U.S. patent application number 13/117869 was filed with the patent office on 2011-09-22 for real time expert dialog service.
This patent application is currently assigned to YAHOO! INC.. Invention is credited to Kalyan Ayloo.
Application Number | 20110231780 13/117869 |
Document ID | / |
Family ID | 41342843 |
Filed Date | 2011-09-22 |
United States Patent
Application |
20110231780 |
Kind Code |
A1 |
Ayloo; Kalyan |
September 22, 2011 |
REAL TIME EXPERT DIALOG SERVICE
Abstract
Methods and systems provide for establishment of online dialogs
between a person and a user of an online community where those
people are not necessarily familiar with each others areas of
expertise or interests. The methods and systems can categorize a
dialog topic received from the person, and determine, from
categorization of users, a selection of users of a system to
receive the dialog topic. That selection can be further narrowed
according to user availability and/or ranking determinations, as
well as an initial subject matter test posed to the selection of
users. Judging the acceptability of the users' responses can help
determine subject matter expertise in an area relevant to the
proposed topic.
Inventors: |
Ayloo; Kalyan; (Sunnyvale,
CA) |
Assignee: |
YAHOO! INC.
Sunnyvale
CA
|
Family ID: |
41342843 |
Appl. No.: |
13/117869 |
Filed: |
May 27, 2011 |
Related U.S. Patent Documents
|
|
|
|
|
|
Application
Number |
Filing Date |
Patent Number |
|
|
12125691 |
May 22, 2008 |
7974940 |
|
|
13117869 |
|
|
|
|
Current U.S.
Class: |
715/753 |
Current CPC
Class: |
G06Q 10/10 20130101 |
Class at
Publication: |
715/753 |
International
Class: |
G06F 3/00 20060101
G06F003/00 |
Claims
1. A method of initiating an interactive dialog in an online
community, comprising: capturing a dialog, which has not been
published to an online community, that occurred between a first
user of the online community and one or more particular second
users of the online community; wherein the dialog was carried out
over a network using a dialog mechanism provided to the online
community; providing to each of the first user and the one or more
particular second users, over the network, a mechanism by which to
indicate approval to publish the dialog; and publishing the dialog
electronically to the online community only upon determining that,
through use of the mechanism, each of the first user and the one or
more particular second users decided the dialog should be committed
for electronic publication; wherein the method is performed by one
or more computing devices.
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising: prior to capturing
the dialog, receiving a topic suggestion from the first user;
identifying, from the online community, one or more second users
based, at least in part, on the topic suggestion; and selecting the
one or more particular second users from among the one or more
second users.
3. The method of claim 2, further comprising: posing, to the one or
more second users, a test related to the topic suggestion;
receiving responses to the test; and selecting the one or more
particular second users, from the one or more second users, based
on from whom an acceptable response to the test was received.
4. The method of claim 1, further comprising, prior to capturing
the dialog, determining participants in the dialog, wherein
determining participants in the dialog includes: posing, to the
first user, a test related to the topic suggestion; receiving, from
the first user, a response to the test; and providing, to one or
more second users, the response to the test; wherein the dialog is
facilitated between the first user and the one or more particular
second users, of the one or more second users, that determined the
response to the test was acceptable.
5. The method of claim 1, further comprising, prior to capturing
the dialog, determining participants in the dialog, wherein
determining participants in the dialog includes: receiving, from
the first user, a level of expertise associated with the topic
suggestion, and identifying one or more second users based, at
least in part, on the level of expertise associated with the topic
suggestion; wherein the one or more particular second users are
from the one or more second users.
6. The method of claim 5, further comprising, prior to capturing
the dialog, determining participants in the dialog, wherein
determining participants in the dialog includes: receiving from the
one or more second users an indication of a willingness to
participate in topics at a particular level of expertise, and
identifying one or more second users based at least in part on each
corresponding indication of willingness to participate in the
dialog topic; wherein the one or more particular second users are
from the one or more second users.
7. The method of claim 1, further comprising, prior to capturing
the dialog, determining participants in the dialog, wherein
determining participants in the dialog includes: ranking users of
the online community for expertise in dialog topics; identifying
one or more second users based, at least in part, on a ranking
associated with each of the one or more second users; and wherein
the one or more particular second users are from the one or more
second users.
