U.S. patent application number 10/946826 was filed with the patent office on 2005-03-17 for non-subjective valuing.
Invention is credited to Vig, Tommy.
Application Number | 20050060271 10/946826 |
Document ID | / |
Family ID | 24302303 |
Filed Date | 2005-03-17 |
United States Patent
Application |
20050060271 |
Kind Code |
A1 |
Vig, Tommy |
March 17, 2005 |
Non-subjective valuing
Abstract
Non-Subjective Valuing is a valuing system that unearths both an
entity's actual current societal monetary value and/or price,
and/or its contemporary monetary worth and/or price, specifically
to an exploring individual person, group, family, vendor or
corporation; by unearthing society's and/or said explorer's Worth
Importance Point (WIP) preference chart, allocating observer's
expressed preferences as percentages of the 100% total
constitution/worth of a probed entity, determining the deductive
market price of the average entity in any group, and by comparing a
test entity with the average entity, in terms of the WIP chart of
society and/or any explorer, calculating the target entity's
monetary value, or rank. Society's said WIP application yields
"True Value," while applying the exploring individual's or
company's said WIP, produces "Your Value."
Inventors: |
Vig, Tommy; (Las Vegas,
NV) |
Correspondence
Address: |
Tommy Vig
2816 Scotch Heather Run
Las Vegas
NV
89142
US
|
Family ID: |
24302303 |
Appl. No.: |
10/946826 |
Filed: |
September 23, 2004 |
Related U.S. Patent Documents
|
|
|
|
|
|
Application
Number |
Filing Date |
Patent Number |
|
|
10946826 |
Sep 23, 2004 |
|
|
|
08593894 |
Jan 30, 1996 |
|
|
|
6038554 |
|
|
|
|
08593894 |
Jan 30, 1996 |
|
|
|
08575936 |
Dec 20, 1995 |
|
|
|
5911131 |
|
|
|
|
60005304 |
Oct 16, 1995 |
|
|
|
60003592 |
Sep 12, 1995 |
|
|
|
Current U.S.
Class: |
705/400 |
Current CPC
Class: |
G06Q 30/0278 20130101;
G06Q 30/02 20130101; G06Q 30/0601 20130101; G06Q 30/0283 20130101;
G06Q 20/201 20130101; G06Q 10/0875 20130101 |
Class at
Publication: |
705/400 |
International
Class: |
G06G 007/00 |
Claims
1. A method and procedure for providing the true relative value of
an entity, comprising the following steps: determining qualities of
said entity and the relative importance of each said quality of
said entity to an observer; calculating the deductive price of said
entity, wherein said entity is noted average in its said qualities
(at least one quality selected) in its group, said group identified
by the fact that members of said group could have the qualities of
those of the other members of said group, this assumed (or real)
average unit called the average entity; comparing the actual said
quality or qualities of any existent test entity to said average
entity on a percentage or other graduated basis, and so discovering
the monetary value or comparative ranking of any said test entity
to said observer by weighing the difference between any said test
entity and said Average entity on said noted parallel quality or
qualities; translating said difference between any said test entity
and said Average entity on said noted parallel quality or qualities
into monetary or other value or ranking so as to provide the true
relative value for said test entity; and providing said true
relative value for said test entity to said observer.
2. A method and procedure comprising the following steps; creating
a observer's Worth Importance Point Pie or Bar Chart, by assigning
relative weights of qualities of an entity by rating one, more or
all said qualities of said entity on a scale of 0-10, 10 being most
important, or other representative scale; adding said ratings; and
dividing each said rating by one hundredth of the total number of
said qualities, thereby attaining the matching slice sizes of said
Worth Importance Point pie (or other proportionate representation)
for each of said qualities by the respective relevant percentages
of the 100% pie, or other assumed total constitution of said
entity.
3. A method and procedure according to claim 2, that uses said
method to calculate the relative importance to a observer of saving
money versus getting higher quality so that at the end, the method
can sort out which computer or used car or vacation is the better
buy for said observer, one that is 25% better than the average on
quality and costs 50% more than the average in price, or one that
rates 15% better on quality than the average and costs 3% less in
price than the average, and so on.
4. A method and procedure according to claim 1, further comprising
the steps of; matching buyers and sellers based on the actual value
of an entity as calculated by this method, by searching for sellers
who sell product or service at a price at, below or near said
entity's calculated said true relative value.
5. A method and procedure for providing the true relative value of
an entity, comprising the following steps: determining qualities of
an entity and the relative importance of said qualities (at least
one) of said entity to a observer; calculating the deductive price
of a real or fictitious entity which said entity is average in its
one or more qualities, called the average entity; comparing the
actual quality or qualities of any existent or assumed test entity
with the quality or qualities of said average entity to discover
and measure the difference between said test entity and said
average entity; determining the value or ranking of said test
entity by the weighted relationship between the quality or
qualities of said test entity and the quality or qualities of said
average entity so as to provide a true relative value for said test
entity; and comparing the values of said entities, whether or not
they are similar in nature, for instance if a vacation is
discovered to be worth $1,000 and a computer is discovered to have
a value of $800, the vacation is approximately 20% more
valuable.
6. A method and procedure for providing the true relative value of
an entity, comprising the following steps; determining qualities of
a test entity and the relative importance of each said quality of
said test entity; calculating the deductive price of a real or
fictitious entity which entity is average in its qualities, called
the average entity; comparing the actual qualities of said test
entity to the qualities of said average entity to measure the
difference between aid test entity and said average entity;
determining the value or ranking of said test entity by the
weighted relationship between said test entity's qualities and
those of said average entity; comparing the values of at least two
test entities whether or not they are similar in nature, for
instance if a vacation is discovered to be worth $1,000 and a
computer is discovered to have a value of $800, the vacation is
then approximately 20% more valuable; and comparing existent prices
with the actual values of said test entities, and sorting for the
observer the best deal in said observer's terms, for instance if a
vacation worth $1,000 is for sale for $500, and a computer worth
$800 is for sale for $700, the vacation is the better deal, but if
the difference reaches a certain point, then it might be the other
way around, and so on.
7. A method and procedure according to claim 2, wherein the step of
creating a observer's Worth Importance Point Pie or other similar
graphic or mathematical representation of allocating proportionate
importance-variations, is further comprised of the following steps:
determining how relatively important certain qualities are to said
observer who provides responses; converting those said responses by
said observer to appropriate-size pie slices, or other depiction
accounting for commensurate relative weights, learning for instance
how much more or less important said qualities might be to said
observer; and calculating how much savings for how much less
quality is appropriate for said explorer, or by measuring the
buyer's attractiveness scale, which scale accounts for the
explorer's budget and his or her or its level of reluctance to
overpay for what the observer really wants.
8. A method and procedure for providing the true relative value of
an entity, comprising the following steps; determining qualities of
a test entity and the relative importance of each said quality of
said test entity to a observer; calculating the deductive price of
at least one real or fictitious entity which entity is average in
its qualities in its group, said group identified by the fact that
members of said group could have the qualities of those of the
other members of said group, this assumed (or real) average unit
called the Average entity; comparing the qualities of said test
entity to the qualities of said Average entity on a weighted
percentage or other basis, and so discovering the true relative
value of said test entity to said observer by calculating the
difference between said test entity and said Average entity;
collecting the consensus of the experts and laymen concerning said
true relative value of said qualities; and determining the weighted
percentage or other biases the experts think the lay-persons'
opinions should weigh, and discovering the weighted percentage or
other bases the amateurs think the experts' opinion should be
considered, then splitting both numbers to use for calculation.
9. A method and procedure according to claim 1, wherein the step of
noting qualities of an entity and the relative importance of each
said quality of said entity to a observer further comprises the
steps of: providing an explanation of what a relevant quality of a
probed entity is, has and/or does, whether or not there is a
question if a technical expression or other obstacle might hinder
said observer's ability to appropriately assess the importance to
said observer of said quality; and automatically calculating said
attribute's relative importance to said observer based on said
observer's input.
10. A method according to claim 1, further comprising the steps of:
accepting and storing value assessment and value-importance
proportionating information, from observers, using it to determine
the average value system of society;
11. A method according to claim 1, further comprising the following
steps: providing a buyer and seller, wherein said buyer and said
seller come to a mutually satisfactory agreement regarding the
mutually acceptable sale price of an entity, facilitated by
negotiations, the starting point for such bargaining being the true
relative value of an entity, and/or the highest monetary number the
buyer is willing to pay and the lowest monetary number at which the
seller is willing to sell said entity, following said buyer and
said seller learning the true societal value of said entity, or the
value judgment of the optimally informed society, and/or said
entity's relative values to the now well-informed buyer and
seller.
12. A method according to claim 1, wherein all observers' input,
choices, selections and personal Worth Importance charts are
recorded, stored and remembered, and by continually averaging these
pieces of information, Non-Subjective Valuing is able to know and
display the preferences of the average observer for the individual
observer to be able to compare his own choices and value system
with those of his community.
13. A method and procedure according to claim 1, further comprising
the steps of: determining by survey or other method a price point
value reflecting the judgment of a unique observer or the common
assessment of many observers, considering members of a certain test
group, regarding such members of such group being generally
overpriced or under priced; and utilizing said price point value to
adjust the value of said Average entity in said group, conclusively
to reflect said perception of said observers' conception in
reference to said test entities being so overpriced or under
priced, as well as using such information to create an additional,
new desirability scale.
14. A method and procedure according to claim 1, further comprising
the step of: determining a specific quality for a given entity from
said observer.
15. A method and procedure for providing the true relative value of
an entity, comprising the following steps; determining at least one
quality for at least one entity, the relative importance of said
quality to an observer and a value for each said at least one
quality; providing an average entity, wherein said average entity
is average in its group, based upon said at least one quality and
has an average price and an average value for said at least one
quality; determining the value difference between said value for
each said at least one quality and said average value for said at
least one quality; ranking at least two entities of said group
according said value difference to provide a ranked list of said at
least two entities; and providing ranked list to said observer.
16. A method of evaluating a member or members of a group,
comprising: a. providing a group; b. providing an assumed unit in
said group wherein said assumed unit has at least one average
characteristic; c. retrieving in a marketplace an average price
corresponding to said assumed average unit; and d. quantifying the
relative importance of said at least one average characteristic of
said assumed average unit whereby e. the actual monetary value of
any existent test unit in said group can be discovered by comparing
said test unit's unique quantified or unquantified characteristic
or characteristics with that or those of said assumed average unit
and providing a sort list of said units, according to the one or
more of their said values, or sorting and listing them by one,
many, or all of their quanitfied or unquantified attributes.
17. A method of evaluation, comprising: a. providing a group; b.
wherein said group is identified by the fact that the members of
said group could have the qualities of those of the other members;
c. providing an average assumed unit in said group, which said
average assumed unit is calculated average as to at least one
characteristic said members of said group can possess, as well as
said average assumed unit's assumed value as to provide a
quantified quality for said average assumed unit; d. noting at
least one of the characteristics of members in said group to a
observer and noting the relative importance of each selected at
least one characteristic of said members of said group to said
individual or collective to provide a quantified quality for said
observer; and e. comparing said quantified quality for said
observer to said average quantified quality of said assumed unit in
said group on a percentage basis whereby the monetary or other
value or comparative ranking of any member of said group is
discovered by weighing the difference between at least one
quantified parallel qualities of any said member of said group
against said quantified parallel quality of qualities of the said
assumed unit in said group, translating such divergence into
monetary or other value or ranking, and sorting by said attributes'
values of said entities for comparison purposes.
18. The method according to claim 17, further comprising: a.
displaying said members of said group according to their compared
value or ranking.
19. A method of valuing, comprising: a. providing entities; b.
providing attributes for said entities; c. providing an average
entity which is average according to said attirbutes; d. comparing
said entities to said average entity according to said attributes
to provide a set of compared attributes; e. organizing said
entities by said attributes to form organized entities; f. ranking
said organized entities to form ranked entities; and g. displaying
said ranked entities to form valued entities.
20. A method according to claim 19, wherein said attributes include
any single characteristic or combination of qualities.
21. A method according to claim 19, wherein said attributes may
include price or popularity.
22. A method according to claim 19, wherein said attributes are
chosen from the group consisting of true relative value,
desirability, savings in percentage terms, savings in monetary
terms, speed, height, size, power, any other quantifiable attribute
and any combination thereof.
23. A method according to claim 19, further comprising the step of
displaying said entities in ascending value order of said valued
entries according to their total respective values or per one or
any number of their attributes.
24. A method according to claim 19, further comprising the step of
displaying said entities in descending value order of said valued
entries.
25. A method according to claim 19, wherein said step of ranking
occurs in the specific terms of a observer's value system, wherein
said observer may be an individual observer, society, a specific
group, collective or family.
26. A method and procedure where the correct market price of a
specific used automobile may be determined by comparing its
selected, quantified characteristics to those of the average used
automobile on a percentage or other basis, said method comprising
the following steps: a. through market survey or other method,
noting the assumed current sale price of an average used
automobile, wherein said average used automobile is a deductive
specific used make/year/model automobile, which said average used
automobile is average according to a selected unlimited number of
characteristics; b. selecting at least one characteristic (such as
"popularity," or "design,"), all considered said at least one
characteristic adding up to 100% of said average automobile's
value, such as "customer satisfaction," and/or "prestige," and/or
"reliability" and/or "location," and so on, for example a 1998
Mercedes C 230 which is average on all its said qualities, should
have a market price of $20,000, on a specific date in a specific
city; c. through survey or other method note how relatively
important each said at least one characteristic of said vehicle is,
such as for instance "engine condition 55%," "interior condition
20%," "extra equipment 22%," "location 3%," and so on, in the case
of this particular example the retail monetary standard would then
be $11,000 for said quality of "engine condition," (that is 55% of
$20,000); $4,000 for said quality of "interior condition;" $4,400
for said attribute of "extra equipment" and $600 for where said
average automobile is located, and so on; d. rate an existing test
vehicle, for example said test vehicle may be a unique test 1998
Mercedes C 230, on each of selected parallel said at least one
characteristics on a scale of 0-10, 10 being best or 1-5, 5 being
best, or some other consistent way, and suppose for example that
due to said ratings, our said test 1998 Mercedes 230 rates 8%
better than said deductive average vehicle on its quality of
"engine condition," 5% worse than the said average vehicle as to
its "interior condition," 10% worse than the said average vehicle
as to its "extra equipment," and 2% better than said average
vehicle as to its "location," and e. calculating the value of said
test vehicle, this particular said test vehicle on its "engine
condition" attribute is to be worth $11,000 plus $880=$11,880, or
to put it another way, the importance of "engine condition"
comprises 55% of the total value, which in our example, is worth.
$11,000 if engine condition were average, therefore since our test
vehicle is 8% better than the average vehicle on this quality, we
add 8% of $11,000 for said test automobile's value; our test 1998
Mercedes C 230 interior condition is determined to be 5% worse than
that of the average 1998 Mercedes C 230, which means that we must
deduct 5% of $4,000 from $4,000, or $4,000-$200=$3,800, making the
value of our test vehicle $3,800 on this quality; then since our
test automobile has 10% less extra equipment than the average one,
we must deduct 10% of $4,400, or $440 from $4,400=$3,969; and
lastly, in this illustration, being that our test vehicle is
located in an area which is better than average by 2%, we add 2% of
$600 to our test car's value for this fact, which means that is
this respect, it is worth $612. Adding up
$11,880+$3,800+$3,959+$612=$20,251. This $20,251 is then the value
of our test vehicle, or it is about 1% more valuable than the
average 1998 Mercedes C 230. This example is only to illustrate the
workings of the present claim, not to limit it in any way.
27. A method and procedure where the current correct market price
or ranking of an existent test entity may be obtained by; a. noting
for how much money an entity in its group would currently sell at
the marketplace if said entity were average according to at least
one selected qualities, said entity with said at least one selected
quality being average called the Average entity; b. observing, on a
percentage or other basis, how relatively important each said at
least one selected quality is; and c. comparing said at least one
selected quality of said existent said test entity with parallel
quantified qualities of said Average entity, on a percentage or
other equitable basis, then calculating the resulting difference,
and express it in monetary or ranking terms.
28. A method and procedure where the current correct market price
or ranking of an existent test entity may be obtained by: a. noting
for how much money a deductive entity in a provided group would
currently sell at the marketplace if at least one quality of said
deductive entity were average to provide at least one average
quality; b. noting how relatively important each said at least one
quality is; c. comparing parallel quantified unique qualities of an
existent test entity with said at least one average quality of said
deductive average entity on a percentage or other just basis; and
d. calculating and expressing the difference in monetary or ranking
terms.
29. A method and procedure for providing the true price of a
specific used automobile, said method comprising the following
steps: noting the assumed current sale price of an average used
automobile; selecting a few, many, all, or at least one
characteristic; assigning an importance rating to each said at
least one characteristic; rating an existing test vehicle according
to said at least one characteristic; calculating the value of said
test vehicle by multiplying said at least one characteristic by its
corresponding said importance rating to provide a value for said
test vehicle; rating said average used automobile according to said
at least one characteristics; calculating the value of said average
used automobile by multiplying said at least one characteristic by
its corresponding said importance rating to provide a value for
said average used automobile; and comparing said value for said
test vehicle with said value for said average used automobile,
listing test automobiles in order of their value per the
calculation method set forth above: sort them by one, more, or all
of their qualities.
30. A method and procedure for providing the true relative value of
an entity, comprising the following steps: determining a set of
qualities of said entity, wherein said set of qualities consists of
at least one quality; determining the relative importance of each
said quality within said set of qualities to a observer, vendor or
consumer; calculating a rating for an average entity according to
said relative importance of said set of qualities and the rating of
said quality for said average entity; calculating a rating for a
test entity according to said relative importance of said set of
qualities and the rating of said quality for said test entity;
comparing said rating for an average entity to said rating for a
test entity or test entities, to provide a comparison basis;
interpreting said comparison basis between any said test entity or
entities and said average entity, into monetary or other value, or
ranking, so as to provide a value scale for said test entity or
entities; and after sorting them by total respective values or by
any one or more valued qualities, providing said respective values
of said entity or entities to said observer, in a
sorted-by-attributes way.
31. A method and procedure of determining the value of an entity to
a observer comprising the following steps: determining an
appropriate set of qualities for said item; rating the importance
of each quality within said set of qualities to said observer on a
scale of 0 to 10, 10 being best, or 1-5, 5 being best, to provide a
set of importance ratings comprised of individual importance
ratings; adding said individual importance ratings to provide a
total rating; dividing each said individual importance rating by
said total rating to provide the relative weight for each quality
within said set of qualities; determining a quality rating
according to said set of qualities for at least one quality;
multiplying each said quality rating by said relative weights for
at least one item to provide at least one weighted value; and
adding each said at least one weighted value to provide said
entity's value.
32. A method as in claim 31, further comprising the step of
comparing said value of at least one item to said true relative
value of at least one other item.
33. A method and procedure for providing the value of an entity,
comprising the following steps: determining qualities of said
entity and the relative importance of each said quality of said
entity; calculating the deductive price of the average entity,
wherein said entity is noted average in its said quantified
qualities (at least one selected) in its group, said group
identified by the fact that members of said group could have the
qualities of those of the other members of said group; comparing
the actual said quantified quality or qualities of any existent
test entity to parallel quantified quality or qualities of said
average entity, on a percentage or other calibrated basis, and so
discovering the monetary value or comparative ranking of any said
test entity, by weighing the difference between any said test
entity and said average entity on said noted parallel quantified
quality or qualities; translating said difference between any said
test entity and said average entity on said noted parallel
quantified or unquantified quality or qualities into monetary or
other value or ranking so as to provide the value for said test
entity; and providing said quantified value of said test entity or
said quantified values of said test entities, in order of their
total respective quantified values, or according to their one or
more said quantified values, in ascending or descending order.
34. A method and procedure for providing the a sorted by attributes
list of entities, comprising the following steps: a/ provide a
group of entities b/ determine the qualities of said entities c/
determine the relative value of attributes of said entities d/
determine the total value of said entities e/ set forth and display
in ascending or descending order the sorted entities, such sorting
based on the respective values of said entities' quantified or
unquantified values, at least one attribute selected.
