U.S. patent application number 13/286596 was filed with the patent office on 2012-02-23 for system and method for content development.
Invention is credited to John M. Hughes.
Application Number | 20120047211 13/286596 |
Document ID | / |
Family ID | 39763651 |
Filed Date | 2012-02-23 |
United States Patent
Application |
20120047211 |
Kind Code |
A1 |
Hughes; John M. |
February 23, 2012 |
System and Method for Content Development
Abstract
This invention relates to a system and methods for developing
content. In general, in one aspect, a method for developing content
includes electronically distributing a specification for content to
a distributed community of content developers, receiving
submissions from each of a subset of the community of content
developers in response to the distributed specification, holding a
first vote in which a group of voters rank a first number of
submissions and identify the order in which they predict the
submissions will be ranked by others, selecting the highest scoring
submissions in the first vote, holding a second vote to evaluate
the submissions that receive the highest score in the first vote;
and selecting a winner based on the second vote.
Inventors: |
Hughes; John M.; (Hebron,
CT) |
Family ID: |
39763651 |
Appl. No.: |
13/286596 |
Filed: |
November 1, 2011 |
Related U.S. Patent Documents
|
|
|
|
|
|
Application
Number |
Filing Date |
Patent Number |
|
|
12048189 |
Mar 13, 2008 |
8073792 |
|
|
13286596 |
|
|
|
|
60906928 |
Mar 13, 2007 |
|
|
|
Current U.S.
Class: |
709/204 |
Current CPC
Class: |
G06Q 30/02 20130101;
G06Q 50/188 20130101 |
Class at
Publication: |
709/204 |
International
Class: |
G06F 15/16 20060101
G06F015/16 |
Claims
1-10. (canceled)
11. A method for developing video content, comprising:
electronically distributing a specification for video content to a
distributed community of content developers; receiving submissions
of video content from each of a subset of the community of
designers in response to the distributed specification; holding a
first contest in which a group of voters rank a first number of
submissions of video content and identify the order in which the
submissions will be ranked by others; holding a second vote to
evaluate the submissions of video content that receive the highest
score in the first vote; and selecting a winner based on the second
vote.
12. The method of claim 1, further comprising, prior to the first
contest, reviewing the submissions of video content for
intellectual property issues.
13. The method of claim 1, wherein the intellectual property issues
comprise originality.
14. The method of claim 1, wherein the intellectual property issues
comprise authorship.
15. The method of claim 1, wherein the intellectual property issues
comprise copyright.
16. The method of claim 1, further comprising, prior to the second
contest, reviewing the submissions of video content for
intellectual property issues.
17. The method of claim 1, wherein the first contest uses a Schulze
type method for comparison.
18. The method of claim 1, wherein the voters are rewarded for
their participation.
Description
PRIORITY
[0001] This application claims priority to, and the benefit of,
U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 60/906,928, filed Mar.
13, 2007, entitled "System and Method for Content Development," by
John M. Hughes, Attorney Docket No. TOP-017PR.
TECHNICAL FIELD
[0002] This invention relates to computer-based methods and systems
for developing content and, more particularly, to methods and
systems for facilitating the distributed development of
content.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
[0003] It can be challenging to develop content that is appreciated
by many different people. It may be useful to quickly and
inexpensively develop content that will be appreciated by many
different people, for example, people within a company, as well as
by the company's customers and business partners.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
[0004] All types of content development projects, including without
limitation such projects as web page design, user interface design,
banner and other advertising design, stationary design, software
application design, music and song composition, have both aesthetic
and business aspects, and help form an impression that a customer,
end user, audience member, or business partner has of an
organization and/or its products.
[0005] Organizations need a way to quickly and efficiently develop
content that will be received positively by their target audience.
It can be difficult to efficiently generate a number of different
ideas and then identify the one that will be best received by the
target audience. One technique that can help address these concerns
is to use a series of competitions, in which a number of content
developers submit candidate submissions for selection. Having
different people work on the development helps generate many
different approaches.
[0006] Once different submissions are generated, however, it is
still necessary to select the submission(s) preferred by a target
audience. This may be the submission(s) that the audience
themselves prefer, or the submission(s) that the audience predicts
the target audience will prefer.
[0007] In general, in one aspect, a method for developing content
includes electronically distributing a specification for content to
a distributed community of content developers, receiving
submissions from each of a subset of the community of content
developers in response to the distributed specification, holding a
first vote in which a group of voters rank a first number of
submissions and identify the order in which they predict the
submissions will be ranked by others, selecting the highest scoring
submissions in the first vote, holding a second vote to evaluate
the submissions that receive the highest score in the first vote;
and selecting a winner based on the second vote.
[0008] Once selected, the content developer who developed the
selected submission, or another content developer, can be engaged
for future work in connection with the content.
