JP5453301B2 - Aggregation and sharing of user-created content - Google Patents

Description

  This document allows users, such as authors, to share content in a public system in an authenticable manner, and various users of the system can comment on the content and be interested in it. It relates to searching for high quality content and allowing to determine which authors will create the best content.

  The Internet is an excellent democracy, mostly because content is free participation. Anyone can post almost anything they like, by commenting on other users' pages via blogs, other web pages, posted videos (eg YouTube), and in various other ways. be able to. As a result, the information on the Internet has no end. However, high quality information is often scarce in practice, or it may be difficult to find high quality information among all low quality content.

  Well-known commercial writers such as columnists in major newspapers often create some of the best-written content, but writers who are otherwise not well-known often write just as well Even if you can, you will not recognize your own work at all. Using the Internet, such writers can reach a huge number of recipients, but those writers need to be watched. Furthermore, they need to make sure that other malicious people do not pretend to be themselves and thus mess up their reputation.

  Being anonymous on the Internet is easy and creates tremendous freedom to contribute (eg, users don't have to worry about being retaliated for making honest comments). However, this anonymity also makes it easier for any person with a suspicious background to misrepresent themselves as a knowledgeable person and disproportionately disseminate their views, while those who have knowledge actually provide proof of identity and credentials. It is difficult to provide and correct incorrect information.

  User authentication can take various forms. Facebook, for example, generally trusts that a user is a student at the university if the user has a currently valid email address at the university. eBay tracks users by logging in to keep track of how satisfied they are with the user's transactions, and Amazon.com uses so-called “badges” for users. A merchant may require a credit card number and postal address (or postal code) along with a number printed on the back of the card for credit card billing. Other systems may use a challenge / response protocol, such as by sending password information to an email address previously associated with the user. Other systems also accept universal sign-in, including various services available from GOOGLE. In addition, GOOGLE's webmaster tools, sitemaps, and other systems allow webmasters to truly become sites by allowing webmasters to change the content of the site, and then confirming that the content has been changed to a prescribed format. Allows you to prove that they are relevant.

U.S. Patent Application No. 61 / 005,482

  This specification discloses systems and techniques for managing the creators or authors of content and the community of users who read the content created by those authors. Users themselves can be authors of reviews or comments on original content that was created or provided by others, or comments on comments made by other users. The system here is a writing tool to assist in the creation and submission of such content, a tool for signing content, and (for example, as determined by reviews made by other users on the content) Tools for managing user reputation can be provided. In addition, various mechanisms can be provided to reward authors, including prize money and social awards, for submitting quality content.

  In general, in one aspect, methods, computer program products, and systems related to online content management are described. Receive multiple online content items authored by multiple authors for online publication. For each online content item, determine the corresponding author's reputation score. Reputation scores can be based on one or more reviews of online content items performed by one or more reviewers other than the author. A query for online content, where the online content item is included in a set of search results, and in response to the query, the ranking of the online content item in the set is based at least in part on the author's reputation score decide.

  In general, another aspect describes methods, computer program products, and systems in which multiple online content items are received by multiple authors for online publication. For each online content item, a corresponding author's reputation score is determined. Reputation scores can be based on one or more reviews of online content items performed by one or more reviewers other than the author. An online content item is published from the plurality of online content items, and the publishing includes displaying the online content item and displaying an advertisement. The distribution of revenue associated with allowing the author of the online content item to display an advertisement is determined based at least in part on the author's reputation score.

  Implementations of the method, computer program product, and system can include one or more of the following features. The reputation score can be further based on the level of author fame. If an author's online content item is published by a publisher that is determined to only publish online content that has been given a review that exceeds a predetermined threshold, the author's reputation score can be increased. An author's reputation score can be further based on how many other online content items of that author are published.

  If an author publishes other online content items, the author's reputation score can be further based on how recently the other online content items were published. The reputation score can be further based on the author's previous reputation score calculated for one or more different online content items of the previously published author. If the online content item corresponding to the author is for the first subject, the reputation score is calculated for one or more different online content items of the previously published authors, also for the first subject, Further based on previous reputation score. If an author publishes online content items on multiple subjects, the author can have multiple reputation scores. The author may have a first alias associated with the first subject and associated with the first reputation score, and an author may have a second alias associated with the second subject and associated with the second reputation score. Can have. The first alias and the second alias can be related to each other.

  A reputation score can include more than one subscore, each subscore being associated with a different quality of the online content item. Determining an author's reputation score based on one or more reviews of online content items performed by one or more reviewers means that the reputation score is related to each of the reviewers Determining whether or not. If the reputation score is associated with one or more reviewers, the author's reputation score can be based at least in part on the reputation score associated with the one or more reviewers.

  If it is determined that the author included the stolen content in the online content item, the reputation score can be lowered. This reputation score may be portable from one online publisher to another online publisher. Determining the corresponding author's reputation score can be further based on the author's existing reputation score imported from a publisher other than the publisher of the online content item.

  Before generating an author's reputation score, the author's identity can be verified. The reputation score can be further based on the length of time the author is a certified author.

  Determining the author's revenue share can be further based on the number of links from other online content to the online content item. The reputation score can be further based on the number of links from other online content to the online content item.

  In general, in another aspect, methods, computer program products, and systems for authenticating online content contributors are described. Receive online content from multiple contributors on one or more computers for public release online. This online content includes the initial content and a review of the initial content. Determine the authentication score of one of the contributors. The contributor's name and a representation of the contributor's authentication score are published online for display on one or more computers in association with online content received from the contributor.

  In general, in another aspect, methods, computer program products, and systems for authenticating online content contributors are described. A computer receives a request from a contributor to register as an authenticated contributor. Receive name and personal information from contributors. A determination is made by a third party source as to whether the name and personal information are related. The contributor is authenticated in response to a positive determination that the name and personal information are related.

  Implementations of the method, computer program product, and device can include one or more of the following features. Determining an authentication score can include receiving a name and personal information from a contributor and determining by a third party source whether the name and personal information are related. Based on the determination, the authentication score of the contributor can be determined. In one example, the personal information is a telephone number and determining by a third party source includes confirming to the telephone service provider that the name and telephone number are related. Optionally, a token can be provided to the contributor, the phone number can be called, and the respondent is required to provide the token. In another example, the personal information is a credit card number and determining by a third party source includes confirming with the credit company that the name and credit card number are related. In yet another example, this personal information is an identification number that is used for tax returns and is determined by a third party source to confirm with the credit company or the Internal Revenue Service that the number and name are related. Including doing.

  In general, in another aspect, methods, computer program products, and systems are described in which an online content item authored by an author is obtained at a first computer for public release online. An author's confidence factor associated with the online content item is determined, and the confidence factor is based on information about the author that has been verified to be true ("verified information"). A query for online content, where the online content item is included in a set of search results for that query, and in response to the query, the ranking of the online content item in the set is at least partially in the author's confidence factor Based on the second computer. The first computer and the second computer may be the same computer or different computers.

  Implementations of the method, computer program, and system can include one or more of the following features. Determining the confidence factor can include determining information about the author and verifying that the information about the author is true. This verified information about the author can include the author's reputation score and / or the author's certification score.

  The verified information about the author can be information regarding that the author is a member of an organization. The confidence factor can be further based on information about the organization. The verified information about the author may include the author's employment with the employer. The confidence factor can be further based on the relevance of the author's employment to the author's online content item. The verified information about the author can include information about the author's education level or training level in a certain field. The confidence factor may be further based on the author's educational or training field relevance to the author's online content item.

  The verified information about the author can include the number of other publications of the author associated with the author's online content item. Validated information about an author can include the number of citations for that author's online content item made in other publications of one or more other authors. Verified information about authors can include information about author awards and recognitions in one or more areas. The confidence factor can be further based on the relevance of the one or more fields to the author's online content item. The verified information about the author can include feedback received from one or more organizations regarding the author or the author's online content item. The confidence factor can be further based on the one or more organization's relevance to the author's online content item and the feedback received. The verified information about the author can include revenue information about the author's online content item.

  The present specification also discloses systems and techniques for authenticating content and content authors. For example, authors of online articles can be authenticated, which can generate a reputation score or reputation indicator for those authors (e.g., based on ratings that other users give to their author articles). . In addition, comments by the user can also be authenticated so that the user can generate a reputation as a thoughtful reviewer or responsive expert.

  The details of one or more embodiments of this authentication function are set forth in the accompanying drawings and the description below. Other aspects and advantages of this authentication function will be apparent from the description and drawings, and from the claims.

1 is a schematic diagram of an example system that provides a collaborative editing model for online content. FIG. 1 is a conceptual diagram illustrating a system for receiving and managing content and comments, ratings, and other inputs related to content. FIG. 1 is a schematic diagram of an example of a content management server that provides a collaborative editing model for online content. FIG. It is a conceptual diagram of the environment where a content manager may exist. 6 is a flow diagram illustrating an example process for using an author's reputation score when ranking an author's online content items. 2 is a flow diagram illustrating an example of a process for authenticating an author. 6 is a flow diagram illustrating an example process for using an author's confidence coefficient when ranking a set of search results. 5 is a flow diagram illustrating an example process for using an author's reputation score when monetizing an author's online content item. 6 is a flow diagram illustrating an example of a process for co-editing online content. It is a figure which shows the example of the screenshot of the user interface for linking two or more online documents which the user created. It is a figure which shows the example of the screenshot of the user interface for linking two or more online documents which the user created. It is a figure which shows the example of the screenshot of the user interface for linking two or more online documents which the user created. It is a figure which shows the example of the screenshot of the user interface for linking two or more online documents which the user created. FIG. 4 shows a formatted, individual piece screenshot of submitted content. FIG. 4 shows a formatted, individual piece screenshot of submitted content. FIG. 4 shows a formatted, individual piece screenshot of submitted content. FIG. 4 shows a formatted, individual piece screenshot of submitted content. FIG. 4 shows a formatted, individual piece screenshot of submitted content. 1 is a schematic diagram of an example of a computer system.

  Like reference symbols in the various drawings indicate like elements.

  Techniques, methods, equipment, and systems for creating, editing, and managing online content are described herein. Specifically, a collaborative model for editing online content items is described. In one illustrative example, this online content item is a user who wants to be the “best answer” on a particular subject (which in some implementations can be provided as a specialized search result by a search engine) Is a web page created by Such online content items are referred to herein as “knol” (as a unit of knowledge), although other terminology may be used. Such items can also be various other forms of user-submitted content available to other users in the community, all of which can be referred to as “knol”.

  The content as described herein can be managed and stored by a single organization, or can be distributed content. With respect to the former example, an organization can allow content submission by multiple different users, store such submitted content, and allow editing of that content. . Such an approach can allow the organization to maintain stronger control over the form and consistency of the content and use the content more effectively as a search engine corpus. Such an effort can be illustrated by a system such as the GOOGLE KNOL system. With respect to the latter example, the content can be spread to various websites that can act as publishers of the content, and the central system can guide the user more appropriately through the various publishers or content submissions. The location of the content and its original author can be tracked, and the author's reputation (which can be calculated in various ways described below) can also be tracked.

  This knol can include text, photos, videos, maps, and / or embedded applications. knol can be owned by the author of knol. However, as described further below, other users can be authorized to edit the knol (ie, to propose collaborators or edits). Although the following description relates to knol for illustrative purposes, it should be understood that the described techniques, equipment, and systems can be used to collaborate on any text-based online content item.

  A knol can be created voluntarily by the author or in response to an invitation to create a knol on a particular subject. For example, a search engine such as the Google search engine available at www.google.com by Google, Inc. of Mountain View, California creates a knol that can provide answers to the queries that search engines frequently receive. Invite to Google users can be displayed. In one implementation, the present invention can be triggered when a user enters a search query into a search engine and the search query is identified by the search engine as a common query for which knol is desired. Other trigger events can also exist and the trigger event discussed is an illustrative example.

