WO2014011168A1 - Système, procédé et appareil pour relier des utilisateurs en ligne sur la base de la familiarité ou d'une invitation - Google Patents

Système, procédé et appareil pour relier des utilisateurs en ligne sur la base de la familiarité ou d'une invitation Download PDF

Info

Publication number
WO2014011168A1
WO2014011168A1 PCT/US2012/046278 US2012046278W WO2014011168A1 WO 2014011168 A1 WO2014011168 A1 WO 2014011168A1 US 2012046278 W US2012046278 W US 2012046278W WO 2014011168 A1 WO2014011168 A1 WO 2014011168A1
Authority
WO
WIPO (PCT)
Prior art keywords
registrant
person
answers
anonymous
processor
Prior art date
Application number
PCT/US2012/046278
Other languages
English (en)
Inventor
Uri Singer
Original Assignee
Uri Singer
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
Application filed by Uri Singer filed Critical Uri Singer
Priority to PCT/US2012/046278 priority Critical patent/WO2014011168A1/fr
Publication of WO2014011168A1 publication Critical patent/WO2014011168A1/fr

Links

Classifications

    • H—ELECTRICITY
    • H04—ELECTRIC COMMUNICATION TECHNIQUE
    • H04L—TRANSMISSION OF DIGITAL INFORMATION, e.g. TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION
    • H04L67/00—Network arrangements or protocols for supporting network services or applications
    • H04L67/2866—Architectures; Arrangements
    • H04L67/30—Profiles
    • H04L67/306—User profiles
    • G—PHYSICS
    • G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
    • G06Q—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
    • G06Q10/00—Administration; Management
    • G06Q10/10—Office automation; Time management
    • G06Q10/101—Collaborative creation, e.g. joint development of products or services
    • G—PHYSICS
    • G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
    • G06Q—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
    • G06Q50/00—Information and communication technology [ICT] specially adapted for implementation of business processes of specific business sectors, e.g. utilities or tourism
    • G06Q50/01—Social networking
    • H—ELECTRICITY
    • H04—ELECTRIC COMMUNICATION TECHNIQUE
    • H04L—TRANSMISSION OF DIGITAL INFORMATION, e.g. TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION
    • H04L63/00—Network architectures or network communication protocols for network security
    • H04L63/10—Network architectures or network communication protocols for network security for controlling access to devices or network resources
    • H04L63/104—Grouping of entities
    • H—ELECTRICITY
    • H04—ELECTRIC COMMUNICATION TECHNIQUE
    • H04L—TRANSMISSION OF DIGITAL INFORMATION, e.g. TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION
    • H04L67/00—Network arrangements or protocols for supporting network services or applications
    • H04L67/50—Network services
    • H04L67/535—Tracking the activity of the user