[0009] In general, another aspect of the invention relates to a
system for implementing the methods just described. The system
includes a communications module for electronically distributing
requirements for content to a distributed community of content
developers and receiving submissions from each of a subset of the
community of content developers in response to the requirements.
The system includes an review module for facilitating evaluation of
a subset of the received submissions by a number of reviewers; and
a selection module for selecting a preferred submission in response
to the facilitated review of the submissions. The system includes a
facility for supporting a first vote in which reviewers rank a
predetermined number of submissions and identify the order in which
they predict the submissions will be ranked by others. The system
also includes a facility for selecting the highest scoring
submissions in the first vote, and holding a second vote to
evaluate the submissions that received the highest score in the
first vote, and selecting a winner based on the second vote.
[0010] In one embodiment of this aspect of the invention, the
system further includes a rating engine for rating the skills of
the members of the distributed community of content developers. The
system can, in some embodiments, further include a reviewing module
to allow members of the distributed community to review
content.
[0011] For example, in one embodiment, the techniques described
here are used to develop a set of web pages for a web site. The
submission may include a web site design, as well as content.
Content developers receive a specification for the requested
content. The submission may include text, graphics, and so forth.
The submissions are made available for review and evaluation by a
group of reviewers. The reviewers may be, for example, members of a
community of content developers. A first vote is conducted using a
first voting method to narrow down the submissions to a
predetermined number of finalists (e.g., 3 finalists). Another
vote, using another voting method, is then held to determine the
most preferred of the finalists. For example, in one embodiment,
the first voting method is a prediction voting method, in which
voters are asked to select five (5) submissions out of a
predetermined number (e.g., 50) and rank them based on which
submissions they think other voters also will rank as the highest.
In short, voters are asked to predict which submissions will rank
the highest, and in what order. A selected number of high scorers
from the prediction vote are then entered in a second contest where
voters are asked to rank the finalists from best to worst. A method
such as the Schulze Method may be used to determine the winner.
[0012] In some embodiments, awards are provided to the finalists.
In some embodiments the submitter of the winning submission
receives a first reward, the submitter of the second place finisher
receives a second place award, and so forth. In some embodiments,
awards are provided to one or more participants in the first
contest who predicted the finalists and/or the participants.
[0013] Other aspects and advantages of the invention will become
apparent from the following drawings, detailed description, and
claims, all of which illustrate the principles of the invention, by
way of example only.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
[0014] In the drawings, like reference characters generally refer
to the same parts throughout the different views. Also, the
drawings are not necessarily to scale, emphasis instead generally
being placed upon illustrating the principles of the invention.
[0015] FIG. 1 is a block diagram of an embodiment of a distributed
content development system having a server according to the
invention.
[0016] FIG. 2 is a block diagram of one embodiment of a content
development domain according to an embodiment of the invention.
[0017] FIG. 3 is a flow chart depicting steps performed in
developing content according to an embodiment of the invention.
[0018] FIG. 4 is a flow chart depicting an overview of the
operation of an embodiment of the invention.
[0019] FIG. 5 is a flow chart depicting steps performed in
developing content according to an embodiment of the invention.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION
[0020] Referring to FIG. 1, in one embodiment, a distributed
content development system 101 includes at least one server 104,
and at least one client 108, 108', 108'', generally 108. As shown,
the distributed content development system includes three clients
108, 108', 108'', but this is only for exemplary purposes, and it
is intended that there can be any number of clients 108. The client
108 is preferably implemented as software running on a personal
computer (e.g., a PC with an INTEL processor or an APPLE MACINTOSH)
capable of running such operating systems as the MICROSOFT WINDOWS
family of operating systems from Microsoft Corporation of Redmond,
Wash., the MACINTOSH operating system from Apple Computer of
Cupertino, Calif., and various varieties of Unix, such as SUN
SOLARIS from SUN MICROSYSTEMS, and GNU/Linux from RED HAT, INC. of
Durham, N.C. (and others). The client 108 could also be implemented
on such hardware as a smart or dumb terminal, network computer,
wireless device, wireless telephone, information appliance,
workstation, minicomputer, mainframe computer, or other computing
device, that is operated as a general purpose computer, or a
special purpose hardware device used solely for serving as a client
108 in the distributed content development system.
[0021] Generally, in some embodiments, clients 108 can be operated
and used by content developers to participate in various content
development activities. Examples of content development activities
include, but are not limited to participation the content
development projects described here. Clients 108 can also be
operated by entities who have requested that the content developers
develop content (e.g., customers). The customers may use the
clients 108 to review content developed by the content developers,
post specifications for the development of content, view
information about the content developers, as well as other
activities described here. The clients 108 may also be operated by
a facilitator, acting as an intermediary between the customers and
the content developers.