Description
CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS
[0001] This is a continuation of U.S. Ser. No. 08/593,894 filed
Jan. 30, 1996, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,038,554, which is a continuation
of U.S. Ser. No. 08/575,936 filed Dec. 20, 1995, now U.S. Pat. No.
5,911,131, and U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/003,952 filed
Sep. 19, 1995, and U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/005,304
filed Oct. 16, 1995, and U.S. Ser. No. 09/333,536.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
[0002] 1. Field of the Invention
[0003] The present invention generally relates to the field of
scientific valuation and is called Non-Subjective Valuing. More
particularly, this invention appertains to the field of calculation
of the monetary value, or ranking of something or any of its
components or attributes as opposed to (and/or in addition to) its
market price. Worth is discovered from various points of view,
including from the standpoint of a vendor, a company engaged in
advising the public, a certain group, an entire society or a unique
individual. This method is designed to and does overcome both
subjective valuation and asymmetric information in the marketplace
by conclusively providing the observer the communal or collective
monetary value of something based on desired, appropriate or ideal
(perfect, or optimal) information by society or another observer
about the probed entity, and also based on information about the
preferences of the observing group or individual, thus being a
highly desirable, beneficial and novel tool both for consumers and
providers of goods and services.
[0004] The entire present system is based on the theory that once
an observer knows precisely what such observer wants in an entity
and is also ideally informed about that entity in terms of and in
context of said perceiver, then such perceiver can accurately
calculate the entity's actual current monetary importance to said
observer.
[0005] 2. Inventory of Prior Art
[0006] U.S. Pat. No. 4,191,472 issued to Mason on Mar. 4, 1980 for
"Apparatus for the Evaluation of Coins" (hereafter the "Mason
Patent"). The Mason Patent discloses a method for evaluating coins
on an objective basis. First, facsimile coins representing the
obverse and reverse sides of a given class of coins are displayed.
The facsimile coins are divided into multiple sets, each
representing a particular type of coin defect or imperfection. The
facsimile coins within a set are arranged according to the
increasing or decreasing extent of the coin defect or imperfection.
Each facsimile coin is assigned a number representative of the
relative value of the coin with such defect or imperfection. To
evaluate the value of a real coin, the obverse and reverse sides of
the real coin is compared to the facsimile coins. The numeric
values of the facsimile coin which exhibits the coin defect or
imperfection to the same extent as the real coin are recorded and
calculated. The result is used to determine the monetary value of
the real coin by referring to a correlation table.
[0007] U.S. Pat. No. 4,464,122 issued to Fuller et al. on Aug. 7,
1984 for "Health Potential Summary and Incentive System" (hereafter
the "Fuller Patent"). The Fuller Patent discloses a method of
evaluating an individual's health. The method utilizes a
comprehensive questionnaire. The questionnaire is divided into
different categories each having multiple questions to be answered
by the individual. The answers are placed in score boxes. The
actual condition of the individual is then compared to the ideal
condition of each category to provide a health rating of the
individual. Finally, the analysis provides an "appraised age" of
the individual according to the health rating of the
individual.
[0008] U.S. Pat. No. 5,083,270 issued to Gross et al. on Jan. 21,
1992 for "Method and Apparatus for Releasing Value of An Asset"
(hereafter the "Gross Patent"). The Gross Patent discloses a
computer aided data processing program. The program is used for
recording and updating the value of mortgaged assets.
[0009] U.S. Pat. No. 5,224,176 issued to Crain on Jun. 29, 1993 for
"Automated Coin Grading System" (hereafter the "Crain Patent"). The
Crain Patent discloses an automated coin grading system. The system
first utilizes a set of criteria established by professional and
expert human graders. The different features of the coins are
assigned point scores based on various parameters. These point
scores are then used for calculating the subgrades and finally the
final grade.
[0010] Japanese Patent No. 59-85,568 for "Information System of
Used Car" (hereafter the "The '568 patent"). The '568 patent
discloses a used car information exchange system. The system
records seller's data concerning the information of the car for
sale as well as buyer's information concerning the desired car. The
available for sale and the buyer's demand are then compared and the
closest match is sent to the buyer.
[0011] Japanese Patent No. 59-94,162 for "Electric Calculator for
Estimate of Life Insurance" (hereafter "the '162 patent"). The '162
patent discloses an apparatus for estimating life insurance
premiums. The device will process information such as the length of
lives of the insured's family members and calculate the age
expectancy of the insured, to determine the life insurance
premium.
[0012] Article "Taking The Risk Out Of Fire Risk Underwriting"
published on AIWEEK, Feb. 15, 1989 (hereafter "the AIWEEK
Article"). The AIWEEK Article reported a computer program for fire
risk underwriting. The program utilizes a menu-based system that
prompts inputs by the user, and then evaluates various fire risk
factors in calculating the premium.
[0013] U.S. Pat. No. 3,628,904 issued to Canguilheim discloses the
use of "dimensional synthesis" to quantitatively express a
multidimensional, subjective concept, according to a certain
predetermined law and by a single numerical value and to create
particular computing devices for use with the method. Dimensional
synthesis is a scientific method of modelization and is a true
method of measurement, the essential feature of which is to supply
the means for providing quantified values for concepts which are of
a subjective nature and multidimensional.
IN THE SPECIFICATION
1. SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
[0014] The present invention provides a method for calculating the
monetary value, or ranking of something or any of its components or
attributes as opposed to (and/or in addition to) its market price.
Worth is discovered from various points of view, including from the
standpoint of a vendor, a company who supplies information to
laypersons, a certain group, an entire society or a unique
individual. This method is designed to and does overcome both
subjective valuation and asymmetric information in the marketplace
by conclusively providing the observer the communal or collective
monetary value of something, based on desired, appropriate or ideal
(perfect, or optimal) information by society or another observer,
about the probed entity, and additionally, based on information
about the preferences of the observer group or individual, the
present invention provides the true relative value of the test
entity, thus being a highly desirable, beneficial and novel tool,
both for consumers and providers of goods and services.
[0015] According to one aspect of the present invention, a method
and procedure for providing the true relative value of an entity is
disclosed, comprising the following steps: determining qualities of
an entity and the relative importance of each quality of the entity
to a observer; calculating the hypothetical price of the entity,
such entity in its group, being measured to be exact average in its
qualities (at least one quality selected), the group identified by
the fact that members of said group could have the qualities of
those of the other members of the group, this imaginary (or real)
average unit called the NORM entity; comparing the actual quality
or qualities of any existent test entity to the assumed average
NORM entity on a percentage or other basis, and so discovering the
monetary value or comparative ranking of any test entity to said
observer by weighing the difference between any said test entity
and said NORM entity on said noted parallel quality or qualities;
translating said difference between any said test entity and said
NORM entity on said noted parallel quality or qualities into
monetary or other value or ranking so as to provide the true
relative value for said entity; and providing said true relative
value for said entity to said observer.
[0016] According to another aspect of the present invention, a
method and procedure comprising the following steps is disclosed;
creating a observer's Worth Importance Point Pie, or other
descriptive representation, assigning relative weights of qualities
of an entity by rating one, more or all said qualities of said
entity on a scale of 0-10, 10 being most important, or 1-5, 5 being
most important, or other similar scale; adding said ratings;
dividing each said rating by one hundredth of the total number of
said qualities, thereby attaining the matching slice sizes (or bar
sizes, etc.) of said Worth Importance Point pie (or bar or other
chart), for each of said qualities by the respective relevant
percentages of the 100% total unit.
[0017] According to another aspect of the present invention, a
method and procedure for providing the true relative value of an
entity, comprising the following steps: determining qualities of an
entity and the relative importance of said qualities (at least one)
of said entity to a observer; calculating the notional price of a
real or fictitious entity which said entity is average in its
selected one or more qualities, comparing the actual weighted
qualities of any existent or imaginary test entity with the
weighted qualities of said average entity, to discover and measure,
based on said quality difference, the value difference between said
test entity and said average entity; then providing to the
observer, the true relative values for each said test entity; and
comparing said relative values of said entities, whether or not
they are similar in nature, for instance if to said observer a
specific dinner experience discovered to be worth $120 and a movie
experience is discovered to have a value of $100, the dinner
experience is 20% more, valuable to that perceiver. Now, if said
dinner sells for $144, and the relevant movie ticket sells for $10,
then to this observer, going to see the film, means a savings of
$90, or in this case, he underpays by 90%, and if he selects to
have that unique dinner, said observer overpays by 20%. His choice
depends on: (a) his budget and (b) his willingness to overpay for
what he really wants. The present invention can help him decide, by
creating his WIP chart, which includes results of
analyzable/calculable questions and answers posed to/elicited from
him, regarding said observer's budget as well as his level of
willingness to overpay for what he really wants, always using the
0-10, 10 being most important, or other similar scale which can
ultimately express such value system in percentage or pecuniary
terms.
[0018] According to yet another aspect of the present invention, a
method and procedure for providing the true relative values of test
entities are discovered and disclosed comprising the following
steps; determining qualities of entities in a group (at least one
quality selected,) as well as the relative importance of said
qualities of said entities; calculating the veritable theory-based
price of a real or fictitious entity in the selected group, which
said entity is average in its qualities, comparing the actual
qualities of said test entities to the parallel qualities of said
average entity, measuring and expressing the difference in
qualities between said test entities and said average entity;
determining the value or ranking of said test entities by the
weighted relationship between said test entities' qualities and
those of said average entity; comparing the values of at least two
test entities whether or not they are similar in nature, for
instance if a vacation is discovered to be worth $1000 and a
computer is discovered to have a value of $800, the vacation is 20%
more valuable; and comparing existent prices with the actual values
of said test entities, and sorting for the observer the best deal
in said observer's terms, for instance if a vacation worth $1000 is
for sale for $500, and a computer worth $800 is for sale for $700,
the vacation is the better deal, but if the difference reaches a
certain point, then it might be the other way around, depending on
the observer's value system and desirability preferences, and so
on.
[0019] According to yet another aspect of the present invention, a
method and procedure for providing the true relative value of an
entity, comprising the following steps; determining qualities of a
test entity and the relative importance of each said quality of
said test entity to an observer; calculating the deductive price of
at least one real or fictitious entity which said entity is average
in its qualities in its group, said group identified by the fact
that members of said group could have any of the qualities of those
of the other members of said group, this imaginary (or real)
average unit being the average entity; comparing the qualities of
said test entity to the qualities of said average entity on a
weighted percentage or other basis, and so discovering the true
relative value of said test entity to said observer by calculating
and expressing the difference between said test entity and said
average entity; collecting the consensus of the experts and laymen
concerning said true relative value of said qualities; and
determining on an equitable basis what the experts think the
lay-persons' opinions should weigh, and discovering what the
amateurs think the experts' opinion should weigh, then splitting
both numbers to use for calculation.
[0020] According to yet another aspect of the present invention, a
method and procedure for providing the true relative value of an
entity, comprising the following steps; determining at least one
quality for at least one entity, the relative importance of said
quality to a observer and a value for each said at least one
quality; providing an average entity, wherein said average entity
is average in its group based upon said at least one quality and
has an average price and an average value for said at least one
quality; determining the value difference between said value for
each said at least one quality and said average value for said at
least one quality; ranking at least two entities of said at least
one entity according said value difference to provide a ranked list
of, said at least two entities; and supplying ranked list to said
observer.
[0021] According to yet another aspect of the present invention, a
method of evaluating a member or members of a group is disclosed,
comprising: providing a group; providing an imaginary unit in said
group wherein said imaginary unit has at least one average
characteristic; retrieving in a marketplace an average price
corresponding to said imaginary average unit; and quantifying the
relative importance of said at least one average characteristic of
said imaginary unit whereby the actual monetary value of any
existent test unit in said group can be discovered by comparing
said test unit's unique quantified or unquantified characteristics
with those of said imaginary unit.
[0022] According to yet another aspect of the present invention, a
method of evaluation is disclosed, comprising: providing a group;
wherein said group is identified by the fact that the members of
said group could have the qualities of those of the other members;
providing an average imaginary unit in said group, which said
average imaginary unit is calculated average as to at least one
characteristic said members of said group can possess, and
providing as well said average imaginary unit's assumed value as to
provide a quantified quality for said average imaginary unit;
noting at least one of the characteristics of members in said group
to a observer and noting the relative importance of each selected
at least one characteristic of said members of said group to said
individual or collective observer to provide a quantified quality
for said observer; comparing said quantified quality for said
observer to said average quantified quality of said imaginary unit
in said group, on a percentage or other equitable basis, whereby
the monetary or other value or comparative ranking of any member of
said group is discovered by weighing the difference between at
least one quantified parallel qualities of any said member of said
group, against said quantified parallel quality of qualities of the
said imaginary unit in said group, translating such divergence into
monetary or other value or ranking.
[0023] According to yet another aspect of the present invention, a
method of appraising is disclosed, comprising: providing entities;
providing attributes for said entities; organizing said entities by
said attributes to form organized entities; ranking said organized
entities to form ranked entities; displaying said ranked entities
to form valued entities.
[0024] According to a still further aspect of the present
invention, a method and procedure where the correct market price of
a specific used automobile may be determined by comparing selected,
quantified characteristics with those of the average used
automobile, on a percentage or other basis is disclosed. This
method comprising the following steps: through market survey or
other method noting the assumed current sale price of an average
used automobile, called the NORM, or other name, wherein said
average used automobile is a reputed specific used make/year/model
automobile. which said average used automobile is average according
to a selected unlimited number of characteristics; selecting at
least one characteristic, such as "popularity," or "design," all
considered said at least one characteristic adding up to 100% of
said average automobile's value, such as "engine condition," and/or
"prestige," and/or "reliability" and/or "location," and so on, for
example a 1998 Mercedes C 230 which is average on all its said
selected qualities, at a certain time and place, according to
accurate research, should have a market price $10,000; through
survey or other method note how relatively important each said at
least one characteristic of said vehicle is to an observer vendor
or consumer, such as for instance "engine condition 55%," "interior
condition 20%," "extra equipment 22%," "location 3%," and so on, in
the case of this particular example the monetary standard would
then be $5,500 for said "engine condition," (that is 55% of
$10,000), $2,000 for said quality of "interior condition," $2,200
for said attribute of "extra equipment," and $300 for where said
average automobile is located, and so on; rate an existing test
vehicle, for example said test vehicle may be a unique test 1998
Mercedes C 230, on each of selected parallel said at least one
characteristics on a scale of 0-10, 10 being best or 1-5, 5 being
best, or some other consistent way, and suppose for example that
due to said ratings our said test 1998 Mercedes C 230 rates 8%
better than said hypothetical average vehicle on its quality of
"engine condition," 5% worse than the said average vehicle as to
its "interior condition," 10% worse than the said average vehicle
as to its "extra equipment," and 2% better than said average
vehicle as to its "location," then calculating the true value of
said test vehicle, this particular said test due to its measured
condition of its engine, would be worth $5,500+$440=$5,940 on that
particular condition; or to put it another way, the importance of
"engine condition" is 55%, which is worth $5,500 in case of said
norm (average or standard or yardstick) vehicle, therefore add 8%
of $5,500 for said test automobile being 8% better than said
average vehicle on this particular quality; then $2,000 minus
5%=$1,900; then $2,200 minus $220 equals $1,800; and $300 plus $6
equals $306; and so on, or this particular test car's price should
then be $9,946: that is its actual or true worth. This method may
be used to appraise anything or anybody, no exception.
[0025] According to yet another facet of the present invention, a
method and procedure where the current correct market price or
ranking of an existent test entity may be obtained is disclosed;
noting, for how much money an entity in its group would currently
sell at the marketplace if said entity were average according to at
least one selected quality, said entity with said at least one
selected quality being average called the NORM, standard,
yardstick, stock, criterion, rule, ordinary, touchstone, usual,
orthodox or average entity; discovering, on a percentage or other
basis, how relatively important each said at least one selected
quality is, comparing said at least one selected quality of said
existent said test entity with parallel quantified quality or
qualities of said average entity on a percentage or other basis,
then calculate the resulting difference and express it in monetary
or ranking terms. A test entity which is 10% better than the
average entity is assumed to be worth 10% more, but other equitable
scales may be used to express the worth difference between the
touchstone model and the test model. The same methodology may be
used to compare things, places, people, concepts and anything
else.
[0026] According to yet another aspect of the present invention, a
method and procedure where the current correct market price or
ranking of an existent test entity may be obtained and disclosed,
comprising the following steps: noting for how much money a
deductive entity in a provided group would currently sell at the
marketplace if at least one quality of said assumed entity were
average, provide at least one average quality; noting how
relatively important each said at least one quality is; comparing
parallel quantified unique quality or qualities of an existent test
entity with said at least one average quality of said assumed
average entity on a percentage or other basis; calculating and
expressing the difference in monetary or ranking terms.
[0027] According to yet another prospect of the present invention,
a method and procedure for providing the true price of a specific
used automobile is disclosed, the method comprising the following
steps: noting the assumed current sale price of an average used
automobile; selecting at least one characteristic; assigning an
importance rating to each said at least one characteristic; rating
an existing test vehicle according to said at least one
characteristic; calculating the true relative value of said test
vehicle by multiplying said at least one characteristic by its
corresponding said importance rating to provide a true relative
value for said test vehicle; rating said average used automobile
according to said at least one characteristics; calculating the
true relative value of said average used automobile by multiplying
said at least one characteristic by its corresponding said
importance rating to provide a true relative value for said average
used automobile; and comparing said true relative value for said
test vehicle with said true relative value for said average used
automobile.
[0028] According to a still additional expression of the present
invention, a method and procedure for providing the true relative
value of an entity is disclosed, comprising the following steps:
determining a set of qualities of said entity, wherein said set of
qualities consists of at least one quality; determining the
relative importance of each said quality within said set of
qualities to a observer; calculating a rating for an average entity
according to said relative importance of said set of qualities and
the rating of said quality for said average entity; calculating a
rating for a test entity according to said relative importance of
said set of qualities and the rating of said quality for said test
entity; comparing said rating for an average entity to said rating
for a test entity to provide a comparison basis; translating said
comparison basis between any said test entity and said average
entity into monetary or other value or ranking so as to provide the
true relative value for said entity; and providing said true
relative value for said entity to said observer.
[0029] A method and procedure of determining the true relative
value of an item to an observer comprising the following steps:
determining an appropriate set of qualities for said item; rating
the importance of each quality of said item, within said set of
qualities to said observer, on a scale of 0 to 10, or other
equitable, representative scale, to provide a set of importance
ratings comprised of individual importance ratings; adding said
individual importance ratings to provide a total rating; dividing
each said individual importance rating by said total rating to
provide the relative weight for each quality within said set of
qualities; determining a quality rating according to said set of
qualities for at least one said item; multiplying each said quality
rating by said relative weights for at least one said item to
provide at least one weighted value; and adding each said at least
one weighted value to provide said item's true relative value.
[0030] These and other features, aspects and advantages of the
present invention will become better understood with reference to
the following drawings, description and claims.
2. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION
[0031] If people thought that they customarily get what they pay
for, they would not purchase Consumer Reports type of buying
guides. What need would there be for them? We would simply say: I
have $1500 to spend, give me a $1500 computer, knowing that if a
computer costs $1500, then both to society and to the individual
buyer, it is always worth $1500 too. But this is not true, of
course.
[0032] Worse yet, Consumer Reports type of buying guides give you
only incomparable, unquantified numbers, and strictly from the
reviewer's or staffs' own necessarily and inevitably partial point
of view. Such buying guides represent that they compare products
and services for you. They actually do not. They want you to try to
compare them, based on various incomparable, partial and prejudiced
"facts" regarding selected attributes of the probed entities. If
you pressed the reviewers, they might venture a guess as to what
they mean in dollars and cents when they say "Reliability for this
specific car is 15% better than average," but they do not really
know: they have no standard yardstick with which to measure one
vehicle to another, and they very seldom express their opinions in
percentage terms anyway.