8. The method of claim 7, wherein the ranking is based on other
online content generated by each ranked user.
9. The method of claim 2, further comprising providing a facility
for the first user to generate the test and determine the
acceptable responses from among the responses received.
10. The method of claim 1, further comprising querying each of the
first person and the one or more particular second users for
approval to publish the dialog.
11. A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing one or more
sequences of instructions, wherein processing the one or more
sequences of instructions by one or more processors causes:
capturing a dialog, which has not been published to an online
community, that occurred between a first user of the online
community and one or more particular second users of the online
community; wherein the dialog was carried out over a network using
a dialog mechanism provided to the online community; providing to
each of the first user and the one or more particular second users,
over the network, a mechanism by which to indicate approval to
publish the dialog; and publishing the dialog electronically to the
online community only upon determining that, through use of the
mechanism, each of the first user and the one or more particular
second users decided the dialog should be committed for electronic
publication; wherein the method is performed by one or more
computing devices.
12. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 11,
further comprising instructions for: prior to capturing the dialog,
receiving a topic suggestion from the first user; identifying, from
the online community, one or more second users based, at least in
part, on the topic suggestion; and selecting the one or more
particular second users from among the one or more second
users.
13. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 12,
further comprising instructions for: posing, to the one or more
second users, a test related to the topic suggestion; receiving
responses to the test; and selecting the one or more particular
second users, from the one or more second users, based on from whom
an acceptable response to the test was received.
14. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 11,
further comprising instructions for, prior to capturing the dialog,
determining participants in the dialog; wherein determining
participants in the dialog includes: posing, to the first user, a
test related to the topic suggestion; receiving, from the first
user, a response to the test; and providing, to one or more second
users, the response to the test; wherein the dialog is facilitated
between the first user and the one or more particular second users,
of the one or more second users, that determined the response to
the test was acceptable.
15. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 11,
further comprising instructions for, prior to capturing the dialog,
determining participants in the dialog; wherein determining
participants in the dialog includes: receiving, from the first
user, a level of expertise associated with the topic suggestion,
and identifying one or more second users based, at least in part,
on the level of expertise associated with the topic suggestion;
wherein the one or more particular second users are from the one or
more second users.
16. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15,
further comprising instructions for, prior to capturing the dialog,
determining participants in the dialog, wherein determining
participants in the dialog includes: receiving from the one or more
second users an indication of a willingness to participate in
topics at a particular level of expertise, and identifying one or
more second users based at least in part on each corresponding
indication of willingness to participate in the dialog topic;
wherein the one or more particular second users are from the one or
more second users.
17. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 11,
further comprising instructions for, prior to capturing the dialog,
determining participants in the dialog, wherein determining
participants in the dialog includes: ranking users of the online
community for expertise in dialog topics; identifying one or more
second users based, at least in part, on a ranking associated with
each of the one or more second users; and wherein the one or more
particular second users are from the one or more second users.
18. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17,
wherein the ranking is based on other online content generated by
each ranked user.
19. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 12,
further comprising instructions for providing a facility for the
first user to generate the test and determine the acceptable
responses from among the responses received.
20. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 11,
further comprising instructions for querying each of the first
person and the one or more particular second users for approval to
publish the dialog.
Description
PRIORITY CLAIM
[0001] This application claims benefit as a Continuation of
application Ser. No. 12/125,691, filed May 22, 2008 the entire
contents of which is hereby incorporated by reference as if fully
set forth herein, under 35 U.S.C. .sctn.120. The applicant hereby
rescinds any disclaimer of claim scope in the parent application or
the prosecution history thereof and advises the USPTO that the
claims in this application may be broader than any claim in the
parent application.
TECHNICAL FIELD
[0002] The present invention generally relates to online forums,
and more specifically to forums where users can obtain information
relating to questions that they pose from others who respond, if
they desire to.
BACKGROUND
[0003] Currently Yahoo! provides forums where a first user can post
a question that can be read by an audience, and members of the
audience can respond to answer the question. The audience can rank
the responses, and users with highly-ranked responses accumulate
points evidencing their participation in the forums. Improvements
and extensions to systems of this sort are desirable.