Definitions

  • the present invention relates to a system, method, and apparatus for connecting users in an online system based on knowledge of personal information.
  • Dating services patents such as U.S. Patent No. 6,666,389 connect one person to another based on personal preferences. For example, person A is connected to person B if they both have the same hobby. All prospective daters fill out the same questionnaire. The answers are compared and a score is created to determine "compatibility.”
  • the present invention enables people to permit other people to leave or communicate anonymous feedback or comments about each other without requiring an actual direct connection of users to be made or requested by the users. It is also preferred to have a system and database that allows users to register to receive anonymous feedback about themselves by providing personal information that an acquaintance or friend would need to know as a prerequisite to being allowed to leave feedback or comments. It is further preferred to allow people to register to receive feedback and to allow people containing a system generated code to be able to leave feedback. In various preferred embodiments, an unregistered user who would like to receive feedback registers to gain access to the system. Registration information may preferably include user name, password, first name, last name, middle name, and address information.
  • the system may provide a user with legal releases and conditions to which he or she must agree before registering or completing registration.
  • the system determines how people are able to connect with a registrant for the purpose of leaving anonymous feedback.
  • the system may leave this determination to the user.
  • the user selects from multiple methods of determining connection requirements.
  • One requirement for connection is preferably based on knowledge of personal information.
  • a connection is made between a first user and a second user (a registrant) based on the amount of knowledge that the first user has about the second user.
  • knowledge may be any type, personal or not.
  • the knowledge may relate to: birth city, pet's name, college attended, degree achieved, number of children, children's names, favorite hobby and favorite books.
  • the system may suggest to the registrant a list of default knowledge questions from which the user can choose or the user will be able to create new questions specifically tailored to him or her.
  • the system preferably requires that a minimum number of questions must be defined, and each question defined be categorized according to the type of information that it contains. Exemplary types of information may include free form, phone number, location, address, landmark, and others.
  • the correct answer is normalized, such as by utilizing a plug-in infrastructure to normalize the information.
  • a question named "College Attended” can be categorized as a landmark and the correct answer is entered as UCSB.
  • the system uses the landmark plug-in to normalize the UCSB name down to University of California, Santa Barbara.
  • the system informs the registrant of that normalization and they will be able to either accept or reject the changes.
  • the question may then be marked as either normalized or not.
  • the registrant is able to provide hints to other users about the answer.
  • the hints are preferably used when the answer entered is not correct. For example, a question such as "My Favorite Song?" is entered with a correct answer of "People are People by Depeche Mode" and a hint that states “ ⁇ song name> by ⁇ artist>". The hint will be displayed to a requesting person which will allow them to see the format of the answer.
  • the hint could also be additional information about the question. For example, a question such as "High School Attended?" could have a hint of "during senior year” and that would provide requesting persons with additional information about the context of the question.
  • the user may determine a threshold, e.g., a number or a percentage of correct answers that determines whether or not a person wanting to leave feedback is able to do so.
  • a threshold e.g., a number or a percentage of correct answers that determines whether or not a person wanting to leave feedback is able to do so.
  • a person wanting to leave feedback enters the system, he/she will need to answer the questions.
  • the system at that point calculates the number or percentage of questions answered successfully and either allows feedback to be left or not if the minimum number or percentage was not met.
  • the system makes the above determination by determining the percentage of questions that were answered successfully.
  • the system utilizes spell checkers, pattern matching, and linguistic dictionaries to reduce the chance for a low score based on misspelling, differences in patterns (for example, a phone number is entered as xxx-xxx-xxxx as the answer but entered as (xxx)-xxx-xxxx as a verification answer in the registered user's profile), and differences in languages.
  • the question category will be used to determine which plug- in to use for the verification of the answer. For example, a question such as "College Attended?" can be categorized as a landmark and the correct answer is University of California, Santa Barbara.
  • UCSB If a person wanting to leave feedback enters UCSB instead of the full name, the answer will be normally rejected since it does not match the text of the correct answer.
  • the system would utilize a plug-in architecture and allow for information to be validated such that UCSB will be checked against a landmark database (online or offline) at which point the normalized name will be retrieved and matched against the question.
  • the system preferably compares information based on normalized information.
  • the system also utilizes pattern matching to score the answer such that it is clear what percentage of the answer is correct. For example, if a question titled "My Favorite Song" in entered with a correct answer of "People are People by Depeche Mode" and a requesting user enters "People are People by Depeshe Mode", the system may calculate that answer to be a percentage correct such as 93% or 83% (5 out of 6 word phase correct) due to the misspelling and thus may bet a score of 0.93 or 0.83.
  • a threshold exists in the system which controls what is the minimum percentage allowed.