[0033] Now, try asking a Consumer Reports type of outfit what
"Reliability for this specific car is 15% better than average" (if
they even go as far as quantifying reliability, which they almost
never do!) means to a unique observer, in dollars and cents? You
will get a hearty laugh, of course. Apparently it is a stupid
question, since without knowing the unique desires of a specific
individual, obviously this question cannot be answered. Correct.
The present invention's chart system solves this challenge
forever.
[0034] The present invention always works on percentages at the
calculation stage. "0-10, 10 being best" (or most important), or
"1-5, 5 being best" (or most important), is only used to make the
procedure easier, faster and more accurate.
[0035] The case of the person or corporation (consumer or vendor)
to learn value is illustrated as follows: While in our following
"computer" example it is not hard for an individual observer (or
company) to enter: "To me, Speed is important to 56% and
Reliability to 44%," once we go beyond two or three qualities, no
one should be required to allocate by-percentages the relative
importance to her of many attributes, before we can help her. It
would prove virtually impossible anyway.
[0036] However, as long as a consumer or corporate-vendor observer
says "X, Y, Z qualities are important to me to 7, 9 and 2,"
Non-Subjective Valuing calculates the relative importance of these
qualities to this inquirer as: 7:0.18=39%; 9:0.18=50%; and
2:0.18=11%, or to this explorer X=39%; Y=50% and Z=11%, whether the
relative importance allocations are 1, 2, or 10,000. In the present
invention, all steps to attain the actual value of anything or
anybody, including the calculations and the polls, may be done by
hands and minds of people: no machine or apparatus is needed. The
discovery, that the comparing of individual entities, be they
things, places, humans or concepts, with the average entity, of
which we know the value, by quantified qualities, is the essence of
this invention. It is a process which works and which ultimately
yields a specific, useful and novel number, due to a very
exceptional and singular series and combination of surveys and
mathematical calculations. Non-Subjective Valuing overcomes
subjectivity by being able to unearth the organic answer to the
question: What would Society think something is worth if said
Society were ideally informed about a thing? Using the computer and
the Internet, speeds the process greatly and makes it very
practical, but the invention is neither abstract, since it produces
a working, novel, useful, specific number: enabling us to compare
what something is worth with what the thing costs, nor does it
require anything more than minds and hands to accomplish its
aim.
[0037] Examining expert reviewers, as we know that at best, critics
too usually rate qualities by 1-10, as opposed to percentages or
other exact methods. (If all qualities but one and the prices two
things are identical, then comparing this one quality by numbers or
any other way, is very useful. Example: there are two cars which
cost exactly the same and are identical, except that one has better
tires. By letting the buyer know about this one fact, it makes his
choice easy. But in real life, this situation never presents
itself. Two things usually differ in many more than one
characteristic, normally hundreds or thousands. When two things
differ in more than one attribute, to evaluate any single attribute
without evaluating all the others, is a useless swindle.
Commentators will say "The Dell is very reliable" and if you press
them, they might translate this expression to an 8, while forcing
an expert to interpret his opinion of "excellent," would probably
yield a 9. But on their own, referees very seldom say that
"Reliability of the Dell is 23% better than average," and of
course, until now, none of them could ever say: Computer "A" is
worth $652, regardless of its price. The so called shopping guides
(even when they are independent of advertisers, which is seldom),
simply tell you where you can buy a $500 computer for $400, but
whether or not that computer is worth $300 or $600: you will never
know from the commentators. Until the present invention, no one had
a standard yardstick to measure the actual worth of computers, used
cars, dentists, movie critics, or anything or anybody else; not
from their own individual points of view, not from an unaffiliated
consumer's point of view, not from society's point of view and not
from the manufacturer's or service provider's point of view.
[0038] Until the present invention introducing the using of the
average as the touchstone, this inability to compare things did not
seem too important, since no one knew precisely what "very good,"
or "much better," "not nearly as good" meant, and it was thought
that there was no better way to compare things than (a)
approximately and (b) one attribute at a time. This way,
self-serving advertisements and misleading rumors dominated
people's minds when it came to choosing anything. For instance, in
nations with Communist systems, health care is free. If you
disregard other aspects of such dictatorships, it seems like a nice
place to live.
[0039] The present invention collects data regarding an entity from
an Observer (Vendor or Consumer, buyer or seller), regarding the
relative importance of qualities to the Observer of such entity,
calculates the assumed price of the average entity in its field,
compares the quantified qualities of a specific, existent entity to
those of the average entity, figures in monetary or other terms the
worth difference between the existent entity and the average
entity, and lists for the Observer, in terms of the Observer, in
order of monetary or other comparable values, entities in that
field. (For instance, the lack of freedom of speech might be
evaluated against free medical care, when one compares political
systems such as Communism with Capitalism.)
[0040] This method also accumulates data from Observer, Observer
rating quality or qualities of an entity 0-10, 10 being most
important, 0 being of no significance, 5 being of average portent
to the Observer, and so on, divides each such rating by 1 ooth of
the total number of qualities rated, each quality now having its
adjunctive "pie slice size," expressed in percentage terms,
according to the Observer's value system, each such quality's
particular relative importance so established in reference to that
entity.
[0041] Additionally, this procedure amasses data from Observer,
Observer rating quality or qualities of an entity 0-10, 10 being
critical, 0 being of no significance, 5 being of average portent to
the Observer, and so on, divides each rating by 100.sup.th of the
total number of qualities rated, each quality then having its
adjunctive "pie slice size," expressing them according to the
Observer's value system, in percentage or other definitive terms,
each referenced quality's particular relative importance being so
constituted in denotation to such entity, the existent entities are
then individually measured against the entity which is average in
its field on its quality or qualities, and the value differences
are expressed in pecuniary or other terms, these concrete entities
are then sorted and the results of the stocktaking is displayed for
the Observer by comparing, in the Observer's terms, the monetary or
value of each entity with its matching market price, affording the
opportunity for the Observer to discover from such ranking list his
choice/decision, regarding the least overpriced entity, the most
overpriced entity, and the ones sorted/ranked in between.
[0042] In addition, the present organization collects data from
Observer, regarding the relative importance of qualities to such
Observer, of a chosen entity, calculates the assumed price of the
Average unit, then equates those specific, existent entities' to
those of the Average unit, on such quantified qualities, then based
on the outcome of the data so collected, calculates in monetary or
other terms the differences between the existent entities and the
Average unit, then lists for the Observer, in terms of the
Observer, in order of monetary or other comparable values,
referenced extant entities in or out of the cited field, based on
the outcome of the collected data and said comparisons, then
locates sellers of said specific entities where the asking prices
are at, below or near these particular entities' so computed
pecuniary values, notifying interested potential buyers of such
sellers' contact information, and vice versa.
[0043] Further, a special, novel advantage of the present invention
is its collecting data to determine the quality or qualities of
entities and the relative importance of the quality or qualities of
these entities, additionally instituting the deductive market price
of the assumed Average entity, which unit, in its group, is
calculated average on one, more, or all its said qualities, then it
compares said existent entities to this said Average entity, on
quantified quality or qualities to discover and measure the
differences between existent entities and the assumed Average
entity, further determining the ranking order by eminence or other
condition, of these existent entities, based on the results of
having individually compared them to referenced Average unit, and
then expressing resulting value divergences of said existent
entities in pecuniary or other comparative terms, displaying such
ranking list for the Observer's consideration, so that the
resulting pecuniary or other values-display, facilitates comparison
of entities in different fields, such as, for instance, allowing
comparison of the actual worth of a unique automobile with that of
a specialized vacation and so on, as now calculated INDEPENDENT of
their respective prices, these displayed values-order enabling one
to decide his favored choice for his fixed or other investment,
since one is now capable to compare the respective differences in
total values with the appertaining prices (costs) of buying a
specific car, and/or with taking a particular vacation, and/or with
carrying out a given home improvement task, and so on, making it
possible to select the most preferred setting, since the divergent
actual sum values of the contemplated car, vacation or home
improvement project and so on, are suddenly expressed in monetary
or other symmetrical, corresponding terms, and so become comparable
as displayed, making discoverable the respective differences
between the financially expressed values versus the prices of that
car, vacation or home improvement job, easing the genuine
worth-comparison of things until now thought uncomparable, such
displayed value-ranking order enabling one to decide: if taking
that vacation worth $5,000, for sale for $4,000, is a better choice
than completing that home improvement project worth $5,000, for
sale for $3000, and so on.
[0044] Another advantage of this invention is its collecting data
to determine the relative importance of attributes of entities,
ciphering the deductive price of an entity which is average on its
qualities, such average entity, comparing the qualities of existent
entities to those of the Average, measuring and expressing the
discovered divergences of the qualities between the Average and the
existent entities, then comparing the values of the existent
entities and displaying them in order of their worth or other
quality or combination of qualities of each, then by comparing each
entity's value to its market price, displaying them from "most
overpriced" to "least overpriced" entities, or vice versa, or
listing them in order of "most money saved" to "most money
squandered," on each, according to the differences in their
respective prices versus their companion values, and by discovering
the value system of a Observer, and sorting these entities in order
of their relative attractiveness to the Observer, called Your
Value, and/or having discovered the value system of the average
person, and sorting these entities for a specific Observer in order
of their attractiveness for the typical, optimally informed
individual, called True Value: free choice, based on ideal
knowledge, is now facilitated.
[0045] The present system also accumulates data to obtain the
proportional importance of attributes of an entity, and expresses
the relative levels of respective implications in percentage or
other terms, while in the probed group of entities, the assumed
monetary value of the average entity is calculated by it, which
said Average being Non-Subjective Valuing's Yardstick, representing
the "100% unit", or the one that rates a "5" on the scale of 0-10,
10 being best, or "3" on a graduated table of 1-5, and so on. The
present method, on a percentage or other basis, compares existent
entities with the Average on what these entities are, have and do.
The respective values of test entities are calculated, independent
of their holding market prices, by calculating and expressing in
monetary or other comparative terms the sum quality percentage (or
other) divergence between what each existent entity is, has and
does, with what the calculated Average entity is, has and does.
Once we know that the average entity in a given group is worth $80,
for example: we have the relevant Yardstick for that group with
which to measure all existent entities in that group, by comparing
the weighted qualities of the existent entities to those of the
average entity. The resulting pecuniary or other value differences
between existent entities and the average entity are measured,
translated into value differences and are then displayed for the
observer, and since the Average always represents 100%. As a way of
illustrating by example: if the assumed total value of the entity
with average qualities turns out to be $80, then an existent entity
which is calculated over all to be 10% better than the average
entity, by having compared its qualities to those of the average
entity, is generally assumed to be worth $88, regardless if its
market price is $70, $100, zero, or whatever. (Of course, to an
individual, "10% better" might not be worth 10% more money, so the
scale is variable, but must be equitable and constant.) As another,
extreme, improbable example for how this works, in the unlikely
event that somebody gives you, no strings attached, $5 to accept an
entity from him, which entity by itself is calculated to be worth
$80 to you, you just received $85 for nothing.
[0046] The present method in addition piles up data, concerning how
important certain qualities of an entity are to a unique Observer,
be such Observer an individual buyer, seller, arbitrator, vendor,
advisor service, appraiser, a group, or an entire society;
converting said data to appropriate size slices of a pie, or other
depiction of commensurate relative weights, learning how much more
or less important certain qualities of an entity are to the
specific Observer, the totality, of all in play qualities, on paper
comprising 100% of the entity's constitution. It then considers
said Observer's expressed willingness to overpay for specific
attributes, depending on how relatively desirable these attributes
are to the Observer, including how much savings for how much less
(or more) quality is agreeable to (or desirable by) that Observer,
and by computing the Observer's
"willingness-to-overpay-for-what-is-desir- ed-to-what extent," the
so-called Attractiveness Scale is established. For example, this
system discovers and displays, that for a unique observer, a
vacation that is worth $1,000, but costs $1,200, might be more
desirable for this particular observer, (and appear higher on said
observer's sort list), than a vacation that is worth $800, but
costs $300. Further to illustrate by another example, for another
particular observer, with a different value system, and/or
different available funds, a vacation that is worth $800, but costs
$300, might be on top of his unique displayed analyzed itemization.
The exhibited list may be done by the present method to effect
sorting by one or more specified, quantified or unquantified
qualities. Classifying and categorization can be by single or
combined qualities. For instance, this method can sort by cost
alone, or by worth alone, or by percentage of savings alone, or by
actual money saved or squandered, alone, or by a combination of
selected two or more attributes, such as, by way of example, length
of vacations and their prices, or quality of food and the expected
weather conditions on "ocean liner cruise comparisons," or the
safety record of airlines combined with their respective records of
being on time, the relative friendliness of their crews and stretch
leg-room in front of their seats in tourist class, and so on, the
relative importance of each attribute figured in comparison with
all the other considered quantified attributes, expressed in sub
charts and then in charts showing the final decision guide
list.
[0047] This invention also takes in facts to determine the relative
importance of attributes of entities, collect the consensus of the
experts and laymen concerning the rating of subjective qualities of
those entities, learns the relative importance the experts consider
the lay-persons' opinions should weigh, and discovers the
appropriate value to which the amateurs believe the experts'
opinions should be considered, then split both numbers, or use some
other mathematical formula to reconcile the two resulting average
opinions, to incorporate it into calculating the conclusive
relative importance of such individual properties, further
calculating the deductive price of an entity which is average on
its qualities. Who qualifies as an expert and who is considered an
amateur, are established by accurate surveys. Now, compare the
qualities of existent entities with those of the Average. Measure,
display and express in monetary or other comparable terms the
discovered divergences of the qualities between the Average and the
existent entities in descending or ascending eminence or other
order.
[0048] The present method instructs you how to collect data
regarding the relative importance of qualities of a chosen entity.
Then determine the assumed price of the average entity in its
field. Compare the quantified qualities of existent entities to
those of the Average entity. Specify such differences between the
existent entities and the Average entity. Display list of those
existent entities in order of their compared values. Search out
those who offer the existent entities for sale at, below or near
those values, and match them with buyers, and vice versa.
[0049] The shown organization accumulates data points from
Observers regarding how each Observer asserts his or her perception
of how relatively important characteristics of an entity are to
each said Observer. An Observer can be a buyer, seller or
appraising vendor, for instance. Then the following sequence is
done. Calculate the assumed price of average entity in its field,
compare the quantified or unquantified qualities of such entities
with those of the Average entity, figure in monetary or other terms
the differences between the existent entities and the Average
entity, display for the Observers the existent entities in order of
said entities' respective values or other deviations, accumulate
and record the input of each Observer in reference to his or her
opinion as to what extent the Average is overvalued or undervalued,
then calculate the Observers' average input, yielding the opinion
of the average Observer, and/or conduct a demographically correct
survey of individuals as to how each perceives the Average to be
overestimated or devalued, then average their opinions to unearth
the communal number to affect the general calculation to produce
Societal Opinion or True Value, for each said probed entity.
[0050] This invention moreover compiles data from Observers
regarding how each Observer asserts his or her perception of how
relatively important characteristics of an entity are to each such
Observer, reckons the estimated price of the assumptive average
entity in its field, compares the quantified or unquantified
qualities of the test entities with those of the Average entity,
calculates in monetary or other terms the differences between the
existent entities and the Average entity, displays for the
Observers in their respective terms, the existent entities in order
of value or other differences both as to the specific Observer and
as to Society as a whole, the latter representing the calculation
based on the input of the typical Observer, conduct accurate
surveys to learn what characteristics or properties certain
attributes of entities ought to have, to learn from the Observers
their take on what a certain attribute actually "IS." For instance,
what constitutes "brakes" of an automobile: what "brakes" should
be, have and do? This is to constitute a sub-chart, ultimately to
determine total value. For example, how relatively important are
various characteristics of "automobile brakes "such as reliability,
easy reach, stopping distance, swerve, frequency of repair, and so
on? This sub-pie (or other denoting) becomes part of the final
calculation of what something is worth, since what it "should be,"
whether for an individual, or society, must be part of the Average,
in its more perfect form.
[0051] The present invention as well garners facts regarding the
relative importance of qualities in a group of entities, determines
the simulated price of the assumed average entity in the group,
compares the qualities of existent entities with those of the
Average, specifies value differences fixed between the existent
entities and the Average, and names individually and displays the
existent entities in order of their values or other
characteristics, at least one characteristic selected. (For
instance, "customer satisfaction," and/or "economy.")
[0052] This method further is able to accumulate data from a
corporate, collective, communal or individual Observer, regarding
the proportional impressiveness to each Observer, of qualities of
entities in a provided field or group, each Observer-rated quality
possessing the possibility of being applicable to all existent
entities in the selected field or group, determines the ostensible
value of the Average, the Average being the entity in the selected
field or group which entity is assumptively average on its
qualities, then match the existent entities with the Average by
weighing their respective parallel qualities against those of the
Average, then compute and display esteem-differences in terms of
the respective expressed value systems of the Observers, as
previously discovered between the existent entities and the Average
entity, considering one or more quantitative differences.
[0053] Another advantage of this method is as follows. Amass data
from a corporate, collective, communal or individual Observer,
regarding the relative importance to such observer, of qualities of
entities in a provided field or group. Each Observer-rated quality
must have the ability to attach itself to any member of the
selected group of entities, then determine the fictitious value of
the Average, which Average is the entity in the chosen field or
group which entity is assumptively average on its selected or
discoverable qualities, compare existent entities with the Average
entity, by weighing parallel qualities of existent entities and
those of the Average entity, then considering one or more
quantitative differences between the existent entities and the
Average entity, calculate, sort and display the calculated
worth-differences in descending or ascending order, in terms of the
respective expressed rating arrangements of a Observer, as
previously discovered.
[0054] Additionally, this invention accumulates data from
Observers, regarding the relative importance to each Observer, of a
quality or qualities of entities in a group, where each
quantifiable quality or qualities must have the ability to go with
any other member entity of the group, be the group members objects,
professional individuals, companies, mayors, vacations,
experiences, philosophies, philosophers, doormen, buses, bus rides,
or whatever and whoever. Such quantifiable quality or qualities may
include price, popularity, true market value, true relative value,
True Value, Your Value, desirability, savings in percentage terms,
savings in actual monetary terms, customer-satisfaction, opinion of
experts, height, buying experience, education, speed, size, power,
kindness, influence, social skills, beauty and/or any other
quantifiable quality, at least one quality selected, determine the
measure of the deductive Average entity, which is the entity in the
group which entity is average on all its one or more quantifiable
quality or qualities. Rank participating entities by comparing the
quality or qualities of each such participating entity with that or
those of the Average entity. Display ranked entities, on one or
more, uncompounded or combined worth-differences, as secured by
comparing the quality or qualities of the participating entities
with that or those of the Average entity.
[0055] This invention further compiles data regarding the relative
importance of attributes of used automobiles from prospective
buyers, dealerships, auctioneers, newspaper ads, and/or other
sources, including statistical facts and/or from your own
experience that take into consideration prospective buyers'
preferences as to popularity of model," "customer satisfaction,"
"opinion of the experts," "resale value," "reputation," and so on,
and the importance of the attributes relative to each other, on the
average, on a percentage or other basis. Utilizing surveys and/or
other methods, decide what the average specific car, such as an
assumed average 1998 Ford Taurus Station Wagon, would currently
fetch at market. This notional vehicle is, by any other name, the
Measure, the Average, the Standard, or Average 1998 Ford Taurus
Station Wagon, which putative vehicle has expected mileage, average
tire wear, unexceptional interior condition, everyday exterior
status and likely engine condition, and so on, that is: it is
average (100%) in all its assumptive relevant attributes and
corresponding market price. This is the Yardstick or Average car.
