U.S. patent application number 15/589213 was filed with the patent office on 2017-08-24 for community-based parental controls.
The applicant listed for this patent is Facebook, Inc.. Invention is credited to Sean Cunningham, Jeffrey Joseph Damick.
Application Number | 20170244719 15/589213 |
Document ID | / |
Family ID | 44188706 |
Filed Date | 2017-08-24 |
United States Patent
Application |
20170244719 |
Kind Code |
A1 |
Damick; Jeffrey Joseph ; et
al. |
August 24, 2017 |
COMMUNITY-BASED PARENTAL CONTROLS
Abstract
The present disclosure includes a method of maintaining rating
groups and receiving, from a first user, a selection of a first
rating group, from among the rating groups, to be applied to a set
of users associated with the first user. Next, method includes
receiving, from a user, a request for a piece of content from the
content and determining that the user from which the request was
received belongs to the set of users associated with the first
user. The method also includes accessing information associated
with the first rating group and determining whether the first
rating group includes a rating for the requested piece of content.
The method also includes determining whether or not to provide
information to the requesting user conditioned on the indication or
absence of a rating for the requested piece of content within the
first rating group.
Inventors: |
Damick; Jeffrey Joseph;
(South Riding, VA) ; Cunningham; Sean;
(Washington, DC) |
|
Applicant: |
Name |
City |
State |
Country |
Type |
Facebook, Inc. |
Menlo Park |
CA |
US |
|
|
Family ID: |
44188706 |
Appl. No.: |
15/589213 |
Filed: |
May 8, 2017 |
Related U.S. Patent Documents
|
|
|
|
|
|
Application
Number |
Filing Date |
Patent Number |
|
|
14702561 |
May 1, 2015 |
|
|
|
15589213 |
|
|
|
|
14690191 |
Apr 17, 2015 |
|
|
|
14702561 |
|
|
|
|
13620571 |
Sep 14, 2012 |
|
|
|
14690191 |
|
|
|
|
13042031 |
Mar 7, 2011 |
9355184 |
|
|
13620571 |
|
|
|
|
11395539 |
Apr 3, 2006 |
7904473 |
|
|
13042031 |
|
|
|
|
60759033 |
Jan 17, 2006 |
|
|
|
60667664 |
Apr 4, 2005 |
|
|
|
Current U.S.
Class: |
1/1 |
Current CPC
Class: |
G06F 21/6209 20130101;
G06F 16/335 20190101; G06F 16/78 20190101; G06F 2221/2141 20130101;
G06F 16/7867 20190101; G06Q 30/02 20130101; H04L 67/10 20130101;
H04L 63/102 20130101; G06F 21/6218 20130101; G06F 16/437 20190101;
G06F 16/9535 20190101; G06F 2221/2149 20130101; G06F 16/285
20190101; Y10S 707/914 20130101; G06F 16/24578 20190101; G06F
16/287 20190101; G06Q 30/0218 20130101; G06F 16/955 20190101; G06F
16/435 20190101; G06F 16/735 20190101; Y10S 707/913 20130101 |
International
Class: |
H04L 29/06 20060101
H04L029/06 |
Claims
1. A method comprising: receiving, from a first user, electronic
content; providing, to one or more third-party raters, the
electronic content; receiving, from the one or more third-party
raters, ratings for the electronic content; determining, based on
the ratings associated with the electronic content, whether the
electronic content is objectionable; if the electronic content is
determined objectionable providing, to a second user, the
electronic content and information indicating that the electronic
content is objectionable; and if the electronic content is not
determined objectionable, providing, to the second user, the
electronic content without the information indicating that the
electronic content is objectionable.
2. The method as recited in claim 1, wherein determining whether
the electronic content is objectionable comprises weighting each of
the ratings.
3. The method as recited in claim 2, wherein weighting each of the
ratings comprises: identifying one or more characteristics
associated with a third-party rater who submitted a rating; and
calculating a weight for the rating based on the one or more
characteristics.
4. The method as recited in claim 3, wherein the one or more
characteristics associated with the third-party rater comprise one
or more of a relationship between the third-party rater and the
first user or the second user, a rating history associated with the
third-party rater, or an activity level associated with the
third-party rater.