SUMMARY
[0004] Aspects include a method of initiating an interactive
dialogue in an online community, which comprises receiving a topic
suggestion from a first person, and categorizing the topic
suggestion into a subject matter category. The method also includes
posing a test related to the subject matter category to a subset of
users of the online community who potentially have expertise in the
subject matter category, receiving responses to the test, and
determining from which users an acceptable response was received.
Then, the person who provided the topic suggestions is connected in
the method to one or more users who submitted an acceptable
response, in order to facilitate a dialog. Thereafter, the method
also comprises providing a capability for the first person and the
one or more users to determine collectively whether to publish
electronically a transcript of the dialog. In some aspects, dialog
participants can individually decide whether to approve publication
of the dialog.
[0005] Such aspects also can include ranking users of the online
community for expertise in the subject matter category, and dialogs
can be established between dialog topic proposers and highly ranked
users. Ranking can be based on other content generated by users,
including other previously committed dialogs that have been rated
by others. Other aspects can include a facility for searching
previously published dialogs and allowing rating of them, as well
as other commentary.
[0006] The subject matter test can be selected either by a system
facilitating the online community, or by the person proposing the
dialogic topic, and either the person or the system determines
characteristics of an acceptable result.
[0007] Still other aspects can include providing a capability for
one or more users receiving a proposed dialog topic to pose a
subject matter expertise test to the person proposing the dialog
topic, prior to connecting.
[0008] Still further aspects can include categorizing users into
subject matter categories, reflecting one or more of expertise and
interests of such users. Then, methods can include determining
possible users to a given dialog topic based on such user
categorization. Such possible users can be further narrowed by
determination of present availability or willingness to receive
topics, as well user rankings, and/or a subject matter test.
[0009] Any such methods can be embodied in instructions stored on
computer readable media that can be used to configure one or more
computers to implement the methods. After storage of such
instructions on that computer readable media, that computer
readable media is an article of manufacture. Such methods can be
implemented as a service among a number of services provided
through a web site or another information delivery means that can
allow exchange of necessary information, such as dialog topics. For
example, a service such as Skype or another suitable Voice over IP
service, coupled with Text to Speech functionality may be used for
interfacing users together to form dialogs.
[0010] For example, such a system for providing an online dialog
service can comprise an interface element operable for receiving a
topic suggestion electronically from a first person, a categorizer
operable for determining a category for the topic from a plurality
of categories available to the categorizer, and a selector operable
for selecting users of the online community having expertise in the
category. The system can also comprise a tester operable for posing
an initial subject matter test in the category to at least some of
the selected users and determining from which selected users an
acceptable response was received, and a dialog initiator operable
for connecting the first person and one or more of the selected
users who provided acceptable responses. The system also can
comprise a dialog recorder for recording the dialog, and an
interface element operable for allowing conclusion of the dialog
and posting of the dialog for online availability.
[0011] Further articles of manufacture can be created according to
method aspects disclosed herein, and can comprise articles of
manufacture storing dialogs created according to these methods.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
[0012] For a fuller understanding of aspects and examples disclosed
herein, reference is made to the accompanying drawings in the
following description.
[0013] FIG. 1 illustrates a steps of a method for providing real
time dialogue initiation functionality;
[0014] FIG. 2 illustrates an arrangement comprising a service for
providing real-time dialogue functionality to users of the service
and others;
[0015] FIGS. 3a-3c illustrate the method is for identifying its
users of the service, who may be appropriate candidates for a given
real-time dialogue topic;
[0016] FIG. 4 illustrates aspects of a method for allowing franking
and reading information to be recorded for published dialogs;
[0017] FIG. 5 illustrates sources of information that can be used
to rank users of the service in determining whether to provide a
given user an opportunity to participate in a given online
dialogue;
[0018] FIG. 6 It illustrates a method for verifying user subject
matter expertise;
[0019] FIG. 7 illustrates another method for verifying user subject
matter expertise; and
[0020] FIG. 8 illustrates a method for providing search capability
and display of dialogs that may be responsive to a particular
search.