Using a speculative example, pretend that the Average 1998 Ford
Taurus Station Wagon, if existed, would currently sell at retail
for $1000. As a car dealer, when buying a car, consider--per this
explanatory example--what the average person would pay for the
particular 1998 Ford Taurus Station Wagon you are considering
buying for resale, by comparing that specific 1998 Ford Taurus
Station Wagon's detailed attributes in terms of the taste of the
average person, to the parallel "average" attributes of the Average
model, using Non-Subjective Valuing by listing your judgments
(0-10) regarding the parallel qualities of the unique, considered
test model. For instance, rate the interior condition of the car
you are about to buy. You can then consider the difference in
dollar value, plus or minus, between the value to the average
buyer, of the interior quality of the particular test vehicle you
just rated on that quality, to that of the Average car. For
example, if the average buyer is willing to pay $200 for average
interior quality for a 1998 Ford Taurus Station Wagon, then if the
quality of the interior of the test car is 25% better than average,
then the retail value of that one quality of the test car is $250.
You continue to rate as many qualities as you wish to compare each
such quality of the test car to that of the parallel quality of the
Average car, at the end to get a single, conclusive, comprehensive
dollar figure as to what the average buyer would pay for that
specific 1998 Ford Taurus Station Wagon. Let us suppose that after
you calculate your reconditioning and all your other related
expenses, you know that in order to make a proper profit, you can
price this vehicle for sale at a minimum of $950. Now you can
figure the maximum amount you can pay for it, whether the
transaction is at auction, trade-in, wholesale or private party
setting. Let us pretend that you are ready to pay $300 for it and
you are successful in picking it up for $300. After reconditioning,
etc., you enter this particular 1998 Ford Taurus Station Wagon on
your inventory, listing the present condition of its attributes, at
$950 retail. A customer comes on your lot, looking for a used
station wagon. You ask her to list her preferences, concerning
qualities that are important to her, and the maximum amount of
money she is willing to part with. You can then apply her value
system to all the relevant vehicles on your lot, and show her only
those station wagons which are priced lower than what they are
worth to her! For instance, if she has $1000 to spend, after her
preferences of color, manufacturer, mechanical-, exterior-,
interior-, tire, etc. conditions, quality of guarantee, expected
resale value, roominess, etc., etc., etc., are known to you, the
very 1998 Ford Taurus Station Wagon on your lot could be worth
$1,150 to her! That means that she could save $150 by buying that
vehicle, while you are selling it at the price you wanted for it,
and everybody is happy. Those vehicles where she would "lose money"
are not presented as irrelevant. This saves time for her to choose
and eliminates bargaining: making everybody's life easy.
[0056] The present method as well compiles data regarding
characteristics, attributes and properties of a specific used
automobile, such as a 1998 Ford Taurus Station Wagon, at least one
characteristic, attribute, or property (such as "customer
satisfaction" and/or "resale value" for example) selected. Choose
the relative importance of the characteristics, attributes and
properties relative to each other on a percentage or other basis.
The in play one or more characteristics, attributes and properties
add up to 100% of the contemplated qualities, although you may
include a percentage for "attributes not considered," for instance
when selecting only one described attribute. (Example: "Customer
Satisfaction" 62%; "Other Properties" 38%). Decide upon, by surveys
or other methods, if the exact average 1998 Ford Taurus Station
Wagon existed, how much it would fetch at market currently, in
wholesale, retail, auction, private party, trade in, and/or other
transactions regionally, nationally and/or internationally. In each
instance, this is the Measure, the Average 1998 Ford Taurus Station
Wagon in the in play settings, which putative vehicle has regular
mileage, average tire wear, usual interior, exterior and engine
condition, that is: it is average in all its assumptive relevant
attributes and corresponding price. Using a speculative example,
assume that the Average 1998 Ford Taurus Station Wagon, if existed,
would sell at retail for $1000. To a particular observer, (buyer or
seller), the attribute of "mechanical condition" might be worth
55%; "interior condition" could have a value of 20%, "extra
equipment" might be important to 22%, and "location" to 3% or
whatever numbers your accurate research unearths.
[0057] Further, this method achieves the following: Cumulate data
regarding characteristics, attributes and properties of a specific
used automobile, for example: a 1998 Ford Taurus Station Wagon, at
least one characteristic, attribute, or property selected. Choose
the relative importance of the characteristics, attributes and
properties relative to each other on a percentage or other basis.
The in play one or more characteristics, attributes and properties
add up to 100% of the contemplated qualities, although you may
include a percentage for "attributes not considered," for instance
when selecting only one described attribute. Decide upon, by
surveys or other methods, what the average specific car, such as an
assumed average 1998 Ford Taurus Station Wagon, would currently
fetch at market. This is, by any other name, the Measure, the
Average, the Standard, or Average 1998 Ford Taurus Station Wagon,
which putative vehicle has expected mileage, average tire wear,
usual interior, exterior and engine conditions, and so on, that is:
it is average in all its assumptive relevant attributes and
corresponding market price: it is the present invention's Yardstick
car. Using a speculative example, pretend that the Average 1998
Ford Taurus Station Wagon, if existed, would sell at retail for
$1000. To a perceiver in a specific setting, the attribute of
"mechanical condition" might be worth 55% per this observer's value
system; "interior condition" could be worth 20%, "extra equipment"
might be important to 22%, and "color" could have a significance of
3%. In this case therefore, from the point of view of this
beholder/estimator (could be an online company offering appraisals,
a car dealership, a prospective customer, an insurance company, a
lender: any commentator), staying with the $1000 example for the
average vehicle, the particular observer having these set
preferences, then values average mechanical condition at $550;
allocates $200 for average interior quality; $220 for a vehicle
outfitted with customary extras; and $30 for a car having a color
that is neither better nor worse than ordinary. On the basis of the
value system of this observer, here is calculating the retail value
of a specific, unique, existent 1998 Ford Taurus Station Wagon that
happens to be better than average on its "mechanical condition" by
20%, worse than customary on its "interior condition" by 10%,
features standard (100%) "extra equipment," and has a "color" that
is 10% better than regular: $550+20%=$660 (mechanical condition);
$200-$29=$190 (interior quality); $220 for the customary (normal)
extras; and $30+$3=$33 (color). For this observer, this particular
test 1998 Ford Taurus Station Wagon, is worth $1,103 retail.
[0058] Further, this invention achieves the following: Collect data
regarding the relative importance of qualities, these qualities
being applicable to all entities in a selected group of entities.
Determine the fictitious value of the Average, which is the entity
in the group assumptively average on its qualities. Compare the
qualities of existent entities to those of the Average. Specify
value differences fixed between the existent entities and the
Average. Name individually and display the existent entities in
order of their respective relative values to the Average.
[0059] Other advantages of the present method include the
following. Collect data regarding the relative importance of
qualities of a chosen entity. Determine the assumed price of the
Average, which is the deductive average entity in its field.
Compare the quantified qualities of existent entities to those of
the Average. Specify resulting differences between the existent
entities and the Average. Display list of the existent entities in
order of their comparable values. Average out the choices of each
Observer to learn the value system of the Average Observer and
display the choice of the average Observer to allow individual
Observers to compare their own unique preferences to the value
system/choice of the Average Observer. If a demographically correct
survey is conducted, Societal Choice, or True Value, may then be
displayed.
[0060] The present invention also envisions the following set of
steps. Collect data regarding the relative importance of qualities
of a chosen entity. Calculate the price of the average entity in
its field. Compare the quantified qualities of existent entities to
those of the Average entity. Specify such differences between the
existent entities and the Average entity. Display list of the
existent entities in order of their comparable values. Search out
those who offer the existent entities for sale at, below or near
their Non-Subjective Valuing-calculated values, and match them with
buyers, and vice versa.
[0061] Non-Subjective Valuing further includes the following.
Collect data from professionals and/or experts in their field,
regarding how each such accomplished individual or competent entity
asserts his, her or its perception regarding the relative
importance of characteristics, properties or attributes of an
entity, in other words, how relatively important each referenced
characteristic, property or attribute appear to each such
professional and/or to their customers, as to the relative worth of
said attributes, based on such professionals' or experts'
experience in the field. For example, learn from car dealers, how
relatively important are various characteristics, properties or
attributes of a new and/or used car, to them and/or to their
customers; or learn from doctors, how relatively important each
characteristic, property or attribute of a doctor is to doctors
and/or to their patients, specifically and/or generally, and so on.
Based on such research and calculations, specify the differences
between the existent entities and the Average entity, converting
such differences into graphic or other understandable
representation. Display list of the existent entities in order of
their comparable values.
[0062] The present invention also teaches the following. Collect
data from relevant professionals and/or experts in their field,
such as car dealers if the object is the evaluation of new or used
car prices or values, to establish, based on their experience in
the field, the deductive price or value of the assumed average used
or new vehicle generally, or average unique make/year/model
automobile specifically, (example: 1998 Mercury Sable) or collect
data from doctors if the object is the establishment of the
fictitious price or value for an average doctor's visit, or visit
with a unique medical specialist, (example: heart surgeon), and so
on, the deductive or real average general or specific unit with its
appertaining assumed price or value, in any relevant field, called
the Average or some other name. Collect data from amateur,
non-professional and/or professional Observers regarding their
contemplated automobiles, individually to compare the unique cars'
parallel characteristics to those of the average vehicle, on some
equitable basis, whether the Observers are interested in selling,
buying, trading or obtaining or providing a loan or insurance on a
specific automobile, and supply the Observers, Vendors or Consumers
with the projected market price or actual estimated value of their
unique cars, the calculation being based on having compared the
parallel condition or conditions of the unique test automobiles
(probed doctors) to the parallel condition or conditions of the
average car (average doctor) on a quantitative or other basis.
Display results of the calculations in monetary or other terms,
reflecting the differences between the existent unique test cars
and the Average car, or the existent unique test doctors and the
Average doctor.
[0063] Another embodiment is comprised of the following steps.
Collect data to determine the relative importance of attributes of
entities. Calculate the value of attributes which are, for whatever
reason, hard to understand by the lay person, considering what
specific properties are, have and/or do for the average person
and/or for a unique individual, by collecting data regarding the
typical individual's value system and the value system of a unique
Observer, the calculations being done as if the average individual
or the unique Observer fully understood in the Observers' own,
separate terms what the attribute is, has and/or does, and include
these collected facts in the conclusive respective
calculations.
[0064] Further unique teachings of the present invention include:
collecting data from an individual or community, a person, or a
group of people, rating in some way the quality or qualities of an
entity, including using the methods 0-10, 10 being most important,
0 being of no significance, 5 being of average portent, or 1-5, 5
being most important, 1 being of no import, and 5 being of average
significance to the rater or raters. Divide each rating by
100.sup.th of the total number of qualities rated. Each quality now
has its adjunctive "pie slice size," expressing in percentage, or
other relative, comparable terms, graphic or otherwise, according
to the value system of the individual or group, each referenced
quality's particular relative importance in reference to the
entity.
[0065] Further teachings of this method include: Amass data to
determine the relative importance of attributes of entities.
Calculate the deductive price of an entity which is average on its
qualities. Compare the qualities of existent entities to those of
the Average entity. Measure and express the discovered divergences
of the qualities between the Average and the existent entities.
Compare the values of the existent entities and display them in
order of the worth or other quality, or combination of qualities,
of each.
[0066] Another advantage of using Non-Subjective Valuing is the
following. Determine the relative importance of attributes of
entities. Calculate the deductive value of an entity which is
average on its qualities. Compare the qualities of existent
entities to those of the Average. Measure and display the
divergences of the qualities between the Average and the existent
entities.
[0067] New teachings of this invention include the succeeding
description. Collect data to determine the relative importance of
attributes of entities. Calculate the value of attributes which
are, for whatever reason, hard to understand by the lay person,
considering what specific properties are, have and/or do for the
average person and/or for a unique individual, by collecting data
regarding the typical individual's value system and the value
system of the unique Observer, the calculations being done as if
the average individual or the unique Observer fully understood in
said Observers' own, separate terms, what the attribute is, has
and/or does, and include these collected facts in the conclusive
respective calculations. Calculate the deductive price of an entity
which is average on its qualities, which is this invention's
measuring standard. Compare the qualities of existent entities to
those of the Average entity. Measure and express the discovered
divergences of the qualities between the Average entity and the
existent entities. Compare the values of the existent entities and
display them in some order according to the worth, or other
quality, or combination of qualities, of each.
[0068] Further teachings of this method include as follows.
Determine the relative importance of selected attribute or
attributes of an entity. Set the value of an entity which is
average on its referenced selected attribute or attributes, such
average entity may be called the Average, or some other name, or no
name, as long as that average unit represents the standard of
measurement. Compare the attribute or attributes of existent
entities to those of the average entity. Measure and display
divergences of the selected attribute or attributes between that or
those of the average entity and the existent entities.
[0069] Other unique advantages of this invention include the
following. Collect data to determine the relative importance of
attributes of entities. Collect experts' opinion s and laymen's
opinions concerning their respective rating of the qualities of
such entities, using 0-10, 10 being best, or some comparative other
method. Learn the relative importance the experts consider the
lay-persons' opinions should weigh, and discover the appropriate
value to which the amateurs believe the experts' opinions should be
considered, then split both numbers, or use some other mathematical
formula, to reconcile the two collective results, to incorporate
into calculating the conclusive relative importance of such
individual attributes. Calculate the deductive price of an entity
which is average on its one, some or all qualities, that assumed
entity being the measuring standard which may be called the
Average. Compare such qualities of existent entities to those of
such average entity, measuring standard or Average. Measure and
display expressed in monetary or other comparable terms the
discovered divergences of such qualities between such average
entity and such existent entities in descending or ascending
eminence or other order.
[0070] Other novel advantages of this invention include as follows.
Accumulate data to determine the relative importance of attributes
of entities. Calculate the deductive price of an entity which is
average on its qualities, such average entity called the Average,
or measuring standard, which is in reality the assumed average unit
of which the deductive price is calculated. Compare such qualities
of existent entities to those of such Average. Measure and express
the discovered divergences of such qualities between such Average
and such existent entities. By comparing each such entity's value
to its actual market price, display such entities
[0071] from most overpriced to least overpriced entities, or vice
versa.
[0072] Additional fresh advantages of this innovation is made up of
the following. Determine the relative importance of selected
attributes or properties of entities. Compile data to calculate the
deductive (or real) market price of the entity which is average on
its selected qualities or properties, called the Average, or
measuring standard," (or some other name,) which imaginary (or
real) Average unit (whether it has a name or not) is in reality the
assumed average entity of which the deductive (or real) market
price is calculated. Collect data to compare such selected parallel
qualities of existent entities with those of the Average entity.
Measure and express the discovered divergences of the qualities
between the Average and the existent entities. Display the so
calculated assumed market prices for the existent entities. They
may be called true market values.
[0073] Further teachings of this method include as follows.
Accumulate data to determine the relative importance of attributes
of entities. Calculate the value of attributes which are for
whatever reason hard to understand by the lay person, considering
what specific properties are, have and/or do for the average person
and/or for a unique individual, by collecting data regarding the
typical individual's value system and the value system of the
unique Observer, the calculations being done as if the average
individual or the unique Observer fully understood in the
Observers' own, separate terms what the attribute is, has and/or
does, and include these collected facts in the conclusive
respective calculations. Calculate the deductive price of an entity
which is average on its qualities, such average entity called the
Average, or measuring standard, or other name. Compare the
qualities of existent entities to those of the Average. Measure and
express the discovered divergences of the qualities between the
Average and the existent entities. By comparing each such entity's
value to its market price, display such entities from most
overpriced to least overpriced entities, or vice versa.
[0074] Other teachings of this invention include as follows.
Compile data to determine the relative importance of attributes of
entities. Calculate the value of attributes which are for whatever
reason hard to understand by the lay person, considering what
specific properties are, have and/or do for the average person
and/or for a unique individual, by collecting data regarding the
typical individual's value system and the value system of the
unique Observer, those calculations being done as if the average
individual or the unique Observer fully understood in the
Observers' own, separate terms what the attribute is, has and/or
does, and include these collected facts in the conclusive
respective calculations. Calculate the deductive price of an entity
which is average on its qualities, such average entity called the
Average, or measuring standard, or other name. Compare the
qualities of existent entities to those of the Average. Measure and
express the discovered divergences of the qualities between the
Average and the existent entities. Display list of entities in
order of most money saved to least money saved on each, according
to the differences in their respective prices versus their
companion values.
[0075] Further advantages to this novel system include the
following. Take in facts to determine the proportional importance
of properties of entities. Compute the value of attributes which
are for whatever reason hard to understand by the lay person,
considering what specific properties are, have and/or do for the
average person and/or for a unique individual, by collecting data
regarding the typical individual's value system and the value
system of the unique Observer, the calculations being done as if
the average individual or the unique Observer fully understood in
the Observers' own, separate terms what the attribute is, has
and/or does, and include these collected facts in the conclusive
respective calculations. Calculate the deductive price of an entity
which is average on its qualities, such average entity called the
Average, or measuring standard, or other name. Compare the
qualities of existent entities to those of the Average. Measure and
express the discovered divergences of the qualities between the
Average and the existent entities. Compare the values of the
existent entities and display them in some order according to the
worth or other quality or combination of qualities of each.
Discover the value system of a Observer, and sort the entities in
order of attractiveness to the Observer, called Your Value.
[0076] Another novel usefulness of Non-Subjective Valuing include
the following. Garner data considering the proportionable
significance of qualities of a chosen entity. Determine the assumed
price of the average entity in its field. Compare the quantified
qualities of existent entities to those of the Average entity.
Specify such differences between the existent entities and the
Average entity. Display list of the existent entities in order of
their the comparable values as compared to the average entity and
to each other. Search out those who offer referenced existent
entities for sale at, below or near their Non-Subjective
Valuing-calculated values, and match them with buyers, and vice
versa.
[0077] More advantages to the present system include the collecting
of data regarding the relative importance of qualities of a chosen
entity. Determine the assumed price of the putative average entity
in its field. Compare the quantified qualities of existent entities
to those of said Average entity. Specify such differences between
the existent entities and the Average entity. Provide and display
list of the existent entities in order of their comparable
values.
[0078] Another new betterment in valuing is achieved by this method
as follows. Accumulate data regarding the relative importance of
qualities of a chosen entity. Determine the assumed price of the
Average entity in its field. Compare the quantified qualities of
existent entities to those of the Average entity. Specify such
differences between the existent entities and the Average entity.
Display list of the existent entities in order of their comparable
values. Average out the choices of each Observer to learn the value
system of the Average Observer and display it to allow individual
Observers to compare their own preferences to the value system of
the Average Observer. If a demographically correct survey is
conducted, including in the averaging individuals' choices,
Societal, or True Value may then be displayed.
[0079] Further, Collect data regarding the relative importance of
qualities, the qualities being applicable to all entities in a
selected group of entities. Determine the fictitious value of the
entity in referenced group which is average on its qualities.
Compare the qualities of existent entities to those of the Average
entity. Specify value differences fixed between the existent
entities and the Average entity. Name individually and display the
existent entities in order of their respective values as compared
with the Average entity.
[0080] More advantages to Non-Subjective Valuing include the
accumulating of data involving the relative importance of qualities
of a preferred entity. Determine the assumed price of the Average
entity in said group of preferred entities. Compare the quantified
qualities of existent entities in said group with those of the
Average entity. Qualify the differences between the existent
entities and the Average entity. Display sorted list of the
existent entities in order of their calculated values. Find
matching buyers and sellers based on the calculated values.
[0081] Other novel advantages of this system include the following.
