job prospects for himself, he is endangering the future job prospects of the entire private social group 54A,

In Figure 4a and 4b, Participant 14D's Identity can be verified from past Interactions with 14A, 14B and HC

Trust Rating to Measure Level of Trust

Trust Rating is calculated based on the Social Degree of Separation, which is a measurement of how close a participant is to other participants within a social network and social groups within a large social network;

By way of example only, the Sooial Degree of Separation can be established when an individual ranks trustworthiness in the order of family members, close friends, work place colleagues, college classmates and friends' friends and a stranger (See Table 1 ). An Associate Link can determine Social Degree of Separation, as can other social links.

Table 1

Figure imgf000020_0001

Example: Customized Trust Rating (Social Degree of Separation) and Score Allocation by a Participant, Scale of 1, to 5 where 1 has the highest trust level

A Trust Rating is comprised of a quantified Social Degree of Separation where a participating individual can assign level of trust to the users in his/her social group and/or social network.

Trust Ratings can also be comprised of participants linked via Sponsorship Links, which is where one participant vouches (sponsors) another participant to enter a social group. In doing so, the person who provided the sponsorship links their Trust Rating to the Trust Rating of the person receiving the sponsorship to have reciprocal effect on Trust Rating received by the other participants' Social Degree of Separation;

By way of example only, someone looking for a babysitter can see that someone, who was sponsored into her social group by a social group participant who she knows, will have a greater degree of trust. If the receiver of sponsorship performs well, then the Trust Rating of the babysitter will increase, as will Social Rating System that of the provider of sponsorship into the social group, If the receiver starts to underperform, the Trust Rating of the sponsorship provider decreases. As an option, the provider of sponsorship then can contemplate severance of the sponsorship and the receiver of sponsorship will no longer be a part of the social group of baby sitters. Thus, sponsorship link reinforces a social contract between the sponsorship provider and the receiver.

Furthermore, high Trust Rating can be an indication of better knowledge of an individual by other individuals providing higher Trust Rating. Individuals providing high Trust Rating are reference points to identify an individual. Social Degree of Separation to Measure the Distance Between Participants

Social Degree of Separation is a measurement between a user to other users counting the number of users between user and the other users. A Social Degree of Separation can also be a measurement of distance between a user to specific person, people, entity, entities, social group or social groups.

Social Degree of Separation is also a measurement of identity reference points. The closer individuals are to an individual, the better reference points for identify specific individual.

Figure 5 depiots types of Social Degree of Separation and the level of trust between two different types of users, members, social group, social network or peer network.

System 10F depicts types of Social Degree of Separation 21 and of the level of trust between two different types of users 14, member 55, social group 54·, social network 20 or peer network 11. System 10F includes a plurality of participant 14A-14E (generally, participant 14)

Trust Rating 72 is calculated based on the Social Degree of Separation 21 , which is a measurement of how close one users 14, member 55, social group 54, social network 20 or peer network 11 is to another users 4, member 55, social group 54, social network 20 or peer network 1 1.

A Trust Rating 72 is comprised of a quantified or qualified Social Degree of Separation 21 where a users 4, member 55, social group 54, social network 20 or peer network 11 can assign a level of trust to another users 14, member 55, social group 54, social network 20 or peer network 11.

The social association type 73 is based on the nature of the relationship between a user 4, member 55, social group 54, social network 20 or peer network 11 to another users 14, members 55, social group 54, social network 20 or peer network 11 ,

Users 14, member 55, social group 54, social network 20 or peer network 11 can rank the Social association type 73 according to the pre erence of the users 1 , member 55, social group 54, social network 20 or peer network 11.

Social association types 73A-73E are examples of four different examples Social association type 73; however Social association type 73 is not limited to these four examples. Social Rating System

Social association type 73A could be defined as 'Known to me', Social association type 73B could be defined as 'Referred through a family member', Social association type 73C could be defined as 'Referred through a friend', Social association type 73D could be defined as 'Referred through friend of a friend family' and Social association type 73E could be referred to as 'Not known to me'.

Users 14, member 55, social group 54, social network 20 or peer network 11 are able to weight or score Social association types 73 to rank their trust preferences in relation to another Users 1 , member 55, social group 54, social network 20 or peer network 1 1.

Figure 6 depicts an example of Social Degree of Separation. System 10F depicts an example of Social Degree of Separation 21. System 10F includes a pluralit of users 14A-14J (generally, user 14). A social network 20 (generally, social network 20 or social networks 20) includes a plurality of peer networks 11 (generally, peer network 1 1 or peer networks 11 ). Conversely a peer network 11 can contain a plurality of social networks 20, A social network 20 Includes, but not limited to, a plurality of users 1 A-14J (generally, users 14 or participants 14 or participant 14).

Users 14 are connected via social link 50. Through a series of social link 50, peer network 11 is formed. Social link 50 can be comprised of any combination of associate link 51 , sponsorship link 52 or testimonial link 53. The Social Degree of Separation 21 is a measurement between a user 14 to other users 1 , counting the number of users 1 between each a user 14,

Such as, for example, if a user 14C is known by user 14A through user 14B, then the Social Degree of Separation 21 can be noted as relationship of user 14C and user 14A is a distanced of one person, which is user 14B,

The Social Degree of Separation 21 can also be a measurement of distance between a user 1 to specific user 14, multiple users 14, entity, members 55, entities, social group 54A or social groups 54.

Social Degree of Separation also acts an identify reference point based on the distance between users. For example, 14B probably knows 14A better than 14C, 14D, 14E or 14J. Thus, referencing for identity verification in the order of 14B, 1 C, 14D, 14E and 1 J in order to identify 14A is most probable.

Furthermore, weighting or scoring participants in the social network 20 can measure the Social Degree of Separation 21. Furthermore, weighting or scoring provided by participants in the social network can be a measurement of Social Degree of Separation. The weighting or scoring method can be, but limited to, any form of number, formula or symbolic allocation, which signifies the level of trust between a participant and other participants within a social network and social groups within a large social network. Participants can allocate weightings or scores to portraytheir social distances with other participants or categories of participants.

A Social Degree of Separation can be further customized to a participant's perception of the other participants that have social degree of separation of one-person. For example, if the worker is a relative to the employer, the Social Degree of Separation should be less compared to a complete stranger. Social Rating System

Task Reputation Rating to Measure Performance

Task Reputation Rating comprises measurement of task performance performed by the individual or an aggregate rating of group's task performance performed. Task Reputation Rating comprises of measurement of task performance performed by participants within a social network and social groups within a large social network, Task Reputation Rating comprises of measurement derived from

Individual's performance In relation to the social network's collective goals. Task Reputation Rating of a social group is a summation o1 all Task Reputation Ratings of participants participating within a social network and social groups within a large social network;

Task Reputation Rating of a social group can be used as a benchmark rating to maintain a certain quality, agreeable to the participants in a social group. If a participant does not meet this benchmark rating, his/her Sponsorship Link (Figure 4a) can be severed (Figure 4b), which significantly affects Trust Rating of the participant, and be expelled from the social group. Task Reputation Rating of a social group can be used as a requirement to enter a social group.

Task Reputation Rating comprises of metrics set by participants who engaged in an task agreement within a social network and social groups within a large social network. By way of example only,, a social network for management consulting can measure network participants' task reputations by setting key criteria, such as problem solving quality score, solution implementation score and professional mannerism score which all lead to a total score of client satisfaction. This task performance score can be used as Task Reputation Rating in one's social network. High performance score leads to higher reputation of the participant but will also increase the score of the social group, which the participant belongs to.

By way of example only, the basis of a Task Reputation Rating can be:

• Past Task Reputation Ratings which provide an quantitative and/or qualitative performance record; · Most recent Task Reputation Ratings;

• In this example, but not limited to the example provided, the Task Reputation Rating is based on three criteria:

• Appearance,

• Performance and

· Interactions

Table 2 shows Task Reputation Rating

Table 2 Social Rating System

Figure imgf000024_0001

Example of summarizing and averaging Task Reputation Rating

If the threshold Task Reputation Score of the social group is set at greater than 4 after 1 tasks are performed, participant C will be severed from this social group.

• For example, Task Reputation Rating can cover various faclors that are important between the relationship of people or entities.

• For example, Task Reputation Rating can measure performance level between a worker and an employer.

• For example, the performance level can be rated by asking the following questions,

• Are you satisfied with the quality and safety of the worker's/employer's work delivered work place?

• Was the job delivered on time? Did the job start and end on time?

• Was the presentation of the worker and employer satisfactory?

■ For example, Task Reputation Rating can measure trust level between a worker and an employer.

Task Reputation Ratings can be comprised of participants linked via Testimonial Link, which is where one participant vouches for another participant for specific work performance (Figure 4) . In doing so, the person who, provided the Testimonial Links his/her Task Reputation Rating to the future Task Reputation Rating of the person receiving the task testimonials. This link facilitates a form of Social Contract where the task performer has social obligation to perform well.