[0021] FIG. 9 illustrates example components of a computer that can
be used for interfacing a person with a service according to the
description; and
[0022] FIG. 10 illustrates example components of a server computer
that can be used in providing services according to the
description.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION
[0023] The following description is presented to enable a person of
ordinary skill in the art to make and use various aspects of the
inventions. Descriptions of specific techniques, implementations
and applications are provided only as examples. Various
modifications to the examples described herein may be apparent to
those skilled in the art, and the general principles defined herein
may be applied to other examples and applications.
[0024] The following relates to examples and aspects of providing a
capability of initiating category specific real-time dialogs
between a person posting a dialogue topic and one or more of a
plurality of known experts in that topic area. These aspects and
examples may further involve tracking or otherwise recording the
dialogue taking place and upon completion of the dialogue allowing
the participants in the dialogue to decide whether the dialogue
should be available to the public at large for searching, rating,
and other commentary. A still further aspect can include that users
participating in dialogs may receive ratings from other users based
on dialogs published in a particular category, and thus can achieve
higher stature, gaining preference and ranking for engaging in
further dialogs in that category. Also, because carrying on a
successful real-time dialog about a particular subject is made
easier when the dialog participants are familiar with the subject,
connecting a person to a user knowledgeable in the subject is
helpful, and an initial subject matter test can be used in
identifying a participant for a particular dialog.
[0025] In this description, it is generally provided that a person,
who may or may not be a regular user of the site or service
providing such real-time dialogue capability, may propose a
dialogue topic to the site or service, which can function to
identify potential users known to the site or service, who are
willing to engage in real time dialogs and who have subject matter
expertise in one or more categories related to the topic posed by
the person. Thus, the following description, for ease of reference,
uses the term "person" to refer to a person posing a dialogue
topic, while the term "user" refers to a person who is known to the
site or service and can be selected or offered an opportunity to
engage in a dialogue with the person.
[0026] To start with, FIG. 1 illustrates aspects of a method 100,
which may be employed to accomplish real-time dialogue initiation
according to aspects described herein. Method 100 provides an
overview to introduce these aspects and further specificity and
detail concerning these aspects is described in further detail
herein. Method 100 begins with receiving (105) a suggested topic
for a dialogue, such as receiving the topic through a text entry
field of a web browser interface.
[0027] At step 110, the topic is categorized. Its categorization
can be implicit from a context in which the topic was received, for
example, or can be determined by textual analysis. For example, a
person submitting a topic for reception may currently be browsing
in a portion of a website relating to a particular category.
Alternatively, or additionally, a category can be determined from
the content of the suggested topic. For example, a search algorithm
can be used to identify one or more known categories that relate to
certain words contained in the suggested topic. For example, if the
suggested topic included the word, "Plato", then the categorization
logic may categorize the suggested topic into a philosophy
category. By example of a further alternative, the person
submitting the suggested topic may be presented with a menu from
which one or more categories can be selected.
[0028] The method 100 continues with identifying 115 one or more
users known to the service having expertise in the category of the
suggested topic. Various methods, aspects, and examples for
identifying such users will be described with respect to further
figures herein.
[0029] Method 100 continues with connecting 130 the identified the
user or users to the person who originally submitted the suggested
dialogue topic. Method 100 continues with recording the dialogue as
it progresses. For example, a server may record (135) the text that
each user types as the dialogue progresses. Since in these examples
the dialogue is occurring in real time, the dialogue would be
expected to comprise text offered by both parties potentially in an
alternating fashion. The dialogue may continue for some time. When
the person and the user or users engaged in the dialogue determine
to end it, each of the person and the user or users is provided an
opportunity to decide whether or not the dialogue should be
committed 140 for publication.
[0030] It is preferred herein that each of the person and the user
or users can independently determine whether or not the dialogue
should be committed for publication. If any of them decide that the
dialogue should not be published, then the dialogue would not be
made available for public viewing. Thus, each participant both has
an incentive to produce a quality dialog while also being able to
prevent publication of a dialog that the participant feels does not
adequately reflect that participants expertise, or is otherwise
objectionable. If the dialogue is determined to be committed for
publication, then method 100 includes adding 150 the dialogue to a
library of dialogs available online
[0031] Thus at a high level, it can be discerned that two or more
people can engage in a real-time dialogue facilitated by a service.