[0022] In various embodiments, the client computer 108 includes a
web browser 116, client software 120, or both. The web browser 116
allows the client 108 to request a web page or other downloadable
program, applet, or document (e.g., from the server 104) with a web
page request. One example of a web page is a data file that
includes computer executable or interpretable information,
graphics, sound, text, and/or video, that can be displayed,
executed, played, processed, streamed, and/or stored and that can
contain links, or pointers, to other web pages. In one embodiment,
a user of the client 108 manually requests a web page from the
server 104. Alternatively, in another embodiment, the client 108
automatically makes requests with the web browser 116. Examples of
commercially available web browser software 116 are INTERNET
EXPLORER, offered by Microsoft Corporation, NETSCAPE NAVIGATOR,
offered by AOL/Time Warner, or FIREFOX offered by the Mozilla
Foundation.
[0023] In some embodiments, the client 108 also includes client
software 120. The client software 120 provides functionality to the
client 108 that allows a content developer to participate,
supervise, facilitate, or observe content development activities
described above. The client software 120 may be implemented in
various forms, for example, it may be in the form of a Java applet
that is downloaded to the client 108 and runs in conjunction with
the web browser 116, or the client software 120 may be in the form
of a standalone application, implemented in a multi-platform
language such as .Net or Java, or in native processor executable
code. In one embodiment, if executing on the client 108, the client
software 120 opens a network connection to the server 104 over the
communications network 112 and communicates via that connection to
the server 104. The client software 120 and the web browser 116 may
be part of a single client-server interface 124; for example, the
client software can be implemented as a "plug-in" to the web
browser 116.
[0024] A communications network 112 connects the client 108 with
the server 104. The communication may take place via any media such
as standard telephone lines, LAN or WAN links (e.g., T1, T3, 56 kb,
X.25), broadband connections (ISDN, Frame Relay, ATM), wireless
links (802.11, bluetooth, etc.), and so on, and any combination.
Preferably, the network 112 can carry TCP/IP protocol
communications, and HTTP/HTTPS requests made by the web browser 116
and the connection between the client software 120 and the server
104 can be communicated over such TCP/IP networks. The type of
network is not a limitation, however, and any suitable network may
be used. Non-limiting examples of networks that can serve as or be
part of the communications network 112 include a wireless or wired
ethernet-based intranet, a local or wide-area network (LAN or WAN),
and/or the global communications network known as the Internet,
which may accommodate many different communications media and
protocols.
[0025] The servers 104 interact with clients 108. The server 104 is
preferably implemented on one or more server class computers that
have sufficient memory, data storage, and processing power and that
run a server class operating system (e.g., SUN Solaris, GNU/Linux,
and the MICROSOFT WINDOWS family of operating systems). Other types
of system hardware and software than that described herein may also
be used, depending on the capacity of the device and the number of
users and the size of the user base. For example, the server 104
may be or may be part of a logical group of one or more servers
such as a server farm or server network. As another example, there
may be multiple servers 104 that may be associated or connected
with each other, or multiple servers could operate independently,
but with shared data. In a further embodiment and as is typical in
large-scale systems, the application software may be implemented in
components, with different components running on different server
computers, on the same server, or some combination.
[0026] In some embodiments, the server 104 also can include a
contest server, such as described in U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,569,012 and
6,761,631, entitled "Systems and Methods for Coding Competitions"
and "Apparatus and System for Facilitating Online Coding
Competitions" respectively, both by Lydon et al, and incorporated
by reference in their entirety herein.
[0027] In one embodiment, the server 104 and clients 108 enable the
distributed content development of content by one or more content
developers, which developers may or may not be associated with the
entity requesting the development of the content.
[0028] In one embodiment, the content is a design, such as an
aesthetic design. Generally, an aesthetic design is a
representation of a decorative, artistic and/or technical work that
is created by the designer. For example, the design can be a
graphic design, such as a logo, a graphic, or an illustration. The
design can be a purposeful or inventive arrangement of parts or
details. For example, the design can be the layout and graphics for
a web page, web site, graphical user interface, and the like. The
design can be a basic scheme or pattern that affects and controls
function or development. For example, the design can be a prototype
of a web page or pages, a software program or an application. As
another example, the design can be a product (including without
limitation any type of product, e.g., consumer product, industrial
product, office product, vehicle, etc.) design or prototype. The
design also can be a general or detailed plan for construction or
manufacture of an object. For example, the design can be a product
design. The design can be the design for a computer program. The
content may be, or may include without limitation, a web page,
content for a web page, a computer program, text, an article,
picture, visual and/or video content, music, sounds, graphical
design, architectural works, or any other type of content.
[0029] In one embodiment, the content is a logo that a company
intends to use on its web site, business cards, signage,
stationary, and/or marketing collateral and the like. In another
embodiment, the design is a web page template, including colors,
graphics, and text layout that will appear on various pages within
a particular web site.
[0030] In one embodiment, the design is a requirements
specification for a software program, including the requirements
that the program must meet.