Task Reputation Rating can provide a benchmark for Testimonial Link (recommendation) to occur. For example, if the Task Reputation Rating is over 80% of possible 100% score, an employer is allowed to create a Testimonial Link (recommendation) to the worker.

Rating System that Facilitates Social Contracting

A novel rating system that facilitates social contracting through quantifying and notifying risk and reward outcomes based on rating individual's (or social group's) task performance, agreement delivery and/or trustworthy behavior with another individual (or another social group) on a social network. Social Contract occurs when the interest of individual (or social group) is aligned with the interest of another individual (or another social group) and/or with the interest of a social group that the individual belongs Social Rating System to. A contribution by the individual to a social group leads to positive or negative incentives for an individual to belong to a social group and affects the Individual's and social group's Trust Rating, Task Reputation Rating and/or Social Equity. Thus, a behavior, which contributes to social group's Interest, Is promoted, while a behavior, which does not contribute to social group's interest, is demoted. The rating system uses Trust Rating, Social Degree of Separation, Social Links and preferential weightings on Trust Rating, Social Degree of Separation and Social Links to define Social Contract Value, Adjusted Social Contract Value and Social Equity of the individuals and social groups involved in the task and/or agreement.

By way of example only, an individual who gets a cash loan from a bank can be socially contracted if his lack of Interest payments (decline in Task Reputation Rating) will lead to no loans made to the entire township that the individual belongs to (decline in Trust Rating if individual does not keep his promise). The individual, who received loan from a bank, is obligated to pa rent because he/she will be expelled from the township (severed Testimonial Link and Sponsorship Link) when the township loses future loan potential.

A novel rating system that facilitates social contracting along Social Links (no link, Associate Link,

Testimonial Link and Sponsorship Link). A positive contribution (increase in Task Reputation Rating) by the referee will increase the Trust Rating and Task Reputation Rating of the referee and the referrer. If a negative contribution (decline in Task Reputation Rating) is made, not only will the referee gel lower ratings, but the referrer will also receive lower trustworthiness and performance ratings. Thus, users who are sponsored into a social group and anticipate higher reputation will be socially obligated to be honest and try their best. By way of example only, if a carpenter (referrer) who recommended (Testimonial Link) a plumber (referee) to a client, high Task Reputation Rating by the client to the plumber will increase the Task Reputation Rating of both the carpenter and the plumber. If in case the carpenter sponsored the plumber (Sponsorship Link) into his carpenter group, the group's overall average of Task Reputation Ratings will improve. The carpenter (referrer) will be in a social contract because he is responsible to introduce a high performing plumber to the carpenter group so that the group rating will stay competitive against other carpenter groups. The plumber is socially obligated to perform as his/her Social Equity, ' which has increased through Sponsorship Link, is at risk if the Task Reputation Rating is rated poorly. If the performance is poor, not only will the plumber and carpenter face lower Task Reputation Rating but may face severance from the carpenter group. Severance will rank both the carpenter and the plumber lower against other carpenters and plumbers and inhibit them from good clients in the future.

Task Reputation Rating and Social Equity act as guidelines for the users to behave in specific ways that will significantly reduce the policing cost of bad behaviors that will not contribute to the collective goal of the social group and/or social network. By way of example only, if the social goal of a social group is to raise enough funds to support the urban homeless, a behaviour that will not contribute to this collective goal will be punished by lower Task Reputation Rating and Social Equity. Furthermore, poor performing individual can be severed from this social network to support urban homeless because he/she will impair. Social Rating System the overall Task Reputation Rating and Social Equity of the social network to support urban homeless. Rather than policing and checking on all users on a one-to-one basis, peer pressure in the social network is acting as a social contract as individuals do not want impair their Task Reputation Rating and Social Equity and the overall Task Reputation Rating and Social Equity of the social network. Impairing overall Task Reputation Rating and Social Equity will lower the ranking of the social network against other social network that may be oompeting for government funding to support the homeless population.

Facilitating Social Contract and Deriving Social Contract Value using Spcial Links. Social Degree of Separation. Trust Rating and Task Reputation Rating

The disclosed invention is novel because the combinations of Social Links (no link, Associate Link, Testimonial Link and Sponsorship Link) and how Social Links can be severed and the magnitude of Social Degree of Separation (and/or Trust Rating) leads to Social Contract Value, Adjusted Social Contract Value and Social Equity ratings that facilitate social contracting through notifying and determining reward and risk for people or entities involved in a task and/or agreement. These measurements can be quantitative or qualitative.

Social Contract Value

Social Contract Value may be a score, grading, rating, and the like, that shows the degree of social contract that can could be facilitated between and among any combinations of person, people, entity, entities, social group or social groups. Social Contract Values describes the effectiveness of social contract facilitated between or among a person, people, entity, entities, social group or social groups have with other person, people, entity, entities, social group or social groups; Social Contract Value is derived from a combination of link types (no link, Associate Link, Testimonial Link and Sponsorship Link) and the Trust Rating or Social Degree of Separation between any combinations of users, person, people, entity, entities, social group and social groups involved. For example and not limited to this example, Social Links with higher commitment, such as Sponsorship Link, and narrower social degree of separation, such as direct knowledge of each other, will achieve a higher Social Contract Value.

Social Contract Values can be used for comparative purposes, reflected as a multiple or a ratio of one another or against a group average, median, mode or any other benchmark representations. Social Contract Value shows a comparison of how trustworthy the person or the group is relevant to other person or group.

Social Contract Value can be qualitative and quantitative including, but not limited to, numbers, characters, letters, symbols and grade. The Social Contract Value can be in analog or digital formats. Numbers or symbols, such as gold, silver and bronze grades, can be assignable as a Social Contract Value. There is no limitation in use of quantitative and qualitative values assigned as Social Contract Social Rating System

Value. These numbers or symbols can be weightings, which modify the Task Reputation Rating of a user and/or a group.

Social Contract Value can be further weighted and ranked by distribution of types of Social Links existing within ones Social Network. For example and not limited to this example, if Social Contract Value of user A and user B Is identical but user B has more Sponsorship Links and Testimonial Links than user A, Social Contract Value of user B and A can be weighted and adjusted by the quantities of Sponsorship Links and Testimonial Links. Adjustments to Social Contract Value can be derived in numerous ways and referred to as Adjusted Social Contract Value.

When Social Contract Value and/or Adjusted Social Contract Value are derived, the values can be symmetrical between or among users or groups if the weightings on Trust Rating, Social Degree of Separation and/or types of Social Links (Associate Link, Testimonial Link and Sponsorship Link) allocated by the users or groups are identical. If the weightings are different between or among users or groups, Social Contract Values and for Adjusted Social Contract Value will be unique and asymmetric to each users or groups.

For example and not limited to this example, if user A and user B measure Social Contract Value and/or Adjusted Social Contract Value, user A's perspective on user B will be Identical In value to user B's perspective on user A if user A and B have the same preferential weighting on Trust Rating, Social Degree of Separation and/or type of Social Links. If the preference ratings are different, Social Contract Value and/or Adjusted Social Contract Value of user A's perspective on user B will be different in value to user B's perspective on user A

Figure 7 depicts a matrix, which houses the components, formulas, numbers, grades and symbols to measure Social Contract Values (Sn), Adjusted Social Contract Value (ASn), Social Link Value (SLV), Social Separation Value (SSV) and Social Equity (Z).

Social Contract Value Sn is a function of Separation Weighting Un and Social Link Weighting Wn.

Where the functions of Un and function of Wn can be and not limited to ratio, average, weighted average, exponential, minimum, maximum, mode, median and/or multiple.

In Figure 7, Social Contract Values Sn are shown as Social Contract Value S1 to S24. The multiple of smallest Social Contraot Value to largest Social Contract Value portrays the strength of the social contract. For example but not limited to this example, Social Contract Value of 6 is six times more effective than Social Contract Value of 1 in facilitating social contract between or among person, people, entity, entities, social group or social groups with other person, people, entity, entities, social group or social groups.

Social Contract Values Sn can be assigned to an individual or to social groups as a representation of trustworthiness and likelihood of facilitating a social contract between the engaging parties. For example, Social Rating System in the context of engaging in employment, employer can sort, rank and select workers or group of workers that have high social contract value relevant to the employer's social network.

Social Contract Value Sn describes the effectiveness of social contract facilitated between or among a person, people, entity, entities, social group or social groups have with other person, people, entity, entities, social group or sooial groups.

The scope of Social Contract Value Sn is not restricted in number and is expandable using the categories and sub-categories created on the x-axis and y-axls of the matrix shown in Figure 7.