5. The method as recited in claim 4, wherein determining whether
the electronic content is objectionable further comprises: totaling
the weighted ratings; and using the total of the weighted ratings
to determine whether the electronic content is objectionable.
6. The method as recited in claim 1, wherein providing, to the
second user, the electronic content and information indicating that
the electronic content is objectionable comprises: identifying one
or more characteristics of the second user; and configuring the
information to indicate why, based on the one or more
characteristics of the second user, the electronic content is
objectionable.
7. The method as recited in claim 6, wherein identifying the one or
more characteristics of the second user comprises one or more of
identifying a relationship between the second user and the first
user, identifying an activity history associated with the second
user, or identifying a profile associated with the second user.
8. The method as recited in claim 1, further comprising: receiving
an indication, from the second user, of a third-party rater; and
using a rating from the third-party rater to determine whether the
electronic content is objectionable.
9. A system comprising: at least one processor; and at least one
non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing
instructions thereon that, when executed by the at least one
processor, cause the system to: receive, from a first user,
electronic content; provide, to one or more third-party raters, the
electronic content; receive, from the one or more third-party
raters, ratings for the electronic content; determine, based on the
ratings, whether the electronic content is objectionable; if the
electronic content is determined objectionable provide, to a second
user, the electronic content and information indicating that the
electronic content is objectionable; and if the electronic content
is not determined objectionable, provide, to the second user, the
electronic content without the information indicating that the
electronic content is objectionable.
10. The system as recited in claim 9, wherein the instructions,
when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to
determine whether the electronic content is objectionable by:
identifying third-party raters from the one or more third-party
raters having a relationship with the second user; and using
ratings from the third-party raters having a relationship with the
second user to determine whether the electronic content is
objectionable.
11. The system as recited in claim 9, wherein the instructions,
when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to
provide an option that allows the second user to confirm whether
the electronic content is objectionable.
12. The system as recited in claim 11, wherein the instructions,
when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to:
determine a number of ratings that indicate that the electronic
content is objectionable; and determine whether the electronic
content is objectionable based on the determined number of ratings
that indicate that the electronic content is objectionable.
13. The system as recited in claim 9, wherein the instructions,
when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to
provide a summary of the electronic content and an indication that
the electronic content may contain objectionable content.
14. The system as recited in claim 9, wherein the instructions,
when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to:
identify one or more characteristics of the second user; and
determine, based on the ratings and the one or more characteristics
of the second user, whether the electronic content is
objectionable.
15. The system as recited in claim 14, wherein the instructions,
when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to
identify the one or more characteristics of the second user by
identifying one or more of a relationship between the second user
and the first user, identifying an activity history associated with
the second user, or identifying a profile associated with the
second user.
16. The system as recited in claim 9, further comprising
instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor,
cause the system to: determine that a third-party rater
consistently rates electronic content items in opposition to a
majority of the one or more third-party raters; and exclude ratings
from the third-party rater from the ratings used to determine
whether the electronic content is objectionable.
17. A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions
thereon that, when executed by at least one processor, cause a
computer system to perform steps comprising: receiving, from a
first user, electronic content; providing, to one or more
third-party raters, the electronic content; receiving, from the one
or more third-party raters, ratings for the electronic content;
determining, based on the ratings associated with the electronic
content, whether the electronic content is objectionable; if the
electronic content is determined objectionable providing, to a
second user, the electronic content and information indicating that
the electronic content is objectionable; and if the electronic
content is not determined objectionable, providing, to the second
user, the electronic content without the information indicating
that the electronic content is objectionable.
18. The non-transitory computer-readable medium as recited in claim
17, wherein determining, based on the ratings associated with the
electronic content, whether the electronic content is objectionable
comprises: determining one or more characteristics of the second
user; determining one or more characteristics of the one or more
third-party raters; and using ratings from third-party raters
having a characteristic in common with the second user to determine
whether the electronic content is objectionable.