[0031] Referring to FIG. 2, a content development domain 204 can be
used to provide an entity 208 with high-quality content. One or
more content developers can be identified and/or selected by
various methods from a distributed community of content developers
212, and subsequently used to develop content. For example, the
content developers may be employees of, consultants to, or members
of an organization, enterprise, or a community fostering
collaborative and distributed content development. In some cases,
the content developers may have no other formal or informal
relationship to each other. In some embodiments, one or more of the
content developers may act as a project manager who is responsible
for organizing and coordinating the efforts of other developers.
The project manager may also specify items such as, without
limitation, the cost of the project, the project schedule, and the
project risks. In one embodiment, the project manager creates a
project plan for the project, which may include, without
limitation, an estimated project cost and schedule, and a
requirements document describing, for example, the parameters of
the content, and the scope and risks of the project.
[0032] In some embodiments, the content developers may include
architects, designers, programmers, quality assurance engineers, as
well as other content development roles.
[0033] In one embodiment, the content development domain 204
includes a communication server 216, development methodology 220,
content development software 224, and a review/voting mechanism
228. The communication server provides a conduit through which the
external entity 208, the community of content developers 212, and
the reviewers (also referred to as voters) can interact, for
example, to provide documentation, submit content, elicit and offer
feedback, review submitted content, and potentially rate and/or
select submitted content. In some embodiments, the communication
server is or operates as part of the server 104 as described above,
whereas in other cases the communication server may be a separate
server, which may be operated by and/or outsourced to an
application service provider (ASP), internet service provider
(ISP), or other third-party.
[0034] The structured content development methodology 220 provides
a framework for the development of content. The methodology 220 may
specify a common vocabulary, a set of deliverables, as well as any
other aspects of the content development process. Furthermore, by
using a structured methodology, the participants, (e.g., developers
212, the entity 208) can communicate effectively, and the outputs
of each development process step are known and can be verified,
thus reducing the cost and time necessary to produce quality
content.
[0035] The content development software 224 may provide an
operational mechanism for implementing the methodology 220, and in
some implementations a content development environment in which the
content developers can do one or more of develop, alter, combine,
view, test, submit, and verify content. In some embodiments, as
shown, components of the software 224 may reside on the server 104,
whereas some components may be included in client software residing
on a client, e.g., as described above. For example, the content
development software 224 can include one or more stand-alone
software applications that execute on a client 108. The content
development software 224 optionally can include one or more modules
such as a design library, stock photo library, and so forth, from
which content developers may access previously developed content
and/or templates that may be used in content development and/or
documentation; a documentation feature that provides information
about terms, syntax, and functions; as well as other useful
functions.
[0036] FIG. 3 provides a summary illustration of one embodiment of
a method for developing content, for example, using the content
development domain 204 described above. The communication server
216 receives a specification (STEP 304) describing the desired
content. The specification can include such information as the type
of content, the size of the deliverables, size and color
requirements, desired or undesired themes, content that may or may
not be included, background information for creating the content,
acceptable files types and formats for the submission, required
documentation, and the like. The specification may then be
communicated to the distributed community of content developers 212
(STEP 308). The specification can be communicated by posting to a
web site that is accessed by members of the distributed community
of content developers. The specification (and/or a link to the
specification) can be communicated via email, instant message (IM),
or through any other suitable communication technique. The
specification can also include any timing deadlines for response,
and the prize to be paid for one or more selected (e.g., winning)
submission(s). For example, a prizes can be awarded for first,
second, and third place, and the prizes described in the
specification.
[0037] One or more of the content developers in the community 212
creates a submission in response to the requirements described in
the specification. Once completed, the submission(s) are
communicated to, and received at the server 104 (STEP 312). The
submitted submission(s) are then subject to a review/voting process
(STEP 316). In one embodiment, one or more reviewers (e.g.,
skilled, experienced and/or highly rated experts, focus groups, a
customer, etc.) compare the submission(s) to the specification, and
evaluate them. In one embodiment, one or more content submissions
that are the "best" of the submissions are selected in response to
the review/voting (STEP 320).
[0038] FIG. 4 provides one possible implementation of the general
method described above. In some such embodiments, the content
development process is monitored and managed by a facilitator 400.
The facilitator 400 can be any individual, group, or entity capable
of performing the functions described here. In some cases, the
facilitator 400 can be selected from the distributed community of
content developers 208 based on, for example, success with
previously submitted content and/or achieving a high ranking. In
other cases, the facilitator 400 can be appointed or supplied by
the entity (e.g., entity 208) requesting the development of the
submission, and thus oversee the content development process for
further assurance that the end product will comport with the
specifications.