  • the registrant is able to determine what is the percentage that is acceptable for him or her.
  • the registrant is able to make his or her profile active and thereby allow other users to leave anonymous feedback.
  • the system generates a unique identifier that is used by others to leave feedback about the registrant.
  • a person wanting to leave feedback will need to enter the unique identifier first.
  • the identifier is validated, the person is presented with the list of questions to answer before proceeding with leaving feedback.
  • a generic feedback mechanism may consist of either a freeform area to write feedback or a structured set of feedback topics and questions.
  • the system connects users if one user enters a correct and unique access code of another registered user.
  • a registrant When registering to receive feedback, a registrant is able to specify that any person who knows a specific access code is able to leave feedback.
  • the system at that point may either generate a unique access code or allow the registrant to specify the access code to be used.
  • people wanting to leave feedback access the system, such users must enter the unique access code of the desired target registrant to gain access to leave feedback.
  • a registrant when using the access code mechanism, is able to generate several codes and hand out such codes to receive different types of feedback. This can be used by a presenter who would like people to leave feedback for different presentations and therefore, creates a new access code for each presentation and hands it to the audience of each presentation accordingly.
  • Fig. 1 is a schematic view of a system for a group of users to register and provide comments anonymously to other users in accordance with a preferred embodiment of the invention
  • Fig. 2 is a schematic view of data stored in a database for use in the system of Fig. 1 ;
  • Figs. 3 A, 3B, and 3C are a flow chart of steps in a method for the stem of Fig. 1;
  • Fig. 4 is a flow chart of registration steps in the method;
  • Figs. 5 and 6 are a flow chart of steps in creating and/or managing a registrant's profile in a system such as that of Fig. 1 ;
  • Fig. 7 is a diagram of an example of feedback provided to a registrant in a tiered or graded system in accordance with one embodiment of the invention.
  • the system provides an unregistered user who would like to receive feedback the ability to register to gain access to the system.
  • the registration information includes user name, password, first name, last name, middle name, and address information.
  • the registrant is provided with legal releases and conditions to which he has to agree before entering the system. Once the user agrees to these conditions, the registrant determines how people are able to connect with his or her profile for the purpose of leaving anonymous feedback.
  • the registrant selects from multiple methods of determining connection.
  • the connection is based on knowledge of personal information. Using this method, a connection is made between people based on the amount of knowledge that they have about a person.
  • the knowledge is any type, being personal or not, but will be referred to herein as personal (since business, personal, social or other information is about the registrant and therefore personal).
  • the knowledge relates to any of birth city, pet's name, college attended, degree achieved, number of children, children names, favorite hobby and favorite book.
  • the system suggests to the registrant a list of default knowledge questions from which they can choose or the registrant will be able to create and add or substitute new questions specifically tailored to him or her.
  • the system requires that a minimum number of questions must be defined. Each questions defined needs to be categorized to the type of information that it contains.
  • the types of information include freeform, phone number, location, address, landmark, and others.
  • the correct answer is normalized by utilizing a plug-in infrastructure to normalize the information.
  • a question named "College Attended?" can be categorized as a landmark and the correct answer is entered as UCSB.
  • the system uses the landmark plug- in to normalize the UCSB name down to University of California, Santa Barbara.
  • the system informs the registrant of that normalization and the registrant will be able to either accept or reject the changes.
  • the question is then marked as either normalized or not.
  • the registrant is able to provide hints to other users about the answer. Such hints may be used when the answer entered is not correct. For example, a question such as "My Favorite Song?" is entered with a correct answer of "People are People by Depeche Mode" and a hint that states “ ⁇ song name> by ⁇ artist>". The hint will be displayed to users (seeking connection) with additional information about the context of the question.
  • the registrant determines the number or percentage of correct answers that determines whether or not a person seeking connection and wanting to leave feedback is able to.
  • a person wanting to leave feedback enters the system, he or she will need to answer the questions and the system at that point calculates the percentage of questions answered successfully and either allows feedback to be left or not if the minimum percentage was not met.
  • the system may define a percentage, e.g., 70% or 80% or have a default percentage (or number correct). The system makes the above determination by determining the percentage of questions that were answered successfully.
  • the system utilizes spell checkers, pattern matching, and linguistic dictionaries to reduce the chance for a low score based on misspelling, differences in patters (for example, a phone number is entered at xxx-xxx-xxxx as the answer but entered as (xxx)-xxx-xxxx as a verification answer for the comparison), and differences in languages.
  • the question category will be used to determine which plug-in to use for the verification to the answer. For example, a question such as "College
  • Attended?” can be categorized as a landmark and the correct answer is University of California, Santa Barbara. If a person wanting to leave feedback enters UCSB instead of the full name, the answer will be normally rejected since it does not match the text of the correct answer.