The way in which users are determined to participate in the
dialogue is a topic of further explanation herein. The contents of
that dialogue can be recorded, and the two or more people
participating in that dialog can determine whether or not they
would wish that dialogue to be published.
[0032] In this context, FIG. 2 illustrates an arrangement where a
service 205 can facilitate the method 100 of FIG. 1 between a
person (P1) communicating from computer 240a and users,
respectively identified as U1 through Un. Each of the users
communicates using devices respectively identified as cell phone
240b, a smart phone 240c, and a computer 240n. The devices
illustrated to facilitate such communication in the arrangement of
FIG. 2 are exemplary and other devices can be used in the
furtherance of examples and methods presented herein. For example,
it is generally contemplated in one example that a dialogue will
primarily be text-based; however, speech recognition also could be
used to convert speech to text during a dialogue.
[0033] The service 205 can be implemented using a variety of
processes, examples of which are illustrated in FIG. 2. For reasons
that will be made clearer herein, service 205 can include a Web
crawler process 210, a dialogue server 215, a Web interface process
220, a database containing user information 225, a user
categorization process 230, a user ranker process 235, and an
external website interface process 236.
[0034] Continuing with FIG. 3a, a first example of further steps to
identify users that may participate in a dialogue is provided. Upon
categorization of a topic, method 300 includes accessing 316 a user
categorization, for example, user database 225 can include
information concerning in what categories users of service 205 have
expertise. For example, some users may have expertise relating to
philosophy while other users may have expertise to history, the
arts, popular music, technology or any other conceivable topic or
some topic. Such categorization can be broad and/or more specific,
in that if many users identify with a given category, then that
category may be subdivided into finer categories, and depending on
the degree to which the suggested dialogue topic can be
categorized, an output from step 316 can include identification of
users in a broader or a narrower category. Although expertise is a
primary concern, interest in a given category also is of concern,
and can factor into categorization of users.
[0035] Once users in a category relevant to the dialogue topic are
identified, those users can be ranked 318 amongst themselves as to
their expertise in that category. User ranking can be based on a
large variety and number of criteria, including aspects such as
whether previous dialogs in the same category were ranked highly by
other users of the system, that a user has a job in a related
field, or even information available on the Internet in general can
be searched and used to determine a user's expertise in that
category. Further aspects of ranking will be addressed herein.
[0036] Method 300 may proceed with determining 310 availability of
one or more users determined to rank highly. For example, not all
users will be online at the same time, or users may also provide an
indication that they are not presently willing to receive suggested
dialogue topics. Alternatively, a determination of availability can
proceed by sending a suggested dialogue topic to those users
determined to rank highly and then a message containing that
suggested dialogue topic would simply not reach unavailable users.
In either case, an initial selection of highly ranked users can be
further narrowed by a determination or by a practical
implementation of an availability determination.
[0037] Method 300 thereafter proceeds with available highly ranked
users by posing 313 a subject matter test to such users. Such a
test provides an initial hurdle to verify subject matter expertise
on the part of a user and can be implemented in a variety of ways,
examples of which are disclosed herein. Categorization of users can
be used to establish an interest level and provide an initial
estimate of expertise. The hurdle test can verify such expertise.
Users provide responses to the test, which are received 314 by
service 205. The acceptability of these responses is determined at
step 315. Such determination of acceptability can be performed by
the person who proposed the suggested dialogue topic or
alternatively can be automated by the system, as described in
further detail herein. Once one or more acceptable responses have
been received, a user or users can be selected to participate in
the dialogue with the person.
[0038] A further step that can be conducted is a reverse
qualification test 325 that can be performed on behalf of the user
or users selected, and which can test a subject matter expertise
level of the person suggesting that dialogue topic. For example,
some users may desire to participate in dialogs only with persons
who have a certain background in the category, such as experts,
while other users may be willing to engage in dialogs with anyone.