[0039] Initially, the facilitator 400 receives input from an entity
(not shown) wishing to have content developed on their behalf. The
entity can be, for example, a company looking to have one or more
computer programs designed and/or developed for internal use, or as
portions of larger applications that they intend to sell
commercially. The entity can be, for example, a company looking to
redesign its web pages. The entity can be, for example, a company
that would like to have a corporate logo designed. The entity can
be, for example, a company that would like a design for a banner
advertisement to be displayed on Internet web sites. The entity may
be a web site that is looking for content about a particular
subject. In some cases, the entity provides a detailed
specification with the requirements for the design, and in other
cases only a short list of requirements may be provided. The
facilitator receives either the short list of requirements (STEP
406), the full specification (STEP 408), or in some cases both from
the external entity. If, however, no specification is provided, or
if the specification needs revisions to conform to the methodology,
the facilitator can develop a specification in accordance with the
requirements (STEP 410). For example, the requirements may describe
only the appearance of the submission, while the specification will
include the technical requirements for submission (e.g., file
format, graphic size, and the like). In some cases, one or more
members 404 of the content development community 212 may be asked
to develop the specification, and in some cases multiple
specifications may be submitted, with one of the submissions
selected as the final specification to be used for guiding the
content development effort.
[0040] In some cases, the specification is assigned a difficulty
level, or some similar indication of how difficult the facilitator,
entity, or other evaluator of the specification, believes it will
be to produce a submission according to the specification. The
difficulty level may, in some cases, also be based on the effort
believed to be necessary to complete the task, and the time
allotted to complete the task. The difficulty level may be
expressed in any suitable manner, for example as a numerical
measure (e.g., a scale of 1 to 10), a letter grade, or a
descriptive such as easy, medium, or hard. For example, a
specification for the design of a web site with many color and text
constraints may have a difficulty level of 9 on a scale of 1 to 10,
whereas a simple logo design that is to be used on a web site may
be assigned a difficulty level of 2. If there are additional
practical constraints, for example if the content is needed in a
short amount of time (e.g., two days), the difficulty level
optionally may be increased due to the tight time constraints. In
some embodiments, an award to the submitter (e.g., money, skill
rating, etc.) that submits the selected submission may be produced
or adjusted based in part on the difficulty level associated with
the specification.
[0041] Once the specification is received (or developed), the
facilitator 400 (or in some cases a project manager, review board
member, or some combination thereof) may review the specification
to determine if it meets the requirements for a complete
specification according to the content development methodology 220.
The methodology can include best-practice activities, templates,
guidelines, and standards that assist the content developers in
producing quality content in a consistent and efficient manner. The
use of such a methodology reduces the need to rethink and recreate
the presentation of the submission, thus reducing project duration
and cost, and increasing quality.
[0042] Once complete, the specification may be distributed via the
communications server 212 to one or more content developers 404,
404', 404'' (generally, 404), who may be members, for example, of a
distributed community of content developers such as the community
212 shown in FIG. 2. In one non-limiting example, the content
developers 404 are not related to each other. For example, the
content developers may have no common employer, may be
geographically dispersed throughout the world, and in some cases
have not previously interacted with each other. However, as members
of the community 212, the content developers 404 may have
participated in one or more previous content development
competitions, and/or have had previously submitted content subject
to reviews. This approach allows an entity 208 to gain access to a
large pool of qualified content developers.
[0043] The communication can occur over a communications network
such as the network 112 (FIG. 1), such as via an email, instant
message, text message, a posting on a web page accessible by the
web browser 116, through a news group, facsimile, or any other
suitable communication. In some embodiments, the communication of
the specification can be accompanied by an indication of a prize,
payment, or other recognition that is available to the content
developer(s) that submit selected submissions. In some cases, the
amount and/or type of payment may change over time, or as the
number of participants increases or decreases, or both. In some
cases multiple content developers may be rewarded with different
amounts, for example a larger reward for the best submission, and a
smaller reward for second place. The number of content developers
receiving an award can be based on, for example, the number of
content developers participating in the content development
project, or other similar attributes.
[0044] The recipients of the specification can be selected by
various means. In some embodiments, members of the community may
have expressed interest in participating in a content development
project, whereas in some cases the individuals are selected based
on previous performances in content development competitions, prior
development projects, or other methods of measuring the skill of a
content developer. For example, the members of the distributed
community of content developers may be content developers who have
previously participated in a competition, or (e.g., in the case of
software designs) an on-line programming and/or coding and/or
component design competition, or (e.g., in the case of other
content) have demonstrated or claimed relevant expertise. In such a
case, the skills of the participants may have been rated according
to their performance, either individually, as a team, or in
relation to others, and the ratings may be used to determine which
content developers are eligible to receive notification of a new
specification or respond to a notification.
[0045] In one embodiment, the facilitator 400 moderates a
collaborative forum among the various participants (the external
entity 208, the developers 404, etc.) to determine, discuss, or
collaborate on content development features. The collaborative
forum can consist of developers, customers, prospective customers,
or others interested in the development of certain content. In one
embodiment, the collaboration forum is an online forum where
participants can post ideas, questions, suggestions, or other
information. In some embodiments, only a subset of the forum
members can post suggestions to the forum.