Social Contract Value Sn can be qualitative and quantitative including numbers, characters, letters, symbols and grade. The Social Contract Value Sn can be in analog or digital formats.

When compared to the lowest or highest Social Contract Value Sn, multiples to define the relative value to other Social Contract Values Sn can be derived. This is called the Social Contract Value Multiple.

Social Contract Value Sn can be modified to a set of standardised score. The standardised score will most likely be compatible with how Task Reputation Rating and/or Trust Rating are standardised as a score. By way of example only, Sn can be standardised score of 1 to 5 where 5 is. the highest rating for social contracting along with Task Reputation Rating using same standardised score. The two standardised scores can be used to derive an average score.

Social Contract Value Sn can be a factor to weight Task Reputation Raling. By way of example only, if the historical average of standardised Task Reputation Ratings of user A is 3.9 out of 5 and if standardised Social Contract Value Sn Is 3.9 out of 5 with Employer X, user A's Social Contract Value Sn weighted on to his/her Task Reputation Rating can be calculated as:

Weighted Task . Task Reputation / Maximum Sn (l+e » }

Reputation Rating " Rating * I X I

\ 5ft (l+g axiwurosn} /

As an example, where e represents the base o1 the natural logarithm. So for user A, his Weighted Task Reputation Rating will be:

(5/3.9) x ((1+es'V(1·*)) - *-3

Using the Weighted Task Reputation Rating 4.3, Employer X oan now compare user A with other users ranked by this system.

Social Contract Value Sn can also be a composite score of Trust Rating, type of Social Links 50n and Task Reputation Rating. For example but not limited to this example, it oan be shown as:

Social Contract Value Sn = Trust Rating(a)tSocial Links 50n(Y)+Task Reputation Rating( )

Social Contract Value Sn can also be a composite score of Social Degree of Separation, type of Social Links 50n and Task Reputation Rating. For example but not limited to this example, it can be shown as: Social Rating System

Social Contract Value Sn = Social Degree of Separatlon(a)+Soclal Links 50η(γ)+ Reputation Ratlng(P)

Where Social Contract Value Sn can be an optional weighted average of Trust Rating or Social Degree of Separation, type of Social Links 50n and Task Reputation Rating.

Furthermore, Social Contract Value Sn can be defined as:

Sn = f(Un) x f(Wn)

Social Contract Value Sn is a function of Separation Weighting Un and Social Link Weighting Wn.

Whereas function of Un and function of Wn can be and not limited to ratio, average, weighted average, exponential, minimum, maximum, mode, median and/or multiple, including:

Sn = (Total Count of Un / Un) x (Total Count of Wn / Wn).

Sn = (Maximum of Un / Un) x (Maximum of Wn / Wn),

Sn = Un x Wn

The specific formula to use depends on what the service provided is seeking in terms of resulting social contract and user identification.

Categories of Social Degree of Separation 21 n (21 A to 2 F) or categories of Trust Rating 72η (72A to 72 F) are shown in the horizontal axis of the matrix.

The scope of categories of Social Degree of Separation 21 n or categories of Trust Rating 72n is not restricted and expandable to accommodate various Social Degree of Separation 21 and Trust Rating 72.

Separation Weighting Un is shown under the row of categories of Social Degree of Separation 21 n or categories of Trust Rating 72n.

Separation Weighting Un is a number or grade that describes the importance or ranking of the categories of Social Degree of Separation 21 n or categories of Trust Rating 72n.

In Figure 7, Separation Weightings Un are shown as U1 to U6.

The scope of Separation Weightings Un is not restricted in number and is expandable- to accommodate various Social Degree of Separation 21 and Trust Rating 72.

Furthermore, a set o1 Separation Weighting Un as distribution of weightings for Trust Rating 72 or Social Degree of Separation 21 can be linear or non-linear in distribution to reflect users' and/or system administrator's needs and preferences. A set of Separation Weighting Un can also be randomly generated numbers from any forms of distributions to simulate numerous scenarios to see the probability distributions of Social Contract Value Sn, Adjusted Contract Value ASn and Social Equity Z. Random generation of numbers, scenario simulations and probabilit distributions of outcomes can mimic the volatile human relationships and perceptions of the counterparts in a task and/or agreement.

In Figure 7, the vertical axis represents types of Social Links 50. Social Rating System

Types of Social Links 50n are types of social link than a person, people, entity, entities, social group or social groups have with other person, people, entity, entities, social group or social groups.

Types of Social Links 50n are categorized as 50A, 50B, 50C and 50D In the vertical axis of the Figure 7 matrix.

Social Link Weighting Wn is a number or grade that describes the importance or ranking of the types of Social Link 50.

In Figure 7, Social Link Weighting Wn are shown as W1 to W4.

The soope of Social Link Weighting Wn is not restricted and is expandable to accommodate various Social Links 50, in this example represented as Social link 50A-50D (generally social links 50 n).

Furthermore, a set of Social Link Weighting Wn as distribution of weightings for Social Links 50 can be linear or non-linear in distribution to reflect users' and/or system administrator's needs and preferences. A set of Social Link Weighting Wn can also be randomly generated numbers 1rom any forms of distributions to simulate numerous scenarios to see the probability distributions of Social Contract Value Sn, Adjusted Contract Value ASn and Social Equity Z. Random generation of numbers, scenario simulations and probability distributions of outcomes can mimic the volatile human relationships and perceptions of the counterparts in a task and/or agreement.

Quantity of Social Contract Value

In Figure 7, Qn is the Quantity of Social Contract Value (shown as Q1-Q24). Quantity of Social Contract Value Qn is the number of types of Social Links 50n present in categories of Social Degree of

Separation 21 n or Trust Rating 72.

Quantity of Social Contract Value Qn describes the quantity of specific type of Social Links 50n and specific category of Social Degree of Separation 21 n or category ot Trust Rating 72n between or among a person, people, entity, entities, social group or social groups have with other person, people, entity, entities, social group or social groups.

Quantity of Social Contract Values Qn can be used as weighting factors to calculate adjusted Social Contract Values Sn.

The scope of Quantity of Social Contract Value Qn is not restricted and expandable using the categories and sub-categories created on the x-axis and y-axis.

When Quantity of Social Contract Values Qn is tabulated as a quantity of specific type of Social Links 50n and specific category of Social Degree of Separation 21 n or category of Trust Rating 72n, Qn defined in shorter Social Degree of Separation 21 n (i.e. the degree of separation Is smaller) or higher value of category of Trust Rating 72n should be omitted out from the tabulation in wider Social Degree of Separation 21 n or lower value category of Trust Rating 72n to prevent double counting. Still, this can be modified depending on how the user decides to compute composite scores of Social Contract Values Sn Social Rating System and Quantity of Social Contract Value Qn, Social Link Value SLV, Social Separation Value SSV, Social Equity Z and any other composite scores that is possible to derive to understand facilitation of social contract. Adjusted Social Contract Value

Social Contract Value Sn, Quantity of Social Contract Value Qn and Social Contract Value Multiple define Adjusted Social Contract Value ASn. For example but not limited to this example, Adjusted Social Contact Value ASn can be defined as:

ASn a Sn x Qn x (Sn /fSn) where fSn is function of Sn including and not limited to ratio, average, weighted average, exponential, minimum, maximum, mode, median and/or multiple.

(Sn / fSn) is referred to as Sooial Contract Multiple

Highest Adjusted Social Contract Value is an anchor point to clarify and notify person, people, entity, entities, social group or social groups that are involved in specific Social Link 50n when a social contract takes place. This notice can be limited to users that are directly engaging in task, agreement or transaction. For example, employer and worker when hiring occurs.

Adjusted Sn can be modified to a set of standardised score. The standardised score will most likely be compatible with how Task Reputation Rating and/or Trust Rating are standardisedized as a score. By way of example only, Adjusted Sn can be standardised score of 1 to 5 where 5 is the highest rating for social contracting along with Task Reputation Rating using same standardised score. The two standardised scores can be used to derive an average score.

Adjusted Social Contract Value ASn can be a factor to weight Task Reputation Rating. By way of example only, if the historical average of standardised Task Reputation Ratings of user A is 3.6 out of 5 and if standardised Adjusted Social Contract Value Sn Is 3.5 out of 5 with Employer X, user A's Adjusted Socia Contract Value Sn weighted on to his/her Task Reputation Rating can be calculated as:

Weighted Task s Task Reputation / Maximum ASn (1+e Sn)

Reputation Rating Ra ing + I χ

ASn (2+e Maxfm»jm ASn )

As an example, where e represents the base of the natural logarithm. So for user A, his Weighted Task Reputation Rating will be:

(5/3.6) x (( e3 S) / ( e5)) = 3.92

Using the Weighted Task Reputation Rating 4.3, Employer X can now compare user A with other users ranked by this system. Social Rating System

Social Link Value and Social Separation Value

Social Link Value SLV is a composite value of specific type of Social Links 50n Incorporating Social Contract Value Sn and Quantity of Social Contract Value Qn. For example, SLV1 is a composite value of S1 to S6 and Q1 to Q6 in the row along the Social Link 50A in Figure 7.