Once one or more available users have been identified and vetted by
the method 300, the method of 100 can continue at the connection
step 130.
[0039] Now turning to FIG. 3b, a variation method 305 of method 300
is presented. Method 305 can begin from step 110 of FIG. 1, and
also includes the step of accessing 316 user categorization
information, as well as a step of determining availability 310 of
users in that category or categories determined relevance for the
dialogue topic proposed.
[0040] The method 305 differs from method 300, in that ranking
information is not accessed, and instead available users are
directly posed a test of subject matter competence. Responses are
received 314 from the available users who were given the test and
acceptability of answers received are determined 315. The step of
reverse qualification 335 also can be conducted in method 305.
Method 305 thus illustrates an example, where ranking information
may not be maintained or where it is, for example, it may be
determined that a category for the proposed dialogue topic has a
small enough number of users that a ranking of such users is
unnecessary.
[0041] However, it is generally contemplated that ranking
information should be used to select users of service 205, who are
to receive an opportunity to engage in the dialogue. This is at
least because such ranking would be considered a reward for
participation.
[0042] Now turning to FIG. 3c, a further method 310 is illustrated.
Here, user categorization information may be accessed 316. However
such access is not mandatory. Method 310 continues with accessing
ranking information 318 for users of service 205. Generally, this
ranking information would be category specific, but any example
herein allows for ranking information to be used more broadly and
among a plurality of categories or even at a level of the entire
service 205 itself. In this example, more highly ranked users would
be first selected for an availability determination 320, and if
such user or users were unavailable, then, a next user or users in
rank order may be selected and the availability determination 320
repeated. Once a user or users is determined to be available, i.e.
available to receive proposed dialogue topics, reverse
qualification step 335 may be provided, and thereafter method 100
may continue with connection step 130.
[0043] The method is illustrated in FIGS. 3a, 3b, and 3c illustrate
examples of how a user or users may be identified as users who are
willing and able to engage in a real-time dialogue with the person
about a given topic. In a service with a large number of users
ranking users by category, additionally posing a subject matter
test as a prerequisite for engaging any given real-time dialogue is
a preferred method, as illustrated in FIG. 3a. These steps need not
be performed sequentially, in that for example, highly ranked users
can be categorized or categorized users can be ranked, etc.
[0044] The reverse qualification step 335 may be implemented in a
number of ways including for example, allowing users of service 205
to specify a desire to receive one or more of the beginner,
intermediate, and advanced conversation topics. Persons proposing
dialogue topics may then be asked to self identify a level of
dialogue sought and this then may provide an additional layer of
screening to properly match a person posing a dialogue topic to a
user with whom that person may have a satisfying dialogue.
[0045] Now turning to FIG. 4, additional aspects of how dialogs may
be rated and how such dialogue ratings may influence user rankings
is described. As described with respect to method 100, the person
and the user or users who have engaged in a given dialogue may
commit that dialogue to be published. Method 400 may begin with a
step of receiving a search query 405. Such a search query may be
submitted by a searcher desiring to identify a committed dialogue
available through the service 205 relevant for terms specified in
the submitted search query. Service 205 can access 410 a library of
committed dialogs to identify 420 one or more relevant dialogs, and
display 415 indicators of those identified dialogs to the searcher.
For example, such indicators may include abstracts of the dialogue,
which may include the original proposed dialogue topic, user names
that participated in the dialogue, as well as a ranking of the
dialogue based on ranking information received up to that point.
The service 205 may allow 425 the searcher to select one or more of
the dialogs indicated. The searcher may then provide feedback on
the dialogs reviewed, which is accepted 430 by service 205.
[0046] In some particular examples, service 205 may query the
searcher for feedback in one or more areas, for example. The
service 205 may query the searcher for her opinion about specific
aspects 435 of the dialogue.
[0047] Such specific aspects may include accuracy, professionalism
or formalism, uniqueness of contribution, and whether the searcher
found the dialogue to be informative. Other rating aspects that the
service 205 may ask of the searcher is a feedback rating for each
person and user who participated in the dialogue. Although it is
generally preferred to consider real time dialogs as contemplated
herein to be a joint contribution of all those who participated in
the dialogue, it may be the case that one or more of the
participants in a given dialogue should be given more or less
credit for it. Also service 205 may solicit general comments 425
from the searcher to further characterize the content of that
dialogue. Such comments may be made available to others who search
for dialogs available through service 205.