  In one implementation, the author creates a knol using a knol user interface hosted by a search engine provider, eg, Google, Inc. Creating a knol via the knol user interface can provide consistency in the manner in which the knol is created. Furthermore, knol can be distinguished as “knol” when presented with other search results in response to a search query received by a search engine. For example, in one implementation, a search result that is knol has a unique appearance in a set of search results and is mixed with or separated from other search results, eg, in a separate box or “ “knol” results can be distinguished in other ways.

  This knol user interface can provide a page viewer. A knol can appear inside a frame showing knol content, authors, contributors (i.e. non-author users who contributed content to that knol), and a search / navigation tool to facilitate the use of knol Can be provided.

  A knol owner (ie, author), a collaborator specified by the author, and others can provide a collaborative editing model that can contribute edits to the knol content. There is a public version of knol, which is the current version published for viewing. The owner of a knol is given the right to edit the knol content, and doing so changes the public version of the knol. This owner can specify one or more collaborators who have permission to edit the knol content as well as modify the published version of knol. No one else can change the public version of the knol other than the owner and collaborators. However, others can provide suggested edits to the current public version of knol. As described further below, owners and collaborators can then decide whether to approve or reject the proposed edit.

  In one implementation, anyone who can publicly view knol content can provide suggested edits. In another implementation, the entity hosting knol, for example Google as described above, restricts the proposed edits to those registered with Google so that the proposed edits are not automated spiders, etc. It can at least partially authenticate what is being done by humans.

  This collaborative editing model provides flexible editing capabilities to any authorized editor, eg, owner 102 or collaborator 104. A set of suggested edits accumulates for the first public version of online content. That is, each proposed edit in this set is an edit to the same basic version of the content, and those edits are parallel to each other. After accumulating a set of suggested edits provided by multiple different users, an authorized editor can review the set of suggested edits and be exposed to conflicts between edits. In order to generate the second public version of the online content, it has the freedom to select which edit to apply.

  In contrast, if edits are provided in succession, it means that each proposed edit that is accumulated relates to the last received proposed edit in addition to the base version, and each proposed edit is Rely on previous suggested edits to be combined. In such a scenario, if an authorized editor decides to reject the suggested edits, the editor will accept any downstream suggested edits over those edits for which the edits were rejected. Because it was built in, can not be approved. As a result, editing flexibility is limited. In the system described herein, all the proposed edits are related to the same basic version, so an authorized editor may approve himself or herself with a previous decision to reject a particular proposed edit. There are no restrictions on what may or may not exist. Authorized editors are provided with visual notification of the proposed edits compared to the first published version of the content (i.e. the base version) and are notified of conflicts between two or more proposed edits. The Conflict notification and resolution is further described below.

  In other implementations, other models for content provisioning and editing can be used. For example, a user can create content offline, submit the content in a format that the user prefers, and the system can convert the content into a format that is compatible with other collaborative systems. Authors can be given the opportunity to review the converted form of content and approve or possibly edit the converted content. The content can also be stored in the system according to the format in which the user submits the content (eg, WORD format, HTML format, pdf format, or other such document format). In such situations, a copy of the content, such as an HTML format or plain text format, can be created to allow easier searching and manipulation of the content.

  Referring to FIG. 1, a schematic diagram of an example of a system 100 that provides a collaborative editing model for online content is shown. The owner 102 can provide the knol content 120 or other content to the content management server 101. Users of this content management server, for example, user 106 and user 108, can provide the content management server 101 with their respective proposed edits 112 and 114 for the knol content 120. Proposed edits 112 and 114 can be accessed by owner 102 and one or more collaborators, eg, collaborator 104. Owner 102 and collaborator 104 can provide edits 122 and 126, respectively, to content management server 101, thereby modifying the published version of knol content. A user 110 who enters a search query 116 into this content management server can include knol content 120, depending on the search term (actual search results can include a link pointing to knol content) Results 118 can be received. In other system examples, the content management server 101 can be replaced with two or more servers, each providing a portion of the functionality described above.

  In the illustrated example system, only the owner 102 can provide the knol content 120. However, in other implementations, the owner 102 can allow others, such as the collaborator 104, to provide the content as well. Owner 102 publishes certain rights not granted to other authors or collaborators, such as the right to change ownership, the ability to invite / not allow collaborators, and knol content, to name a few The right to do / not publish, the right to allow / deny advertising with knol content, the right to specify the recipients of advertising revenue when allowing ads, and / or the right to change the licensing terms for knol content Can have.

  Editing includes making one or more modifications to the knol content, and can include a brief explanation of why the modifications were made, or other comments about changes to the knol. If a user has the authority to modify a knol, i.e., an owner or collaborator, changes to that user's knol can take effect immediately in the published version. Otherwise, if the user is not authorized, the user's edits can be kept as “delta”.

  This delta can be placed in a proposed editing module where the knol owner or collaborator can review the delta and decide whether to merge or discard the proposal. Editing proposals (ie unmerged deltas) do not modify the public version of knol. In other implementations, any user can edit the public version of the knol content and can access suggested edits received from other users.

  In one implementation, knol content can be edited using an inline HTML editor. The editor's features include text editing capabilities, display of visual differences (markup) between the two versions of the section, and display of suggested edits.

  Referring to FIG. 2, a schematic diagram illustrates a system 200 for receiving and managing content and other inputs related to content, such as comments and ratings by users other than the content author. Such a system 200 can be implemented using the components shown in FIG. 1 or by other suitable components. Overall, the system 200 can show a user specific pieces of content related to various subjects, allowing the user to comment, edit, rate, or otherwise interact with the content. It is an example of a system that can. If a particular user thinks he or she has sufficient knowledge about a subject, he or she can write about the subject by writing a submission (eg, in the form of a post, article, chapter, or book, among others). It is possible to create substantially new content.

  The components in the figure are conceptually organized into three main groups. Within each group are interfaces shown as rectangles (eg web pages), features shown as ellipses (which generally don't need to be implemented on their own web pages and may be included within existing web pages), and optional There are behaviors shown outside the outline. This action can indicate a command or desire by the user, for example, guiding the user from one page to another or invoking some function for the user.

  Referring to the three groups shown in the system 200, the discovery group 206 is based on web pages or other user interface elements and users that arise when the user is looking for new information about one or more subjects. Demonstrate behavior. The author group 204 shows interfaces and actions that allow users to provide and submit content to the system 200, such as by submitting articles, posts, podcasts, videos, and other similar content. Consumer group 202 illustrates the interfaces and behaviors that a user reviewing content posted or otherwise generated by system 200 may experience. Such consumers may include, for example, users who have previously entered a search request and selected results that contain links to content managed by the system 200.

  Referring now in more detail to discovery groups 206, such groups can indicate a mechanism by which various users can enter the content management system. In this example, two exemplary entry points are illustrated. First, entries can occur via external sites 272, which can include various Internet websites that point to content managed by system 200. For example, such sites can include hyperlinks or other mechanisms to direct users to the content.

  Further, the entry can be obtained by a result 270 generated by the search engine. Search results 270 can take a variety of forms. In one example, the results 270 can be like common results listed in response to a search query, for example, obtained from a search across a wide variety of web page indexes. In yet another example, the results 270 can be based on a search corpus that is different from the normal corpus that the search engine accesses. For example, a specific corpus may be reserved for pages managed by the content management system 200, such as pages that are directed to subject matter content for different subjects of interest to different users. Such pages can be similar to entries provided by encyclopedias or similar references, including online encyclopedias such as Wikipedia and GOOGLE KNOL. When content-based search results are based on a dedicated corpus (for example, limited to a specific domain), or in other situations, the search results are displayed in a specific format so that they stand out from other normal web-based search results Can be formatted. An example is a typical Google search result that is formatted in a format known as “one box”.

  Generally, the user shifts from a discovery mode such as when inputting a search term to a consumer mode for consuming content managed by the system 200. Such transitions may occur, for example, when the user selects a hyperlink on an external site, when the user selects a search result for such managed content, or when the user selects another This can occur when the interest in such content is represented in the system 200 in a manner. In each such situation, FIG. 2 shows a flow arrow that passes from discovery group 206 to content viewer 210 in consumer group 202. Such a process flow causes content of interest to the user to be displayed in a format as shown in FIGS. 7A-7E.

  Alternatively, the user can continue discovery or become an author as shown near the right hand side of discovery group 206. For example, if the user is not interested in search results related to the content, the user can go back and select another result or submit a new search query. The user can leave the system completely or may not want to leave. By finding a subject you ’re interested in and thinking about it as an expert or near expert in the sense that you can communicate your knowledge to others in a useful way, If you consider yourself familiar, you can choose to become the author of the content for that topic or subject, and choosing to become an author will explain the user in more detail below. Can lead to the user interface provided.

  Then, when reviewing the content via the viewer 210 and then returning to the user who chooses to become a consumer, the user viewing such content can take various actions. In response, various other user interfaces can be presented to such users. In one example, the user may be shown an article or other piece of content about a subject, commented on, rated, edited, or otherwise as described above and in more detail below. You can give some options for interacting in a way. For example, the user can use the review interface 216 to select to read or write a review on a piece of content. Such an interface allows the shopper to review the product on a website such as Amazon.com, or how the author can write a book review, as well as the overall content about the piece of content. It can be possible to provide an impression.

  The user can also use the rating function 217 to choose to rate a piece of content, such as a web page. Such a feature simply allows the user to select the number of stars and other icons, such as from one to five stars, to represent the level of quality that the user associates with that piece of content. Can be. In the figure, this rating function 217 is not often associated with this function transporting the user to a separate interface, but rather a simple interaction by the user via the viewer 210, such as a gadget displayed on a web page by the viewer 210. Shown as a rounded rectangle rather than a perfect rectangle to demonstrate that it involves the selection of stars above.

  In a similar manner, the user can use the comment or discussion function 219 to comment on a piece of content or a portion of that piece of content. The functionality can be similar in function to the functionality provided by the review interface 216, but generally does not result in a review of the entire content, rather than a specific piece of content or a specific created within the content. A shorter comment directed to the time. Further, such functionality can be provided within the viewer 210 interface, such as in the comment area at the end of a post (see, eg, FIGS. 7D and 7E).

  As discussed above with respect to FIG. 1, the user can also use the edit / suggestion interface 218 to provide an edit or suggestion for a piece of content, such as a web page. Such an interface allows a user to make suggested changes or suggested edits to a page, such as with the author or owner of the page managing the final entry for such edits. Or browse other edits that other users may make to the page, and want the author or other owner of the page to see suggested edits to the page made by others, and It can be possible to review edits, for example, with or without approval. The user can be directed to the editor 240 when attempting to make changes or edits to the page. The user can also choose to become an author for the subject or for a subject concerned if he believes he has the appropriate expertise, in which case the user is directed to the editor 240. Can lead to new and blank piece of content (or even start with a specific piece of content that the user modifies).

  Other overall functions may also be provided for the viewer 210. For example, the “about” interface 222 can be displayed to the user to explain how the system 200 receives, manages and displays the content, or information about the author of the content and others who edited the content. For example, additional information regarding a particular piece of content can be shown to the user. In addition, the user of the viewer 210 can be presented with a group page 214, which can be this user, or other users who have a common interest with each other, or others who have a common interest with this viewing user. Pages created for a subject similar to that discussed on the page currently being viewed by other users (or for other users). For example, various pages can be organized hierarchically by subject matter so that users can more easily browse through the pages to find specific pages that interest them. As an example, one page can be written to explain the basics of high-definition television, while the other page provides details on surround sound, TV programming, electronic program guides, remote controls, etc. on the first page Can be associated.