Compile data from professionals and/or experts in their field,
and/or their customers, regarding how each such accomplished
individual, competent entity, or their clients, assert his, her,
their or its perception regarding the relative importance of
characteristics, properties or attributes of an entity, in other
words, how relatively important each such characteristic, property
or attribute appear to each such professional and/or to their
customers, based on such professionals' or experts' experience in
the field. For example, learn from car dealers, how relatively
important are various characteristics, properties or attributes of
a new and/or used car, to them and/or to their customers; or learn
from doctors, how relatively important each such characteristic,
property or attribute of a doctor is to doctors and/or to their
patients, specifically and/or generally, and so on. Collect data
from such relevant professionals and/or experts in their field,
such as car dealers if the object is the evaluation of new or used
car prices or values, to establish, based on their experience in
the field, the deductive price or value of the assumed average or
Average used or new vehicle generally, or the average or Average
unique make/year/model automobile specifically, (example: 1998
Mercury Sable) or collect data from doctors if the object is the
establishment of the fictitious price or value for an average
doctor's visit, or a visit with a unique medical specialist,
(example: heart surgeon), and so on, such deductive or real average
general or specific unit with its appertaining assumed price or
value, in any relevant field, called the Average or some other
name. Collect data from amateur, non-professional or professional
observers regarding their contemplated automobiles, individually to
compare such unique cars' parallel characteristics with those of
the average vehicle, on some equitable basis, whether the observers
are interested in selling, buying, trading, appraising, or
obtaining or providing a loan or insurance on a specific
automobile, and supply the observers, dealers, vendors and/or their
customers with the projected market price, or actual estimated
value of their such unique cars, the calculation being based on
having compared such parallel condition or conditions of such
unique test automobiles (doctors) to such parallel condition or
conditions of the average car (doctor) on a quantitative or other
basis. Display results of such calculations in monetary or other
terms, reflecting the differences between such existent unique test
cars and the Average car, or the existent unique test doctors and
the Average doctor.
[0082] Further, this invention teaches the compilation of data
regarding the assumed average market price for a specific entity,
such as a certain used make/model/year automobile that is assumed
average in its attributes, properties and/or characteristics, such
as mileage, exterior, interior and mechanical condition, extras,
color and so on, called the Average make/year/model. Compare the
attributes, properties and/or characteristics, such as mileage,
exterior, interior and mechanical condition, and so on, of the
Average make/year/model with the parallel quantified or
unquantified attributes, properties and/or characteristics such as
mileage, exterior, interior and mechanical condition, extras, color
and so on, of matching existent make/year/models, such as those of
actual used automobiles of the same make/model/year as the Average
one, and note the differences in monetary or other values based on
quantified divergences. Collect data from amateur,
non-professional, professional or other Observers regarding the
parallel attributes, properties and/or characteristics, such as
mileage, exterior, interior and mechanical condition, and so on,
concerning unique existent automobiles the Observers own or
contemplate to buy, sell, trade, write insurance for, loan money
on, and so forth, individually to compare the unique cars' parallel
characteristics to those of the average car, and supply the
Observers or customers with the market price or actual estimated
value of the unique existing cars, the calculation based on having
compared the parallel conditions of the unique existing automobiles
with the parallel condition or conditions of the average car, at
least one condition selected, on a quantitative or other basis.
Calculate and display in monetary or other terms the differences
between the existent unique cars or other entities and the Average
car or the Average entity.
[0083] Calculate the deductive price of an entity which is average
on its qualities, such average entity being this invention's
measuring standard, compare the qualities of existent entities to
those of the Average entity. Measure and express the discovered
divergences of the qualities between the Average and the existent
entities. Discover the value system of the relevant observer, and
sort the entities in order of attractiveness in terms of the
Observer or in terms of Society.
[0084] This method includes the collecting of data from a Observer,
regarding the relative importance to each Observer, of selected
qualities of entities in a provided group, where each such selected
quality must have the ability to attach to any other member of the
provided group, determine the assumed value of the entity in the
group which is average on all its selected qualities, at least one
selected, rank measured presented entities by comparing selected
qualities of each presented entity with those of the Average
entity, display ranked entities on one or more computed
quantitative worth-differences, as fixed by comparing the selected
qualities of the presented entities with those of the Average
entity.
4. Further Stipulations of Non-Subjective Valuing
[0085] The present method of translating any number between 0-10
(such as 6.842) into precise percentages relating to the average
("5" or 100%) unit is especially useful in case of many qualities.
Dividing a pie into many slices is no big problem, just as it is no
problem for somebody to rate many qualities for importance 0-10, 10
being most important.
[0086] When we ask 1500 people to respond to a few questions each,
it is easy to learn how important to society the quality of Success
Rate is concerning HMOs. For example, an individual, or a group can
choose the qualities it wants to rate. They can be specific to the
group, the most important ones, or whatever.
[0087] The system works the same, except that unless all societal
discoverable characteristics of an entity are quantified, the
results are always partial to the individual or group that selects
the attributes to be rated.
[0088] By employing a pie or other representative system, the
present invention may always convert ratings to percentages for
accurate comparison. One may apply this pie or bar chart system to
any specific group, for instance "computers for under $1200," or
"computers made by Apple," or "computers sold in this store right
now," or "all computers in the world today," etc. The system works
perfectly well once you tell it the perimeters which interest
you.
[0089] Translating "excellent" or "0" into percentages is much
easier than to require people to express their assessment that way.
("0") always only symbolizes the lowest actual number (never zero)
which matching number is then used for calculating). In case of
many components, today none of us know our own pie, bar, or other
chart either, but this fact is not generally understood.
[0090] The present invention, by employing the "dividing 100%
system" helps all of us to learn what our own preferences are. 100%
represents all the qualities of an entity in which we are
interested in. If we want to learn the True Value of something, all
discoverable characteristics of an entity must be quantified in our
specific terms. If we leave out anything: the appraisal will be
partial, and provides true relative value. When it comes to even a
few automobile characteristics for example, without this 100% chart
system, it is very hard for an inquirer to say "the feature of
Reliability is important to me to a degree of 50%," and much easier
for the explorer simply to say or identify a number 0-10, 10 being
most important, for each of the comprising attributes.
[0091] The reason the present invention uses 0-10, is because this
scale has an exact average, which is 5 here. People usually rate 5
what they think is average, but in the customary 1-10 system, that
is numerically incorrect, of course. Since in the present system we
are measuring everything compared to the average, a true average
number is important, whatever actual number it turns out to be. If
the average is 7.38, than that number is used as the 100%, or
standard, yardstick number.
[0092] Both in cases of readily available numbers, and not
immediately apparent numbers, this invention interprets
characteristics as percentages relevant to the average 100%. For
instance, if the average car has a top speed of 100 mph, then a car
which has a top speed of 110 mph, is 10% faster. If a test computer
is 12% faster than the average (100%) computer, then--all other
things being equal, which they never are--if the average computer
sells for $1,000, our test computer is worth $1,120.
[0093] Without the Average, this invention does not work. The
deductive Average computer is the one in the specified group that
is average in its qualities and its assumed selling price. The
contemporary (changing) calculated market price for what the
average entity would or should sell, is always the starting,
standard, yardstick number, as we must compare value to something:
it cannot and does not exist in a vacuum. The linchpin is what at
the moment, people are willing to pay for the average entity.
[0094] To many, it is hard to believe that attributes such as
"Reliability" can be measured exactly and expressed by numbers, but
they can be. There is no attribute which is not quantifiable. None.
For instance, once society or an individual observer, defines what
"reliability" means in a computer, we can measure that reliability
of each computer in our target group ("in the world," "in this
store today," etc.) and compute the average reliability among those
in their group. The average reliability equals 100% in this system.
100% stands for average reliability in any group. Further,
reliability, in this invention, is not necessarily rated by
experts. It is computer users who decide what they consider
reliability to encompass, and an individual observer should decide
what he considers to be reliability. What the experts say is
important to a certain extent, and society and the individual rate
the relative importance of expert opinion, of course. That is an
important slice of the pies or the bars, for an individual or the
entire society. But this invention claims that the true relative
value of something must be based on what it is, has and does for
the inquirer, not on any other factor.
[0095] For some, reliability may include, to various degrees, how
long the computer will work before it has to be repaired, its
sturdiness, how often it has to be restarted because it freezes,
how often it makes mistakes, how it reacts to new software or
hardware, how steady its relationship with various printers,
modems, monitors, the Internet, and so on. This sub pie or bar
chart must be considered for truly accurate measuring, and of
course "opinion of the experts" is an important value affecting
element to be rated.
[0096] The Average changes with time, depending on the examined
group, including its qualities and its price. Its price and its
qualities always depend entirely on the prices and qualities of the
members of its group. For instance, both the price and
characteristics of the Average among cheap computers are very
different than they are for all computers, or for expensive
computers, or for large computers, or for computers available in
this store today, etc. And their characteristics as well as their
average price change with time. Yet, in order to get actual worth,
the Average computer at any given moment is the one with which all
other computers must be compared, within or without their own
group. If one wants to know which $1,000 computer is worth $1,200
to him, and which $1,000 computer is worth $900 to him, the present
system has the answer. Non-Subjective Valuing can also tell a
seeker if a $50,000 computer is actually worth $40,000, $30,000 or
$60,000 to that searcher.
[0097] If one wishes to compare $5000 computers, their Average
computer has very specific characteristics and price. There, the
average speed and reliability is compared to those of all the other
$5000 computers. Of course, this system can easily compare, value
and rank computers in a group of computers where the cheapest one
costs $800 and the most expensive one is priced at $700,000. The
computers in this group have an average price, an average speed, an
average capability and an average everything else, and of course,
the price for such Average computer is easy to calculate.
[0098] Composer Zoltan Kodaly invented the movable "do" in
solfeggio. If the "do" can be shifted, representing the current
foundation pitch in music (the tonic), then whether one is in the
key of C or in the key of Bb, one can hear and respectively
distinguish the second or third pitch as "re" or "mi," respectively
and it makes it easy to understand, compare, analyze, appreciate
and transpose music. The function of each pitch is always relative
to the tonic. If you are in C major, the third pitch is E. If you
are in Bb major, the third pitch is D. If you know the movable do,
you will hear the E as third in the key of C, and D as the third in
the key of Bb. The momentary monetary value of something is always
pegged to the current market price of the average in its group, the
100% Average unit, the entity that is the entity in any group which
entity is average in price and qualities, the standard, touchstone,
norm entity in this invention, with which all other entities are
compared.
[0099] With this invention, at any point in time, the correct
monetary value of a thing can always be calculated based on what
the probed thing is, has and does for the inquirer, and depending
on how much the exact average thing would cost at that time, if it
existed.
[0100] If I want a computer that does very few things but is very
reliable and fast, it might be worth $2,000 to me, because it does
what I need, even though it sells for $1,000. Another computer that
does a lot of complicated tasks but is slow, unreliable and has a
weak guarantee, might only be worth $1,000 to me, even though it
costs $2,000. There is a limit to this, because if a computer sells
for $5,000, and has a general value of $3000, even if I do not like
it, given the opportunity, I might pay $2,000 for it, sell it, buy
one that I like, and keep the change.
[0101] The value of every item in a given economy is affected by
the price of every other item. If airline tickets go up by 5%, the
baker who has to travel must raise his price for bread, that is why
the Lincoln Navigator's price affects the value of a Jeep Cherokee.
All other things being equal, if the price of one changes, the
value of the other changes too.
[0102] The linchpin is the notional unit in any group which unit is
average both in price and in quality in that group, its value
flowing from what the members of a group are, have and do, nothing
else. This provides the present system the freedom accurately to
measure the value of any real entity by comparing it with the
Average. The price of this deductive Average entity is simply the
average price determined by the various prices the members of this
group fetch at market then.
[0103] The value of a specific model Blaupunkt sound system is the
same in any car, but its conclusive monetary value is specific to
the observer. If the average sound system (100%) is worth $500,
then if the Blaupunkt is ultimately demonstrated to be better by
40%, then, on the average, its value would be $700. If to one, the
quality of the sound system in a car is important to a degree of 2%
of his total pie, then if the average car sells for $23,800 for
instance, in reality he pays $460 for average sound. (2% of
$23,800, $23,800 being the price of the Average car in our
deductive group, this vehicle being average on all its qualities,
including its sound system).
[0104] We are not necessarily concerned with the cost of the
Blaupunkt. The point of this invention is to tell the observer what
something is worth, so one can compare things on their actual
value, versus what these things sell for, as well as to learn what
various entities' respective monetary values are, no matter their
market prices. We already know the listed (or market) prices of
goods and services, but we do not know which product or service is
overpriced or undervalued. Do advertisements help? Does any
advertisement ever tell you if a competing product or service is
better AND less expensive?
[0105] For example, something that costs $100, might be worth $120
to a customer personally, because of what it is, has a does for
her. A competing service or item could be worth $130 to her, when
its actual price is $80. Without the present invention this kind of
evaluation could never be done for two reasons: we had no
independent, precise, "natural" yardstick to quantify qualities of
entities, and no WIP pie (or bar or other chart) to enlighten one
about one's own, unique value system.
[0106] As mentioned above, if people went solely by the price of
things, they would never buy Consumer Reports type of shopping
guides, because they would know that for $100 they simply get $100
worth of goods and services. The present invention accomplishes
what a true buying guide should achieve: it independently provides
the pecuniary value of something, both in terms of a suddenly
ideally educated society or group, as well as relevant to the
deductively perfectly knowledgeable exploring individual.
[0107] Let us continue the example with an individual who pays $460
for the average sound system, and the Blaupunkt being 40% better
than average. If any car has the Blaupunkt, to this buyer, that car
will be worth $184 more than a car that has just a average sound
system, all other things being equal. (40% of $460 more, $23,800
being the price of the Average car in our deductive group).
[0108] In other words whether it is a Navigator or a Sportage, for
this particular consumer, the Blaupunkt's presence means a $184
increase in value. However, to a different person, for whom the
average sound system in a car is worth only 1% of an automobile's
total value, or $230, ($23,800 being the price of the Average car
in our deductive group), this "40% better" sound system means an
increase of 1% of $230, or $92, no matter the car. (Everything
consists of 100% of its attributes).
[0109] Let us suppose that except for the sound system, for
individual "A", based on his preferences, the SUV Sportage, with
certain, chosen options, is worth $13,250, and the SUV Navigator,
with unique selected extras, is worth $39,000. (These are not the
prices, of course, but the respective monetary values of these two
vehicles, to specific prospective buyer "A," based on his
preferences, compared to the average current market price for sport
utility vehicles and based on what in fact each of these two SUVs
respectively are, have and do, as opposed to what they sell for).
Pretend that at this point, only the sound system evaluation
remains.
[0110] If the new Navigator in question has a average sound system,
for customer "A," it stays in value at $39,000. If for some reason
a dealer now installed a Blaupunkt into said new Sportage, this
Sportage's value to buyer "A" will be $13,250 plus $184, or
$13,434. ($23,800 being the price of the Average car in our
deductive group). Of course Non-Subjective Valuing ultimately
accounts for all or many of a probed entity's qualities.
[0111] For instance, if there are eight slices to the total pie
chart, (or eight bars to the total bar chart, and etc.), each slice
representing 12.5% of the total (100%) pie, and the price of the
Average (100%) entity in the probed group is $80, then each 12.5
slice corresponds to $10 in value, or to put it another way, 12.5%
equals a rating of average, or "5," (on a scale of 0-10), and is
worth $10 in the case of this entity, to a observer to whom all
eight named characteristics of an entity in this group, are equally
important. Let us not forget that whether we use 1-5, 5 being best,
or any other representation of ratings, or any graphic
representation of the deviation from the 100% average (could be 1,
for instance), this invention depends on any accurate delegacy of
quantified differences of qualities of test units as compared with
the average unit. The invention does not depend on how such process
is achieved or delineated, as long as the cognitive process adheres
to the principle of what this invention teaches, which is this:
once we know what the average unit is, has and does, and calculated
what it would fetch at market: we have the NORM unit, with which
existing units are to be compared, to unearth said existing units'
respective values.
[0112] However, if a specific observer "B" records a rating of 6
for one of the eight attributes, say attribute "Z", the pie slices
for relative value-importance (Worth Importance Point, or WIP pie,
or bar or other chart) change to represent "6" (for "Z"), and "5,"
"5," "5," "5," "5," "5," "5" (for all the other, remaining
attributes), or 41=100%, or 6:0.41=16%, and all the 5s then change
to show slices that equal 12% each. (All rounded numbers for
illustration)
[0113] Now let's consider how a unique probed entity's value to
this particular observer "B" changes. Suppose a specific test
entity "TE" is better than average on its quality of "Z" by 10%.
"Z" is important to this observer "B" to a degree of 16%. The
average observer pays $10 for the quality of "Z." "TE" is better
than average on its attribute of "Z" by 10%. Therefore,
Non-Subjective Valuing calculates the "TE's" monetary value as
follows: 16% of $10 is $1.60. The total monetary value of "TE" to
this observer "B," is $81.60, all other things being equal. Since
all other things are virtually never equal, Non-Subjective Valuing
calculates the monetary value of each, or more than one, attribute
of a test entity in context of the individual observer's WIP (value
system).
[0114] Non-Subjective Valuing notes and inventories the preferences
of each observer. This feature yields the preferences of the
average observer. The system displays the known market price as
well as the actual monetary value of each test entity in context of
the average observer, called societal value. This way, the
individual observer can compare his own taste with that of the
average observer. This is useful, because whatever computer or car
or house, is ultimately selected by the observer, the observer
should know what the particular entity is worth to society, in case
the observer ever wants to sell it, or if the observer cares about
the true (general) value of something, not only what it is worth to
the observer, specifically.
[0115] A series of scientific, statistical, central tendency
sampling surveys may also be employed to the general population, or
to a specific segment of it (older couples with no children,
millionaires, poker players, psychologists, etc.), to discover
basic starting numbers for calculating communal (or specific)
worth. To discover how important the quality of top speed in a car
is to women who make more than $100,000 a year, or who are under 30
years old, or who wear glasses, and so on, are all possible with
the present invention.
[0116] Important uses of the present invention include for
manufacturers to learn how to improve their products by discovering
distinctly what people like about any product, not by asking
consumers specific, arbitrarily selected questions, but by
learning: what potential buyers themselves might say a product
means to them, and precisely how valuable each specific quality of
a product is to the public, or a group of potential buyers, or to
one individual prospect, and exactly how much money which buyers
are willing to pay for certain unique features.
[0117] Conjoint analysis and other similar methods that group
together attributes cannot accomplish what Non-Subjective Valuing
achieves. Analyzing responses to a questionnaire, once even two
attributes were coupled, no one can conclusively know how important
each characteristic might have been to respondents. For instance
consider this typical question posed: Would you rather stay at
hotel A, that has elegant rooms, is close to the convention center,
at $200 a night, or would you prefer hotel B, 20 minutes away, that
has average rooms, at $100 a night? No matter what the answer: we
have no idea what it means, since (as they say in law) the question
was compound! We do not know which question the respondent
answered, the one about proximity or room quality: which traits
were important to him and to what extent: remain unknown.
Considering price as a component of value is by itself a separate
and invariably fatally confusing error, in any event.
[0118] What the present invention does in the above case (supposing
that businessmen are the observer group) is the following.
First,--pretending for this example that the relevant hotel rooms
have only two qualities that matter--Non-Subjective Valuing
discovers the price for a deductive hotel room that is average in
its qualities, including the decor, the proximity to the convention
center, and etc. Then it asks the businessmen to rate all qualities
that are important to them, such as proximity and style. Suppose
this business groups' WIP average out 7 for room quality and 8 for
proximity. It is calculated that the price for the assumed average
room, is $150. The businessmen's pie is 7+8=15. It means that these
business people, on the average, spend 47% of $150 ($70) for
average room quality, and 53% of the $150 ($80), for average
proximity. Now, we must measure how good the actual test hotels'
respective rooms are rated compared to average, and how the
proximity of each hotel compares to the common distance. This is
where the 0-10, 10 being best, makes life so easy.
[0119] Say there are three considerable hotels: A, B and C, and
prospective businessmen guests are interested in
correlating/synthesizing only the above referenced two qualities:
room dcor ("style") and distance to the convention center
("proximity"). Dependable surveys of like businessmen who had
actually stayed at these very establishments, evidence that on the
average, as to the category of "style," A rates a 4, B deserves a
6, and C picks up an 8, on the 0-10 scale. The 100%, assumed hotel
room in that case therefore rates a 6 on style (4+6+8=18:3=6), or
the average (100%) dcor in this instance is 6. Relevant to distance
to the convention center, the three in play hotels in our example
measure as follows: A=10 minutes, B=12 minutes, and C=17 minutes.