Social Link Value SLV is a summation of Adjusted Social Contract Value ASn by Social Link in a row.

Social Link Value SLV are describes as SLV1 , SLV2, SLV3 and SLV4 in Figure 7.

The scope of Social Link Value SLV is not restricted and is expandable using the categories and subcategories created on the x-axls and y-axls.

Social Link Values SLV are used to define Social Equity Z. Social Link Value SLV can also be used to weight the outcome of Social Equity Z.

Social Link Value SLV is a proportion, distribution or summation of types of Social Links 50n shared by a person, people, entity, entities, social group or social groups with other person, people, entity, entities, social group or social groups.

Social Separation Value SSV is a composite value of specific type of specific category of Social Degree of Separation 21n or category of Trust Rating 72n. For example, SSV1 is a composite value of Sooial Contract Value S1 , S7, S13 and S19 and Quantity of Social Contract Value Q1 , Q7, Q13 and Q19 along the column of category of Social Degree of Separation 21 n or category of Trust Rating 72n.

Social Separation Value SSV is a summation of Adjusted Social Contract Value ASn by Social Degree of Separation 21 or Trust Rating 72 in a column.

Social Separation Value SSV are described as SSV1 , SSV2, SSV3, SSV4, SSV5 and SSV6 in Figure 7.

The scope of Social Separation Value SSV Is not restricted and is expandable using the categories and sub-categories created on the x-axis and y-axis.

Social Separation Values SSV are used to define Social Equity Z. Social Link Value SLV can also be used to weight and adjust the Social Equity Z,

Social Separation Values SSV is a proportion, distribution or summation of categories of Social Degree of Separation 21 n or categories of Trust Rating 72n shared by a person, people, entity, entities, social group or social groups with other person, people, entity, entities, social group or ocial groups.

Social Equity

Social Equity Z is an overall summation of SLV or SSV of a person, people, entity, entities, social group or social groups for task and/or agreement engaging person, people, entity, entities, social group or social groups. For example, user A and user 5 can define each other's Social Equity Z and to understand the level of trustworthiness in the social network that they each belong to. Social Rating System

Social Equity Z is a rating of a person, people, entity, entities, social group or social groups in relation to the social network and social links of another person, people, entity, entities, social group or social groups.

Social Equity Z can be a summation of SLV or SSV which ever a user or system administrator prefers. This is because a user may have preference on the type of Social Link 50 than Social Degree of Separation 21 or preference on Social Degree of Separation 21 than Social Link 50. If this is the case, Social Equity Z will be the summation of preferred SLV or SSV,

Social Equity Z describes the effectiveness of the overall social contract facilitated between or among a person, people, entity, entities, social group or social groups have with other person, people, entity, entities, social group or social groups.

Social Equity Z can be qualitative and quantitative Including numbers, characters, letters, symbols and grade. Social Equity Z can be in analogue or digital formats.

Social Equity Z can be modified to a set of standardised score. The standardised score will most likely be compatible with how Task Reputation Rating and or Trust Rating are standardised as a score. By way of example only, Social Equity Value Z can be standardised score of 1 to 5 where 5 is the highest rating for social contracting along with Task Reputation Rating using same standardised score. The two standardised scores can be used to derive an average score.

Social Equity Z can be a factor to weight Task Reputation Rating. By way of example only, if the historical average of standardised Task Reputation Ratings of user A is 4,8 out of 5 and if standardised Social Equity Z Is 4 out of 5 with Employer X, user A's Social Equity Z weighted on to his her Task Reputation Rating can be calculated as:

Weighted Task _ Task Reputation Maximum ASn (1+e 4S»} Reputation Rating Ratin X

Figure imgf000033_0001
ASri (1+e Maximum ASn)

As an example, where e represents the base of the natural logarithm. So for user A, his Weighted Task Reputation Rating will be:

(5/4.8) x ((1+e*) / (1+e5)) = 5.26 or 5 as rounded down to maximum rating of 5

Using the Weighted Task Reputation Rating 5, Employer X can now compare user A with other users ranked by this system. With relative high score, user A will rank high on Employer X's ranking of potential hires,

By applying the matrix in Figure 7, likelihood of facilitating social contract between or among person, people, entity, entities, social group or social groups with other person, people, entity, entities, social group or social groups can be determined. Social Rating System

Figure 8a depicts a matrix that defines Social Contract Values Sn, Adjusted Social Contract Value (ASn), Social Link Value SLV, Social Contract Value SSV and Social Equity Z to rate and rank Worker A from the perspective of Employer X. Simultaneously, Employer X is ranked and rated from the perspective of Worker A. The matrix does this by deriving scores from Worker A's and Employer X's social network participants, types of Social Links 50 and Degree of Social Separation 21 or Trust Rating 72 that Worker A and Employer X share. In this example, it is assumed that both Employer X and Worker A have identical Separation Weighting Un and Social Link Weighting Wn.

In this example, Employer X is thinking about hiring Worker A and Worker A is thinking of working for Employer X. In this example, Worker A and employer X are both examples of user 14. Worker A in Figure 8a is competing against Worker B Figure 8b for a job with Employer X.

Figure 8a matrix uses identical description and logic of Figure 7.

Categories of Social Degree of Separation 21 n are used in the x-axis. The distance between Employer X and Worker A as categories by number of people between the two are shown.

Along with the categories of Social Degree of Separation 21 n, Separation Weightings Un is defined. In Figure 8a, the lower the value, Employer X has more preference than higher value. In this example, 1 In U1 is more preferred than 2 in U2. Thus, in terms of preference U1>U2>U3>U4.

Social Links 50n are defined as Associate Link 51 (in 50A), Testimonial Link 53 (in 50B) and

Sponsorship Link 52 (in 50C).

Social Link Weighting Wn provided in the order of preference. Thus, in terms of preference W3>W2>W1. In this case the lower value will have higher preference. In terms of Social Link 50n, Sponsorship Link 52 > Testimonial Link 53 > Associate Link 51.

Social Contract Value Sn is calculated using Separation Weightings Un and Social Link Weighting Wn of the Employer X who is rating Worker A. In this example but not limited to this example, Sn is derived by:

Sn = (Total Count of Un / Un) x (Total Count of Wn / Wn)

In the case of S1 :

Sn = (Total Count of U/ U1) x (Total Count of W W1)

S1 = (4/1) x (3/3) = 4

In the case of S9 in Figure 8a:

S9 = (4/1) x.(3/1) = 12

All Sn (S1 to S12) derived are shown in Figure 8a.

Furthermore, an example of variation of Sn derivation can be:

Sn (Maximum of Un / Un) x (Maximum of Wn / Wn)

In the case of S1 : Social Rating System

Sn = (Maximum of U/ U1) X (Maximum of W/W1 )

S1 = (4/1) x (3/3) = 4

In the case of $9 in Figure 8a:

89 - (4/1) X (3/1) - 12

The highest Social Contract Value S9 is 12 times more than the lost Social Contract Value S3 or S4. When compared to the lowest or highest Social Contract Value, multiples to define the relative value to other Social Contract Values can be derived, This is called the Social Contract Value Multiple.

Quantity of Social Contract Value Qn describes the quantity of specific type of Social Links 50n and specific category of Social Degree of Separation 21 n. For example Quantity of Social Contract Value Q9 is zero. This means that Employer A does not have a direct knowledge of Worker A with a Sponsorship Link 52. Q4 is 4, which means that Employer X has knowledge of Worker A through a person that Em loyer X knows and with a Testimonial Link 53 involved. 04 is 4 so there are 4 ties that fits this description of type of Social Links 50n and specific category of Social Degree of Separation 21 n and has a Social Contract Value S6 of 3,

Social Contract Value Sn, Quantity of Social Contract Value Qn and Social Contract Value Multiple define Adjusted Social Contract Value ASn. For example but not limited to this example, Adjusted Social Contact Value ASn can be defined as:

ASn = Sn x Qn x (Sn fSn) where fSn is function of Sn including and not limited to ratio, average, weighted average, exponential, minimum, maximum, mode, median and/or multiple.

(Sn / fSn) is referred to as Social Contract ultiple

For example, in Figure 8a, Adjusted Sn for S6 and Q6 is:

ASn = Sn x Qn x (Sn / minimum Sn)

ASn -= 3 x x (3 / 1) B 36

Table 3 shows the Adjusted Social Contract Values for Figure 8a:

Table 3

Social Rating System

Figure imgf000036_0001

In Table 3, Adjusted Social Contract Values (ASn ol 36) in shaded cells show the highest Adjusted Social Contract Values compared to other Adjusted Social Contract Values,

In Figure 8a, shaded cells show the highest value compared to other Adjusted Social Contract Values. These cells are S6-Q6 and S10-Q10.