  With the help of the user history / profile module 212, commonality between users and between specific pieces of content can be determined. Such modules can take a familiar form and can allow a user to enter specific demographic or other data that may reflect the user's interests. For example, a user can enter a profession or a hobby that he is interested in, which allows the system 200 to more easily guide the user to subject matter and content related to such interest. In addition, the module 212 can track various pages or other types of content that each user creates in a familiar way, which makes it easier for other users to connect such content. Can be determined. As an example, if a particular user is an author who develops a positive reputation within the system 200, other users may wish to consider other articles by that same author because it has already considered Because we believe that the high quality shown in the article will be reproduced in those other articles. This module 212 can help connect the various submissions of the author to each other.

  Author group 204 provides an interface and functionality that can be presented to users when they are interested in creating their own content more than simply commenting or rating other users' content. Show. An editor 240 that authors can use to enter and format their content can provide various forms of user interfaces. For example, the editor can provide functionality as provided by GOOGLE DOCUMENTS and other similar document processing applications.

  The editor 240 can also accept content previously generated in other formats, can convert such content to a common format, or can generate a copy of the content in a common format. For example, if an author submits a PDF file as an example of content, the editor can be accessed by other users who want to view this content without the author creating the content. 240 can save this PDF file. The editor 240 can also make copies of content in different formats, such as HTML, so that it is familiar to other users, the system 200 edits that content in a consistent way across the system 200, You can comment or otherwise manipulate.

  Content authors using the editor 240 can take advantage of several features or interfaces. For example, the user can select a suggestion function 248 to obtain help regarding content creation. This suggestion function 248 may provide a discussion or example that may help a user create better and more interesting content. For example, the suggestion function 248 may allow authors to outline the subject, add media items such as images and video to the subject, and other more intriguing and better validated discussions in the content. Can help create. In addition, the suggestion feature 248 can display a “best practice” document to the user, such a document is considered attractive and well-written for the user to use in their work. , It can be allowed to extract format information from the document.

  Import tool 250 may allow a user to more conveniently import content that has already been created as described above. For example, the import tool 250 can present an interface that includes a file manager that allows a user to browse and identify files on their local computer that they want to upload to the system 200. The import tool 250 also provides several other features, such as allowing users to specify how they want their content to be formatted or reformatted when the user's existing content is imported into the system. Can be provided.

  The template and style interface 252 can be accessed by a user to select their content type or style, such as from a list of example styles. Such an interface is a preformatted item that can be selected by the user and preloaded with a preformatted item to which content can be added to customize the provided template. It can take the same form as provided by various workplace productivity applications. The uploader 242 can simply provide an interface that allows the user to specify a file or URL that the author wants to incorporate into a piece of content, for example, an image, audio file, or video file.

  The transclusion interface 244 may allow a user to put existing or future content / knowledge into a piece of content authored in various exemplary ways. For example, an author can cite or otherwise reference from another piece of content, and the system maintains a connection back to the parent material while adding that content to the page that the author is creating. it can. Such a connection can serve several purposes. For example, such a connection can be used as a navigation tool, such as a link, to bring the main content viewer to the referenced content.

  Transclusion is a measure of the amount of second (quoting) content created by the first (citing) content (e.g., the first (quoting) content) when payment is made to the author of the quoting content. By paying roughly, with respect to a search engine (e.g. operation of the GOOGLE PAGERANK system, citation to the first content means that the content is considered relevant by someone (Similar to ranking on the basis of reverse links from page to other page) (by raising the relevance score of the cited content, or rating the cited content by other (E.g. if many users submit a high rating to the citing article, the citing article will also be Due some can get an increase in the rating under the assumption of having a rental) that respect review may be used to transfer reaction on reference side content cited side contents. Transclusion is discussed more fully below.

  Finally, gadget selector 246 may allow authors to incorporate gadgets on or with their pages. Gadgets are typically portable program modules that are portable in that they can be inserted into a variety of different locations, such as on a web page or computer desktop. Gadgets often show dynamic content, such as by externally referring to data available on the Internet. For example, the gadget can take current time and temperature data and display it in an attractive way, or it can show the stock prices of a few companies selected by the user. In general, gadgets (sometimes referred to as various forms of widgets) can be created by anyone with the skills and intent to follow the public API and can be freely disclosed to the public. An example of a gadget can be found in iGOOGLE products.

  Authors can use gadgets to provide dynamic aspects to their content in a variety of ways. For example, a gadget can report information about the average temperature of the earth in the previous month and the previous year, compare such temperatures to historical averages, and authors of articles on global warming You may want to include such gadgets at the appropriate place in the. Gadgets that track the current value of government bonds can be used in the same way.

  The interface and other functions shown here can allow the community to evolve as a kind of area on the Internet where high quality and specific content can be concentrated. Such communities include users interested in good content and authors who can create good content. The difference between good and bad content can be moderated by the user (such as by rating) so that the content that the community considers high quality can quickly go to the top of the group. Can be reflected immediately. Next, various considerations regarding such systems and specific example implementations of such systems are discussed.

  Referring to FIG. 3, a schematic diagram of an example of the content management server 101 of FIG. 1 is shown in more detail. Content management server 101 is shown communicating with owner 102, collaborator 104, and users 106 and 110 via network 302. Network 302 may be the Internet, a wide area network, a local area network, or any other network that provides electronic communication between parties.

  The example of the content management server 101 includes an interface 324 for communicating with parties via the network 302. As described further below, the user interface functions available to one party, eg, owner 102, can differ from the functions provided to other parties, eg, users 106 and 110. A suggested editing module 304 is provided for storing suggested edits provided by a user, eg, user 106. Pending proposed edits are referred to as “deltas” and the proposed edit module 304 includes deltas 306a-306n. The editing module 308 provides editing functions to the owner 102 and any collaborators, such as the collaborator 104. As described further below, a conflict detection / resolution sub-module 310 is provided to detect conflicts between two or more deltas and resolve the conflicts.

  The data storage unit 312 includes knol content 314 and editing information 318. The editing information 318 can include revisions to knol content, comments added to revisions, editing logs, and the like. As described further below, in some implementations a discussion thread 320 can be added to the knol content and included in the data store 312. An author page 316 included in the data store 312 provides information about the author of the knol content and is described in more detail below.

  Search engine 322 receives and responds to a search query, eg, search query 116 of user 110. A search result, for example, a search result 118 corresponding to the search query 116 is provided. When the knol corresponding to the search query exists in the data storage unit 312, the knol can be provided in the search result 118.

  In other implementations, the functionality provided by the content management server 101 described above can be distributed across two or more servers that are in direct or indirect electronic communication with the network 302. The configuration of other content management server 101 and its components can also be used, and content management server 101 in FIG. 2 is merely an example.

  FIG. 4A is a conceptual diagram of an environment 400 in which a content manager 402 may exist. Content manager 402 can, among other things, allow content submission for various users, allowing other users to comment, rate, edit, or suggest editing for various author contributions. In that respect, it can take the form shown in the above drawings. In this figure, the content manager 402 is surrounded by three groups (indicated by circles) that are related to the content manager 402 and three example functions (indicated by rectangles) that are executed in conjunction with the content manager 402. This is illustrated in FIG.

  When first referring to a group, the first group consists of authors 404. The author 404 is the creator of the original content as described above. Authors can create content from a blank page on an empty page, or borrow from content created by other authors. For example, authors can cite or link to works by other authors, and can invite others to become co-authors. In one example, the author establishes a group of works and writes a part of the group much like an editor of a technical book can organize individual chapters written by different contributors. So that you can invite others. Authors generally seek evaluation of their work and may seek more specific forms of compensation, such as money.

  To do so, the author is registered with the system 400 and can be authenticated by the system 400. For example, the system 400 can request a login by the user and associate the user with an account. Accounts can keep track of content submitted by individual users, comments made by users, and other similar information tracking. Such information can be used to generate a reputation score or reputation indicator for a user, such as an author. For example, ratings performed by various users on an author's submission can be used to rank the author in terms of quality. Such a ranking can indicate to the user so that the user can more easily determine the author's perceived quality (assigning different levels to the author, such as silver, gold, and platinum based on this ranking Can be used as an input to the search engine to determine where the author's content is ranked when responding to a search request, and to authors (including monetary consideration) Can be used to provide compensation. Each of these items will be described in more detail below. Specific features for ranking authors and eliminating fraud in such rankings were filed on December 4, 2007, which is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety. In the pending US patent application 61 / 005,482, entitled “RATING RATERS” and identified as attorney specification 16113-925P01.

  Publisher 406 can manage the organization and creation of content in conjunction with the author. Publishers can take traditional forms such as book publishers or record labels, but in this example can be organizations that take advantage of digital publishing and digital distribution opportunities for content. Publishers may seek to make content for a particular subject area publicly available in exchange for some monetary reward or other reward, according to conventional purposes. For example, publishers can host a website for a political columnist and place ads on that website, as well as ads generated by the GOOGLE ADSENSE system, to generate revenue for the operation of that site. can do. The publisher may then share a portion of its revenue to authors whose work is published on the site, in order to encourage more and more qualified authors to submit content to the publisher. it can.

  System 400 assists such publishers, such as by bringing consumers to the publisher's website, and helping the publisher pay the publisher's authors more fairly. be able to. For example, by tracking the author's reputation and sharing such information with publishers, the content manager 402 allows publishers to better understand what and which authors are bringing visitors to the site. It can help to understand, so that those important authors can be paid more than is paid to other authors. Further, the content manager 402 can be associated with a payment system, such as a publicly accessible small payment system, thus allowing publishers to more easily request payment from consumers. (The publisher's economic model is based at least in part on paid content), and the publisher's author can make relevant payments.

  The community 408 can take a variety of forms, and the system 400 can provide various services to the community 408. In general, this community includes a variety of authenticated users who are interested in browsing the contents of this system. The content manager 402 and / or publisher 406 can be involved in verifying and / or verifying a user (414) of a user in the community 408 and the author 404.

  Unauthenticated users may also be allowed to enter this system, but may be able to prevent content from being rated, commented on, or edited. Such restrictions can result in malicious users performing inappropriate edits (e.g., due to personal hostility to the author, due to close friendship with the author, or simply with malicious intent) (E.g. in addition to a pure work to normalize the ranking of a user's particular author based on others of that user's ranking). Better within this system, such as by providing a reputation score for editing and commenting (e.g., the user may be overly “kind” or overly “meaning” when ranking) Tracking can be enabled.

  In short, these roles include publishers, such as business owners, who are responsible for posting publications and getting the attention of those publications, authoring articles or writing other content to publications and authorizing their contributions. Included are a plurality of content creators who want to be and a community of users who maintain the quality of the publication by involving the user in reading the content and reviewing the quality of the content. The contribution, authentication, and monetization functions of this system are described next.

Contributions and reputations User contributions can take several forms, including reviews, comments, and ratings. Such contributions can be supported by content generation tools such as BLOGGER, PAGE CREATOR, GOOGLE DOCUMENTS, and JOTSPOT. Publishers can organize content with a variety of publicly available webmaster tools. Publishers can edit, for example, based on vertical specific community databases developed around specific subject areas (eg, technology, health, travel, etc.).

  Various contributions can be used in various ways to influence the basic content to which the contribution is directed. As an example, a rating can be applied to the content, and an average rating for a particular plurality of pieces of content can be determined. Such ratings can then be communicated to the authors of the content, and those authors can be rated accordingly. For example, an author may be given an overall rating that is a weighted average of multiple pieces of content produced by the author (with possibly removing a rating that is considered untrustworthy or fraudulent). Authors can also supply such scores to a more comprehensive reputation rating process that can take into account scores and other factors provided within the online community. For example, a “famous” author can be placed in another group or raise the score of that author, such as when receiving a Pulitzer Prize or a similar award (eg, for poetry). In some implementations, fame is, for example, without limitation, an author's mention in a web index (e.g., Google index), an author's mention in a particular publication (e.g., a magazine or newspaper that frequently reports articles about celebrities). , The author ’s name ’s appearance in the query log for a particular website (eg news.google.com, www.google.com, news.google.com/archivesearch), and / or the number of links to blogs owned by the author Can be estimated (or replaced) by a number of factors, including

  In addition, certain publishers (such as the New York Times) can establish themselves as employing only skilled authors or publishing works only by skilled authors, and therefore published by such organizations. Authors can be given a higher reputation score. Such publishers also have a very high average ranking of articles on a particular site, and so, for example, by determining that an author who publishes on such a site must have some professional ability Can be inferred.