  • the system would preferably utilize a plug-in architecture and allow for information to be validated such that UCSB will be checked against a landmark database (online or offline) at which point the normalized name will be retrieved and matched against the question.
  • the system matches information based on normalized information.
  • the system also utilizes pattern matching to score the answer such that it is clear what percentage of the answer is correct. For example, if a question such as "My Favorite Song?" is entered by the registrant along with a correct answer of "People are People by Depeche Mode" and a requesting user enters "People are People by Depeshe Mode", the system preferably calculates that answer to be partly correct, e.g., 83% or 93% (or 0.83 or 0.93) correct due to the misspelling.
  • a threshold exists in the system which controls what is the minimum percentage allowed for all questions.
  • the registrant is preferably able to determine what is the percentage or minimum number correct that is acceptable.
  • the registrant is able to make his or her profile active and thereby allow people to leave anonymous feedback.
  • the system preferably generates a unique identifier that is used by others to leave feedback about the user. When accessing the system's main page, a person wanting to leave feedback will need to enter the unique identifier first. Once the identifier is validated, the person is presented with the list of questions to answer before proceeding with leaving feedback.
  • the feedback mechanism consists of either a fireeform area to write feedback or a structured set of feedback topics and questions.
  • the system alternatively also can provide a connection based on a provided access code.
  • the registrant When registering to receive feedback, the registrant is able to specify that any person who knows a specific access code or allows the registrant to specify the code to be used. When people wanting to leave feedback access the system, they need to enter the code to gain access to leave feedback.
  • a registrant When using the access code mechanism, a registrant preferably is able to generate several codes and hand them out to receive different types of feedback. This can be used by a presenter who would like people to leave feedback for different presentations and therefore, creates a new access code for each presentation and hands it to the audience of each presentation accordingly.
  • the system has a group of registered users 2. Each registered user typically has his or her own personal computer 4, and a connection to the internet 5 via modem.
  • the system ACS 6 (Anonymous Comment System) may include a server 8 (CPU), a database 10, and the system application having a registration module 12 (REG MOD), a rating module 14 (RATING MOD) and a comment module 16 (COMMENT MOD). Suitable software programming, relational databases, and hardware to run the system would be well known to those of ordinary skill in the art.
  • the database preferably includes registered users 2, their respective answer sets 18, to standard system questions, additional questions sets 20, and additional answer sets 22 (to the additional questions).
  • the thresholds 23, as explained in Fig. 4, are optionally determined by the registrant and needed to provide a comment. These levels such as Al, Bl, CI; A2, B2, C2; ...; Ai, Bi, Ci; ...; An, Bn, Cn are stored in the system. These may be numbers or percentages of right answers required, and there may be one threshold or multiple thresholds. These may be set by the registered user or system set. They may be percentages or absolute numbers.
  • the system also may preferably store a user's rating 24, e.g., CR3, CRn, for any other user.
  • CRn is a rating for user "n”
  • CRi is a rating for user "i,” etc. the ratings need not be stored, and users could have to answer questions each time they wish to connect to and provide comments to another user.
  • Figs. 3A, 3B, 3C show an example of the verification (or rating module) to determine the user's rating and therefore whether or not the user may connect to a target registered user, and leave comments.
  • the steps are as follows:
  • a friend verification process is started at step 26.
  • the next step 30 is for the system to provide a list of questions for the user to answer. For each question 31, the user is asked to provide an answer 32. The system then normalizes (at step 33) the answer as discussed earlier.
  • the next step 36 is for the system to check if the answers match the registrant's answers. If the answer is yes the system will allow the user to continue (step 38) to the next question. If the answer is no the system provides the user with a hint (step 37) and asks the user to re-enter the answer at step 34. From there, steps 33 and forward are repeated.
  • Steps following step 38 of Fig. 3 A are shown in Fig. 3B.
  • the next step 39 is for the system to determine if the correct numbers of questions were answered based on the registrant's preferences and at step 40 if the user entered the correct number of answers (i.e., got enough answers correct). If the answer is yes, the system authenticates the user as a friend at step 44 and then allows the user to leave feedback about the registrant at step 45. If the answer is no, the user is informed that the correct number of answers was not met (step 41) and provides them with the ability to send the registrant a request for access at step 42. The system then sends the registrant the request email detailing the user's answers to the questions (step 43).
  • Fig 3C continues from step 43 of Fig. 3B.
  • the registrant receives the email and decides whether or not to allow access based on the questions at step 47. If the answer is no, the system will send the user an email specifying the decline of access at step 48. If the answer is yes, the system will send the user and email with an access code at step 49. The next step 50 is for the user to visit the website and use the code. This is shown as point A on both Figs. 3C and 3 A.
  • the user starting at point A enters the friend code shown at step 29 and will be taken either through step 30 and so on or will be automatically advanced to step 44 of Fig. 3B where the code can be authenticated. This depends on the situation and the registrant's preferences. If users leaving comments are required to have an access code, then the user will be taken to the verification questions upon entry of a correct access code. If the user has already answered the questions and has not met the requirement, but has been given a bypass code, the user will be allowed to leave comments as soon as the they enter a correct bypass code.