Highest Adjusted Social Contract Value is an anchor point to clarify and notify person, people, entity, entitles, social group or social groups that are involved in specific Social Link SOn. For example, if Employer X hires Worker A, Employer X and Worker A will be notified of risk and/or reward associated to each other in Social Links 50 attached to S6-Q6 and S10-Q10 cells. Both Employer X and Worker A will be notified of risk and/or reward of affecting their average Task Reputation Ratings and potential severance or improvement of type of Social Links.

If the performances are poor, Employer X and Worker A may face severance of some of the Testimonial Links 53 and/or Sponsorship Link 52, which will reduce their Adjusted Social Contract Value. This will make them rank lower against other employers competing for workers and workers competing for work. Example of notice sent through Media Controllers 12 to Employer X, Worker A and people with Social Links 50 tied to the highest Adjusted Social Contract Value is shown in Figure 9a.

In Figure Ba, Social Link Values SLV are summation of the Adjusted Social Contract Values by rows. For example, SLV1 is summation of Adjusted Social Contract Values of S1 -Q1 , S2-Q2, S3-Q3 and S4-Q4 cells, SLV1 is 50.2.

Furthermore, highest Adjusted Social Contract Value is an anchor point to identify an individual by referencing social ties that constitutes the highest Adjusted Social Contract Value.

In case of multiple highest Adjusted Social Contract Values, users and/or system administrator will apply rules to decide an anchoring point for social contract and/or identification base on their needs. Social Railng System

In Figure 8a, Social Separation Values SSV are summation of the Adjusted Social Contract Values by columns. For example, SSV2 is summation of Adjusted Social Contract Values of S2-Q2, S6-Q6 and S10-Q10. SSV2 is 92.

In Figure 8a, Social Equity Z is 207.7. It is a simple summation of Social Link Value SLV or Social Separation Value SSV. In this example SLV = SSV =Z. ».

Preference over SLV or SSV to be the Social Equity Z can be altered if Employer X or Worker A prefers SLV more so than SSV or SSV more so than SLV. This is because users may have preference on the type of Social Link 50 than Social Degree of Separation 21 or preference on Social Degree of

Separation 21 than Social Link 50. If this is the case, Social Equity Z will be the summation of preferred SLV or SSV.

- Figure 8a has a smaller matrix. Size of the matrix can be defined by the user as not all Social Links 50n, Social Degree or Separation 21 n and Trust Rating 72n are important.

Figure 8b depicts a matrix that defines Social Contract Values Sn, Adjusted Social Contract Value, Social Link Value SLV, Social Contract Value SSV and Social Equity Z o rate and rank Worker B from the perspective of Employer X. Simultaneously, Employer X is ranked and rated from the perspective of Worker B. The matrix does this by deriving scores from Worker B's and Employer X's social network participants, types of Social Links 50 and Degree of Social Separation 21 or Trust Rating 72 that Worker B and Employer X share. In this example, it is assumed that both Employer X and Worker B have identical Separation Weighting Un and Social Link Weighting Wn,

In this example, Employer X is thinking about hiring Worker B and Worker B is thinking of working for Employer X. Worker A in Figure 8a is competing against Worker B Figure 8b for a job with Employer X.

Figure 8b matrix uses identical descriptions and logic of Figure 7 and 8a. Figures 8a and 8b have identical Sn and the difference between Figure 8b and 8a is the Quantity of Social Contract Value Qn as the quantities of Social Links 50 shared with Employer X and Worker A is different from quantities of Social Links 50 shared with Employer X and Worker B.

Difference in Qn results in different Adjusted Social Contract Values. The highest Adjusted Social Contract Value is in cell S9-Q9. This is because Worker B is directly known by Employer X and has a Sponsorship Link 52 as a member for a Social Group, which Employer X belongs.

For example, in Figure 8b, ASn for S9 and Q9 is:

ASn = Sn x Qn x (Sn / minimum Sn)

ASn = 12 x 1 x (12 / 1) = 144

The Adjusted Social Contract Values are shown in Table 4:

Table 4 Social Rating System

Figure imgf000038_0001

The highest Adjusted Social Contract Value of 144 is shaded in Table 4.

Highest Adjusted Social Contract Value is an anchor point to clarify and notify person, people, entity, entities, social group or social groups that are involved in specific Social Link 50n. For example, if Employer X hires Worker B, Employer X and Worker B will be notified of risk and/or reward associated to each other In Social Links 50 attached to S9-Q9 cell. Both Employer X and Worker B will be notified of risk and/or reward of affecting their average Task Reputation Ratings and potential severance or improvement of type of Social Links.

Example of notice sent through Media Controllers 12 to Employer X, Worker B and people with Social Links 50 tied to the highest Adjusted Social Contract Value is shown in Figure 9b,

If the performances are poor, Employer X and Worker B may face severance of some of the Testimonial Links 53 and/or Sponsorship Link 52, which will reduce their Adjusted Social Contract Value ASn. This will make them rank lower against other employers competing for workers and workers competing for work.

Also, Employer X can ask for reference to check the identity of Worker B by contacting the social ties present in the highest Adjusted Social Contract Value.

When Social Equity Z in Figure 8a and 8b are compared, Worker B, with a score of 224.5, scored higher than Worker A with a score of 207.7. Overall trustworthiness of Worker B is higher than Worker A from the social network context of Employer X.

Figure 8c depict effect of Social Links 60 severance on Social Contract Value Sn and Social Equity Z.

Social Links 50, such as Associate Link 51 , Testimonial Links 53 and Sponsorship Link 52, can be severed when the a person, people, entity, entitles, social group or social groups violates the other person, people, entity, entities, social group or social groups' interest or collective Interest. Social Rating System

For example, if Worker B in Figure 8b performs poorly and the Sponsorship Link 52 with Employer X is severed, Worker B's Social Equity Z will be 60.5. This is a decline from 224.5.

Notice that Figure 9b Social Contract Notice has informed Worker B of this risk with Employer X. Given the large risk of failure, Worker B is more likely to do well rationally with Employer X.

With a significant decline in Social Equity Z with Employer X, it is unlikely that Worker B will rank high in the job applicant list of Employer X viewed on any Media Controllers 12.

Simultaneously, Employer X has lost a sponsored worker. Thus, there is a reason not to treat Worker B badly during his employment. If Worker B did poorly even with support from Employer X, Worker B's downgrade with Employer X is not rational in nature.

Figure 3d depicts a matrix that defines Social Contract Values Sn, Adjusted Social Contract Value (ASn), Social Link Value SLV, Social Contract Value SSV and Social Equity Z to rate and rank Work Group C from the perspective of Employer X. Work Group C is comprised of numerous works clustering to attract specialized task. The matrix does this by deriving scores from Work Group C's and Employer X's social network participants, types of Social Links 50 and Degree of Social Separation 21 or Trust Rating 72 that Work Group C and Employer X share. In this example, it is assumed that Employer X and Work Group C does not have same Separation Weighting Un and Social Link Weighting Wn. The preferential weightings are unique to Employer X. This means that Work Group C will be seeing Employer X with different Social Contract and Adjusted Social Contract Values which will affect sorting and ranking of Employer X as potential work place among other work places for Work Group C.

In this example, Employer X is thinking about hiring someone in Work Group C. This example does not limit the use of described formulas to work groups. If can be applied to individuals too.

In this case, the preference weighting of Separation Weighting Un and Social Link Weighting Wn are different to Figure 8a, 8b and 8c. In Figure 8d, the larger the weighting, more preference is given (for example, weighting of 5 is more preferred than weighting of 1).

Figure 8d shows Employer X's social contract values on Work Group C using Social Contract Sn = Separation Weighting Un x Social Link Weighting Wn. In this example, Separation Weighting Un for Trust Rating 72 is not linear and the greater the weighting, the more important it is for Employer X. Categories of Trust Rating 72 Xn is specific to Employer X and depicts direct social ties to family member of Employer X, Maximum Un is 10 (Close Friend Father) and minimum Un is 1 (Brother).

Employer X is indifferent in Social Link Weighting Wn for Testimonial Link and Sponsorship Link.

Associate Link is one seventh the weight of Testimonial Link or Sponsorship Link,

In the case of S5 in Figure 8d:

r

Sn » Un x Wn Social Rating System

S5 * 10 x 7 = 70

In this example, Adjusted Social Contract Value (ASn) is derived as:

ASn = Sn x Qn x (Sn / median Sn where On > 0)

For example, in Figure 8d, ASn for S5 and Q5 is:

ASn = 70 x 1 x (70 / 21) = 233.3

The Adjusted Social Contract Values are shown in Table 5:

Table 5

Figure imgf000040_0001

The highest Adjusted Social Contract Value (ASn) of 233.3 is shaded in Table 4.