  Users submitting reviews and comments that are a type of derivative work can be further assigned a reputation point or reputation indicator based on such contributions, and the user's overall reputation score is derived from the legitimate work It can be a combination of traditional works, and regular works can be weighted more strongly. Further, reputation can be a factor that depends on the length of time a user is in the system and the level of user behavior in the system. For example, an average rating of contributions by other users is 3.0, but a user who has made hundreds of contributions over the years is actually more than a user with an average of 3.0 by a small number of readers on a single submission. You can have a higher reputation score.

  FIG. 4B is a flow diagram illustrating an example process 420 for using an author's reputation score when ranking an author's online content items. To publish online, multiple online content items authored by multiple authors are obtained (step 422). For example, in some implementations, the plurality of online content items can be obtained by the content manager 402 from the author 404, as shown in FIG. 4A. For each online content item, a corresponding author reputation score is determined (step 424). Reputation scores can be based on one or more reviews of online content items performed by one or more reviewers other than the author. For example, in some implementations, the one or more reviewers are members of the community 408 and / or author 404 shown in FIG. 4A. In response to a query for online content, the online content item can be included in a set of search results (step 426). The ranking of online content items in the set may be determined based at least in part on the author's reputation score (step 428). The ranked set of search results can then be presented (eg, displayed on a computer) to a user providing a search query (step 430).

  In some implementations, a user can have multiple reputations. For example, a user may have a reputation for original content that is different from that of derivative content. In addition, users can have different reputations on various subjects. For example, an atomic physicist can have a very high reputation for articles written on the principle of relativity, but a very low reputation for articles written on the home theater system (if the author is sparse). Can do. In such situations, users can categorize their expertise to prevent their weak skills from degrading their ratings. Such classification identifies various areas where the reputation score should not be transferred by or between users authenticating under two different aliases that this system can track as related to each other (But the user has a single online persona).

  Reputation can be further examined across a number of factors. For example, a user may have an overall reputation for good quality work. However, the user can also be assigned a reputation indicator regarding the quality of his thoughts, the technical quality of his work, and other parameters that may be of interest to members of a community. In certain implementations, parameters such as technical writing skills can be reviewed across all subjects written by the author, while for other parameters such as content comprehension, the score is isolated in a specific bin. can do. For example, if our atomic physicist is a bad writer, a good scientist, and a home theater hired writer, the scientific community may not care about the home physicist's problem. You may want to know about grammar problems.

  In addition, the reputation of a particular author can be used to adjust the reputation of other authors. For example, if Steven King (who is familiar with his field of expertise as an author of On Writing) gives another author a 5 star or similar high ranking, an anonymous person with a slight reputation will also have a high ranking Than other authors, the reputation of that other author increases. In essence, an author's ranking relies on rankings performed by other authors, and in particular on those other authors' rankings, which are weighted according to their own level of reputation (and their The author's reputation is also adjusted, at least in part, by the ranking they receive from other authors), and in practice techniques like PAGERANK are applied to the author's reputation. Such reputation indicators can then be used to score web pages in search results, along with other conventional factors such as PAGERANK score, click rate, good score ratio, spam score ( For example, if a page with a high-ranking author is given a high score, the search position of that page will rise). In some implementations, an author's reputation score may be affected by a web page score that is that of the web page on which the author's online content is posted, and the web page score is discussed above. Can be determined using conventional elements such as, or by other techniques.

  Such a reputation score may be portable, at least where the author is properly authenticated. Specifically, authors can carry their reputation with themselves when contributing to various publications because the system can track their reputation regardless of where the author publishes. It is. As a result, authors can more easily publish various subjects with publishers that match the subject (for example, George Will can contribute to baseball and political web pages) You can use your reputation to help consumers to other places like this, and thus increase the amount that publishers pay to authors for their author's work.

  Moreover, such systems can more easily track mimic contributions. Known theft identification techniques can be used to identify authors that mimic others' content. For example, when content is first submitted to the system, the content can be date stamped and content that is very similar can be flagged as a potential problem. Such a situation can then be drawn into a dispute resolution process where a putative source author and a suspected mimic can state their claims. Other users (such as authors who have been in the system for a long time and have a high reputation) can determine who is right. A user's reputation for plagiarism or other harmful acts (e.g., framing, inappropriate comments, etc.) can be lowered, thus lowering the author's work ranking and other This results in reduced traffic by the user.

  Techniques can also be used to assist in “incorporating” such content. Specifically, there is often a substantial delay before new content begins to be reported by search engines at an appropriate level. That's because search engines mostly rely on references to other pages by a particular page, and when a page is fresh, no other page will reference that page, even if the page is around the world Even the best page may result in a low score for that page. If individual content is set aside in the manner discussed here as content that should be authoritative about the subject matter, or at least a reasonable overview of the subject matter, the content can be flagged for individual processing . For example, the content can be crawled more frequently so that the presence of the content is recognized sooner. Furthermore, the search score for the content can be more strongly relied upon by ratings from users than by ratings from other pages that take the form of incoming reverse links. As such, the more the user finds, the faster the content can become noticeable in search results, without having to wait for other web publishers to find and link to the content.

  Contributions can be initiated, prompted, or “seeded” in several ways. For example, the central organization can initially delegate to the author to write articles on important or major subjects. Such articles can encourage community members to add new articles around the main article. Alternatively, the extracted or authorized content can be obtained and organized to fit the desired format. The particular subject we call on in the initial seeding is to review the user's query session log and dissatisfy the user (e.g., abandon the search without spending enough time on any search results, or This can be determined by finding the search term that led to the search request). Furthermore, a system that allows a user to ask questions can serve as an additional source of information on the subject matter for which the content is needed.

Authentication Tracking a user's reputation can rely heavily on authenticating users in the community. Once the user is authenticated, that authentication can be maintained by various standard mechanisms such as login credentials (eg, username and password). Various mechanisms can be used to initially authenticate a user, i.e., determine that the user is the person he says. For example, for a particular prominent author, the system will first contact that author and provide a unique (or virtually unique) token that the author can use to register with this system. Can do. As an example, a publicly available source can access the email address or telephone number of a particular newspaper, magazine, or other publisher's reporter. Such reporters can be contacted via email or phone. In the e-mail example, the reporter can be given a unique token and a URL directed to the system. The user can select the URL and enter token information on the website. Since no other user should have this token information, this user can be authenticated in this way. The reporter can then enter additional information that he wants to keep in his profile. Subsequent access to the system by this reporter may be through the user name and password selected by the reporter, thus authenticating the reporter. The same authentication can be done by calling the reporter and having the reporter choose a username and password (entered into the system by the callee technician). In some implementations, authentication techniques that are not user-initiated are given higher authentication scores than user-initiated techniques.

  Authentication can also be initiated by the user. In one example, the user can provide a phone number when first requesting authentication. The system then compares the phone number to publicly available information (e.g., reverses the name provided by the user against the user-provided number) and places the number in the user's submission. It is possible to verify that the number is associated with the user, for example by comparing it with the location of the relevant IP address. The system can then give the user a token, call the verified phone number, and ask the person at the phone number to enter the token. Such authentication techniques can at least work well for associating a user with a verified phone number, making it less likely that the person is a spoof of others, and many other You can eliminate fooling attempts.

  In other implementations, the user can be provided with a token by a text message sent to a verified phone number, eg by entering the token in a form on a web page or calling a number You can request that the token be resubmitted by repeating the token. In other implementations, a token can be provided to the user by mail, and the token is mailed to an address that has optionally been previously verified as associated with the user. The user can then be required to resubmit the token, for example by entering the token in a form on a web page, or by calling a number and repeating the token.

  In other implementations, “out of wallet” identification can be used in the authentication process. Out-of-wallet refers to the use of data that is known to the information but is unlikely to be readily available to another person who is unlikely to carry that information in his wallet. This type of out-of-wallet data can be accessed by a specific database, but is not generally publicly available, for example, to those who misrepresent others. Require users to provide out-of-wallet data, for example, after receiving a call with a verified phone number, over the phone, or by filling out a form on a web page, or otherwise be able to.

  The system can also use domain information in the supplied email address of the user (which can be examined by a challenge / response interaction) to assist in authenticating the user. For example, if a user claims to be a NASA employee when submitting profile information for writing, the user's email address ends with nasa.gov, indicating authenticity.

  In addition, organizations such as GOOGLE, EBAY, and AMAZON.COM may have built a historical relationship with their users because of their long participation in the community. Such a relationship can also be used as a trigger to authenticate the user if the user has complied with the community policy.

  An authentication confidence indicator for the user can also be provided. Specifically, the user can be authenticated using several authentication techniques as described above. For each technique that returns positive authentication, the strength of the authentication may be better, and the user is correspondingly concerned with other users who are interested in whether the user is the person they say A high authentication score can be received. Such a score can then be influenced by a number of other factors that may or may not be weighted. For example, when a user is a member in a certain community for a long time, the user authentication score may increase. In contrast, if other users (especially other users with a high reputation) question a user's behavior or the user's authenticity, their authentication score may drop.

  Some authentication techniques tend to produce false negatives. For example, when attempting to associate a user's name with a credit card number, if the credit card type is not supported by the agent used to verify, or the user name provided is If it is different from the name registered in the card number (if it is slightly), a false negative may occur. It is also possible that the phone callback may not be successful if, for example, the telephone company is not supported. To compensate for such known false positives, in some implementations, the user can be given a certain minimum authentication score for attempts to authenticate. For example, it is assumed that a legitimate user will try to authenticate several times using the same credentials before giving up, and the user is known for a particular authentication technique regarding repeated but failed authentication attempts. Depending on robustness and known false negative rates, a point can be awarded for their authentication score.

  In some implementations, the calculation of the authentication score can be a weighted sum, with each component having a maximum possible score contribution scaled to points. This component includes: (1) whether there was a successful authentication attempt and which technique was used, and (2) whether there was a failed authentication attempt, if any, the number of failed attempts, the technique used, And whether each time the user provided the same credentials.

  Referring now to FIG. 4C, a flowchart shows an example of a process 440 for authenticating a user. For online public release, for example, online content is obtained from a plurality of contributors on one or more computers (step 442). This online content includes the initial content and a review of the initial content. In some implementations, a system 400 as shown in FIG. 4A can be used to perform this process 440. In such an example, online content can be received by content manager 402 from authors 404 and users within community 408. An authentication score of one of the plurality of contributors is determined (step 444). Referring back to the above example, this authentication score can be determined by the content manager 402.

  In some implementations, determining the authentication score includes receiving a name and personal information from the contributor. Use a third-party source to determine if the name and personal information are related. For example, if the personal information is a telephone number, the telephone service provider can be contacted to verify that the provided name and telephone number are related. In another example, if this personal information is a credit card number, the credit company is contacted to determine if the name and credit card number are related. In yet another example, if a tax return identification number (e.g., SSN or TIN) is provided, contact the credit company or the Internal Revenue Service to determine if the name and identification number are related. Can do. Other examples are possible and the examples listed here are illustrative. The authentication score of the contributor is determined based on the determination as to whether the name and personal information are related. The contributor's online content is online for viewing on one or more computers, with the contributor's name and certification score (or representation of the certification score) associated with the online content. Published (step 446). For example, the online content can be published by publishers included in publisher 406.