19. The non-transitory computer-readable medium as recited in claim
18, wherein using ratings from third-party raters having a
characteristic in common with the second user to determine whether
the electronic content is objectionable comprises: weighting
ratings from third-party raters having the characteristic in common
with the second user higher than ratings from third-party raters
not having a characteristic in common with the second user.
20. The non-transitory computer-readable medium as recited in claim
19, further comprising instructions that, when executed by the at
least one processor, cause the computer system to perform a step
comprising providing an option that allows the second user to
confirm whether the electronic content is objectionable.
Description
CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATION
[0001] The present application is a continuation of U.S.
application Ser. No. 14/702,561 filed on May 1, 2015, which is a
continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 14/690,191 filed on Apr.
17, 2015, which is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No.
13/620,571 filed on Sep. 14, 2012, which is a continuation of U.S.
application Ser. No. 13/042,031 filed on Mar. 7, 2011, now issued
as U.S. Pat. No. 9,355,184, which is a continuation of U.S.
application Ser. No. 11/395,539 filed on Apr. 3, 2006, now issued
as U.S. Pat. No. 7,904,473, which claims the benefit of and
priority to U.S. provisional application No. 60/759,033 filed Jan.
17, 2006 and U.S. provisional application No. 60/667,664 filed Apr.
4, 2005. Each of the aforementioned patents and applications are
hereby incorporated by reference in their entirety.
TECHNICAL FIELD
[0002] This disclosure relates in part to controlling access to
content.
BACKGROUND
[0003] Users may access available content over the Internet through
a network service provider. Some available content may be
inappropriate for certain users. Accordingly, content is often
rated to enable a determination of whether it is appropriate for
given users.
SUMMARY
[0004] A user wanting to control network access to content from
their home computer has a limited ability to determine whether a
large amount of content is appropriate or inappropriate. Although
other individual's judgments of appropriateness for some content
may be available, the other individual's judgments may be to few in
number or incompatible with the user's own view of appropriateness.
One described system enables a user to control network access to
content by providing an ability to create, to join, and to apply
content rating groups. The content rating groups include data
useful in enabling a determination of the appropriateness or
inappropriateness of individual pieces of content. Thus different
content rating groups may judge or enable judgment of the
appropriateness or inappropriateness of content differently. A user
may select which rating group, among multiple rating groups, most
accurately conforms to the user's own judgment concerning content,
and the user may apply the selected rating group to future content
delivered in response to content requests. The claims listed at the
end of this disclosure are to be considered part of the
specification for all purposes, including providing support for any
future claims.
[0005] The various aspects, implementations, and features may be
implemented in a variety of manners, even if only described herein
in, for example, a single manner. The various aspects,
implementations, and features may be implemented using, for
example, one or more of: a method; an apparatus; an apparatus for
performing a method; a program or other set of instructions for
performing one or more aspects, implementations, or features; an
apparatus that includes a program or other set of instructions; a
computer readable medium; or a propagated signal. The computer
readable medium or propagated signal may include, for example,
instructions, software, and other data. The various aspects,
implementations, and features may also include additional
components, such as, for example, a computer, a router, a server,
or a peripheral device.
[0006] The details of one or more implementations are set forth in
the accompanying drawings and the description below.
DESCRIPTION OF DRAWINGS
[0007] FIG. 1 illustrates an exemplary system for providing network
access control.
[0008] FIG. 2 illustrates an exemplary system for providing network
access control.
[0009] FIG. 3 illustrates an exemplary process for selecting and
using a rating group.
[0010] FIG. 4 illustrates an exemplary process for selecting and
using multiple rating groups.
[0011] FIG. 5 illustrates an exemplary network service provider for
maintaining multiple rating groups.
[0012] FIG. 6 illustrates an exemplary process for creating a
rating group and compiling ratings.
[0013] FIG. 7A illustrates an exemplary graphical user interface of
a hierarchal ratings group selection screen.
[0014] FIG. 7B illustrates an exemplary graphical user interface of
a ratings group options screen.