[0048] The ranking information compiled in method 400 can be used
as one component of the overall ranking of the user in a particular
category, as well as more broadly in the service 205 as a whole.
FIG. 5 illustrates components of information that may be used in
developing a ranking of a user in one or more categories available
on the system. For example, service 205 may be one service of a
number of services available through a particular service provider.
Thus, the service provider may have other information on a user
that can be helpful for determining categories in which that user
has expertise. Such information available from the service provider
is presented by proprietary data 510. For example Yahoo!, Inc.
provides a forum for group discussions, organized by topic.
Information about users' contributions in such groups or forums may
factor into their respective rankings for the purpose of
establishment of real time dialogs in a given subject matter area.
By further example, Yahoo!, Inc. provides job search functionality
as well as job posting functionality; information about a user's
job postings or other professional activity information available
through such functionality also can be used.
[0049] Of course, user provided preferences 515 also can be
considered and that a person may desire to become more involved in
a given category and is learning in that category but may not yet
be considered a subject matter expert. Searching of publicly
available information such as information available on the Internet
also can be used to identify subject matter expertise of users of
service 205.
[0050] Additionally, external sites can provide information useful
in determining rankings via prearranged interfaces, via XML or
pre-set data formats, and the like. For example, professional
networking sites such as LinkedIn can provide employment
information, degree information and the like about users of
LinkedIn, who also are users of service 205. Other social
networking sites such Facebook and MySpace also can be sources of
information useful in ranking users of service 205. These differing
sources of information can be blended together in any of a variety
of ways to arrive at a ranking for a user in a particular category.
And, in cases where a category has one or more subcategories, and
where particular information is available, users may be given
different rankings for those subcategories. For example, a user may
be given a first ranking in art history and a different ranking in
a particular style of art.
[0051] As disclosed above, ranking information for users can be a
useful component in a process for identifying one or more users
with expertise in a given real-time dialogue topic. Another
technique that can be used additionally is the technique of posing
a subject matter test to one or more users who may have expertise
in a given category, and therefore would be candidates for
participation in a given dialogue. FIG. 6 illustrates one
alternative method 600 for posing such a subject matter test to one
or more users. In the exemplary method 600, service 205, based on
categorization of a proposed dialogue topic, can identify a subject
matter question from a database of subject matter questions, and an
answer to that question. In one example, the question can be posed
to the one or more candidate users via the Web interface in a
multiple-choice format, wherein a correct answer is interpose among
incorrect answers. This multiple-choice method has the benefit of
simplicity in that the subject matter test can be automated and
answers are not ambiguous.
[0052] A further example approach to a subject matter test is
presented with respect to FIG. 7. FIG. 7 illustrates steps of
method 700 wherein the person proposing a dialogue topic is queried
710 by service 205 for a subject matter question relevant to the
proposed dialogue topic (710), and optionally an answer (715) to
the question. Service 205 then transmits 720 the question provided
by the person to one or more candidate users. Service 205 receives
725 responses from at least some of the users presented with the
question. Now, depending upon the nature of the response, service
205 can ask 730 the person proposing that dialogue topic, whether
each response received is correct or incorrect, or even whether the
person prefers one response to another. Alternatively service 205
can automatically compare responses received by users with a
response provided by the person proposing that dialogue topic.
Then, a user's selection or determination of correctness of one or
more responses can be used in determining which user or users
should be connected to the person proposing a dialogue topic.
[0053] Since one intended result of service 205 facilitation of
real time dialogue initiation is a compiled library of committed
and categorized dialogs, FIG. 8 illustrates steps of method 800,
which may be used to access such compiled dialogs. In step 805
service 205 can receive a dialogue search query, and using that
search query, can search 810 a dialogue library. Service 205
identifies 815 potentially responsive dialogs, obtains 820 rankings
for those dialogs, and selects highly ranked dialogs for
presentation 830 to the searcher. When such dialogues are compiled
into a library, the library can be stored on a computer readable
medium, such that the computer readable medium becomes an article
of manufacture created according to the dialog-related methods
herein.