  With regard to step 446, the authentication score can be determined, but the score itself may or may not be displayed. In some implementations, a representation of the authentication score is displayed, and some illustrative examples include a graphical badge or a number of stars shown with the contributor's name. In some implementations, the authentication score is implied, for example, by the ranking of contributors within the “top contributor” or “leaderboard” rankings.

Confidence factor In some implementations, the authors' confidence factor of an online content item can be determined. This confidence factor can be associated with a particular online content item. That is, if an author is authoring multiple online content items, the author can have multiple confidence factors that can differ. As an example, especially for an online content item written in the root canal topic area, especially if the author is a dentist, the author may have a relatively high confidence factor, but is written in the sports car topic area. May have a lower confidence factor for online content items. The confidence factor or representation thereof (eg, a graphical symbol) can be displayed for online publication in association with the author and / or the author's online content item.

  In some implementations, the confidence factor is calculated by one or more computers, for example, without human intervention. In other implementations where human manipulation is involved in the process of calculating the confidence factor, the confidence factor can be used to receive user input specifying the confidence factor or to calculate the confidence factor or subsequently the confidence factor. It is determined by the computer by obtaining the information in other ways.

  This confidence factor can be used at least in part in determining the ranking of online content items in a set of search results. The confidence factor is determined based on information about the author that has been verified to be true (referred to herein as “verified information”). Different types of information about the author can be used, and each can have different effects on the author's confidence factor. The following are some illustrative examples of the types of information that can be used alone or in combination to determine the author's confidence factor and how that information can be verified. In some instances, authors are required to verify information about themselves. In other examples, a third party source can be contacted manually or automatically to verify the information.

  If an author is an authenticated user who belongs to a community of users who supply and review online content items, for example, community 408 as shown in system 400 of FIG. 4A, the period that the author is an authenticated user is Can affect the confidence factor of

  If an author has an associated authentication score, that authentication score can affect the author's confidence factor, as discussed above. Whether or not the author has the certification score itself, when determining the author's confidence coefficient, also consider one or more of the factors discussed above that can affect the author's certification score. can do.

  If an author has an associated reputation score, that reputation score can affect the author's confidence factor, as discussed above. Whether or not the author has a reputation score itself, when determining the author's confidence factor, also consider one or more of the factors discussed above that can affect the author's reputation score can do. As an illustrative example, if an author has a reputation that gives high quality or low quality feedback to reviews, websites, etc., the author's confidence factor may be affected. If an author has a reputation for providing high-quality or low-quality original content, the author's confidence factor can be similarly affected.

  Information about an author can include whether the author is a member of an organization. Whether the organization is well-known and / or reliable and / or has licensing requirements (e.g. a professional organization that requires a license to open a doctor, lawyer, etc.) also depends on the author's confidence factor. Can influence. Verifying that an author is a member of the organization itself can help ensure that the author is an existing person and can affect the confidence factor. The validity of the organization itself and whether the organization is related to the subject matter of the online content item can also affect the confidence factor. If the organization requires its members to have a license (e.g. to open a lawyer or doctor), such an organization will generally establish and monitor the minimum requirements for licensing in terms of ethics, knowledge, etc. Therefore, requiring this license can further affect the author's confidence factor.

  Information about the author may include the author's (past or current) employment and whether the employment is in a field related to the subject of the online content item. Verifying that an author is an employee of a particular employer can affect the confidence factor because it helps to confirm that the author is a real real person. Whether the author's employment is in a field related to the subject of the author's online content item can further affect the author's confidence score. For example, if an author writes an online content item about food safety inspection techniques and finds that he is employed as a food inspector at a well-known food manufacturer, verifying employment has a positive impact on the author's confidence coefficient Can be given. In contrast, if the author is identified as a mechanical engineer employed in the oil and gas industry, verifying employment may have a neutral or negative impact on the author's confidence coefficient. There is.

  Information about the author may include an education or training degree or other certificate. Whether an author has the claimed degree or certificate can be verified and can affect the author's confidence coefficient. The relevance of the author's education or training to the author's online content item can also be used to influence the confidence factor. The credibility of the institution granting the degree or certificate can also affect the author's confidence coefficient. For example, whether an institution is accredited, where the institution or college is ranked, and whether the institution focuses on content related to the author's online content item all depends on the author's confidence factor. It is a consideration that can influence.

  If an author publishes multiple online content items, the percentage and / or amount of other published online content items related to the online content item under consideration will affect that author's confidence factor Can be given.

  If an author's online content item is cited by one or more other authors, this can affect that author's confidence score. For example, if the author is cited by another certified author or an author with a high confidence factor, it can positively affect the author's own confidence factor. Whether other authors citing the author's online content item are well known in the same subject matter as the online content item can also affect the author's confidence factor.

  If an author has received an award or other form of public recognition in the subject area of an online content item or for the online content item itself, it can have a positive impact on the author's confidence factor. If an author's online content item is posted by a publisher that constantly lists the work of an author who has won an award or other public award, thereby increasing his or her credibility, this will affect the author's trust score Can be given.

  When an author co-authors an online content item, the co-author's credibility can also affect that author's confidence factor. For example, if all of the co-authors are well-known and reputed within the industry related to the content of the online content item, it can positively affect the author's confidence score.

  If an online content item receives positive feedback from the relevant organization, for example recommended by a consumer, business entity, government, hobby or professional organization, it has a positive impact on the author's confidence coefficient Can be given.

  The author's level of success for a particular online content item or the overall author's success level is the success of the author's published work, such as whether one or more have reached the best seller list, or from one or more publications. It can be measured to some extent by the income generated. If this information is available and indicates the relative success of the author in a particular field, this information can positively affect the author's confidence coefficient.

  As described above, in some examples, authors are required to verify information about themselves. In some implementations, a questionnaire can be provided to the author, who must answer certain questions in order to provide information about himself. This questionnaire can be provided electronically, for example, by email, text message, or website, for example, in response to an author posting (or requesting publication) an online content item on the website. . Some of the questions may also require the author to verify the answer. For example, if an author is asked if he has a university degree and responds yes, he or she will receive a scan copy of the degree, a certified copy of his / her transcript from a degree-granting institution, or a degree-granting institution It may be required to provide permission to provide verification directly to the party generating the confidence factor.

  In other examples, a third party source can be contacted manually or automatically to verify information about the author, and that information can be obtained directly or indirectly from the author. As an example, by crawling a web page that includes an author's online content item listing, the author's name and possibly other information about the author can be verified. The organization, educational institution, and / or other information sources can then be queried (automatic or manual) to gather information about the author. For example, one or more organizations can be contacted to determine if the author is a member. As another example, one or more educational institutions can be contacted to determine if the author has attended the institution as a student.

  The phone book can be queried to confirm the author's address and phone number, and that information can be useful in further searches, for example, to narrow the search to a geographic area. Online content can be crawled or otherwise searched to find any references to the author and / or author's online content item. The above inquiry can be made with or without the author's assistance. Queries to reveal information about the author or to verify previously disclosed information about the author are automated without human interaction, with the assistance of one or more human operators, or a combination of the two can do.

  Referring now to FIG. 4D, a flow diagram shows an example of a process 450 for using the author's confidence factor when ranking a set of search results. An online content item authored by the author is obtained for online publication (step 452). For example, in some implementations, this online content item can be received by the content manager 402 from one of the authors 404, as shown in FIG. 4A. In other implementations, this online content item authored is retrieved from the World Wide Web (e.g., from a web crawler) or digitized data (e.g., scanned), to name a few illustrative examples From a document repository, retrieved from a library of books and / or articles. The nature of online content items can vary and examples include annotations on content on web pages, articles, scanned books, articles, books, and the like. An author confidence coefficient is determined for the online content item (step 454). This confidence score is based on verified information about the author. In response to the query for online content, a set of search results including the online content item is generated (step 456). The ranking of online content items in the set can be determined based at least in part on the author's confidence factor (step 458). The ranked set of search results can then be presented to the user providing the search query (step 459).

  Referring to step 452, obtaining an author's online content item can be done in several ways. In some implementations, an author submits an online content item to a computer that receives the online content item, for example, over a network. In other implementations, the online content item is obtained at the first computer from a web crawler that obtains the online content item via the World Wide Web. In other implementations, online content items are obtained from a document repository at a first computer via a network. For example, the online content item can be a book or article that is scanned electronically and published online by a publisher or included in a library of similar content items. The above are only some examples of how online content items can be obtained, and other techniques are possible.

Monetization Monetization or reward with such a system can take several forms. For example, if the system is associated with a search engine, rewards can take the form of saliency in search results.

  One major source of monetization can come from targeted advertising. Specifically, an area for displaying an advertisement can be provided on the page. Displaying the advertisement or selection by the user can trigger an advertisement payment event, and the content manager placing the advertisement can be paid for according to an existing agreement by the advertiser. The content manager can then pass a portion of the consideration to the publisher (ie, the operator of the page on which the advertisement was posted). Individual advertisements can be selected to fit the content of the page. The GOOGLE ADSENSE system is an example of such an advertising system.

  In addition, authors or publishers can be rewarded by providing benefits or credits for various services. For example, an author may be trying to sell a product and may want to advertise that product. As a result, such authors may seek advertising credit from organizations such as GOOGLE. As an example, a home audio magazine can submit several information articles about the basics of setting up a home theater. A user visiting the page can click on an advertisement on the home theater device, and the publisher of the magazine / web page can receive advertising credits that can be used to promote their magazine. In short, this magazine publisher can reuse certain content so that it can easily obtain money for advertising its new paid content. If the payment is cash, the individual payment level can depend on the publisher, author, and / or content reputation.

  Monetization can also be brought directly by consumers. For example, a consumer can have an account with a content management organization (e.g., GOOGLE) and pay when visiting and choosing to read a particular piece of content. The content management organization can then split profits with publishers and / or authors in such a way as to split the advertising revenue discussed above. In one example, this content management system can track a significant number of publishers and provide access to users based on a subscription model, and the subscription benefit is between publishers. It is divided according to the access level obtained for each page.

  Furthermore, a search result of paid content can be provided to the user, and a part of the paid content can be shown free of charge. The user can then see the price of receiving the entire content and can choose to deduct the amount from his account before the entire content is shown. In this way, the user can determine whether the content is what he wants without having to pay anything, and can only pay if he actually obtains useful information. Furthermore, accessing detailed information can be conditional on the user logging in and proving his or her identity to the system.

  Payments from such users can be made by applying for a fee to the user's credit account (eg, a submitted credit card) or by taking a certain amount from the user and the amount when the user accesses the content. It can be done by pulling down. Such payments can also be made using a mechanism such as a GOOGLE CHECKOUT shopping cart, where the user can select the content he likes and choose to pay for it using a standard mechanism.

  Referring now to FIG. 5, an example of a process 500 for a knol owner or collaborator to review a proposed edit and modify the knol content is shown. The owner or collaborator enters edit mode for knol (step 502). For example, a knol user interface can be provided to view the knol, and the owner or collaborator can select the “knol edit” operation. Enter a username and password for this owner or collaborator so that the owner or collaborator can enter edit mode with appropriate access given by the status of the owner or collaborator Or may require other proofs of identity.

  Provide all proposed edits currently pending for the current public version of the knol to the owner or collaborator (step 504). This means that this owner or any collaborator last entered edit mode, changed the public version of the knol, then any suggested edits entered by others, as well as from previous versions, discussed further below. Any suggested edits carried forward are presented.

  This owner or collaborator can see the proposed edits, for example, in the order in which they were received. For each proposed edit, the owner or collaborator chooses to approve the proposed edit, reject the proposed edit, or defer the proposed edit (i.e. neither approve nor reject). (Step 506). These proposed edits can be presented to the owner or collaborator, for example, in a markup mode that shows deletions as strike-through and additions in bold, underlined, and / or contrasting colors. This markup shows the difference between the proposed edit and the current public version of knol.