  • the system in an embodiment, can be such that any one can use the site to potentially connect with a registered user, so that the potential user need not pass through the registration module before providing comments. Therefore, the below scenarios can work with either registered users or non-registering users who provide comments.
  • a girl wants to tell her friend she has a crush on him but cannot do so face to face. She provides comments to the friend, who is registered in the system. She takes the verification test (described below) and fails to pass the verification (of Figs. 3 A and 3B), perhaps due to nervousness, by failing to enter the threshold number of correct answers to get to leave comments. The system informs her that the correct number (or percentage) of answers was not met.
  • the system may then provide her with the ability to send the registrant a request for access.
  • the system may then send an email to the registrant with a request that a user wants to provide comments, but failed to meet the threshold.
  • the email may detail the registrant's questions and the answers provided by the user.
  • the registrant can turn down access and the system may then send an email to the user indicating that the registrant denied access.
  • the system may send the user an email with the access code to bypass the verification questions.
  • the user returns to the web page for access and uses the code (going from Fig. 3C, point A on the chart to Fig. 3A point A).
  • the user then enters the friend's access code and she may anonymously tell the registrant that she has a crush on him, and enter into further dialog with the registrant via anonymous email.
  • the user may disclose her identity if she chooses to do so.
  • a professor asks his students to give their honest opinion of him or her or the course, but written or oral replies do not result in honest opinions.
  • the professor registers on the system, and gives each student a code to be able to go directly to giving comments (by skipping directly to the "Authenticate user as friend” step 44 shown in Fig. 3B). That is shown by the "user enters friend code” box (step 29 in Fig. 3A).
  • Each student may then provide comments bypassing the level assignment portion of the module.
  • An example of system use depending on a code or on verification questions may be as follows: A large corporation has found that its sales are dropping and wants to know more about the managers and personnel, so the corporation asks all employees and tell their thoughts about there superiors. The corporation does this by having all supervisors register and obtain a "friend code.” Then the corporation sends an email invitation to all employees with the "friend code” or has each supervisor send emails having the "friend code” and soliciting comments using the system. The emails are to be sent to each employee in the supervisor's charge. Alternatively, the corporation may register one person to receive all comments regardless of the supervisors whom the comments are about.
  • the user visits the system web site and selects the registered user to which to connect. Then the system provides a list of questions about the registrant to the user. For each question, the user enters an answer and then the system normalizes the answer, using a plug-in software (e.g., a spell checker, etc. as mentioned above, and/or using custom designed software as would be evident to one of ordinary skill in the art). The system then asks: "Does the user's answer match the registrant's answer?" If not, the system may provide hints (if the user has provided hints or if the system provides format hints). It is noted that the database of Fig. 2 would store any user hints too in association with the registered user, while format hints if system-generated rather than user-generated, could be stored elsewhere. Upon receiving a hint or hints, the user may re-enter the answer. The system would again perform
  • the flow chart can also be modified to provide a step where the time to answer times out or otherwise is wrong, and no additional hints are available, in which case the system goes to the next question.
  • the system determines if the number correct passes the threshold, and if not, the system re-enters the loop that informs the user that the correct number of answers was not met, and gives the registrant a chance to approve the user anyway and provide an access code. If the correct minimum number of answers (or percentage) is met, the system authenticates the user as a friend, and allows the user to leave feedback or comments about the registrant.
  • the system may be a tiered system with level classification as shown in Fig. 7.
  • the system provides the registrant 92 with the user's comments 94 along with the user's level of closeness.
  • Levels A, B and C, labeled 96, 98 and 100 respectively are shown as examples. Any number of levels may be used.
  • Level A is the first and highest level of closeness followed by B and then C.
  • the user's level of closeness or the user's authentication as friend may be stored in the memory as noted above, possibly for a limited time, e.g., three months. This allows the user to determine the relevance of the feedback he is given.
  • Level C If mostly positive comments are given by those in Level A, but mostly negative comments are given by Level C, he can determine that those who are close to him, or really know him, gave him positive and/or significant feedback. However, if the opposite were true and those closest to him gave mostly negative comments, this may be cause for concern. Generally comments in Level C would not be considered as relevant as comments in Level A. In order to provide this information either the user is a registrant too, or users have a limited registration, such as just an email and password, and the closeness level or authentication is stored, preferably for a limited time, or until the registrant updates his or her answers and/or questions. The access code may also have a limited life.
  • the system may also provide feedback in any of a variety of other ways in conjunction with "familiarity" rating and/or independent of familiarity, although familiarity is preferred.
  • a user or registrant first registers on a group or network of other users.