[0046] Upon receipt of the specification, one or more content
developers 404 each develop content (STEPS 412, 412' and 412'') in
accordance with the specification. The development of the content
may be done using any suitable development system, for example,
content development software 224 provided via the communication
server 216, a development environment provided by the developer
404, or some combination thereof, or otherwise. Once a developer
404 is satisfied that her submission meets the specified
requirements, she submits her submission e.g., via the
communications server 216, facsimile, email, mail, or other
method.
[0047] To determine which submission will be selected, a content
review process (STEP 414) is used. This process can take place in
any number of ways. In some embodiments, a two-phase voting process
is used. A first contest 416 is held using a first voting technique
in which a group of the distributed community to select a number of
submissions as finalists. The first contest may include each voter
predicting which of the submissions are likely to be finalists, and
in which order. A second contest 418 is held using a second voting
technique, in which the finalists are selected. In some such
embodiments, the second voting technique is different from the
first voting technique.
[0048] There may or may not be a screening review prior to one or
the other of the contests to determine whether the required
elements of the specification are met (e.g., color selection, color
range, required text, size and resolution of graphic images,
etc.).
[0049] In some embodiments, a voter's scores are documented using a
scorecard, which can be any form, including a document,
spreadsheet, online form, database, or other electronic
document.
[0050] In some embodiments, the scores and reviews from the first
contest are aggregated into a final review and score. In some
embodiments, the aggregation may involve using a computer-based
system which resides on the server 104 (FIG. 1). In some
embodiments, the facilitator 400 or a review board member resolves
discrepancies or disagreements among reviewers.
[0051] In one embodiment, the submission(s) with the highest score
in the second contest is selected as the winning submission (STEP
420). A prize, payment and/or recognition is given to the
submitter. There can also be prizes, payments, and/or recognition
for the other submitted content. For example, the submitters that
submit the second and third best content may also receive payment,
which in some cases may be less than that of the winning content
developer. Payments may also be made for creative use of
technology, submitting a unique design, or other such submissions.
In some embodiments, the voters in the first contest and/or the
second contest who were closest to predicting the winner(s) also
receive a prize. It may be the a voter's score is tracked over
multiple contests, and a voter with the highest overall score is
rewarded.
[0052] In some embodiments, in the content review process 414, in
addition to the two contests, there may be review by reviewers,
such as a review board who can provide a report and/or evaluation
of the submission, for example, whether the submission meets
particular technical, legal, or other requirements. The facilitator
400 may provide the winning submission to the entity that requested
the content.
[0053] In some embodiments, the content review process 414 may be
conducted in concert with a community of reviewers. In one such
embodiment, the developed content are first screened to determine
whether the required elements of the specification are met. One or
more screeners (who may be a review board member, a facilitator
400, or any other designated individual) verify compliance with the
specification. The screener may work with the content developers to
resolve any problems with the content, depending on the
predetermined rules, the timing of the submission, and the nature
of the problem.
[0054] In one embodiment, once a screener identifies submissions
that have met some or all of the requirements of the specification,
the content submissions are reviewed by a number of reviewers.
There may be any number of reviewers. In one embodiment there are
between 10 and 50 reviewers. In one embodiment, there are between
10 and 100 reviewers. In one embodiment there are between 10 and
1000 reviewers. In one embodiment, there are between 100 and 5000
reviewers. In another embodiment there are more than 5000
reviewers. The reviewers review the submitted content and rate
them, for example in the manner described above, but it may be a
simpler review, for example, just a rating of preference, with no
other criteria requested.
[0055] It should be understood that the review of the content can
take place in any suitable way, depending on the number of
reviewers and the number of content.
[0056] In one embodiment, one or more screeners determine whether
submissions have met the formal requirements of the specification
for example, that a submission is complete and that the submission
has met the required file formats and documentation. A review board
of a small number of reviewers (e.g., 1, 3, or 5) reviews the
submissions and evaluates the content for objective compliance with
the specification. For example, if text is required, the reviewers
review the text to determine whether it is present and correct to
meet the requirements of the specification. The review board may
also review the content for aesthetic or other more subjective
criteria. The results of the review board are evaluated, and a
predetermined number of "best" content are selected, based on the
results of the review board's evaluation. Prizes or awards may be
given to the content developers whose content met this selection.
In one embodiment, the "best" content are then provided to a larger
group of reviewers, for example, with the first contest/second
contest process described above. The larger group of reviewers can
use the same criteria as the review board, or can provide a simpler
like/dislike feedback, or a preference rank. Each of the content
submissions presented to the larger group are the ones that have
most closely met the specification criteria, so the larger group
can be used to determine the submission(s) that have a more general
appeal. Also, the review board typically will include experienced
content developers, while the larger group might include more
members of the intended audience for the submission.