[0015] FIG. 7C illustrates an exemplary graphical user interface of
a vote submission screen.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION
[0016] An Internet service provider enables a home personal
computer to display Internet content. The Internet content may
include content that one or more users of the home personal
computer do not want to be made available to one or more other
users of the home personal computer. Using technology described by
this application, the user is made able to join or create a rating
group in order to block access to such content by others.
[0017] In one implementation, the rating groups allow members to
vote on whether or not pieces of content should be blocked. Because
multiple members may vote on content, a large amount of content may
be rated. A rating group may be specific to a group of individuals
with certain interests or beliefs. A user may create their own
rating group and their own preferences as to who may join and who
may vote. Multiple rating groups may be joined concurrently by a
user.
[0018] After joining one or more rating groups, requested content
deemed inappropriate by the rating groups may be blocked. If a
piece of content is requested by the home personal computer, the
network access provider searches joined rating groups to determine
if a rating has been assigned by any of the joined rating groups to
that piece of content. If no rating has been assigned, the network
service provider may or may not enable access to the requested
content. If ratings exist in multiple joined rating groups, the
network service provider may consult one or more of these ratings
in determining whether to block or grant access to the content. In
one example, for instance, the network service provider may be
configured to utilize a hierarchal system to determine which rating
to utilize, and thereafter, the network service provider may
consult the rating to block or grant access to the content.
[0019] Referring to FIG. 1, a system 100 is configured to provide
network communication and content access according to one or more
of the methods described below. System 100 includes a client 102
coupled to a network service provider 104 that is coupled to a
network 106. The network 106 also is coupled to various resources
108-112.
[0020] The client 102 may include devices with which the user
interacts in order to send a request for content. For example, the
client 102 may be a personal computer, a laptop, a cell phone, or a
personal data assistant. The client 102 also, or alternatively, may
include an application, software, or instructions, with which a
user interacts in order to send a request for content. The client
102 may communicate with the network service provider 104 through
one or more of various methods, such as wireless networking or
Ethernet cable. The network service provider 104 may include, for
example, a router or a server, and may be utilized to link multiple
clients 102 to the network 106. The network service provider 104
may include parental controls by filtering requests for content
with content ratings groups as described in FIGS. 2-7C to restrict
content access by the user. The network 106 may include, for
example, the Internet, and is coupled to various resources 108-112.
The resources are providers of content. Content can include various
types of information, such as, for example, a webpage, a
downloadable file, an email, or a message-board.
[0021] Referring to FIG. 2, a system 200 is configured to provide
network communication. System 200 includes voting clients 212 and
using clients 214 coupled to a network service provider 204 that is
coupled to a network 106.
[0022] The voting clients 212 are users that are enabled to submit
votes towards the rating of content within a rating group. The
voting clients 212 include client 102 as well as clients 202 and
204. The using clients 214 are users that are enabled to use the
rating of content within a rating group. The using clients 214
include clients 206-210. The voting and using clients 212-214 may
communicate with the network service provider 204 through various
methods, such as wireless networking or Ethernet cable. A given
client may be both a voting client 212 and a using client 214.
[0023] The network service provider 204 may include parental
controls to restrict content access by the user. The network
service provider 204 includes a parental control unit 220 that
maintains a plurality of rating groups 230-240 utilized to
determine whether to provide access to resources 108-112 to the
using clients 214. The rating groups 230-240 include ratings
information indicating the rating of content. When a using client
214 which is a member of one or more rating groups 230-240 requests
access to resources 108-112, the parental control unit 220 utilizes
ratings within the rating groups 230-240 to determine whether to
provide access to the requested resources 108-112.
[0024] For example, rating group #1 230 is an open community group,
in which any client 102 meeting certain characteristics may provide
ratings. Rating group #2 240 is a closed community group, in which
only specifically identified clients may provide ratings. The words
"open" and "closed" are merely exemplary, and indicate some of the
variation group membership may have. For example, group members may
be specifically identified by the group creator and unchanging,
group members may be limited to those clients that satisfy one or
more specified characteristics/qualifications, or anyone may be
allowed to join a group. Information directed toward the rating of
content may be collected in various ways.
[0025] For example, information directed toward the rating of
content may be collected from a single user, may be collected from
only voting clients 212, may be open to collection from all
clients, or may be extracted from a database of ratings.