Therefore, the imaginary Average establishment, in our example,
would be 13 minutes from the Convention Center. (10+12+17=39:3=13,
or 13 minutes=100% distance factor). As to prices, those hotels
charge $60, $80, and $100 per night, respectively, their average
price being $80. Now we adopt the Average (100%) hotel in that
area: For $80 you'd get a room that rates 6 on style and is 13
minutes from the Convention Center.
[0120] Staying with the above preference numbers (47% for style and
53% for proximity): a specific, existent hotel "D" that happens to
rate 6 on style, but which is located 141/2 minutes from the
Convention Center, is worth the same as average on style, or about
$37.60, (47% of $80), but is worth about 10% less than average as
to distance: 53% of $80=$42-$4.20=$37.80, meaning that a room for a
night at this particular establishment is worth about $75.40, or
so. Now one can compare Hotel "D's" true relative value with its
actual price, whatever that might be, and by displaying in order
the calculated worth of all relevant hotels, their values can be
compared to each other, as well as their prices can be judged
against their actual values, and the respective savings sorted in
percentage, actual dollar values or some other comparable manner.
It could turn out that one has a choice at staying at a hotel worth
$200 for $205, or to select one that costs $150 which hotel is
worth $180. It is then up to the individual to choose on such
optimal, relevant information.
[0121] These numbers are not somebody's opinion in the ordinary
sense. This is not Consumers Report editors or subscribers telling
you what they think and neither is it an undecipherable popularity
contest. These dollar figures mirror what you yourself would think
if you knew and understood all the facts, and the results are
expressed in precise pecuniary terms, to give you a chance to
choose on optimal information: you now have a chance to
identify/enter your own value system, and Non-Subjective Valuing
gives you your very own judgment, as if you were suddenly ideally
informed, in your very own terms yet! All relevant hotels are
listed, their values calculated on this basis, the system sorting
and displaying in some order all hotels by their values along with
their prices, for the prospective guest to see the inventory, from
most overpriced to the most undervalued, as well as seeing the
hotel where the observer gets the most value for the dollars
allowed by his budget. He can have the hotels sorted by any
combination of attributes (for instance proximity and service
only), or by a single attribute (for instance "quality of in house
restaurants" alone, etc.)
[0122] On the comprehensive list he can scroll down to the hotels
in the $150 range, enter his preferences, and learn the names of
the hotels where for $150 he gets $170 or $120 values. The hotels
will have different values for different individuals, different
groups, and society as a whole, regardless of the hotels' prices.
This gives the advantage to one, to whom good food is very
important, but proximity is of no consequence, to choose a hotel
with great restaurants 45 minutes from the business center, and so
on. This buyer's money will go for what he wants to pay for. On the
other hand, such unique survey/analysis allows an establishment, or
manufacturer, to know precisely what they can charge for various
advantages, to what buyers, and which aspect of a product or
service to improve, and how cost-effective each such betterment
will be, because the monetary value of each quality is specifically
and organically identified. The results are not somebody's opinion,
not a consensus of experts or amateurs, but reflect reality
instead: "is" means "is," in the Non-Subjective Valuing system.
[0123] To many, the fact that a hotel is well-known will be
overwhelmingly important, which means that money spent on promotion
by a hotel, instead of improved service, might be a wise move in
some cases. For people who use Non-Subjective Valuing and who are
interested in what a hotel is, has and does other than their
fashionableness, money spent by a hotel on promotion will be
wasted, and in contrast, money spent on improving service will be
well spent.
[0124] This system uses the so called Gold Medalist Scale of
increased/decreased value, but any scale may be used, once you
learn the value judgment of the people, through surveys or other
means, or that of a person, by the direct quiz or other methods, or
if you can determine an applicable valuing scale by any method. The
system works, no matter what basic numbers you use to distinguish
worth relationships, the more they reflect people's real feelings,
the better.
[0125] As long as you use the valuing scale consistently, and apply
it equitably to determine relative value and order, within or
outside a probed group of entities, you are okay. The Gold Medalist
Scale takes into account the fact that the difference in value
between the first and second place winners is much greater than the
difference between who (or what) come in 6th and 7th.
[0126] The silver medallist is considered by many the first
loser--that is why in sports and other contests (for instance at
the Olympics), you often see the runners up cry in great
desperation and disappointment, but not the individuals who place
8.sup.th or 108.sup.th. The latter ones seem (and are relatively)
much more content with their performance. The present invention
accounts for this truth by using the following scale, called the
Gold Medallist Syndrome Scale of Values:
[0127] Non-Subjective Valuing's current Gold Medallist Scale is:
10=400%; 9=200%; 8=156%; 7=126%; 6=105%; 5=100% (it does not have
to be 5, as long as the number represents 100% (average) in the
group); 4=95%; 3=79%; 2=64%; 1=50% and 0=25%. If the value
difference is readily ascertainable by percentage divergence to the
average, no rating numbers are used. The easiest and most exact way
to tell the monetary value of something is to compare it with the
average unit in its group, of which unit the deductive market price
has already been calculated.
[0128] It is likely that even the worst relevant hotel room will
not be less than sixteen times worse then the best, and in reality
too few will pay more than four times the average, for the best
hotel room, statistically to worry about. However, the actual scale
is best determined by surveys, which surveys learn the maximum
dollars society on the average, or a certain group or individual,
is willing to pay for a hotel room at any given time, no matter how
great the accommodations (10), and at the same time, the minimum
hotel quality for which they will pay any money at all (0).
[0129] A pie or other chart is created for consumers,
manufacturers, or any group or an individual. The relative
importance of features to potential customers or others probed are
accurately expressed by the sizes of the slices of such pie, or the
sizes of the bars, this way learning precisely what people are
willing to pay for cars or computers, that have (or that lack)
specific qualities, thus discovering the correct monetary value or
ranking for each attribute of an entity in terms of society, a
particular targeted group or an individual. The process discovered
by the present invention may be likened to learning the rules of a
basket ball game. Only if we know the rules can we determine a
winner and a runner-up. The rules for the best carry-on suitcase
(or pizza, or beauty contest) must be known before we can declare
the winner, and those rules can be had by the series of scientific
surveys and the accurate interpretation of those polls, as
described in the present invention.
[0130] For instance, suppose a car is measured for value of three
qualities to a certain group of citizens, say ones who make
$100,000 a year. They are asked to enter their value, on a scale of
0-10, 10 being most important, concerning safety: "How important is
it to you how many people die in a vehicle each year?" Say the
average number turns out to be 9. Then they are enquired: "On the
same basis, how important is it to you how many people get
seriously injured annually in a car?" Say the final number is 8.
Then they are requested: "On that same basis, how important is it
to you how government tests rate a car's crash-worthiness?" Say the
end number is 5. Now we have 9, 8 and 5 for these segments of
safety concerning this group of respondents, which can be a
representative sample of the United States in 2007, giving us
societal value (True Value) in that case. The calculation goes like
this: 9+8+5=22 . . . 9:0.22=41%; 8:0.22=36% and 5:0.22=23%.
(Throughout these Specifications, since the initial and subsequent
Patent Applications, numbers are used for illustration only and are
always approximate and/or rounded out.) Thus, a manufacturer also
finds out how much money people are willing to pay for various
aspects of safety in a car, and precisely what constitutes safety
for the buyers. Non-Subjective Valuing's pre-survey polls ask "What
do you consider safety factors in a car?" letting the respondents
tell their definitions for unprejudiced, organic results.
[0131] This is useful in planning, because if minor injuries are
relatively unimportant to a targeted group or individual, but
fatalities are very significant, by knowing the amount of money
consumers are willing to pay for various aspects of safety, and how
much it would cost for the manufacturer to improve those specific
facets, the car maker will be able to calculate exactly what kind
of profits certain investments in specific improvements may
bring.
[0132] Using the same method for the bigger picture: "How important
is safety to you?" Average Response 9. "How important is
Performance to you?" Normal Reply 8. "How important is style to
you?" Common Answer 9. (As many attributes as the survey taker
think is important to measure.) This "pie" is 9+8+9=26.
26=100%.
[0133] Now in various segments of the community, style will count
for more than safety, and so on. This means that a certain
manufacturer might address the questionnaire only to a targeted
group or individual. For instance, if a car manufacturer finds out
that daylight running lights are considered very useful by buyers
and that potential purchasers are willing to pay a certain amount
for these lamps, the manufacturer can decide if it pays for it to
make and include this option on its vehicles.
[0134] If buyers are willing to pay $200 for these lights and the
lamps can be made for $25, it pays to add them to the product.
Conversely, if it is learned that people do not consider daytime
running lights important and they do not want to pay more than $10
for them, the manufacturer can decide to drop this property from
its standard product. This invention, as an option, includes the
educating of the "voters," in that an objective description of what
daytime running lights do for the observer, is provided by the
Non-Subjective Valuing system, so that the inquirer can more
intelligently decide how important such attribute might be for said
inquirer, on a scale of 0-10, 10 being most important, based on
what a given characteristic in fact is, does and has generally, and
for the inquirer particularly.
[0135] This process cannot be done accurately without the specific
percentage-subdivision system set forth in this invention, or a
system by any other name that achieves what the present invention's
"100%-pie" system accomplishes. A car maker will want to learn, to
what extent individual automobile features are important to buyers,
exactly how much people are willing to pay for specific unique
features, and consequently, how much more money the maker should
invest in improving the product in a particular fashion, for how
much sales advantage over the competition. The best way to achieve
this, is first to learn what the buyers value, without asking them
to comment on a specific, arbitrarily pre-selected inventory of
attributes. The second round learns the relative importance of each
attribute, by learning the accurate percentages of importance to
each, and finally express such segmentation in monetary terms.
Until now, there was guess work in this area, because there was no
anchor, no accurate yardstick to reflect reality.
[0136] The Department of Education might want to find out from the
citizenry: 1. What are the important things in life for the people;
2. How relatively important each of these things are to them, and
3. For the people, what might be the most likely or preferred
methods to lead to their attainment.
[0137] Instead of "experts" designing SAT tests and deciding the
criteria for a good student, a good teacher, a good college or a
successful person and so on: by allowing society to develop its WIP
instead, for the first time ever, an unprejudiced and fair way of
evaluating education and other important government issues, could
be had. For example, the significance of test scores might become
much less important, since the attribute of "test-taking-talent"
might not count to be the top priority generally, or to a certain
segment of society, or to an individual.
[0138] First, the DOE would have to learn from the people, what all
the characteristics (or at least the determining ones) of a
successful individual are to the people. The second survey would
have to determine how relatively important each such discovered
attribute is to the people. Today, the experts might make money,
designing the tests, but they are in the dark as to what really
counts or should count. They do not know and cannot know. Not
organic system of learning exists.
[0139] Next is unearthing the "price" the people think should be
paid for each said characteristic. How important happiness is
versus making money, how important is being useful to society
versus wasting time watching television, is watching television
always a waste of time, and so on. The Non-Subjective Valuing
method discovers societal value. What and who do we want to be?
Once people are informed about what each aspect of an entity means,
by knowing how much money, or energy, or effort, ("price") etc.,
they are willing to invest in each: societal value emerges.
Ultimately, a balanced, happy personality, might be more important
than riches. Some will opt not to attempt to become professional
tennis players, once they know the precise benefits of and chances
for success and the "price" to be paid. Some will opt to try. At
least no school board or individual will be in the dark as they are
today.
[0140] Let's again illustrate how the percentage-allocating system
works for individuals, using computers as an example. Pretend for
this illustration that a computer has only two qualities that
matter: speed and reliability, and that these are the verified
facts about them:
1 RELIABILITY COMPUTER Price Speed RATING IBM $1,750 500 9 Packard
Bell $850 350 7 NAC $1,300 350 8 Sony $1,500 450 6 HP $1,500 450 8
Compaq $1,500 450 7
[0141] In this group the average price is $1400=100%
[0142] The average speed is 425=100%.
[0143] The average rating is 7.5. (Serving as "5" (100%)--on 0-10
rating system--for this example)
[0144] So our Average computer in this group, if it existed, would
sell for $1400, would have a Speed of 425 and a Reliability rating
of 7.5. (The average rating does not have to be a 5 on the scale of
0-10, 10 being best, as long as a number accurately expresses the
100% or Average point, such as 7.5 expresses it in the above
example.)
[0145] Here is the relevant comparison sheet, expressing deviations
to the average in percentages:
2 COMPUTER Price Speed Reliability Rating IBM $1,750 = 125% 500 =
118% 9 = 120% Packard Bell $850 = 61% 350 = 82% 7 = 93% NAC $1,300
= 93% 350 = 82% 8 = 107% Sony $1,500 = 107% 450 = 106% 6 = 80%
Hewlett Packard $1;500 = 107% 450 = 106% 8 = 107% Compaq $1,500 =
106% 450 = 106% 7 = 93%
[0146] Now, the "pie" is divided into two slices to start with,
each having a starting value of 50%. This is not significant,
except to an individual to whom speed and reliability happen to be
important to the same degree, but we always start this way to
measure the relative importance of characteristics to each
observer. In case of eight characteristics, the pie slices (or bar
chart bars) begin at 12.5% each, and so on.
[0147] Now let's take three fictitious individuals who go computer
shopping, each having about $1,500 to spend: Luis, Tommy and Paul.
From the pie or bar charts they had created for themselves with the
help of Non-Subjective Valuing, we know that to Luis, Reliability
is important to 47%, speed to 53%; for Tommy it is 50-50; and since
Paul cares nothing about speed, having all the time in the world,
and is only concerned about reliability: for him it is 0% and
100%.
[0148] Here is a study of the resulting value comparisons:
3 Case #1 The 100% NORM (average) computer in this group costs
$1,400, its Speed being 425 with a Reliability rating of 7.5.
Relative importance for Luis: Speed 53% - Reliability 47%.
Reliability $ Saved/ Computer Price Speed Rating Calculations $
Worth Lost % Gained/Lo IBM $1,750 = 125% 500 = 118% 9 = 120% 1400 +
18% (742) + 20% (658) = 1400 + 134 + 132 = $1,666 [$84] [6%]
Packard Bell $850 = 61% 350 = 82% 7 = 93% 1400 - 18% (742) - 7%
(658) = 1400 - 134 - 46 = $1,200 $370 26.1% NEC $1,300 = 93% 350 =
82% 8 = 107% 1400 - 18% (742) + 7% (658) = 1400 - 134 + 46 = $1,312
$12 1% Sony $1,500 = 107% 450 = 106% 6 = 80% 1400 + 6% (742) - 20%
(658) = 1400 + 45 - 132 = $1,313 [$187] [13.2%] Hewlett $1,500 =
107% 450 = 106% 8 = 107% 1400 + 6% (742) + 7% (658) = 1400 + 45 +
46 = $1,491 [$9] [0.5%] Packard Compaq $1,500 = 107% 450 = 106% 7 =
93% 1400 + 6% (742) - 7% (658) = 1400 + 45 - 46 = $1,399 [$94]
[7.1%]
[0149]
4 CASE #2 The 100% NORM (average) computer in this group costs
$1,400, its Speed being 425 with a Reliability rating of 7.5.
Relative importance for Tommy: Speed 50% - Reliability 50%.
Reliability $ Saved/ Computer Price Speed Rating Calculations $
Worth Lost % Gained/Lo IBM $1,750 = 125% 500 = 118% 9 = 120% 1400 +
18% (700) + 20% (700) = 1400 + 126 + 140 = $1,666 [$84] [6%]
Packard Bell $850 = 61% 350 = 82% 7 = 93 1400 - 18% (700) - 7%
(700) = 1400 - 126 - 49 = $1,225 $375 27% NEC $1,300 = 93% 350 =
82% 8 = 107% 1400 - 18% (700) + 7% (700) = 1400 - 126 + 49 = $1,323
$23 2% Sony $1,500 = 107% 450 = 106% 6 = 80% 1400 + 6% (700) - 20%
(700) = 1400 + 42 - 98 = $1,302 [$198] [14%] Hewlett $1,500 = 107%
450 = 106% 8 = 107% 1400 + 6% (700) + 7% (700) = 1400 + 42 + 49 =
$1,491 [$9] [0.5%] Packard Compaq $1,500 = 107% 450 = 106% 7 = 93%
1400 + 6% (700) - 7% (700) = 1400 + 42 - 49 = $1,393 [$107]
[7.5%]
[0150]
5 CASE #3 The 100% NORM (average) computer in this group costs
$1,400, its Speed being 425 with a Reliability rating of 7.5.
Relative importance for Paul; Speed 0% - Reliability 100%.
Reliability Computer Price Speed Rating Calculations $ Worth $
Saved/Lost % Gained/Lo IBM $1,750 = 125% 500 = 118% 9 = 120% 1400 +
18% (0) + 20% (1400) = 1400 + 280 = $1,680 [$70] [5%] Packard Bell
$850 = 61% 350 = 82% 7 = 93% 1400 - 18% (0) - 7% (1400) = 1400 - 98
= $1,302 $452 32% NEC $1,300 = 93% 350 = 82% 8 = 107% 1400 - 18%
(0) + 7% (1400) = 1400 + 98 = $1,498 $198 14% Sony $1,500 = 107%
450 = 106% 6 = 80% 1400 + 6% (0) - 20% (1400) = 1400 - 280 = $1,120
[$380] [27%] Hewlett Packard $1,500 = 107% 450 = 106% 8 = 107% 1400
+ 6% (0) + 7% (1400) = 1400 + 98 = $1,498 [$2] 0% Compaq $1,500 =
107% 450 = 106% 7 = 93% 1400 + 6% (0) - 7% (1400) = 1400 - 98 =
$1,302 [$198] [14%]
[0151] The procedure is as follows: Non-Subjective Valuing
discovers qualities of an entity, and the relative importance of
each said characteristic of said entity. Then the deductive
monetary value of the average, 100%-entity, is calculated, to which
average entity, all existent entities are compared, on a percentage
or other reasonable basis, the resulting differences then serving
to calculate a given test entity's monetary value.
[0152] If the Average entity in any group is calculated to cost
$100 in toto, then if a test entity turns out to be generally 5%
better, its value is considered to be $105. The "100% pie" for
society is determined by noting and averaging all observers'
preferences and so Non-Subjective Valuing always has the current
"100% pie" for the average observer. Surveys can be used to
determine the societal 100%-pie. An individual's 100%-pie is
determined by noting the preferences of the unique observer. A
unique observer may add his own qualities, and/or use the qualities
provided for rating by Non-Subjective Valuing, in the form of a
quiz, to judge the available qualities' relative importance to any
observer.
[0153] The numbers change with time and the Non-Subjective Valuing
system is continually updated to reflect the ever current societal
and/or group and/or individual value systems as well as the average
price of a corresponding average entity. The average price of a
loaf of bread, or a New York to Los Angeles plane ticket, or a
Sports Utility Vehicle, continually change, and these changes have
an influence on each other. Inflation or deflation affects all
values and prices, in a given economy. This Non-Subjective Valuing
system always starts out with considering the current real world
price of a precisely average loaf of bread, the cost of the average
NY to LA plane ticket, or the standardized SUV's market price. If
the Average entity cost $100, then an existing test entity scoring
110 points (110%), would be worth $110. This has nothing to do with
the entity's real-life price. An entity could sell for $200, but
its value could be $100, or $300, or $1,000, or $1, or $200, of
course. Or it could be worthless to a specific observer.
[0154] Here is an oversimplified example for how the Average is
calculated, using a single component: automobile "brake quality."
If the braking distance 60 mph to 0 of car A, is 140 feet, and car
B can stop 60 mph-0 in 130 feet, then their average stopping length
is 120 feet. If car A sells for $30,000 and car B sells for
$20,000, then their average price is $25,000. Therefore, the
deductive Average car has a price of $25,000 and it can stop in 120
feet. Now, using unsophisticated math here, if a test car X is
measured for how soon it can stop 60 mph to 0, and the result is
122 feet, then since being able to stop sooner, is better, then the
fact is that the test car is better than average on this one
quality, by 10%. If "brake quality" is important to society to 12%,
then the normal individual pays 12% of $25,000 for average "brake
quality," which amounts to $3,000. It follows, that in our example,
test car X is worth 10% of $3,000 more than the average car, all
other things being equal, which they never are. Or, to put it
another way, if test car X were identical to the average vehicle,
other than the fact that its brakes are 10% better, then its value
would be $25,300!