  • registration preferably includes entry of the following data: user name and password selection 54 (a user name can be the registrant's name, email address, a pre-existing user name such as a user name on an existing internet server, email service, or existing network or social network such as a user name on www.myspace.com, or a newly selected, preferably unique, user name, as is commonly done on a multitude of internet sites; and entry of personalized data 56, such as name (e.g., first, middle and last), home address, birth, city and state, birth hospital, date of birth (DOB) age (which can be derived from DOB), years at current home address, employer, supervisor name, whether or not the registrant owns pets, if so, pets' names and animal type (e.g., fluffy, cat; rover, dog), and/or number of dogs owned and/or number of cats owned, high school attended, city and state of high school,
  • the personalized data is requested by the system preferably in the form of a questionnaire.
  • the set of personalized data can vary depending upon a purpose of the group network, e.g., whether the network is purely social, whether the network is for business associates, a set of customers or clients, a set of employees in a business, or a set of members in a social club, professional association or other type of association.
  • a set of lawyers in a law firm might have questions such as what year did you join the firm?, what is your practice specialty?, what are three current cases that you are working on?, what is your assistant's name?, what is your extension number?, what are your usual work hours?, who are your three biggest clients?, etc., as well as some of the data mentioned above.
  • the system can be set to preclude comments from being communicated or passed to the registrant if the person is not within the closest category or at least a category having a desired level of closeness.
  • the gradations should, preferably, be selected, depending upon the size of the group and the type of group, and possibly other factors, to avoid indirectly identifying an individual commenter. As noted below, the "gradations" could simply be the number of correct answers, or a score where some questions count one point while others may count two points, if the information is more personal.
  • the system preferably would have a method of updating the questionnaire answers of the registrant. Some answers may be automatically updated by the system, such as age (incrementing by one each time the data equals the DOB).
  • the system can store the data 58, and may perform normalization, spell checking and the like at this stage. The answers are preferably stored.
  • the system After storing answers to a standard set of questions (which could be skipped in an alternative embodiment), the system would then optionally either give a would be registrant a choice to provide an access code by which other users can simply enter and bypass any verification 60, or the would be registrant may create additional questions 63 and provide answers, which would then be stored 64.
  • the access or bypass codes would also be stored 62, also shown in Fig.
  • Both access codes and acquaintance verification may be provided as requirements for connection (authority) to leave comments or just one of access codes and acquaintance verification.
  • the registrant may set the threshold level(s) 65 e.g., the percentages or minimum amount right for authorization (e.g., A, B, C), or the system may set these.
  • the feedback is preferably graded according to the number of identifying questions answered correctly. This means that feedback would be accompanied by a grading level that would allow the user to determine how credible the feedback is. As an example, if there are ten (10) qualifying questions, a grade of ten (10) would mean that the user answered all questions correctly. A grading of five (5) would mean that the user leaving the feedback got five (5) questions correct.
  • This grading system may preferably allow the registrant to set a weight for each question, so some questions can be more important than others. For example, knowledge of birth hospital may have a bigger weight than birth date because anyone knowing birth hospital is probably more intimate with the registrant.
  • the registrant When receiving feedback, the registrant will also be able to determine the level of feedback desired and can even control the level that users can leave. If a user chooses to see feedback of a certain level, e.g., at least a level seven (7) on a ten question scale of 1 to 10, or any other preset scale, then users who leave feedback that does not grade 7 or above will be informed that their feedback will not be seen under the current user preferences.
  • the feedback will be stored by the system, but not be visible.
  • a registrant will also be able to determine whether feedback should be stored if insufficient. If stored, the system preferably will remind the registrant of stored but un-reviewed feedback, e.g., at regular intervals based on the registrant's preferences.
  • Figs. 5 and 6 The user starts by entering a username and password at step 68. The user is then asked if they would like to add or modify their personal data at step 70. If the answer is yes the user may add or modify questions, answers and levels of closeness at step 71. The user is then asked if they would like to add or modify their access codes at step 72 (if the answer to the previous question is no the user is automatically taken to step 72). If the answer is yes the system provides codes and/or the user selects codes for access at step 73. The codes are then stored at step 74. The next step
  • step 76 is to ask the user if they would like to send E-mails to selected persons (if the answer to the previous question is no then the user is automatically taken to step 76). If the answer is no the editing process is completed. If answer is yes the user will then be asked to provide the email addresses of the persons for emailing the selected users invitations to provide comments at step 77. The user can then enter questions to get comments on step 79. The system then sends emails to the selected person with access codes and with the questions for which comments are solicited and a link to the system is also provided at step 80. The recipients receive the emails at step 84 and provide comments at step 86. The system sends the comment to the registrant at step 88 and the process is completed.