Highest Adjusted Social Contract Value is an anchor point to clarify and notify person, people, entity, entitles, social group or social groups that are involved In specific Social Link 50n. In Figure 8d, Employer X can contact Work Group C to hire the specific worker who has a social link with Employer X's close friend or father and such link Is a Testimonial Link. This specific worker can be informed of social contract to the Work Group C and Employer X's close friend or father via notification of risk and benefits if favourable or non-favourable work behaviour and performance are derived.

Employer X can further compare work groups if competing work groups are available for hire. Employer X can compare Social Equity Z, which is 351 for Work Group C, and also compare Social Separation Value SSV, especially SSV1 , as there is significant weighting on links to close friend or lather by Employer X.

Using Social Equity and Task Reputation Rating to Facilitate Social Contract

By applying Social Equity to Task Reputation Rating, users can understand the magnitude of social contact by informing:

a) Individual and group of shared risk arising from wrong behaviour or poor performance and; Social Rating System b) Individual and group of shared benefit arising from good behaviour or great performance.

As shown in Figure 8a, 8b, 8c and 8d, Social Equity Z is a composite score of a user when seen by another user in relation to each other's shared Social Links 50.

Social Links 50 can be designed to facilitate chain reaction on Social Equity Z, which in turn affects the overall Task Reputation Rating of a user. This is important as changes in Task Reputation Rating and Social Equity Z will affect the ranking of a user.

For example but not limited to these examples, following Social Links 50 can have the following effect on Social Equity Z and Task Reputation Rating of a user:

a) Testimonial Link: If user A provides a recommendation to user Θ, future performance of user B will affect the Task Reputation Raling and Social Equity Z of user A. For example, if user B performs poorly, Task Reputation Rating of A is proportionally reduced according to a specified formula. If user B's Social Equity Z declines due to loss of Testimonial or Sponsorship links, user A's Social Equity Z Is proportionally reduced according to a specified formula.

b) Sponsorship Link: If user A sponsors user B Into a private group that user A belongs, user B's performance will affect the Task Reputation Rating and Social Equity Z of user A and the other members in the private group. For example, if user B outperforms, Task Reputation Ratings of user A and the private group are proportionally increased according to a specified formula. If user B's Social Equity Z increases due to more Testimonial or Sponsorship links, user A's and private group's Social Equity Z is proportionally increased according to a specified formula.

Proportional change in Task Reputation Rating can be accomplished by defining the impact along the Social Degree of Separation or Trust Rating and Social Links. Table 6 shows an example of ratios of the change in Task Reputation Rating impacting users by Social Links 50.

Table 6

Figure imgf000041_0002

Figure imgf000041_0001

Table 6 shows an example of Impact schedule In terms of Social Link 50 and Social Degree of

Separation 21 : ' Social Rating System a) Associate Link: There is no impact between or among users' change In Task Reputation Rating. b) Testimonial Link: There Is 20% Impact on user's Task Reputation Rating If the Task Reputation Rating of a user who received recommendation changes. Social Degree of Separation with one or more person between the users, are not affected.

c) Sponsorship Link: There Is 20% Impact on user's Task Reputation Rating If the Task Reputation Rating o1 a user who received sponsorship changes. Furthermore, social links within the private group that has Social Degree of Separation with one person between the users are impacted by 10% change. This wili affect the overall average Task Reputation Rating of a private group.

Allocation of ratio and impact schedule in Table 6 is not restricted by this example. Allocation of ratio and impact schedule will be designed by users and/or system administrator to suit service provided.

By defining the character of Social Links and clarifying the Impact on Task Reputation Rating and Social Equity, it is possible to facilitate social contract by notifying the collective interest that reside between and/or among users.

Figure 9a depicts the notice sent to Worker A and Employer X on the social contract between each other when hiring is made. Such notifications can be sent via nay form of media controllers 12 in Figure 1.

The notice summarizes important and shared Social Links 50n shared among Employer X, Worker A and shared Social Links. Notice displays risks associated to low performance.

Notice can show:

a) Potential risk that can occur as a consequence of bad performance rating. This includes serving the interest of the social group the notice recipient belongs too

b) Potential benefit that can occur as a result of great performance rating.

c) Those users that are tied to the recipient of the notice will be affected in rating, ranking and/or future selection of the notice recipient.

d) Rankings and ratings in relation to other users in the context of other users.

e) Any other results or consequences that will affect the reputation of the notice recipient and the social links tied to the notice recipient.

Social Equity Z and Task Reputation Rating will influence user's ranking in terms of trustworthiness (amount of leverage provided as social contract) and anticipated task performance. The ranking will change the probability of receiving beneficial arrangements, such as getting a job or receiving a financial loan. Thus, using Social Equity Z and Task Reputation Rating will facilitate social contracting.

For example but not limited to this example, employment service where employer hires from a list of ranked workers. Workers are ranked by Social Equity Z and Task Reputation Rating that exist in relation to the social network shared with the employer. Therefore, it is most rational for workers to perform and behave at their best to maintain competitive in their ranking. Social Rating System

For example but not limited to this example, employment service where worker choses from a list of ranked employers, Employers are ranked by Social Equity Z and Task Reputation Rating that exist in relation to the social network shared with the worker. Therefore, it is most rational for employers to provide best working experience possible to maintain competitive in their ranking and attract good workers,

For example but not limited to this example, financial loan service where loan provider chose from a list of ranked loan applicants. Loan applicants are ranked by Social Equity Z and Task Reputation Rating that exist in relation to the communities receiving loans from the financial service.

For example but not limited to this example, market research service where researcher or the researching organization can chose from a list of ranked test applicants. Test applicants are ranked by Social Equity Z and Task Reputation Rating that exist in relation to the social network shared with the researcher or the researching organization. In this case, the lower the Social Equity is better to prevent research bias. Using Adjusted Social Contract Value to Reference Identity of a User

It is recognised that to verify the identity of an individual, off line systems tend to rely on trusted bodies, such as governments, who issue certifications, such as drivers license and/or passport.

This is a novel system verifies the identities of users and associated social group by verifying social links with the other users that have social link with the user.

This novel system achieves ihis through the Adjusted Social Contract Value.

The higher an Adjusted Social Contract Value, the higher the anchor point to identify an individual, that is, the greater the probability of user verification.

This is achieved through the Adjusted Social Contract Value defining; how users know each other (the magnitude of the social degree of separation), the nature of the relationship (work, social or family) and the intensity of the relationship (Associate Links, Sponsorship Links or Testimonial Links).

Users can verify another user's identity through contacting the social ties for identify reference using Media Controllers on a network.

In this way, the Adjusted Social Contract value forms a user identity verification certificate.

Table 7 shows an example of Adjusted Social Contract Value where notification for identity reference will be addressed in order to identify user B using social network commonly shared by users A and B.

Table 7 Social Rating System

Figure imgf000044_0001

In Table 7, Adjusted Social Contract Value of 36 are the highest and are shown in two Social Degree of Separation and two Social Links. In order for user A to identify user B, user A will use his/her Media Controllers on the network and send out verification communication to people who directly knows user B and have derived Adjusted Social Contract Value of 36. For example, in the box Testimonial Link multiply "Know each other through 1 person" box, there are 4 connections and incidents of

recommendation for user B in the social network shared by user A. User A can communicated to these 4 connections and verify identity of user B.

Using Social Link Value and Social Separation Value to Identify a User

Set of Social Link Value (SLV) and Social Separation Value (SSV) can be used to identify a user or a social group as a unique code relative to the user seeking identity. Table 8 shows sets of SLV and SSV as identity code for Worker A and Worker B seen from the context of Employer X in Figure 8a and 8b respectively.

Table 8

Figure imgf000044_0002

The set of SLV and SSV used as a set of identity code is called Social Identity Code.

Social Identity Code can also be a code for Employer X for Worker A and Worker B as the numbers are derived from row and column summation of Adjusted Social Contract Value (ASn) in the matrix example in Figure 8a and 8b, Social Rating System

The Social Identity Code can change overtime as Asn change overtime but at the time of task or agreement engagement to completion, the Social Identity Code can be used as unique identify mark between users and/or social groups.

For example but not limited to this example, Worker A can be identified by Employer X with the Social Identity Code when the job starts and when the job ends.

Social Identity Code can be recorded to allow identity trace over time.

For example but not limited to this example, Worker A can work for Employer X in a future date and Employer date can trace back the Worker A's Social Identity Code to the most recent hire date and confirm that the Social Identity Code is identical to the code that Worker A used when he/she was hired by Employer X in the past.

The scope of Social Identity Code can change as the number of SLV rows and SSV column Increase or decrease. The scope is depending on the needs of the users or the system administrator.