  If there are no more suggested edits to consider (“No” branch of decision step 508), the owner or collaborator can optionally enter their additional edits (step 510) or Can be terminated. At the end of the editing process, the public version of the knol is modified (step 512).

  If the owner or collaborator chooses to hold one or more suggested edits, the pending suggested edits are carried forward to the next version of knol. That is, if the current public version knol before the editing session is “version 1” and the public version knol after the editing session is “version 2”, the pending proposed edit is now Undecided on version 2 knol. The owner or collaborator can then decide at some later time whether to apply the carried forward proposed edits to version 2 or to reject them entirely.

  In one implementation, each proposed edit can be applied like a layer on a public version. Visual enhancement or strikethrough markup can indicate sections of text that have been removed or added. This markup can be color-coded to the author who made the proposal.

  In one implementation, a conflict resolution feature is provided so that the owner or collaborator can resolve a conflict between two different proposed edits. For example, the conflict detection / resolution submodule 310 can provide this conflict resolution functionality. The first delta (ie, unapproved suggested edits) can include edits that delete sentences. The second delta does not delete the sentence, but can include edits to change the expression of the sentence. Thus, the two deltas compete for at least this particular sentence, and the owner or collaborator can only approve either the first delta or the second delta, but not both.

  Conflicting content can be presented in a distinct manner to indicate the conflict. The owner or collaborator may be required to resolve the conflict before continuing to edit the knol. In this particular example, conflict: (1) reject both deltas, (2) approve the first delta, reject the second delta, or (3) reject the first delta, It can be solved by approving the second delta. Other proposed edits where the conflict between the first delta and the second delta is limited to only a part of one or both of the two deltas, i.e. one or both deltas do not compete with each other If so, this conflict resolution can be limited to only the competing portion of the delta. In other words, when taking the second approach above, the second delta can only be rejected to the extent of the conflict, and the owner or collaborator must adapt the pending proposed edits of the second delta. Approve or reject as long as you allow.

  A conflict detection mechanism (eg, conflict detection / resolution sub-module 310) can be used to detect conflicts between proposed edits. In one implementation, this conflict detection mechanism uses a modified version of the 3-way merge algorithm. A typical three-way merge algorithm looks for duplicate edits to the content and assumes there is a conflict if there is a duplicate. Even if the overlapping range is only a relatively small part of the overall two edits, the two edits are flagged as competing. In contrast, the modified 3-way merge algorithm utilized here can reduce the range identified as the contention range to the actual content that is competing. In addition, the contention range can be examined to determine if there is any actual contention (not hypothesis). That is, two overlapping edits can make the same edit that corrects a spelling error for a word. In that case, there is actually no conflict, so both edits can be approved.

  An optional comment can be added when rejecting or approving a proposed edit. In addition, the owner or collaborator can reply to any comments added to the proposed edit. Edits remain in the edit log and can be marked as approved or discarded. In one example, this edit log is included in the edit information 318 in the data storage unit 312. You can list all edits that contributed to the current public version section. If the edits were the result of approving the proposed edits, those suggested edits can be listed as “children” of the formal edits (ie, owner or collaborator edits). At each editing step, a “cancel” operation can be supported so that any previous version can be reverted.

  In one implementation, if someone other than the owner or collaborator enters edit mode and makes a suggested edit to the knol content, that person will have another suggestion already in the "proposed editing module". And / or comments attached to previous proposed edits or pending proposed edits. That is, the person can only input his / her suggested edits without looking at the edit history, pending edits, and the like. In another implementation, such a person can view pending edits in the proposed editing module at the time of entering his proposed edits. However, the person's editing will be with respect to the current public version of the knol, not with respect to any pending proposed editing within the proposed editing module. In other implementations, only certain persons who are neither the owner nor the collaborator are authorized to view other edits and / or edit logs, history, edits, etc., and have access to other edits. You need to verify your identity before.

  In one implementation, a person editing a knol can compare any two versions of knol content or passages and see the additions and deletions made to bring the previous version to the new version. These additions and deletions can be expressed using markup similar to the proposed edit markup. In some implementations, another view can allow the entire knol to be highlighted with a color corresponding to the attribution of each word in the document, and attribution adds a specific word in the document Can be defined as a person.

  In some implementations, discussion threads can be attached to knol (see FIG. 3, 320). This thread is searchable, filterable (by date, author, etc.) and can generally be viewed in the new order in which the discussion thread was last created or any reply was made. In some implementations, comments and edits to knol are searchable by explicitly searching for knol comments, but they do not appear as web search results themselves.

  The knol user interface can provide a page editor. In edit mode, authors and authorized users (eg, collaborators) can modify page-level properties and reorganize the components within that knol. For example, given the permission restrictions, this page editor can be used to edit meta information about knol. Examples of meta-information that can be modified using this page editor include page name, author list, Boolean indicating accepted contributions, permission, creative commons level, and revenue sharing policy. In one implementation, this meta information can be modified inline or on another page. This meta-information can be displayed as a simple key / value pair format.

  In one implementation, in addition to the meta information, other information about the knol table of contents or section placement and section structure can be edited. By editing the table of contents, the underlying section can be adjusted accordingly. For example, a new section can be inserted at a selected position in the table of contents, a section can be deleted from the table of contents, or a section can be moved within the table of contents (eg, drag and drop) .

  In one implementation, a paste operation can be used to create a knol. For example, text or other content can be pasted from the clipboard as a transclusion (live feed), as a template (inheriting the original template), and / or by copying the content.

  This knol user interface can provide knol history. That is, you can see the revision history of knol, including information about who made each revision and how much the knol has changed. You can see the difference between the two versions of knol, showing the changes made ("differences") between the two specific versions. This history can be used to roll back to a specific version of knol. In some implementations, only the owner and collaborators can see knol's history. In other implementations, a person other than the owner and collaborator can view the history, and all other persons or specific persons are identified by name or meet certain criteria.

  In one implementation, this knol user interface is implemented using a combination of Jotscript, client, server, and plain Javascript and XML plug-in components. Jotscript and server-side jot libraries provide access to features such as page and data transclusion, inheritance, search, templates (applying "styles"), and formats (applying specific views and interactive affordances on a page) Can be given. Pages can be stored natively in XML along with XHTML in the “Main / Text” property of the node. A node is a container for properties.

  There can be three categories of pages: knol pages, author pages, and administration pages. A knol page can contain all of the properties that make up a knol, including an edit node (ie, a suggested edit to the knol page) and a discussion node (ie, multiple pieces of interaction about the page). An author page can include all of the properties that describe an author (ie, an authorized user), as well as tools and administrative pages for the author. This author's tool can anchor itself to a knol page describing the author. The administration page can include tools for trusted administrators. Each page type can have a set of forms that act as a filter that selects a subset of the pages for display and provides affordances for manipulating portions of the data. In some implementations, authors and authorized users are not authorized to write Javascript or server-side Javascript. Rather, their authors and authorized users are limited to specific data formats and plug-ins.

  As described above, a node is a property container. Objects can be stored in nodes. The following is a description of some objects that can be stored in a node to implement the knol user interface. A knol can be a node of user created content that can be viewed as a web page or as a transclusion. A knol can have another knol transcluded as a clause within that knol. The knol metadata is a node related to the knol in a one-to-one relationship, and can include metadata regarding the knol. For example, relevant knols, discussions, edits, and authors can be included in the knol metadata. Writing to knol increments the version number of that knol that the user can see, but writing to knol metadata does not increment.

  Authors can be abstract classes that can own and create knols. Authors are represented as nodes that contain author-specific properties (eg permissions, preferences, etc.). An author can be associated with an author knol in a one-to-one relationship, and an author knol is an autobiographical knol that is used as a home page for that author. A group can be related to an author who gathers other authors.

  A message is a node that contains text that is written by another author and then sent to another object that others can find and interact with. A discussion is a short message posted as a response to knol or another discussion item. Editing is an attempt to modify the content of knol. The edit response is sent by the author in response to editing, eg, approval, rejection, discussion, etc. An offer is an attempt to give authorship ownership or permission. An offer response is when the author approves or declines the given offer. The review request object may be an author requesting a peer review. The review request response object may be that the author approves or declines the peer review. If approved, the review can be done as a discussion or knol object.

  The nodes discussed above can have the following common properties, some, or all. The route property can be a route to the page. The name property can be the name of the page. The revision property can be a page revision. The id property can be the id of the page. The user property can be a user. The time property (or edit time property) can indicate when the page was edited. The creation time property can indicate when the page was created. The creation user property can indicate who created the page. The main / text property can be the xhtml content of the page / message.

  knol can have a unique URL, eg {site} / {title} / {author_url}, where the site is a website (eg knol.google.com) and the title is the title of knol The author_url can include the author's name and / or disambiguation number. By adding a revised CGI argument, for example, “? Revision = 42”, a past version of the named document can be obtained. A URL containing a revision number can be made available as a permanent history link. Changing the title of a knol can imply renaming the knol and changing its URL. If an author's name changes, or if a page is transferred from one author to another, all of the author's page URLs can be renamed. If a node ID is specified, for example “? NodeID = 4747”, that node ID can persist across rename operations. In one implementation, a hit for {site} can be resolved as a search for {query} / {author}, and the query and author can be an approximate / incomplete match. Internally, knols can refer to each other using the node ID field. In other implementations, a knol may be a permanent URL that can be a machine-readable sequence of pseudo-random alphanumeric characters that are permanently associated with the knol regardless of any subsequent changes to the title or ownership of the knol. Can have.

  The main / text property of a knol supplies the content of that knol. And the content can include transcluded knols that may or may not have their own various authors. Consider the following illustrative example. Mrs. P is the head of a school of astronomy, astrology, and cosmology at a school. She hopes to write a knol about dark matter. Mrs. P creates that knol, and then creates three knols that are transcluded as clauses, called chapters A, B, and C. Mrs. P adds Mr. K as the co-author of Chapter A, Mr. G as the co-author of Chapter B, and Mr. R as the co-author of Chapter C. In response, these co-authors delegate the writing of the actual text to graduate students. Mrs P is heading towards creating a knol of her own name on the subject of dark matter.

  For a given knol, whether the knol is "top" (i.e. it can be searched individually) or is only "content" (i.e. the knol itself does not appear in the search as an entity, Can be indexed as the content of the parent page). The “content” knol can be discarded by the parent, ie no longer referenced by the parent page. In some implementations, abandoned knols can no longer be viewed as public online content and cannot be found by web search, but can be made discoverable by reviewing past versions of the document .

  Referring to FIG. 6A, an example of a graphical user interface 600 is shown in which an author of a first knol can nominate or access a second knol. By naming the URL (see user interface 610 in FIG. 6B), the first knol can be linked to the second existing knol. In the example shown, the new knol is linked to an existing knol entitled “The-Samoyed / Ray-Su-27354”. The properties listed in the title area 602, i.e. title, subtitle, author, and modification date, can be a hyperlink to the second knol. This URL may be a web address for accessing the second knol. Content properties 604 include: The image property can be the first image included in the second knol. The table of contents can be generated algorithmically by examining the contents of the second knol in detail. The summary can consist of excerpts of the first few lines of knol following the title and subtitle. Full text can refer to something that contains the entire second knol, in addition to the knol that the second knol contains recursively that can be forced into the table of contents instead. Display properties 606 include different appearance options. Inline appearance may be possible when the content of the title area is transcluded. A framed appearance can take transcluded content and surround it in a standardized frame with a lot of text around it (eg, a magazine style). The clause appearance can treat the transluded knol as a clause in the parent knol.

  Referring to FIG. 6C, an example of a graphical user interface 612 is shown in which the author of the first knol attempts to transclude within the first knol a second knol transformer. Clusion appearance can be selected. Appearance examples 614a-614d are illustrated.

  Table 1 below shows examples of properties for several knol pages, including property names, types, values, and descriptions of each.