Landscapes

  • Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
  • Business, Economics & Management (AREA)
  • Human Resources & Organizations (AREA)
  • Strategic Management (AREA)
  • Entrepreneurship & Innovation (AREA)
  • Computer Networks & Wireless Communication (AREA)
  • Signal Processing (AREA)
  • Economics (AREA)
  • Tourism & Hospitality (AREA)
  • Computing Systems (AREA)
  • Theoretical Computer Science (AREA)
  • General Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
  • Computer Hardware Design (AREA)
  • Marketing (AREA)
  • General Business, Economics & Management (AREA)
  • Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
  • General Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
  • Quality & Reliability (AREA)
  • Operations Research (AREA)
  • Computer Security & Cryptography (AREA)
  • Data Mining & Analysis (AREA)
  • Health & Medical Sciences (AREA)
  • General Health & Medical Sciences (AREA)
  • Primary Health Care (AREA)
  • Information Transfer Between Computers (AREA)
  • Management, Administration, Business Operations System, And Electronic Commerce (AREA)

Abstract

L'invention concerne un système et un procédé qui permettent d'inscrire des personnes pour permettre à d'autres individus de déposer des réactions anonymes sans qu'il soit nécessaire qu'une connexion effective soit établie ou demandée les uns vis-à-vis des autres, c'est-à-dire anonymement. Ledit système et ledit procédé, ainsi que la base de données associée, permettent d'inscrire des personnes pour recevoir des réactions anonymes les concernant en communiquant des informations personnelles qu'une de leurs connaissances devrait connaître et communiquer avant d'être autorisée à déposer une réaction. Le système et le procédé pourraient également permettre à des individus de s'inscrire pour recevoir des réactions et attribuer un code unique ou un code généré par le système, qui devrait être saisi par un autre utilisateur pour pouvoir déposer une réaction.
PCT/US2012/046278 2012-07-11 2012-07-11 Système, procédé et appareil pour relier des utilisateurs en ligne sur la base de la familiarité ou d'une invitation WO2014011168A1 (fr)

Priority Applications (1)

Application Number Priority Date Filing Date Title
PCT/US2012/046278 WO2014011168A1 (fr) 2012-07-11 2012-07-11 Système, procédé et appareil pour relier des utilisateurs en ligne sur la base de la familiarité ou d'une invitation

Applications Claiming Priority (1)

Application Number Priority Date Filing Date Title
PCT/US2012/046278 WO2014011168A1 (fr) 2012-07-11 2012-07-11 Système, procédé et appareil pour relier des utilisateurs en ligne sur la base de la familiarité ou d'une invitation

Publications (1)

Publication Number Publication Date
WO2014011168A1 true WO2014011168A1 (fr) 2014-01-16

Family

ID=49916437

Family Applications (1)

Application Number Title Priority Date Filing Date
PCT/US2012/046278 WO2014011168A1 (fr) 2012-07-11 2012-07-11 Système, procédé et appareil pour relier des utilisateurs en ligne sur la base de la familiarité ou d'une invitation

Country Status (1)

Country Link
WO (1) WO2014011168A1 (fr)

Cited By (1)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US10726376B2 (en) 2014-11-04 2020-07-28 Energage, Llc Manager-employee communication