[0057] It also should be understood that in various
implementations, the review by one or more screeners, by one or
more review board members, and by one or more members of the larger
group can take place in any order. It also should be understood
that there can be any number of participants in the various levels
of review. Thus, in one embodiment, a larger group is used as a
first stage of review (e.g., in a first contest), to reduce the set
of submissions to a small number of candidates, and then the
smaller number of candidates are reviewed by a smaller group (e.g.,
in a second contest). In another embodiment, a smaller group is
used as a first stage of review, to reduce the set of submissions
to a small number of candidates, and then the smaller number of
candidates are reviewed by a larger group. Likewise, there may be
multiple levels of review (not shown), in which larger or smaller
groups participate in the review. In one such embodiment,
increasingly larger groups of reviewers (e.g., three, four, or more
groups of reviewers) are consulted as the number of candidates is
reduced. In another embodiment, increasingly smaller groups of
reviewers (e.g., three, four, or more groups of reviewers) are
consulted as the number of candidates is reduced.
[0058] In one embodiment, the selected submission(s) (STEP 423) are
used iteratively as input for another round of development. The
submission(s) are included, as part of the requirements 406 and
specification 410 for another round of development. The entity that
requested the submission can further refine the specification based
on the results from the previous round. For example, if an initial
repetition of the method results in the selection of three
submissions, those three content submissions can be included in the
specification, with an indication of the aspects of those features
that are desired. In the revised specification, content developers
may be asked to include aspects of those features in their
submissions in a following round.
[0059] In another embodiment, the results from a part of the
development cycle (e.g., prior to the selection by a larger group
of reviewers) are included in another specification. For example,
in one embodiment, the members of a review board, which includes
members of the entity requesting the content, identify one or more
content submissions from the initial screening 416 that have
desirable features, but are not themselves acceptable as a whole
submission. Instead of continuing the process as described above
and sending the content for review by the larger group of
reviewers, the review board selects those content submissions that
have desirable features to be the winners, so that the designers of
the content can be appropriately rewarded. The selected content
submissions are then incorporated (STEP 424) into a revised
specification, which is then communicated to the content
developers.
[0060] It is also possible to stop at other possible places in the
process, and revise the specification with additional information
(external information, or information generated by the process) so
long as the content developers feel that they are treated properly
by the change in process.
[0061] In iterative embodiments, there can be any number of rounds
in which output from one round is used as part of the input for the
next round. Through such an iterative process, e.g., by taking the
output 423, 424 and using that as input for another round, it is
possible for the entity that is requesting the content to come
incrementally closer to a desired result, with a process that
allows freedom and creativity for the content developers within the
guidelines of the specification.
[0062] Referring to FIG. 5, in one embodiment, a first contest is
held on a number of submissions. In the first contest, voters may
be asked to identify a predetermined number of submissions that
they believe that others identify as the best. They may be asked to
order the submissions.
[0063] Using a first technique, the results of the first contest
are aggregated, and finalist submissions selected (STEP 504). There
may be a review at this stage to verify that each of the
submissions is technically compliant with any requirements, and so
forth. Once this selection of candidate submissions has taken
place, then a second contest may be held to identify the best of
the finalists.
[0064] For example, in one exemplary embodiment, after screening,
there are 100 submissions that meet the criteria of the
requirements. The facilitator decides that because of the nature of
the content, it would be best to provide reviewers with 5
candidates from which to choose. The 5 best-scoring candidates are
selected in the first contest. In the second contest, voters are
asked to vote for the best of the 5.
[0065] The number of submissions selected can be any number that is
suitable for selection by a larger group. For example, in some
embodiments, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 15, or 20 finalists may be selected.
In some embodiments, The facilitator, client, or other
administrator may "cull" submissions that the are not perceived as
favorable and/or potentially acceptable.
[0066] Depending on the number of voters, there are different
techniques that can be used to select the candidates. In one
embodiment, the system facilitates the review by the voters by
presenting the choices to the voters, with a mechanism to provide
feedback. The feedback can be a simple indication of the preference
of each (e.g., yes/no, or numerical evaluation) or a ranking (e.g.,
assigning an order of preference) to each. Any suitable technique
can be used to solicit and aggregate response indicia from the
voters. In one embodiment, each voter gets one or more "veto" votes
to eliminate a candidate that he doesn't like.
[0067] The voters may interact with the communication server 104,
for example, using client software 124, to review the submissions
and select the submissions that should be provided to the reviewing
community.
[0068] In one embodiment, the voter (and or an administrator such
as the facilitator) also considers a review of the submission from
the perspective of authorship and intellectual property issues. For
example, the voter may consider how similar the submissions are to
submissions offered by competitors or others, to further a
potential goal that the submission, if selected, will not raise
concerns from third-parties. The voter may also consider the
protectability of the submission, with regard to copyright and
trademark law. This may involve legal review, or other techniques
to eliminate potential problems that may be raised by the set of
candidates. Although potentially more time consuming to consider a
number of candidates at this stage, rather than once a single
choice is selected, it may be preferable to do so in some
situations.