For example but not limited to this example, number of SLV oan increase if Association Link, Testimonial Link and Sponsorship Link are divided into finer sub-categories. Number of SSV can increase if Social Degree of Separation or Trust Rating categories are increased/

For example but not limited to this example, number of SLV can decrease if Association Link is not included. Number of SSV can decrease if Social Degree of Separation or Trust Rating categories are decreased.

Social Identity Code can be presented through the use "of Media Controllers to identify oneself to another.

For example but not limited to this example, Worker A can show his/her Social Identity Code to

Employer X to verify identity when the job starts.

Social Identify Code can be with any decimal points or rounded up or down to a whole number.

Claims

Social Rating System
Claims
1. A social rating method com rising using at least one of a trust rating and a reputation rating to create a score based thereon.
2. A social contract method comprising use of at least one of a social degree of separation or a level of performance of a task to inform a social contract.
3. A social networking method comprising one or more of an Associate Link, a Testimonial Link and a Sponsorship Link.
4. A method of calculating a social contract value according to the formula:
Social Contract Value Sn = Trust Ratlng(a)+Soclal Links 50η(γ)+ Task Reputation Ratlng(P) and optionally creating a simple weighted average of Trust Rating, type of Social Links 50n and
Reputation Rating.
5. A method of calculating a social contract value according to the formula:
Social Contract Value Sn = Social Degree of Separation(a)-t-Socia) Links 50η(γ)ι- Task Reputation Ratlng(3) and optionally creating a simple weighted average of Social Degree of Separation, type of Social Links 50n and Task Reputation Rating.
6. A method of calculating a social contract value acoording to the formula:
Sn = f(Un) x f(Wn)
Social Contract Value Sn is a function of Separation Weighting Un and Social Link Weighting Wn. Whereas function of Un and function of Wn can be and not limited to ratio, average, weighted average, exponential, minimum, maximum, mode, median and/or multiple.
7. A method of calculation Adjusted Social Contract Value (ASn). ASn = Sn x On x (Sn / fSn) where fSn is function of S including and not limited to ratio, average, weighted average, exponential, minimum, maximum, mode, median and/or multiple. (Sn / fSn) is referred to as Social Contract Multiple
Θ. A method of calculating a trust rating comprising assigning a value to a social degree of separation and creating a trust rating therefrom. '
9. A method of calculating a social degree of separation between a first and second person (or group of people) comprising measuring a social distance between that first and second person.
10. A method of calculating a reputation rating comprising assigning a value to a person (or group of persons) reputation based on performance according to one or more criteria and calculating a reputation rating therefrom.
11. A method of ranking and sorting users using Social Equity value and Task Reputation Rating.
1 . A method that facilities social contract through notification of reputation and ranking risks and
rewards in terms of Social Equity value and Task Reputation Rating. Social Rating System
13. A method to reference user identity by using Social Contract Value, Adjusted Social Contract Value, Social Equity and Task Reputation Rating.
14. A method to identify identity references from Adjusted Social Contract Value.
15. A method that generates Social Link Value and Social Separation Value as a set of identification code. This code is Social Identification Code.
16. A social rating system comprising computational means to calculate a reputation rating based on at least one of a trust rating or a task reputation rating.
17. A social contract system comprising computational means to perform a calculation in relation to a social degree of separation and / or a level of performance and thereby inform a social contract. 18. A social networking system comprising a computer network and computational means to
electronically provide one or more of an associate Link, a testimonial Link and a sponsorship Link.
19. A system for calculating a social contract value comprising computational means to calculate a social contract value according to the formula:
Social Contract Value Sn = Trust Rating(a)tSocial Links 50η(γ)+ Task Reputation Rating(P) and optionally creating a simple weighted average of Trust Rating, type of Social Links 50n and Reputation Rating.
20. A system for calculating a social contract value comprising computational means to calculate a social contract value according to the formula:
Social Contract Value Sn = Social Degree of Separaton(a)†Social Links 50η(γ)+ Task Reputation Ratlng(p)
and optionally creating a simple weighted average of Social Degree of Separation, type of Social Links 50n and Task Reputation Rating.
21. A system for calculating a social contract value comprising computational means to calculate a social contract value according to the formula:
Sn = f(Un) x f(Wn)
Social Contract Value Sn is a function of Separation Weighting Un and Social Link Weighting Wn. Whereas function of Un and function of Wn can be and not limited to ratio, average, weighed average, exponential, minimum, maximum, mode, median and/or multiple.
22. A system for calculating an adjusted social contract value comprising computational means to
calculate Adjusted Social Contract Value (ASn). ASn = Sn x Qn x (Sn / fSn) where fSn is function of
Sn including and not limited to ratio, average, weighted average, exponential, minimum, maximum, mode, median and/or multiple. (Sn / fSn) is referred to as Social Contract Multiple.
23. A system for calculating a trust rating comprising computational means to create a trust rating from a value assigned to a social degree of separation. Social Rating System
24. A system for calculating a social degree of separation between a first and second person (or group of people) comprising computational means to measure a social distance between that first and second person.
25. A system for calculating a reputation rating comprising computational means to calculate a
reputational rating based on a value assigned to a person (or group of persons) reputation,
26. A system that facilities social contract through notification of reputation and ranking risks and
rewards in terms of Social Equity value and Task Reputation Rating.
27. A systems that ranks and sorts users using Social Contract Value, Adjusted Social Contract Value, Social Equity and Task Reputation Rating.
2Θ. A system that references user identity by using Adjusted Social Contract Value.
29. A system that generated Social Link Value and Social Separation Value as a set of identification code. This code is Social Identification Code,
30. A method for calculating social equity comprising using one or more social measures which
optionally comprise social link or social separation.
31. A system for calculating social equity comprising a computer device to use one or more social measures which optionally comprise social link or social separation
32. A method of calculating a Social Link Value comprising analyzing social data and thereby creating a Social Link Value.
33. A system for calculating a Social Link Value comprising a computed device to analyze social data and thereby creating a Social Link Value
34. A method of calculating a Social Separation Value comprising analyzing social data and thereby creating a Social Separation Value.
35. A system for calculating a Social Separation Value comprising a computed device to analyze social data and thereby creating a Social Separation Value
36. A computer-implemented method, comprising: outputting by a server device a rating interface, the rating interface for display by a client device and providing a user with the ability to rate a person, the person optionally associated with a social network, the social network comprising a computer network connecting the server device and a plurality of client devices; receiving by the server device one or more ratings by the user, associating by the server device the ratings with the chosen person(s) and optionally contacting the person(s) to communicate the fact of their rating to them.
37, A computer-readable storage medium containing machine-executable instructions for outputting by a server device a rating interface, the rating interface for display by a client device and providing a user with the ability to rate a person, the person optionally associated with a social network, the Social Rating System social network comprising a computer network connecting the server device and a plurality of client devices; receiving by the server device one or more ratings by the user, associating by the server device the ratings with the chosen person(s) and optionally contacting the person(s) to communicate the fact of their rating to them.
38. An apparatus, comprising: a storage device; and a processor coupled to the storage device, wherein the storage device stores a program for controlling the processor, and wherein the processor, being operative with the program, is configured to cause output by a server device of a rating interface, the rating interface for display by a client device and providing a user with the ability to rate a person, the person optionally associated with a social network, the social network comprising a computer network connecting the server device and a plurality of client devices; receive by the server device one or more ratings by the user, associate the ratings with the chosen person(s) and optionally contact the person(s) to communicate the fact of their rating to them.
39. A computer-implemented method for enabling rating of a person comprising the steps of: receiving into a data store, data in relation to a rating of a person by a user said data comprising one or more of social distance data, trust data, reputation data, social contract data, testimonial data, thereby calculating by a server device a rating in respect of the person.
40. Instructions stored on a computer readable medium, the instructions for a method for enabling rating of a person comprising the steps of: receiving into a data store, data in relation to a rating of a person by a user said data comprising one or more of social distance data, trust data, reputation data, social contract data, testimonial data, thereby calculating by a server device a rating in respect of the person.
41. An apparatus, comprising: a storage device; and a processor coupled to the storage device, wherein the storage device stores a program for controlling the processor, and wherein the processor, being operative with the program, is configured to: receive into a data store, data in relation to a rating of ao person by a user said data comprising one or more of social distance data, trust data, reputation data, social contract data, testimonial data, and thereby calculate by a server device a rating in respect of the person.
PCT/AU2012/000984 2011-08-25 2012-08-23 Social rating system WO2013026095A1 (en)

Priority Applications (2)

Application Number Priority Date Filing Date Title
US201161527119P true 2011-08-25 2011-08-25
US61/527,119 2011-08-25

Publications (1)

Publication Number Publication Date
WO2013026095A1 true WO2013026095A1 (en) 2013-02-28