  This knol user interface can provide an author page containing content about the author. Examples of content that can be included on an author page include author photos, author names, statistical information, author profiles, co-author names (and links to the author pages of those co-authors), and authors. And / or the title of the contributed knol, the operation to get the RSS field of the article written by the author, and the citation by the author (and a link to that citation). You can see the editing history of a specific author for that knol. In one implementation where author ratings are performed, the author's rating can be viewed. In one implementation, a collection of authors is referred to as a “group” and any group of which the author is a member can be identified.

  When an author views an author page in "edit mode", the author can see and edit many of his properties. For example, the author can edit the contents of the public profile. The author can edit account permissions, such as the default visibility and editability of knol pages and who is exempt from the default. The author can look at the reviewer (ie, the person who responded to the knol content) and sort the reviewers by quality or novelty. The author can invite or request someone to write a knol or write a review of the author's knol page. Edit mode can provide a message to the author and includes the following examples: Messages about proposed edits, notifications of reusing author content (e.g. by transclusion or text reuse), notifications of changes in documents owned, watched or contributed by authors, A claim to override the author's content, a request for deletion, a notification of deletion, notification of changes to the template used by the author, quota / limit violations, error messages, offers to transfer ownership, and bulk changes to properties.

  Table 2 below shows an example of author page properties, including property name, type, and description.

  In one implementation, the knol owner can choose to display an online advertisement when displaying the knol. The owner typically collects revenue from the advertiser, either directly or through an intermediary, for displaying the advertisement. In one example, the owner can participate in an AdSense advertising program provided by Google, Inc., where Google provides an advertisement for display with the owner's knol. Advertisements can be selected to target readers who are expected to be interested in the content of that knol. If knol is contributed by multiple authors, the revenue generated from online advertising can be divided among the authors. In one implementation, author page properties may include properties for allocating revenue among knol owners to whom a particular author is entitled to revenue sharing.

  FIG. 6D shows an advanced search box directed to searching for knol. The box in this example is formatted in a manner similar to the advanced search box for web content generated by GOOGLE, and the specific data fields into which the user can enter data are generally very straightforward.

  Figures 7A-7B show screenshots of the formatted individual pieces of the submitted content. This screenshot is a single web page shot, but different parts of the page are scrolled into the view.

  In this example, the content takes the form of a knol. This content is presented as a web page about a specific subject, here insomnia. This piece of content can be presented as a search result, which is presented in a dedicated one box or similar area that is separated from other search results. Such separation indicates to the user that the result is, in effect, a self-contained commentary on the subject that is useful to readers seeking an overview or detailed discussion on the particular subject. Can be used for. Such results can be contrasted with other results, such as a corporate web page containing marketing information about insomnia drugs, a blog where bloggers discuss their own insomnia issues.

  This content is labeled with a title 700, which takes a familiar form and is placed in bold and at the top of the entry to make it particularly noticeable to viewers of this content. The text 709 of this post contains a well-organized description and summary of insomnia and related subjects. The body 709 can take a variety of forms, allowing consumers to see at a glance what is being handled in this post, and by selecting a hyperlink in the table of contents 706 A hyperlinked table of contents 706 can be presented to quickly jump to a specific bar.

  A document consumer or viewer is also presented with a rating system for its submission. Rating indicator 702 indicates an average rating provided by a number of users who have reviewed and rated this article, here 117 ratings. The displayed ratings can simply be the arithmetic average of various ratings, or by normalizing the scores from various users to accommodate users who always give high ratings or users who always give low ratings. Etc. and can be calculated in several other ways. In addition, a user whose rating normally agrees with another user's rating suddenly provides a rating that does not match that other rating, thus indicating that the user is inappropriately trying to raise or lower the post score. In some cases, the rating can be checked to determine if fraudulent intent can be involved. The “own rating” area 704 indicates to the user where the user can give his / her own rating for the post. This area 704 is generated using script code, such as Javascript code or other appropriate mechanism, so that the user can conveniently click on the rating level and register such rating for the post. be able to. The user's rating can then be taken into account when calculating the overall article rating for the post.

  Several tabs are shown above the rating area, which allows the user to view various information about the article. The currently selected tab in this figure is a view tab that allows the user to view the article or post itself. The edit tab can allow the user to view various edits that other users have made to the article, such as to increase the accuracy of the article. Users can also use such tabs to suggest edits to the article itself. Such edits can be pending in that they have not yet been added to the article displayed in the view tab, or those edits can be incorporated into the article as displayed in the view tab. You can approve the edit. The user can also select a revision tab to view revisions that the author of the article has added to the article, or that have been approved for the article (if others have made revisions or edits), for example. Such revisions, in certain implementations, can be linked to comments or edits made by users other than the author.

  The author element 708 can provide information about the author of this article. Here, the author is Rachel Mann Burr, director of the Stanford Sleep Disorder Center at Stanford Medical School. An indicator such as the seal of this example or other suitable indicator can be used to graphically show the author's specific features. For example, the color of an icon associated with an author can indicate the reviewed quality of the author's work. For example, new authors who do not receive many ratings from other users can be given no icon at all, while more experienced authors can have a silver, gold, or platinum seal (or in some cases) May be red, white, blue, pink, and purple ribbons). Authors who receive bad ratings or other negative feedback from users in the community can be provided with a black seal or other indicator that the author's submission is suspicious.

  The author's name or other appropriate element can also be hyperlinked so that community members can obtain additional information about the author. Selecting the hyperlink can be, for example, a list of other articles submitted by the author, personal information about the author that the author has decided to provide, web search results including the author's name, or other Users can be carried with similar information.

  An author submission box 710 submits information about the same or similar subject matter, thus asking the user whether he wants to become an author. Selecting a hyperlink in this box 710 can guide the user to an editor or other similar interface that allows the user to learn about becoming an author and author content. And get more tools to submit.

  The advertisement area 712 can include various targeted advertisements that are directed to the subject matter of the article. Such advertisements can be selected, such as by the GOOGLE ADSENSE system and process. For example, in this example, advertisements for products and services related to insomnia and sleep are retrieved and displayed. These advertisements, according to well-known models for generating and distributing advertising revenue, can generate revenue for the host of the web page and even for the author when the user clicks on the advertisement.

  In this particular example, the level at which advertising revenue is shared can depend on the reputation or read amount given to a particular author. For example, if an author has no rating, the author may get a small share of the advertising revenue that comes from his contributions, but that author's share of the available advertising revenue is within this system. As the author's status increases, for example, authors with platinum or other high ratings can get the largest share of revenue generated from their postings.

  Referring now to FIG. 4E, a flow diagram illustrates an example process 460 for using a reputation score when monetizing an online content item. Multiple online content items authored by multiple authors are obtained for online publication (step 462). For example, in some implementations, the plurality of online content items can be obtained by the content manager 402 from the author 404, as shown in the example system of FIG. 4A. For each online content item, a corresponding author's reputation score is determined (step 464). Reputation scores can be based on one or more reviews of online content items performed by one or more reviewers other than the author. For example, in some implementations, the one or more reviews can be received by the content manager 402 from users and / or authors 404 within the community 408. An online content item can be posted from the received plurality of online content items. Listing the online content item includes displaying the online content item with the advertisement (step 466). For example, in some implementations, this online content item can be posted by publishers included in a set of publishers 406. The distribution of the authors of the online content item in relation to displaying the advertisement can be determined. Determining the author's revenue share may be based at least in part on the author's reputation score (step 468).

  Such monetization systems can encourage authors to generate more content for this system, and highly competent authors get the highest price for their work, so content In particular such extremely capable authors can be encouraged to generate. In addition, such a distribution mechanism allows the author to publish the page in that a highly capable author will bring more traffic to the page and more frequently click on the ads shown on the page. Profit can be given to the yuan. Users benefit from having access to content generated by the most qualified authors.

  The related knol area 714 shows other posts or articles that the system has determined to have a subject related to insomnia. For example, it is determined here that an article related to sudden sleep disorder by Kent Brockman is related to an insomnia article being displayed. In addition to the images related to this other article, the title of this article, and the author of this article, area 714 shows the average rating of this other article, (whether a statistically significant number of users contributed to the rating Displays the number of users who have seen this article (so that the user can know), the number of reviews for this article, and the number of comments provided for this article. Determining whether an article in the currently displayed article is sufficiently relevant is determined by a number of different known mechanisms, notably a page to determine the relevance of the subject between two articles This can be done by a mechanism that compares text content or other content with text content on other pages.

  Referring now to FIG. 7B, a review area 716 shows links to various reviews that users other than the author have given about this article. Such reviews are formatted in a manner familiar to the typical user. For example, an image of a particular reviewer is shown, along with a short recommendation or title for the review, the name of the reviewer, and the date the review was given. Content consumers can use this information to quickly determine whether a particular review is positive or negative, whether the review was provided by a trusted person, and whether the review is old or new . By clicking on a hyperlink related to the name of the review or reviewer, the user is directed to the review and read the review, or personal information, articles written by the reviewer, other reviews written by the reviewer, etc. , Can be directed to a personal page that discusses information related to the reviewer. In addition, although not shown here, the reviewer's average rating for various articles is shown, or the reviewer's rating within the community as determined by the rating of other users on the content generated by each particular reviewer. A reviewer's reputation score or other indicator may be shown, such as to indicate reputation.

  Another author's article area 718 lists additional articles submitted to the system by that author or by the author of the article the user is currently viewing. In this example, the title of each article is shown, along with excerpts from the article, the average rating for the article, the number of times the article was viewed, and the number of comments submitted for the article. Such an area 718 could, for example, allow the reader to draw in that the author may be an insomnia expert and therefore has the ability to create quality articles. It may allow the user to see immediately that he has created a number of articles on various sub-topics in the field. In addition, this title and excerpt of an article can make readers more profoundly explore other articles in one area and thus learn more about that area. The number of views and comments on the article is whether the article was of interest to others and possibly the curiosity that the reader has received enough interest to make the reader's comments reasonable. You can also show readers whether you have raised a point or raised a debate.

  Turning now to FIG. 7C, below this web page is the footer area 720 of this article. This area includes a postscript that can be referenced in the body of the article, along with a bibliography of references cited in the article. Such an area can have the same effect that the area has in a typical non-electronic document, leading readers to more detailed information to support the view stated in the article Lead readers to other sources that can learn more about the subject or that can better validate the content mentioned in the article. Further, in electronic form, if references are available on the Internet, they can be hyperlinked so that readers can be easily guided to such references. In addition, if the bibliography is a book or other document that can be purchased, the bibliography may be referenced and hyperlinked to a commercial website ready to sell the book or other bibliography, such as by ISBN number. it can.

  FIG. 7D shows comments 722 submitted by other users on this article. In this example, each comment appears to be in Latin. The organization of comments can appear in a familiar form where comments are placed below the article and sorted in chronological order, according to the rating of the author of the article or comment, or by other mechanisms. If the system requires author and commenter authentication, information indicating the identity of each commenter can also be provided as shown. In the figure, as the second comment by Dale Diddier shows, users can rate comments in the same way that they rank articles or other content. In this example, the comment itself may have been rated by another reader. Or the rating shown here can represent the rating which a commenter performs with respect to a main article. The system can use ratings for comments in a manner similar to ratings for articles, such as by affecting the rating on the reputation score of commenters or authors of comments.

  An input box 724 for commenting on a comment is shown below the first comment. Here, authors or other users can post responses to comments. In this way, discussions can be conducted in a familiar way so that other users can correct incorrect or unwise comments and improve the overall information conveyed by the site.

  FIG. 7E shows the bottom of this particular web page with a comment submission area 726. In this example, the user who is viewing this page is not logged into the system and is therefore not authenticated, (with this page suggesting that the user log in if they want to submit a comment. ) I am blocked from commenting. In general, users can enter a title that summarizes their comments and can write the text of the comments in a familiar and well-known manner. Users can also submit ratings for articles displayed with their comments. Again, at the bottom of the page, the user is prompted to submit his article about this subject or about the subject matter involved.