Citations (6)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US20010034723A1 (en) * 2000-02-11 2001-10-25 Subramaniam Arun K. System and method for providing anonymous internet transactions
US6735568B1 (en) * 2000-08-10 2004-05-11 Eharmony.Com Method and system for identifying people who are likely to have a successful relationship
US20050201290A1 (en) * 2004-03-11 2005-09-15 Yahoo! Inc. Method and system for finding a friend in a social network
US20060117378A1 (en) * 2004-11-04 2006-06-01 Tam Chung M System and method for creating a secure trusted social network
US7069308B2 (en) * 2003-06-16 2006-06-27 Friendster, Inc. System, method and apparatus for connecting users in an online computer system based on their relationships within social networks
US20070192299A1 (en) * 2005-12-14 2007-08-16 Mark Zuckerberg Systems and methods for social mapping

Patent Citations (6)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US20010034723A1 (en) * 2000-02-11 2001-10-25 Subramaniam Arun K. System and method for providing anonymous internet transactions
US6735568B1 (en) * 2000-08-10 2004-05-11 Eharmony.Com Method and system for identifying people who are likely to have a successful relationship
US7069308B2 (en) * 2003-06-16 2006-06-27 Friendster, Inc. System, method and apparatus for connecting users in an online computer system based on their relationships within social networks
US20050201290A1 (en) * 2004-03-11 2005-09-15 Yahoo! Inc. Method and system for finding a friend in a social network
US20060117378A1 (en) * 2004-11-04 2006-06-01 Tam Chung M System and method for creating a secure trusted social network
US20070192299A1 (en) * 2005-12-14 2007-08-16 Mark Zuckerberg Systems and methods for social mapping

Cited By (1)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US10726376B2 (en) 2014-11-04 2020-07-28 Energage, Llc Manager-employee communication

Similar Documents

Publication Publication Date Title
US9870591B2 (en) Distributed electronic document review in a blockchain system and computerized scoring based on textual and visual feedback
Abma et al. Patient involvement in research programming and implementation: a responsive evaluation of the dialogue model for research agenda setting
US20170236094A1 (en) Blockchain-based crowdsourced initiatives tracking system
Goodman et al. Bringing a network-oriented approach to domestic violence services: A focus group exploration of promising practices
Harden Multidimensional Responsiveness: The Determinants of Legislators' Representational Priorities
Sendjaya et al. Defining and measuring servant leadership behaviour in organizations
Zhang Board information and strategic tasks performance
Thal et al. A conceptual model of wellness destination characteristics that contribute to psychological well-being
US20090319338A1 (en) Method and system for virtual mentoring
US7899875B1 (en) Digital data processing methods and systems for cultivating and providing guest feedback on rental accommodations
JP2013088831A (ja) 株主管理装置、株主管理方法及びプログラム
Bradshaw et al. Religious experiences of GBTQ Mormon males
US20140214843A1 (en) Method For Chronicling Legacy Using Social Networks
Ajei Kwasi Wiredu’s consensual democracy: Prospects for practice in Africa
US20120116907A1 (en) Life experiences certification process
Thoma Taking risks on behalf of another
US20070288464A1 (en) Profile rating and verification system
Thier et al. Breaking ranks? Differentiating nominal group technique scoring approaches for consensus and prioritization
Austin et al. Evaluation of a personal professional mentor scheme for newly qualified nurses
Tracy et al. Question prompt lists and endorsement of question‐asking support patients to get the information they seek—A longitudinal qualitative study
JP6325152B1 (ja) 個人株主管理システムおよび個人株主管理方法
US8311949B1 (en) System, method, and apparatus for connecting users online based on familiarity or invitation
US20160004880A1 (en) Method and System for Personal Identity Verification
US8612360B1 (en) System, method, and apparatus for connecting users online based on familiarity or invitation
WO2014011168A1 (fr) Système, procédé et appareil pour relier des utilisateurs en ligne sur la base de la familiarité ou d'une invitation

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: 12881086

Country of ref document: EP

Kind code of ref document: A1

NENP Non-entry into the national phase

Ref country code: DE

122 Ep: pct application non-entry in european phase

Ref document number: 12881086

Country of ref document: EP

Kind code of ref document: A1