Family

ID=47745770

Family Applications (1)

Application Number Title Priority Date Filing Date
PCT/AU2012/000984 WO2013026095A1 (en) 2011-08-25 2012-08-23 Social rating system

Country Status (1)

Country Link
WO (1) WO2013026095A1 (en)

Cited By (17)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
WO2015130720A1 (en) * 2014-02-27 2015-09-03 Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc Utilizing interactivity signals to generate relationships and promote content
US9438619B1 (en) 2016-02-29 2016-09-06 Leo M. Chan Crowdsourcing of trustworthiness indicators
WO2016149806A1 (en) * 2015-03-20 2016-09-29 Mawji Ashif Calculating a trust score
US9542440B2 (en) 2013-11-04 2017-01-10 Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc Enterprise graph search based on object and actor relationships
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
US9740709B1 (en) 2016-02-17 2017-08-22 Www.Trustscience.Com Inc. Searching for entities based on trust score and geography
US9870432B2 (en) 2014-02-24 2018-01-16 Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc Persisted enterprise graph queries
US9922134B2 (en) 2010-04-30 2018-03-20 Www.Trustscience.Com Inc. Assessing and scoring people, businesses, places, things, and brands
US10002181B2 (en) 2015-09-11 2018-06-19 International Business Machines Corporation Real-time tagger
US10061826B2 (en) 2014-09-05 2018-08-28 Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc. Distant content discovery
US10079732B2 (en) 2010-03-05 2018-09-18 Www.Trustscience.Com Inc. Calculating trust scores based on social graph statistics
US10127618B2 (en) 2009-09-30 2018-11-13 Www.Trustscience.Com Inc. Determining connectivity within a community
US10169457B2 (en) 2014-03-03 2019-01-01 Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc Displaying and posting aggregated social activity on a piece of enterprise content
US10180969B2 (en) 2017-03-22 2019-01-15 Www.Trustscience.Com Inc. Entity resolution and identity management in big, noisy, and/or unstructured data
US10187277B2 (en) 2009-10-23 2019-01-22 Www.Trustscience.Com Inc. Scoring using distributed database with encrypted communications for credit-granting and identification verification
US10255563B2 (en) 2014-03-03 2019-04-09 Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc Aggregating enterprise graph content around user-generated topics

Citations (6)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US20050159970A1 (en) * 2004-01-21 2005-07-21 Orkut Buyukkokten Methods and systems for the display and navigation of a social network
US20050159998A1 (en) * 2004-01-21 2005-07-21 Orkut Buyukkokten Methods and systems for rating associated members in a social network
US20080059576A1 (en) * 2006-08-31 2008-03-06 Microsoft Corporation Recommending contacts in a social network
US20080275719A1 (en) * 2005-12-16 2008-11-06 John Stannard Davis Trust-based Rating System
US20090327054A1 (en) * 2008-06-27 2009-12-31 Microsoft Corporation Personal reputation system based on social networking
US20100010826A1 (en) * 2008-07-13 2010-01-14 Tros Interactive Ltd. Calculating connectivity, social proximity and trust level between web user

Patent Citations (6)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US20050159970A1 (en) * 2004-01-21 2005-07-21 Orkut Buyukkokten Methods and systems for the display and navigation of a social network
US20050159998A1 (en) * 2004-01-21 2005-07-21 Orkut Buyukkokten Methods and systems for rating associated members in a social network
US20080275719A1 (en) * 2005-12-16 2008-11-06 John Stannard Davis Trust-based Rating System
US20080059576A1 (en) * 2006-08-31 2008-03-06 Microsoft Corporation Recommending contacts in a social network
US20090327054A1 (en) * 2008-06-27 2009-12-31 Microsoft Corporation Personal reputation system based on social networking
US20100010826A1 (en) * 2008-07-13 2010-01-14 Tros Interactive Ltd. Calculating connectivity, social proximity and trust level between web user

Cited By (21)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US10127618B2 (en) 2009-09-30 2018-11-13 Www.Trustscience.Com Inc. Determining connectivity within a community
US10187277B2 (en) 2009-10-23 2019-01-22 Www.Trustscience.Com Inc. Scoring using distributed database with encrypted communications for credit-granting and identification verification
US10079732B2 (en) 2010-03-05 2018-09-18 Www.Trustscience.Com Inc. Calculating trust scores based on social graph statistics
US9922134B2 (en) 2010-04-30 2018-03-20 Www.Trustscience.Com Inc. Assessing and scoring people, businesses, places, things, and brands
US9542440B2 (en) 2013-11-04 2017-01-10 Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc Enterprise graph search based on object and actor relationships
US9870432B2 (en) 2014-02-24 2018-01-16 Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc Persisted enterprise graph queries
WO2015130720A1 (en) * 2014-02-27 2015-09-03 Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc Utilizing interactivity signals to generate relationships and promote content
US10169457B2 (en) 2014-03-03 2019-01-01 Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc Displaying and posting aggregated social activity on a piece of enterprise content
US10255563B2 (en) 2014-03-03 2019-04-09 Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc Aggregating enterprise graph content around user-generated topics
US10061826B2 (en) 2014-09-05 2018-08-28 Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc. Distant content discovery
WO2016149806A1 (en) * 2015-03-20 2016-09-29 Mawji Ashif Calculating a trust score
US9578043B2 (en) 2015-03-20 2017-02-21 Ashif Mawji Calculating a trust score
US10002181B2 (en) 2015-09-11 2018-06-19 International Business Machines Corporation Real-time tagger
US9740709B1 (en) 2016-02-17 2017-08-22 Www.Trustscience.Com Inc. Searching for entities based on trust score and geography
US10055466B2 (en) 2016-02-29 2018-08-21 Www.Trustscience.Com Inc. Extrapolating trends in trust scores
US9584540B1 (en) 2016-02-29 2017-02-28 Leo M. Chan Crowdsourcing of trustworthiness indicators
US9679254B1 (en) 2016-02-29 2017-06-13 Www.Trustscience.Com Inc. Extrapolating trends in trust scores
US9438619B1 (en) 2016-02-29 2016-09-06 Leo M. Chan Crowdsourcing of trustworthiness indicators
US10121115B2 (en) 2016-03-24 2018-11-06 Www.Trustscience.Com Inc. Learning an entity's trust model and risk tolerance to calculate its risk-taking score
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
US10180969B2 (en) 2017-03-22 2019-01-15 Www.Trustscience.Com Inc. Entity resolution and identity management in big, noisy, and/or unstructured data

Similar Documents

Publication Publication Date Title
Kranton Competition and the incentive to produce high quality
Chen et al. Moderated online communities and quality of user-generated content
AU2009202428B2 (en) Assessment of sales force personnel for improvement of sales performance
Flabbi Gender discrimination estimation in a search model with matching and bargaining
Bathula Board characteristics and firm performance: Evidence from New Zealand
US20100049534A1 (en) Determining User Affinity Towards Applications on a Social Networking Website
Krupka et al. Identifying social norms using coordination games: Why does dictator game sharing vary?
US20090299993A1 (en) Candidate Recruiting
Bhatnagar Talent management strategy of employee engagement in Indian ITES employees: key to retention
US8868752B2 (en) Resource management of social network applications
US20130096968A1 (en) Performance data in a worker profile aggregated by a job distribution platform for workers that perform crowd sourced tasks
Devlin et al. Incorporating multiple criteria in HTA
Gouscos et al. A general model of performance and quality for one-stop e-government service offerings
US20080027747A1 (en) Method and apparatus for employment system distributed hiring and co-operative pooling
US20140317126A1 (en) Determining measures of influence of users of a social network
Stanton et al. Landing the first job: The value of intermediaries in online hiring
US9975052B1 (en) System and method for providing in-game timed offers
US20120088220A1 (en) Method and system for assigning a task to be processed by a crowdsourcing platform
CA2594914A1 (en) Attention economy for attention to messages, tasks and resources
Bennett et al. The contribution of business associations to SMEs: strategy, bundling or reassurance?
CA2685758A1 (en) System and method for assessing credit risk in an on-line lending environment
Marescaux et al. HR practices and affective organisational commitment:(when) does HR differentiation pay off?
Wilson et al. Player transgressions and the management of the sport sponsor relationship
Dieckhoff The effect of unemployment on subsequent job quality in Europe: A comparative study of four countries
US20090327013A1 (en) Method and Apparatus for Facilitation Introductions in an Employment System

Legal Events

Date Code Title Description
121 Ep: the epo has been informed by wipo that ep was designated in this application

Ref document number: 12825999

Country of ref document: EP

Kind code of ref document: A1

NENP Non-entry into the national phase in:

Ref country code: DE

122 Ep: pct app. not ent. europ. phase

Ref document number: 12825999

Country of ref document: EP

Kind code of ref document: A1