  All of the inventions and functional operations described herein may be implemented by digital electronic circuitry, or computer hardware, firmware, software, or combinations thereof. The apparatus of the present invention can be implemented by a computer program product tangibly implemented in a machine readable storage device for execution by a programmable processor, and the method steps of the present invention operate on input data and output Can be executed by a programmable processor that executes an instruction program for performing the functions of the present invention.

  The present invention is a programmable including at least one programmable processor coupled to receive a data / instruction and transfer the data / instruction with a data storage system, at least one input device, and at least one output device It can advantageously be implemented by one or more computer programs executable on the system. Each computer program can be implemented in a high-level procedural programming language or a high-level object-oriented programming language, or an assembly language or machine language as required, and in any case this language should be a compiled or interpreted language be able to.

  Suitable processors include, by way of example, both general and special purpose microprocessors. Generally, a processor will receive instructions / data from a read-only memory and / or a random access memory. Generally, a computer includes one or more mass storage devices for storing data files, such devices including a magnetic disk such as an internal hard disk, a removable disk, a magneto-optical disk, or an optical disk. Storage devices suitable for tangibly implementing computer program instructions and data include, for example, EPROM, EEPROM, semiconductor memory devices such as flash memory devices, magnetic disks such as internal hard disks and removable disks, magneto-optical disks, and CDs -Includes all forms of non-volatile memory, including ROM disks. Any of the above can be supplemented by, or incorporated in, an ASIC (application specific integrated circuit).

  To enable interaction with a user, the present invention provides a display device, such as a monitor or LCD screen, for displaying information to the user, as well as a keyboard, mouse and trackball that allow the user to make input to the computer system Etc., and can be implemented on a computer system. The computer system can be programmed to provide a graphical user interface through which computer programs interact with users.

  Referring now to FIG. 8, a schematic diagram of an example computer system 800 is shown. According to one implementation, the system 800 can be used for the operations described with respect to the process 300 shown in FIG. For example, one or more of the systems 800 can be used to implement the content management server 101 (see FIGS. 1 and 2).

  The system 800 includes a processor 810, a memory 820, a storage device 830, and an input / output device 840. Each of the components 810, 820, 830, and 840 can be interconnected using, for example, a system bus 850. The processor 810 is capable of processing instructions for execution within the system 800. In one implementation, the processor 810 is a single thread processor. In another implementation, the processor 810 is a multithreaded processor. The processor 810 is capable of processing instructions stored in the memory 820 or the storage device 830 to display graphical information regarding the user interface on the input / output device 840. In some embodiments, a set of parallel processing systems 800 connected via a network can be clustered and used in one or more server centers.

  Memory 820 stores information in system 800. In one implementation, the memory 820 is a computer readable medium. In one implementation, the memory 820 is a volatile memory unit. In another implementation, the memory 820 is a non-volatile memory unit.

  Storage device 830 can provide mass storage to system 800. In one implementation, the storage device 830 is a computer-readable medium. In various different implementations, the storage device 830 can include, for example, a hard disk device, an optical disk device, or some other mass storage device.

  Input / output device 840 provides input / output operations to system 800. In one implementation, the input / output device 840 includes a keyboard and / or pointing device. In another implementation, the input / output device 840 includes a display unit for displaying a graphical user interface.

  A module, as used throughout this application, can be a piece of hardware that encapsulates functionality, can be firmware, or can be a software application. A module can perform one or more functions, and a piece of hardware, firmware, or software can perform multiple functions of the modules described herein. Similarly, multiple pieces of hardware, firmware, and / or software can be used to perform the functions of the single module described herein.

  It should be understood that these implementations are not limited to the specific systems or processes described that can, of course, vary. It should also be understood that the terminology used herein is for the purpose of describing particular implementations only and is not intended to be limiting. As used herein, the singular forms “a”, “an”, and “the” include plural referents unless the content clearly dictates otherwise. . Thus, for example, a reference to “a publisher” includes more than one publisher, and a reference to “an advertisement” includes more than one advertisement or a combination of various types of advertisements.

  Several implementations have been described. However, it will be understood that various modifications can be made without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention. Accordingly, other implementations are within the scope of this application.

  The scope of the claims is as follows.

100 system
101 Content management server
102 owner
104 collaborators
106 users
108 users
110 users
112 Suggested edits
114 Suggested edits
116 Search queries
118 Results
120 Knol content
122 Edit
124 Suggested edits
126 edit
200 systems
202 Consumer groups
204 Author Group
206 Discovery Group
210 Viewer
212 User profile / profile
214 Group page
216 Review interface
217 rating function
218 Edit / Suggestion Interface
219 comment / discussion function
222 About interface
240 Editor
242 Uploader
244 Transclusion interface
246 Gadget Selector
248 Proposed function
250 Import tool
252 Template / Style Interface
270 results found
272 External site
302 network
304 Proposed editing module
306a Delta
306b Delta
306n Delta
308 Editing Module
310 Conflict Detection / Resolution Submodule
312 Data storage
314 Knol content
316 Author Page
318 Editing Information
320 Discussion Thread
322 search engine
324 interface
400 system
400 environment
402 Content Manager
404 Author
406 Publisher
408 community
414 authentication
600 graphical user interface
602 title area
604 content properties
606 Display properties
610 User interface
612 Graphical user interface
614a Appearance example
614b Appearance example
614c Appearance example
614d appearance example
700 titles
702 rating indicator
704 “Rating of oneself” area
706 Table of Contents
708 Author elements
709 text
710 Author submission box
712 Advertising area
714 Related Knol Area
716 review area
718 Article area of other authors
720 footer area
722 comments
724 input box
726 Comment submission area
800 computer system
810 processor
820 memory
830 storage device
840 I / O device
850 system bus

Claims (15)

A computer-implemented method for providing a collaborative editing model for online content comprising:
Receiving user-created online content, including a first public version of the content;
Receiving a set of proposed edits to the online content from a plurality of users, wherein each proposed edit in the set relates to the first public version The proposed edit includes another piece of online content added to the proposed edit by one of the plurality of users via an interface, the plurality of edits Maintaining a connection back to the parent material of the piece of online content while one of the users creates the proposed edit ;
Providing the set of suggested edits to an authorized editor of the online content, the editor between the first public version of the content and the suggested edits; When there is a conflict when the difference between is visually informed and the first proposed edit cannot coexist with the second proposed edit, it knows about the conflict that exists between two or more proposed edits Providing to an authorized editor of the online content;
Receiving input from the editor to resolve a conflict and approve or reject a suggested edit in the set;
Modifying the first public version of the content based on the set of proposed edits and the input from the editor to generate a second public version of the content;
Proposed edits from the set that are not approved or rejected and do not conflict with the content of the second public version, and in the future, editors carried forward the content for the second public version of the content A method comprising: carrying forward to provide input to approve or reject a proposed edit. Receiving further input from the editor, including additional edits to the online content;
The method of claim 1, wherein the content of the second published version is further based on the additional editing. Receiving the search query for online content that meets the criteria specified by the search query;
Determining whether the user-created online content meets the criteria;
The method of claim 1, further comprising: providing the user created online content in response to the search query.   The method of claim 1, wherein the proposed edit remains pending for the second published version of the online content when receiving input from the editor to defer proposed edits. Detecting a conflict between the first proposed edit and the second proposed edit;
Informing the editor of the conflict;
The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving additional input from the editor that provides a solution to the conflict.   2. Providing an editor with the proposed edit comprises providing a markup version of the online content indicating the proposed edit for the first public version of the online content. The method described in 1.   The method of claim 1, further comprising providing a markup view online content that indicates a difference between the first public version of the online content and a previous public version of the online content. Receiving a comment attached to one or more of the proposed edits;
Providing the comment to the editor;
The method of claim 1, further comprising: recording a response from the editor to at least one of the comments. A system that provides a collaborative editing model for online content,
A data storage configured to store user-created online content;
A proposed editing module configured to receive a set of suggested edits to the online content, wherein the set of suggested edits is provided by a plurality of users, each suggested edit A first public version of the online content , wherein the proposed edit is another piece of online content added to the proposed edit by one of the plurality of users via an interface A proposed editing module that maintains a connection back to the parent material of the piece of online content while one of the plurality of users creates the proposed editing;
Providing the set of suggested edits to an authorized editor of the online content;
Visually informing the editor of the difference between the first public version of the content and the set of proposed edits and the conflicts that exist between two or more proposed edits;
Receive input from the editor to resolve conflicts, approve or reject proposed edits in the set,
Modifying the online content of the first public version based on the proposed edit and the input from the editor to generate a second public version;
Proposed edits from the set that are not approved or rejected and do not conflict with the content of the second public version, and in the future, editors carried forward the content for the second public version of the content A system comprising an editing module configured to carry over to accept or reject a proposed edit. The editing module is
Detect a conflict between the first proposed edit and the second proposed edit;
Inform the editor of the conflict,
The system of claim 9, further configured to receive additional input from the editor that provides a solution to the conflict. Receiving the search query for online content that meets the criteria specified by the search query;
Determining whether the user-created online content meets the criteria;
The system of claim 9, further comprising a search engine configured to provide the user-created online content in response to the search query. The editing module is
The system of claim 9, further configured to provide markup view online content indicating a difference between the first public version of online content and a previous public version of online content. The proposed editing module is further configured to receive a comment attached to one or more of the proposed edits;
The editing module is further configured to provide the comment to the editor and record a response from the editor to at least one of the comments;
The system according to claim 9. When executed by the processor
Receiving user-created online content, including a first public version of the content;
Receiving a set of proposed edits to the online content from a plurality of users, wherein each proposed edit in the set relates to the first public version The proposed edit includes another piece of online content added to the proposed edit by one of the plurality of users via an interface, the plurality of edits Maintaining a connection back to the parent material of the piece of online content while one of the users creates the proposed edit ;
Providing the set of suggested edits to an authorized editor of the online content, the editor between the first public version of the content and the suggested edits; When there is a conflict when the difference between is visually informed and the first proposed edit cannot coexist with the second proposed edit, it knows about the conflict that exists between two or more proposed edits Providing to an authorized editor of the online content;
Receiving input from the editor to resolve a conflict and approve or reject a suggested edit in the set;
Modifying the first public version of the content based on the set of proposed edits and the input from the editor to generate a second public version of the content;
Proposed edits from the set that are not approved or rejected and do not conflict with the content of the second public version, in the future, editors carried forward the content for the second public version of the content A computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon for causing the processor to perform an operation including: carrying over to accept or reject a proposed edit. A processor;
When coupled to and executed by the processor,
Receiving user-created online content, including a first public version of the content;
Receiving a set of proposed edits to the online content from a plurality of users, wherein each proposed edit in the set relates to the first public version The proposed edit includes another piece of online content added to the proposed edit by one of the plurality of users via an interface, the plurality of edits Maintaining a connection back to the parent material of the piece of online content while one of the users creates the proposed edit ;
Providing the set of suggested edits to an authorized editor of the online content, the editor between the first public version of the content and the suggested edits; When there is a conflict when the difference between is visually informed and the first proposed edit cannot coexist with the second proposed edit, it knows about the conflict that exists between two or more proposed edits Providing to an authorized editor of the online content;
Receiving input from the editor to resolve a conflict and approve or reject a suggested edit in the set;
Modifying the first public version of the content based on the set of proposed edits and the input from the editor to generate a second public version of the content;
Proposed edits from the set that are not approved or rejected and do not conflict with the content of the second public version, and in the future, editors carried forward the content for the second public version of the content And a storage device configurable to store instructions that cause the processor to perform an operation that includes carrying over to accept or reject a proposed edit.

Images