[0054] FIG. 9 illustrates components of a computer system that can
be used to implement computer system 240a. Such a computer system
can include a keyboard 920, mouse 921, joystick 922 as examples of
user input devices that provide input to user interface 915. User
interface 915 communicates with CPUs/chipset 905 which provide
processing functionality and can receive data from nonvolatile
memory 950 which can include a solid-state or a magnetic disk drive
for example. User interface 915 also can communicate with a display
940. Working memory 925, such as DRAM, also can be used by CPU 905
to store information currently being used. FIG. 10 illustrates a
computer 1000 that may be used alone or in combination with other
computers for hosting processes implementing service 205. Computer
1000 also may comprise one or more CPUs and a chipset collectively
labeled 1005, which may communicate with a main memory 1025, as
well as with a nonvolatile memory 1050 other memory or storage
available to computer 1001 includes Network Attached Storage (NAS)
1060. Any or all of the processes illustrated in FIG. 2 for service
205 can be implemented in one or more computers 1000, or as threads
in such computers.
[0055] Various pre-existing communications facilities and other
functionality, like web functionality, can be used to implement
methods according to these examples. For example, a service such as
Skype or another suitable Voice over IP service, coupled with Text
to Speech functionality may be used for interfacing users together
to form dialogs.
[0056] Code for these processes can be stored in computer readable
media, such as solid-state drives, hard drives, CD-ROMs and other
optical storage means, transiently in nonvolatile memories as well
as embodied in communication signals. Dialogs also can be saved or
otherwise recorded to any of a variety of computer readable media
or otherwise stored in a database for searching and subsequent
retrieval
[0057] The Web interface process 220 of FIG. 2 can be used for
interfacing with the person proposing a dialogue topic as well as
any user of the service 205 that may be a potential participant in
such a dialogue. For example, web interface process 220 may serve
web pages comprising appropriate interface information as well as
other information, such as advertisements. The processes
illustrated in FIG. 2 may also be implemented as any number of sub
processes modules or functions as deemed appropriate for a
particular implementation. The devices illustrated in FIG. 2 being
used by the person and the users are exemplary and other
communication devices can be used in systems and methods according
to these disclosures. Programming for implementing methods
according to above-described examples can be distributed among one
or more computers connected in a network, which collectively
provide service 205 and potentially other services to remote users.
When information is transferred or provided over a network or
another communications connection (either hardwired, wireless, or a
combination of hardwired or wireless) to a computer, the computer
uses that connection as a computer-readable medium. Thus, by way of
example, and not limitation, computer-readable media can also
comprise a network or data links which can be used to carry or
store desired program code means in the form of computer-executable
instructions or data structures and which can be accessed by a
general purpose or special purpose computer.
[0058] Computer-executable instructions comprise, for example,
instructions and data which cause or otherwise configure a general
purpose computer, special purpose computer, or special purpose
processing device to perform a certain function or group of
functions. The computer executable instructions may be, for
example, binaries, intermediate format instructions such as
assembly language, or source code.
[0059] The examples presented herein provide illustrations of ways
in which real time category specific dialogs can be facilitated by
an online service. The various examples presented combinations of
user categorization, user of ranking, subject matter testing, and
user availability determinations to arrive at a selection of one or
more users to provide an opportunity to engage in a dialogue on the
proposed topic. Different implementations may implement different
combinations of these aspects or combinations of subsets of these
aspects. In a large-scale system, with many categories and many
users, it is contemplated that a categorization or ranking of
users, followed by a subject matter test allows both assurances of
subject matter expertise and adequate rewards for participation in
creation of committed dialogs. Further by providing each
participant in a dialogue with an option to allow or prevent
publication of such dialogue, it is contemplated that each
participant then would have an interest in the overall quality of
the dialogue. Many variations and enhancements to the examples and
aspects disclosed herein will be apparent to those of ordinary
skill in the art in view of these disclosures, and all such
variations and enhancements should therefore be considered within
the scope of the appended claims and their equivalents.
* * * * *