[0155] The present invention teaches that in order to calculate the
dollar value of something, we must know how relatively important
various of its qualities are, and what would be the market price of
the car whose qualities were average. For instance, to the average
person, how fast a car can stop, could be important to a degree of
1%. To a specific explorer (cab company, teenager, old lady) it
could be 2%.
[0156] Here is a different example for how to figure the monetary
value of the fact that test car X can stop 10% faster than the
average car: If for the average person this quality is important
only to 1% of all the qualities of a car, since test car X's breaks
are 10% better, and since 1% of $25,000 is $250, 10% of $250 ($25)
is added to the value of car X, meaning, the societal value of car
X (which is otherwise identical to the average car) is $25,025.
Now, to a specific individual entity (Blue Star Taxi Cab Co., or
Jean Smith, an individual explorer), for whom the importance of
stopping distance is at a level of 2%, we add 2% of 10%, which is
$50, making car X worth to this unique entity $25,050, all other
things being equal.
[0157] These are the values based on ideal information both as to
the qualities of an object and as to the observer's preferences,
both entirely new concepts when coupled with the idea that all
things consist of 100% of their discoverable or selected qualities
as presented in this invention.
[0158] Until this innovation of the Average and the
percentage-preference-charts of observers, people choose in the
dark: they had no yardstick with which to compare the value of a
quality with the value of another, and they had no way to know how
important each quality of an entity is to them, personally, or to
society, as a whole. This invention put an end to at least two
basic fallacies of capitalism: 1. That you get what you pay for,
and 2 that something is worth what somebody will pay for it.
[0159] The way this method calculates pie slices, or bar sizes, is
this: Say there is an entity that has three characteristics we want
to test, and it is determined that those three qualities are
important to the collective as follows: Using the 0-10, 10 being
most important rating system for this example:
[0160] Quality X=9
[0161] Feature Y=4
[0162] Characteristic Z=8
[0163] Translated into proportions of the whole:
[0164] 9+4+8=21
[0165] 9:0.21=43%
[0166] 4:0.21=19%
[0167] 8:0.21=38%
[0168] So in this illustration, to the average individual (the
starting point ultimately to representing societal value), X is
significant to 43%, Y has an importance of 19%, and Z is meaningful
to 38%. Say that our research reveals that the exact average entity
in the group we are valuing, would cost $1,000. (This is the
deductive entity that would rate 100% on all its considered
qualities, or in this case, on attributes X, Y and Z.)
[0169] This is how the present invention determines a test entity's
dollar worth: Pretend that our research indicates that the verified
qualities of test entity "e" are as follows: On attribute X, "e" is
better than average by 4%, on characteristic Y, it is worse than
average by 3%, and on trait Z, "e" falls below average by 2%. Now
we know that in our present example, in our society, quality X, is
worth 43%, or the average individual spends $420 for average
quality X, (the Average entity having a deductive price of $1,000);
$190 goes for attribute Y; and $380 is paid for feature Z.
[0170] Attributes can be ignored, left undiscovered, or uncounted,
and placed in an "unknown" pie slice, for instance it can be said
that entity "e" is important on X, Y and Z to specific percentages,
and as to its other qualities (not considered) it is important to
25%. (or whatever is uncounted or undiscovered). Also, it can be
decided that only certain characteristics really matter. The pie
and discovery are then limited, but the invention still works. For
instance, suppose it is determined that in the tested group, the
qualities of X, Y and Z matter to a total of 75%, then we can state
that 25% of the pie is left blank, or its value is unknown, and
express the monetary value of the probed entity, noting that we are
only accounting for 75% of its total value.
[0171] Or it can be decided that the only thing that matters in a
car is the quality of engine condition, (or in case of HMOs, the
quality of "success rate"), and use the system scientifically to
figure out the value of that one quality, which can be represented
as a certain slice of the pie, such as "ENGINE CONDITION is
important to 85%," and all other attributes are important to 15%,
and get the dollar value for society, a segment of the population,
an appraiser company, or an individual observer, by comparing cars
on this basis. But to continue the formula, test entity "e" is
better than average on quality X by 4%, so we add 4% of $430, or
$17 to the value of "e"; on Y, "e" falls short by 3% of $190, or we
deduct $6 from "e's" total dollar worth; and finally because on
attribute Z, "e" is worse than average by $7 (rounded numbers for
this illustration), we deduct this amount from the total actual
value of "e". So, whatever "e's" selling price, its true relative
value is $4 more than the price of the Average, or "e's" societal
worth is $1,004.
[0172] In contrast, if an individual inquirer were to pick and rate
the relative importance levels as
[0173] Quality X=9
[0174] Feature Y=5
[0175] Characteristic Z=5, translated into pie slices 9+5+5=19,
using rough figures for illustration, it would mean:
[0176] 9:0.19=48%
[0177] 5:0.19=26%
[0178] 5:019=26%.
[0179] So to this particular individual, X is significant to 48%, Y
has an importance of 26%, and Z is meaningful to 26%.
[0180] Since our research revealed that the average entity in the
group we are valuing, would cost $1,000, (the deductive entity that
rates 100% on all its tested qualities, or in this model case, on
attributes X, Y and Z), this is how the present invention
determines the same test "e" entity's dollar worth, to this
particular inquirer: As we know, in our present example, our
research discovered that the verified qualities of test entity "e"
are: On attribute X, it is better than average by 4%, on
characteristic Y, it is worse than average by 3%, and on trait Z,
it falls below average by 2%.
[0181] Now we know that to this individual, quality X is worth 48%,
or this explorer spends $480 for average quality X, (the average
entity here having a deductive price of $1,000); $260 going for
attribute Y; and in this case, $260 is paid for feature Z. Test
entity "e" is better than average on quality X by 4%, so we add 4%
of $480, or $19, to the value of "e"; on Y, "e" falls short by 3%
of $260, or we deduct $8 from "e's" dollar worth; and finally, for
this inquirer, because on attribute Z, "e" is worse than average by
2% of $260, or $5 more is deducted from the total value of "e." So,
whatever "e's" selling price, its value to this inquirer is $4 more
than the price of the Average, or $994.
[0182] In order to insure informed choices, as an option, this
system can provide descriptions of hard-to-understand technical
terms, or enlighten an inquirer about what any specific attribute
of an entity is, does and has, specifically for this inquirer, or
for society, in general. For example, whether or not the concept or
ramifications of DAYLIGHT RUNNING LIGHTS in an automobile, is or is
not fully comprehended by an inquirer, this system can explain
everything, or the most important things about this quality or
attribute, in terms of the average individual, so that the
importance of a specific quality can be judged by the inquirer,
based on what it in fact is, has and does for the observer, before
pronouncing it important to the degree of 2 or 7, or whatever.
[0183] Example: Non-Subjective Valuing can provide explanations for
specific attributes, such as this one:
[0184] DAYTIME RUNNING LIGHTS ARE A TYPE OF HEADLIGHTS ON A CAR
THAT AUTOMATICALLY TURN ON WHEN YOU START YOUR ENGINE, MAKING YOUR
CAR SAFER, BECAUSE WITH THESE LAMPS ON, OTHER DRIVERS CAN MORE
EASILY NOTICE YOUR AUTOMOBILE, BOTH ON CITY STREETS AND IN FREEWAY
TRAFFIC.
[0185] This invention can unearth how the observers or observer
define a specific quality. For instance, by asking survey questions
about automobile safety, the system learns what it is that society
in general, or a single observer in particular, consider a safe
car, in other words, just what are the components of safety, for
the observer or observers? Experts incorrectly assume that they
know what safety means to me. It is not always true.
[0186] Or, in reference to a computer, polls can tell us: which
components of the quality of reliability are relatively more or
less important (and by what percentage): crash, reboot, repair
frequencies, expert opinion, printer, monitor, modem, Internet,
hardware, software relationships, sturdiness of case, etc. Thereby
customizing choice possibilities even more to adhere to the
observer's desires and to help the manufacturer design future
product.
[0187] In order to be more precise in valuing, this invention can
also learn from the observers, to what extent said observers
perceive that a certain probed group or entity is overpriced or
undervalued. For instance, if the average yearly fee for HMOs turns
out to be $12,000, the present system can learn, if society
currently holds that such cost, at the present time, is too high,
or too low, and by what percentage. Then the dollar figure matching
the yardstick HMO, can be adjusted accordingly, since it is the
perceiver who determines what something is worth to such observer.
The same method may be used for individuals. This way, there is yet
another dimension to Non-Subjective Valuing, as follows. In
addition to answering the question: "What would be the value of a
specific entity to an observer, if such observer knew and
understood everything that observer wanted to know and understand
about the probed entity?" another question may be answered, which
is: "What ought to be the value of a specific entity if the
observer knew and understood everything the observer wanted to now
and understand about the probed entity?"
[0188] People have been interested to learn the actual monetary
values of things other than their prices. At the present time,
there are companies who supposedly seek out merchants and service
providers where a consumer can buy specific products or services,
for the least amount of money. Even when this process is done
honestly, and the providers of products and services do not pay a
fee to the company which recommends them to the public (which
prejudices the entire process), the entire idea is based upon the
fallacy that the listed prices of products and services always
represent their actual value. The truth is that a company can find
a merchant for you, who will sell you a specific television set for
$1,000, which has a list price of $1.300. However, you remain in
the dark as to the pecuniary value of that television set.
Non-Subjective Valuing can tell you if it is worth $1,300, $1,000,
or $800, depending on what it is, has and does, in your terms
and/or in society's terms. For instance, this might be a set which
breaks down often and has a bad manufacturer's guarantee. Or it
could have been tested to outlast comparably priced sets. Depending
on how important various aspects of this product are to you,
Non-Subjective Valuing can give you its actual dollar value. Now,
if you find that to you, a specific television set is worth $1,500,
and its list price is $1,350, then if you locate a vendor to sell
it to you for $1,200, you actually save $300, not $150! On the
other hand, if there is a unique television set, which unit, due to
your preferences and what it is, has and does, is assessed by
Non-Subjective Valuing to be worth $900 to you, and it lists for
$1,500, and you can locate a merchant who will sell it to you for
$1,100: you still in fact lose $200! You get what you pay for, not.
Sellers' aim is to make as much profit as they can, and will spend
millions on advertising products and services, in order to
influence you to buy them. Have you ever seen an ad which tells you
if the competition is better and less expensive? Only
Non-Subjective Valuing can do that, and not in a tendentious manner
either, but in your very own terms. Market prices are determined by
buyer and seller, but it is only theory. The free market system has
long been corrupted by big companies. Sellers are more
knowledgeable about products and services than buyers are. This is
called asymmetric information. If enough money is spent on
promoting a product, the public usually accepts it. Non-nutritious
fast foods, harmful cigarettes and alcohol, unsafe cars, overpriced
products and services: the list of selling the consumer short is
endless. Non-Subjective Valuing lets the consumer choose on
optimal, true, assimilable, enlightened information. It will also
lead to manufacturers and service providers improving their
products and services, not their promotion. An educated buyer
demands real value for his money and will choose the best product,
not the most promoted product. The entire free-market system will
be greatly improved by Non-Subjective Valuing, including the
choosing of candidates for political office, approving government
programs and so on.
[0189] The present invention facilitates the learning of the actual
societal or individual monetary importance of something other than
its market price. This assists both buyer and seller, since to
date, only market prices were known. Because most people know very
little about most things, market prices generally reflect what
people pay for things, about which they know very little. By
definition, it follows that prices could not usually reflect
values.
[0190] One attempt to solve this challenge has been Consumers
Report type "independent" assessments that attempt to unearth the
actual qualities of things, for monetary value comparison or
ranking. People purchase such guides because they do not believe
that in a free market, for $100, they always get $100 worth of
goods or services. People are correct, of course. For $100,
sometimes you get something which is worth $75, and sometimes $125.
However, pre-Non-Subjective Valuing pricing guides provide only
unquantified and prejudiced opinions.
[0191] If you ask editors and reviewers of existing buying guides,
how much money their pronounced assessment of "15% better than
average" means, for lack of a relevant yardstick, they will not and
cannot know. If you ask them how much money their judgment of "15%
better than average" means to an individual inquirer, if possible,
they will know the answer even less. Until the present invention,
no measuring yardstick has existed that could translate "15% better
than average," into monetary value, either to society, or to the
individual.
[0192] The present invention holds that the true monetary
importance of any entity can be discovered, if the inquirer knows
what it wants in a product or service and if said inquirer is
optimally informed about the product or service, in the inquirer's
own terms. Current shopping guides or academic decision science
formulas failed to solve this challenge. Subjectivity is overcome
only by Non-Subjective Valuing where the worth judgment of the
optimally informed average person is discovered. That represents
True (or societal) Value, or the Unopinion.
[0193] First, the inquirer must know his own preferences. The
present invention helps the explorer find out said preferences by
teaching how the relevant Worth Importance Preference chart can be
created. By considering the qualities and characteristics of an
entity to be examined and measured for monetary value or ranking,
its qualities must be rated on an equitable scale (for instance,
0-10, 10 being most important), by the inquirer, be the inquirer a
buying guide, a vendor, a provider, an individual, a group, or the
entire community.
[0194] Since all things consist of 100% of their considered or
considerable attributes, the ratings yield the appropriate,
applicable percentage allocations as set forth within the
Specifications, supra, using pie slices graphically to demonstrate
such proportional parceling. Secondly, the verified qualities of
the entities to be measured must be known. Thirdly, there must be a
method of comparison, since value does not exist in a vacuum. The
lynchpin here is the calculated current correct market price of the
unit that is average in all its considered or considerable
qualities. All test units are compared to the Average unit, in
terms of the proportioned chart of the individual, group, buying
guide, shopping manual, or the entire society. This last one yields
the contemporary societal value of the probed entity: True
Value.
[0195] Two questions are answered by the present invention: 1. What
would be the monetary importance of a particular entity to a
perfectly informed society, and 2. What would the inquirer say, a
specific entity is worth, if the inquirer suddenly knew everything
said inquirer wanted to know about the subject? Thus the scientific
differentiation between price and value is achieved, and we can now
know both the price and the value of everything.
[0196] The invention applies to all types of valuations known to
one ordinarily skilled in the art, such as, but not limited to,
noting the actual relative values of an entity and/or its various
qualities obtained by surveys, polls, searching the Internet,
markets or other means. As another example, a collection of a
consensus of weighing factors given by experts and/or laymen may be
used in rating the relative importance of entities' or their
attributes' subjective qualities. The invention further applies to
all types of sorting methods for outputting the results of
subjective and non-subjective valuing, in relative worth or ranking
terms. For example, an explorer or provider may specify how
relatively important certain qualities of entities are to such
explorer or provider, and these qualities are weighted, with a
sorted result of the entities based upon these one or more weight
relationships provided for the observer. The invention applies to
all types of combinations and/or rearrangements of the methods and
systems described above. For example, it is within the scope of the
present invention to have a observer input an actual, bona fide
offer or price for an entity, next to information regarding that
entity, and having the system re-compute relative values of
competing entities based upon this fresh information. Furthermore,
the system of the present invention may output to a layperson an
interpretation and "help-desk" type information, not only giving a
observer useful instructions, but compute, in the explorer's or
provider's own terms, based on the explorer's entered or provider's
noted respective preferences and value-systems, the specific worth
of a quality of an entity which entity may be unmeasurable by the
observer, due to incomprehensibility of technical language or other
obstacle, making Non-Subjective Valuing's "sort-by-quality" feature
more accurate.
[0197] It is further within the scope of the present invention to
compare various calculated values of entities to predetermined
values, to determine a more advantageous deal, or a "best" choice
for a collective or an individual observer.
[0198] While various embodiments of the invention have been
described, it will be apparent to those of ordinary skill in the
art of valuing, that many more embodiments and implementations are
possible within the scope of this invention, based on comparing
individual real entities to the assumed average entity.
Accordingly, this invention is not to be restricted except in light
of the attached claims, specifications, drawings and their
equivalents.
[0199] According to yet another aspect of the present invention, a
method and procedure for providing the true market value of an
entity is disclosed, comprising the following steps; determining
qualities of an entity, at least one such quality specified, and
the relative importance of each said quality of said entity; by
market research, calculating the deductive market price of a real
or fictitious entity which entity is average in its qualities,
comparing the actual qualities a test entity with that or those of
said average entity, to measure the difference between said test
entity and said average entity; determining the true market value
of said test entity by the weighted relationship between said test
entity's selected quality or qualities and that or those of said
average entity, and displaying for the observer the true market
value of said test entity, by comparing it to the average entity.
The aim of the market research is to determine for how much the
average entity in the group would or should sell for. That average
(assumed or real) entity becomes the yardstick with which all
existent entities are compared. For instance, let us say that in
2010, a Specific 2005 Mercedes Model which is average in its
selected one or more qualities, is learnt to fetch $10,000 in the
market place. By comparing with this average model's quantified or
unquantified qualities, any specific test model's
parallel-quantified or unquantified qualities, it is learnt, by
what degree the test car is better or worse than the average car,
and that difference may be expressed by a pecuniary figure. If a
test car in toto turns out to be 10% better than the average car,
then if the average car would sell for $10,000 in the marketplace,
then the test car which is 10% better, would have a true market
value of $11,000.
5. A Condensed Recapitulating Narrative of the Invention
[0200] 1. Through carefully designed questionnaires to the
demographically correct cross section of our society, we learn all
the qualities for which a target subject is presently recognized by
the community. (Could be attributes of dentists, toothpastes,
department stores, educational systems, online vendors, cities,
senators, policies, economists, movies, movie reviewers, methods of
evaluation . . . not even the sky is the limit). For this example,
we will use Sport Utility Vehicles.
[0201] There are about 300 things we, the people, consider about
them.
[0202] 2. Through a second, similarly scientifically made up
inquiry, to the demographically accurate cross section of our
community, we learn how relatively important each property of the
object is to us. For brevity, let's use only 3 attributes of SUVs
for this example, not 300 or 3000, say: RELIABILITY, ECONOMY and
SAFETY.
[0203] By allowing the respondents to rate each such attribute for
importance, 0-10, 10 being most important, we shall have an average
count of importance for each attribute. Since all things consist of
100% of their currently discoverable qualities, and pretending for
this example that SUVs have only 3 qualities, here is how the math
goes.
[0204] 3. Suppose we get the following averages from the
populace:
[0205] RELIABILITY 9,
[0206] ECONOMY 7, and
[0207] SAFETY 8.
[0208] Non-Subjective Valuing translates such relative importance
ratings into slices of pies, columns of bars, or other
representation of percentages, as follows in this particular
example: 9+7+8=24, or
[0209] RELIABILITY 9:0.24=38%;
[0210] ECONOMY 7:0.24=29%;
[0211] SAFETY 8:0.24=33%. (Whatever number of characteristics we
measure, make up 100% of what an SUV "is").
[0212] In this deductive example, to our current society, these SUV
features are found to be important to the following degrees:
RELIABILITY=38%; ECONOMY=29% and SAFETY=33%.
[0213] 4. Non-Subjective Valuing scientific research measures the
assumed exact average SUV's parallel characteristics.
[0214] By evaluating the level of RELIABILITY, ECONOMY and SAFETY
of all SUVs, and discovering the average RELIABILITY, ECONOMY and
SAFETY for such vehicles, the method assigns the identified
averages to a Yardstick or NORM, or "100%," SUV, which notional
vehicle becomes the standard for Non-Subjective Valuing and with
which putative Average vehicle, all existing vehicles are compared,
on their respective quantified qualities.
[0215] This Average vehicle is mean, median, modal, centrical, or
"NORMal," on all its considerable characteristics, and most
important, it is calculated: for exactly how much money it would
sell in the market place.
[0216] 5. Continuing to greatly simplify the explanation of the
science, let us suppose that we learnt that the
[0217] 100% (or average) RELIABILITY consists of an SUV breaking
down 10 times during the first 5 years of its life;
[0218] its gas consumption (ECONOMY) turns out to be 20 mpg;
and
[0219] national accident reports show that 120 individuals die each
year in the average Sport Utility Vehicle.