[0069] Once the candidate set is identified, the finalists are
communicated to voters as part of the second contest (STEP 506).
The voters may be the intended audience for the content, for
example, customers and potential partners of the company for a web
site that is being designed. The voters may be, in the case of a
web page interface, for example, potential users of the web page.
The voters may include other content developers, members of the
requesting entity (e.g., employees of the company such as sales and
marketing personnel), or any other suitable group or combination of
groups of people. In one embodiment, the voters include people who
are not affiliated with the entity, but who have agreed provide
their opinion about the content. The demographics (e.g., where they
live, what language(s) do they speak, their ages, incomes, etc.)
may be important considerations in selecting the voters.
[0070] The voters may be compensated in some way for their
participation. For example, the voters may be provided with
monetary or other rewards or prizes, or the opportunity to
participate in a lottery for such reward. Participation in one or
more contests as a voter may be a requirement for submission of
content. For example, in one embodiment, a content developer needs
to participate in a predetermined number of votes during a
predetermined time period (e.g., week, month, calendar quarter) in
order to have an ability to submit submissions.
[0071] The voters may be ranked and/or rated, for example based on
how reliable they are, how quickly they respond, and/or how well
their selections comport with the selection of the larger group(s)
in the review(s) that they participate in.
[0072] In one embodiment, a group of reviewers are invited by email
to review a submissions. Each of the reviewers receives an email
message directing them to a web page that includes the list of
candidate submissions. In the case of a logo, the candidates are
displayed on the page, with any additional information needed for
review, as well as a selection tool for assigning response indicia.
For example, if there are ten candidate submissions, each
submission can be assigned a response indicia from 1 to 10, and the
reviewer is asked to assign a number to each submission in order of
the reviewer's preference for the submission. In another example,
the reviewers are asked to evaluate specific characteristics of the
submission (e.g., color, text layout, thematic representation,
etc.) and/or give an overall evaluation or preference. The specific
characteristics may be evaluated individually, or by assigning a
number to each in order of preference. In another example, a
free-form text entry field may be provided where the reviewers can
describe the specific attributes (color, text, graphics, layout,
etc.) of each submission that they like or dislike.
[0073] While any suitable interface can be used, presenting the
submissions in a manner that allows each candidate submission to be
compared to each other, facilitates efficient review by each
reviewer. It also allows for effective aggregation as described
below. If the submissions can not easily be compared on the same
page, there can be an indicator for the submission on the review
page, for example with a summary image for the submission, and
links to the full presentations of the candidate submissions. Any
suitable system for providing a response indicia can be used,
depending on the method used for aggregating the results.
Generally, a web page may used to collect the reviewers feedback on
the submissions (STEP 508), although, any suitable technique may be
used, including without limitation selection by telephone, mobile
telephone, review application, and so on.
[0074] After review, the results from the reviewers can be
aggregated, for example, by any suitable method, to identify the
most preferred submission(s) (STEP 510). For example, in one
embodiment, the Schulze method is used for the comparison. The
Schulze method has the advantage that if there is a candidate that
is preferred pairwise over the other candidates, when compared in
turn with each of the others, the Schulze method guarantees that
that candidate will win. Other methods that are Condorcet methods
(i.e., promote the pairwise winner) are also may be suitable, as
may be any other suitable voting system, such as Borda and
Instant-runoff voting.
[0075] In general, it can be useful to select a number of
candidates in their order of preference, and also to communicate
how close the response was from the larger group of reviewers with
regard to the top selections. For example, the requesting entity
may not prefer the top choice selected by the reviewers, but might
prefer to select on its own from the finalists determined by the
larger group. The requesting entity may conduct other review (e.g.,
marketing surveys, international review, legal review) of the most
highly evaluated content, and additional review may turn out to
raise legal concerns that would foreclose adoption.
[0076] When content is selected, the original content developer can
be engaged to do additional work with the submission or another
content developer can be engaged. Typically, the content
developer's submission will include all of the information and
documentation (including electronic copies of the submission in
appropriate formats) such that the submission is usable in its
intended context.
[0077] In one embodiment, content developers that submit
submissions are rated based on the results of their submissions.
The ratings are calculated based on the ratings of each content
developer prior to the submission, and such other factors as an
assigned difficulty level of the submission submitted, and the
number of other content developers making submissions, and the
feedback received for the submission.
[0078] Although described here with reference to certain
submissions, and useful when implemented with regard to aesthetic,
artistic, or graphic submissions, the cooperatively developed work
product can be any sort of tangible or intangible content that
embodies intellectual effort or intellectual property. As
non-limiting examples, the techniques could be used for computer
hardware and electronics submissions, or other submissions such as
architecture, construction, music, or landscape design. Other
non-limiting examples for which the techniques could be used
include the development of all kinds of written documents and
content such as documentation and articles for papers or
periodicals (whether on-line or on paper), research papers,
scripts, multimedia content, legal documents, and more.
* * * * *