[0220] We also know from price averaging that our society is
currently willing to pay $22,000 for the assumed, exact average
SUV.
[0221] 6. This means that the typical American pays out
[0222] 38% of $22,000, for average reliability;
[0223] 29% of $22,000, for normal economy; and
[0224] 33% of $22,000, for regular safety.
[0225] Now we have our YARDSTICK SUV, based on nothing but the
undiluted facts. Communally speaking then, we pay
[0226] $8,360 for normal reliability;
[0227] $6,380 for average economy; and
[0228] $7,260, for normalized safety . . . these dollar amounts
corresponding to the parallel percentages representing the societal
importance levels of the three in-play qualities.
[0229] 7. Once we measure a Test SUV, (that is, a real one), and
compare its characteristics with those of the average SUV, we get a
perfectly valid dollar worth number, mirroring the true pecuniary
VALUE of the Test vehicle, regardless of its price!
[0230] 8. Using primitive math, it goes like this.
[0231] Say that the Test SUV sells for $25,000 and measures up as
follows: It is confirmed that generally,
[0232] it breaks down 8 times during its first five years of its
life, making it about 25% more reliable than average, or we must
add 25% of $8,360 to its value, concerning that one quality (or
plus $2,090, for its reliability advantage);
[0233] it will only travel 15 mpg, or less (worse by) 25% of $6,380
(or minus $1,595 for this Test vehicle's economical disadvantage);
and finally, in our example, we learn that
[0234] in the Test SUV, 60 individuals die each year, making it 50%
safer than average, or worth 50% more than $7,260, which is the
amount of money we pay for normal safety, adding 50% of $7,260 (or
plus $3,630), to the Test vehicle's value.
[0235] 9. When we calculate
[0236] plus $2,090,
[0237] minus $1,595 and
[0238] plus $3,630, it turns out that our particular Test vehicle
is worth $4,125 more than the average SUV, or $22,000 plus $4,125,
equaling $26,125.
[0239] What this vehicle sells for ($25,000), can now be compared
with what it's worth ($26,125), or we learn that our Test SUV is in
fact underpriced by $1,125, or 4.5%!
[0240] IN OTHER WORDS, HAVING EMPLOYED NON-SUBJECTIVE VALUING, THE
FOLLOWING QUESTION IS ANSWERED:
[0241] IF WE SUDDENLY KNEW AND UNDERSTOOD EVERYTHING WE WANTED TO
RECOGNIZE AND INTERPRET ABOUT A REALM, HOW WOULD WE THEN RATE/RANK
THE VARIOUS
ENTITIES--OBJECTS--INDIVIDUALS--GOODS--SERVICES--IDEAS--POLICIES--
-PLACES--METHODS, ETC., IN THAT FIELD?
[0242] THAT IS, BEING PERFECTLY INFORMED, INEVITABLY YIELDS TRUE
VALUE.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
[0243] FIGS. 1A and 1B are flowcharts of a method according to the
present invention;
[0244] FIG. 2 is a flowchart of a method according to the present
invention;
[0245] FIG. 3 is a flowchart of a method according to the present
invention;
[0246] FIG. 4 is a flowchart of a method according to the present
invention;
[0247] FIG. 5 is a flowchart of a method according to the present
invention;
[0248] FIG. 6 is a flowchart of a method according to the present
invention;
[0249] FIG. 7 is a flowchart of a method according to the present
invention;
[0250] FIG. 8 is a flowchart of a method according to the present
invention;
[0251] FIG. 9 is a flowchart of a method according to the present
invention;
[0252] FIG. 10 is a flowchart of a method according to the present
invention;
[0253] FIG. 11 is a flowchart of a method according to the present
invention;
[0254] FIG. 12 is a flowchart of a method according to the present
invention;
[0255] FIG. 13 is a flowchart of a method according to the present
invention;
[0256] FIG. 14 is a flowchart of a method according to the present
invention; and
[0257] FIG. 15 is a flowchart of a method according to the present
invention.
CHRONICLING THE DRAWINGS/FLOW CHARTS
[0258] FIG. 1/A
[0259] A method and procedure for providing the true relative value
of an entity is shown in FIG. 1/A. As shown, the method comprises
the step 102 of determining qualities of an entity and the relative
importance of each quality of the entity to a observer. By way of
example, the entity may be a car, the qualities may be engine
condition, reliability and location, the relative importance may be
a 6 for engine condition, a 9 for reliability and a 2 for location.
The next step 104 may optionally be determining a specific quality
or a given entity from the observer. For instance, the observer may
input that interior condition is also an important specific quality
and to be included. The next step 106 may be optionally providing
an explanation of what a relevant quality of a probed entity is,
and calculating qualities' relative importance to the observer
based on the observer's input as to entered quantified preferences
(on a scale of 0-10 with 10 being most important), the calculation
being done as if the observer fully understood in the observer's
own terms what the quality is, has and/or does. The step 108
calculating the deductive price of the entity, wherein the entity
is noted average in its qualities (at least one selected) in its
group, and the group is identified by the fact that members of the
group could have the qualities of those of the other members of the
group, this imaginary (or real) average unit called the Average
entity. The step 110 may be comparing the actual quality or
qualities of any existent test entity to the average Average entity
on a percentage or other basis, and so discovering the monetary
value or comparative ranking of any the test entity to the observer
by weighing the difference between any test entity and the Average
entity on noted parallel quality or qualities. The step 112
translating the difference between any test entity and Average
entity on noted parallel quality or qualities into monetary or
other value or ranking so as to provide the true relative value for
the entity. The step 114 providing the true relative value for a
test entity to the observer. The optional step 116 matching buyers
and sellers based on the actual value of an entity, by searching
the Internet for sellers who sell product or service at a price at,
below or near the entity's calculated true relative value.
[0260] FIG. 1/B
[0261] A method and procedure for providing the true relative value
of an entity is shown in FIG. 1/B; The optional step 118 may be
providing a central computer, wherein the central computer accepts
and stores information from a observer relating to value
information, wherein the value information may be information about
a real-life price, or bona-fide sale offer for an entity next to
that entity's name, image, denotation or description on the
observer's interconnected computer. The optional step 120 may be
re-computing the true relative value based on the value information
regarding the most recent relative differences between respective
entities' true relative values and prices considering the rank or
sort position of the entity and those of the other entities in or
out of the group. The optional step 122 may be providing a buyer
and seller, wherein they come to a mutually satisfactory agreement
regarding the mutually acceptable sale price of an entity
facilitated by interactive negotiations through the Internet or
other means, the starting point for such bargaining being the true
relative value of an entity and/or the highest monetary number the
buyer is willing to pay and the lowest monetary number at which the
seller is willing to sell the entity, following buyer and seller
learning the true societal value of the entity, or the value
judgment of the optimally informed society, and/or the entity's
relative values to the now informed buyer and seller. The step 124
providing a central computer that automatically records and
remembers all observers' input, choices, selections and personal
Worth Importance pies, and by continually averaging these pieces of
information, is able to know and display the preferences of the
average observer for the individual observer to be able to compare
his own choices and value system with those of his community. The
step 126 providing a central computer that automatically records
and remembers all observers' input, choices, selections and
personal Worth Importance pies, and by continually averaging these
pieces of information, is able to know and display the preferences
of the average observer for the individual observer to be able to
compare his own choices and value system with those of his
community. The step 128 determining by survey or other method a
price point value the observer considers members of a certain test
group generally overpriced or under priced. The step 130 utilizing
the price point value to adjust the value of the Average entity in
the group conclusively to reflect the perception of the observers'
conception in reference to the test entities being so overpriced or
under priced as well as using such information to create an
additional desirability scale.
[0262] FIG. 2
[0263] According to another embodiment, a method and procedure is
disclosed in FIG. 2. As shown, the first step 202 determining how
relatively important certain qualities are to a observer to provide
responses. The step 204 converting responses to appropriate-size
pie slices, or other depiction of commensurate relative weights,
learning for instance how much more or less important qualities are
to a observer. The step 202 creating a observer's Worth Importance
Point Pie by assigning relative weights of qualities of an entity
by rating one, more or all the qualities of the entity on a scale
of 0-10, 10 being most important. The step 204 adding said ratings.
The step 206 dividing each rating by one hundredth of the total
number of qualities, thereby attaining the matching slice sizes of
a Worth Importance Point pie for each quality by the respective
relevant percentages of the 100% pie. The step 208 calculating how
much savings for how much less quality is appropriate for the
observer. The step 210 measuring the observer's attractiveness
scale.
[0264] FIG. 3
[0265] According to another embodiment, a method and procedure for
providing the true relative value of an entity is shown in FIG. 3.
The step 302 determining qualities of an entity and the relative
importance of the qualities (at least one) of the entity to a
observer. The step 304 calculating the deductive price of a real or
fictitious entity, which is average in its one or more qualities,
called the Average entity. The step 306 comparing the actual
quality or qualities of any existent or imaginary test entity with
the quality or qualities of the Average entity to discover and
measure the difference between the test entity and the Average
entity. The step 308 determining the value or ranking of the test
entity by the weighted relationship between the quality or
qualities of the test entity and the quality or qualities of the
Average entity so as to provide a true relative value for the test
entity. The step 310 comparing the values of the entities, whether
or not they are similar in nature, for instance if a vacation is
discovered to be worth $1000 and a computer is discovered to have a
value of $800, the vacation is 20% more valuable.
[0266] FIG. 4
[0267] According to another embodiment, a method and procedure for
providing the true relative value of an entity is shown in FIG. 4.
The step 402 determining at least one quality of a test entity and
the relative importance of each at least one quality.
[0268] The step 404 calculating the deductive price of a real or
fictitious entity which entity is average in its qualities, called
the Average entity 406. comparing at least one quality of the test
entity to the qualities of the Average entity to measure the
difference between the test entity and the Average entity. The step
408 determining the value or ranking of the test entity by the
weighted relationship between the test entity's at least one
quality and the qualities of the Average entity. The step 410
comparing the values of at least two test entities whether or not
they are similar in nature, for instance if a vacation is
discovered to be worth $1000 and a computer is discovered to have a
value of $800, the vacation is 20% more valuable. The step 412
comparing existent prices with the actual values of test entities,
and sorting for the best deal in the observer's terms, for instance
if a vacation worth $1000 is for sale for $500 and a computer worth
$800 is for sale for $700, the vacation is the better deal, but if
the difference reaches a certain point, then it might be the other
way around, and so on.
[0269] FIG. 5
[0270] The step 502 determining qualities of a test entity and the
relative importance of each quality of the test entity to a
observer. The step 504 calculating the deductive price of at least
one real or fictitious entity which entity is average in its
qualities in its group, the group identified by the fact that
members of the group could have the qualities of those of the other
members of the group, this imaginary (or real) average unit called
the Average entity. The step 506 comparing the qualities of the
test entity to the qualities of the Average entity on a weighted
percentage or other basis, and so discovers the true relative value
of the test entity to the observer by calculating the difference
between the test entity and the Average entity. The step 508
collecting the consensus of the experts and laymen concerning true
relative value of the qualities. The step 510 determining the
weighted percentage or other biases the experts think the
lay-persons' opinions should weigh, and discovering the weighted
percentage or other bases weight the amateurs think the experts'
opinion should have, then splitting both numbers to use for
calculation.
[0271] FIG. 6
[0272] According to another embodiment, a method and procedure for
providing the true relative value of an entity is disclosed, as
shown in FIG. 6. This method is comprised of the step 602
determining at least one quality for at least one entity, the
relative importance of the quality to a observer and a value for
each at least one quality. The step 604 providing an average
entity, wherein the average entity is average in its group based
upon at least one quality and has a average price and an average
value for at least one quality. The step 606 determining the value
difference between the value for each at least one quality and
average value for at least one quality. The step 608 ranking at
least two entities of according to the value difference to provide
a ranked list of at least two entities. The step 610 providing the
ranked list to the observer.
[0273] FIG. 7
[0274] According to a different incarnation, a method and routine
for providing the true relative value of an entity is disclosed, as
shown in FIG. 7. This method is comprised of the step 702 providing
a group, 704 providing a unit in the group wherein such unit has at
least one average characteristic, 706 retrieving in a marketplace
an average price corresponding to the average unit on one or more
attributes, 708 quantifying the relative importance of at least one
average characteristic of the average unit whereby the actual
monetary value of any existent test unit in the group can be
discovered by comparing the test unit's unique quantified or
unquantified characteristics with those of the average unit.
[0275] FIG. 8
[0276] According to another embodiment, a method of evaluation is
shown in FIG. 8. The step 802 providing a group wherein the group
is identified by the fact that the members of the group could have
the qualities of those of the other members. The step 804 providing
a unit in the group, that unit calculated average as to at least
one characteristic the members of the group can possess, as well as
the average unit's assumed value, so as to provide a quantified
quality for the average unit. The step 806 noting at least one of
the characteristics of members in the group to a observer and
noting the relative importance of each selected at least one
characteristic of the members of the group to the individual or
collective to provide a quantified quality for the observer. The
step 808 comparing the quantified quality for the observer to the
average quantified quality of the average unit in the group, on a
percentage basis whereby the monetary or other value or comparative
ranking of any member of the group is discovered by weighing the
difference between at least one quantified parallel qualities of
any member of the group against the quantified parallel quality of
qualities of the average unit in the group, translating such
divergence into monetary or other value or ranking. The step 810
displaying the members of the group according to their compared
value or ranking.
[0277] FIG. 9
[0278] According to another embodiment, a method of valuing is
disclosed and shown in FIG. 9. This method comprising step 902
providing entities, step 904 providing attributes for the entities,
step 906 organizing the entities by their attributes to form
organized entities, step 910 ranking the organized entities to form
ranked entities, step 912 displaying the ranked entities to form
valued entities.
[0279] FIG. 10
[0280] According to another embodiment, a method and procedure,
where the true market value of a specific used automobile may be
determined by comparing its selected, quantified characteristics,
to those of the average used automobile, on a percentage or other
basis is shown in FIG. 10. This method may comprise the first step
1002 through market survey or other method noting the deductive
current sale price of an average used specific used make/year/model
automobile, which is average according to a selected unlimited
number of characteristics, at least one selected, such attributes
being "engine condition," or "location," "color," and so on. Step
1004 selecting at least one said characteristic (such as "interior
condition," or "extra equipment,"), all considered characteristic
adding up to 100% of the average automobile's value, such as
"engine condition," and/or "interior condition," and/or "extra
equipment" and/or "location," and so on. For example, take a 1998
Mercedes C 230, which is average on all its selected qualities, and
which car, at a certain time and place, according to accurate
research, should have a market price of $10,000; Step 1006 through
survey or other method note how relatively important each at least
one characteristic of the vehicle is, such as for instance "engine
condition 55%," "interior condition 20%," "extra equipment 22%,"
"location 3%," and so on. In the case of this particular example,
the monetary standard would then be $5,500 for said "engine
condition," (that is 55% of $10,000), $2,000 for said quality of
"interior condition," $2,200 for said attribute of "extra
equipment," and $300 for where said average automobile is located,
and so on; 1008 grade an existing test vehicle, for example said
test vehicle may be a unique 1998 Mercedes C 230, on each of
selected parallel said at least one characteristics, on a scale of
0-10, 10 being best, or 1-5, 5 being best, or some other consistent
way, and suppose for example that due to said verified evaluations,
our said test 1998 Mercedes C 230 rates: 8% better than said
average vehicle on its quality of "engine condition," 5% worse than
the said average vehicle as to its "interior condition," 10% worse
than said average vehicle as to its state of being invested with
"extra equipment," and 2% better than said average vehicle, as to
its "location," then calculating the value of said particular said
test car, due to its measured condition of its engine, would be
worth $5,500+$440=$5,940 on that particular attribute, or to put it
another way, the importance of "engine condition" is 55%, which is
worth $5,500 in case of said average (or standard or yardstick or
touchstone) vehicle, therefore add 8% of $5,500 for said test
automobile being 8% better than said average vehicle on this
particular quality; then $2,000 minus 5%=$1,900; then $2,200 minus
$220=$1,800; and $300+$6 equals $306; and so on, or in this
example, this particular test car's true market value should then
be $9,946.
[0281] FIG. 11
[0282] According to a different incarnation of the shown
innovation, a method and function is shown in FIG. 11, where the
current sorted out market prices or ranking of existent test
entities are obtained and rendered. The step 1100 noting for how
much money an entity in its group would currently sell at the
marketplace, if said entity's attributes were average, at least one
attribute selected; The step 1102 discovering, on a
percentage-allocation or other precise basis, how relatively
important each said selected quality of said entity is, at least
one such attribute chosen; The step 1104 comparing said selected
quantified quality of an existent test entity, with the parallel
quantified qualities of the average entity, on a percentage or
other accurate basis, at least one quality picked out; then
calculating the resulting differences and express the same in
monetary, ranking or other terms.
[0283] FIG. 12
[0284] According to another embodiment of the present invention, a
method and procedure where the current correct market price or
ranking of an existent test entity is shown in FIG. 12. The method
may comprise the step 1200 of noting for how much money a deductive
entity in a provided group would currently sell at the marketplace
if at least one quality of the deductive entity were average to
provide at least one average quality. The step 1202 noting how
relatively important each said at least one quality is. The step
1204 comparing parallel quantified unique qualities of an existent
test entity with said at least one average parallel quality of said
deductive average entity on a percentage or other basis. The step
1206 calculating and expressing the difference in monetary or
ranking terms.
[0285] FIG. 13
[0286] According to another embodiment of the present invention, a
method and procedure for providing the price of a specific used
automobile is shown in FIG. 13. The method may comprise the step
1302 noting the assumed current sale price of an average used
automobile. The step 1304 selecting at least one characteristic of
said car. The step 1306 assigning an importance rating to each said
at least one characteristic of said vehicle. The step 1308 valuing
an existing test automobile according to said at least one
characteristic. The step 1310 calculating the value of said test
vehicle by multiplying said at least one characteristic by its
corresponding said importance rating to provide the value for said
test vehicle. The step 1312 calculating the value of said average
used automobile by multiplying said at least one characteristic by
its corresponding said importance rating, to provide a value for
said automobile. The step 1314 comparing said value for said test
vehicle with said value for said average used automobile.
[0287] FIG. 14
[0288] According to an additional shape of the laid out invention,
a method and procedure for furnishing the true relative value of an
entity is shown in FIG. 14. The method may comprise the step 1402
determining a set of qualities of an entity, wherein said set of
qualities consists of at least one quality. The step 1404
determining the relative importance to an observer of each quality
of the entity within the set of qualities. The step 1406
calculating a rating for an average entity according to the
relative importance of said set of qualities and the rating of the
quality or qualities for the average entity. The step 1408
calculating a rating for a test entity according to the relative
importance of said set of qualities and the rating of the quality
for the test entity. The step 1410 comparing the rating for an
average entity to the rating for a test entity to provide a
comparison basis. The step 1412 translating the comparison basis
between any test entity and the average entity into monetary or
other value or ranking so as to provide the true relative value for
the entity. The step 1414 providing to the observer the said true
relative value for the test entity.
[0289] FIG. 15
[0290] According to an additional shape of the present design, a
method and function for furnishing the value of an entity is shown
in FIG. 15. The step 1502 determining for an observer, an
appropriate set of qualities for an entity. The step 1504 rating
the importance of each quality within said set of qualities to said
observer of said entity on a scale of 0 to 10, or 1-5, to provide a
set of importance valuations comprised of individual importance
ratings. The step 1506 adding said individual importance ratings to
provide a total rating. The step 1508 dividing each individual
importance rating by the total rating to provide the relative
weight for each quality within a set of qualities. The step 1510
determining a quality rating according to the set of qualities for
at least one entity. The step 1512 multiplying each quality rating
by the relative weights for at least one entity to provide at least
one weighted value. The step 1514 adding each at least one weighted
value to provide the entity's true relative value. The step 1516
comparing the true relative value of at least one entity to the
true relative value of at least one other entity.
* * * * *