[0026] The previous description is an example implementation of the
system 200 for providing network communication and other or
different elements may be included. For example, the rating groups
230-240 may be stored on one of the resources 108-112 and may be
updated independently of the network service provider 104.
[0027] Referring to FIG. 3, a process 300 is illustrated for
selecting and applying a rating. The process 300 may be used in
conjunction with the system 200 of FIG. 2 and the discussion below
describes the process 300 in the context of the system 200.
However, other systems may be used.
[0028] The process 300 includes a sub-process for processing a
selection of a rating group. The sub-process begins when a using
client 214, such as client 102, selects a rating group to be
applied (305). The selection may include specification of an open
230 or a closed 240 rating group, although FIG. 3 is illustrated
for an open group 230. The parental control unit 220 receives the
selection and associates one or more users with the selected rating
group (310). Associating one or more users may include storing
information identifying the client 214 that directs the parental
control unit 220 to refer to at least that rating group when a
using client 214 sends a request for content. The information
identifying the client 214 may be stored in a table, and be linked
to the appropriate rating group. Alternatively, the information
identifying the client 214 may be stored in the rating group, and
the rating groups may be accessed and searched to determine which
rating group a particular client is associated with.
[0029] Process 300 includes another sub-process for processing a
request for content. The sub-process includes the client 102
sending a request for content (315). The request for content may be
for any, for example, Internet based content, such as, for example,
a webpage, a downloadable file, an email, or a message-board. The
parental control unit 220 receives the request for content which
prompts the parental control unit 220 to determine if the client
102 is associated with a rating group (320).
[0030] If the client 102 is determined, in operation 320, to not be
associated with a rating group 230-240, the parental control unit
220 redirects the request for content to the resource 108 over the
network 106 (325). The resource 108 receives the request for
content and sends the requested content to the client 102 over the
network 106 (330). The client 102 then receives the requested
content (335).
[0031] If the client 102 is determined to be associated with a
rating group in operation 320, the parental control unit 220 sends
a query for the rating of the content to the open rating group 230
(340). The open rating group 230 accesses the rating for the
requested content (345), and the open rating group 230 sends the
rating for the requested content to the parental control unit 220
(350). The parental control unit 220 receives the rating for the
requested content. Utilizing information stored about the client
102 and the received rating for the requested content, the parental
control unit 220 determines and sends information based on the
accessed rating to the client 102 (355). The information based on
the accessed rating indicates whether the requested access to some
or all of the content is, or is not, to be granted. For example,
the information may include: the rating itself, the requested
content (in which case the parental control unit 220 simply serves
the content requested, e.g., if it satisfies the parental
controls), a "blocked" display, or non-displayed information
indicating that the content will not be provided. The client 102
receives the information based on the accessed rating (360).
[0032] The previous description is an example implementation of the
process 300 of selecting and applying a rating, and other or
different operations may be included. In some implementations, when
the resource 108 receives the request for content and sends the
requested content to the client 102 over the network 106 (330), the
resource 108 may send the requested content to the client 102
through the parental control unit 220 where additional information
is used in order to determine the information to the client(355).
For example, the ratings groups 230-240 may utilize other rules to
determine whether to block a request. Other rules may include
automatically denying requests in which certain words or phrases
are present in the requested content. The words or phrases may be
kept in a content ratings group list which may be open or closed to
editing by group member.
[0033] Also, if no rating is found for the requested content, the
network access provider may or may not provide access to that
content.
[0034] Referring to FIG. 4, process 400 is shown to illustrate
selecting multiple rating groups and applying content ratings that
are established by one or more of the multiple rating groups for
requested content. The process 400 may be used in conjunction with
the system 200 of FIG. 2 and the discussion below describes the
process 400 in the context of the system 200. However, other
systems may be used.
[0035] The process 400 includes a client 102 that enables a
selection of multiple rating groups to be applied to content
requests (405). The selection may include specification of an open
230 or a closed 240 rating group and includes one primary rating
group (shown in FIG. 4 as rating group 230) and one or more
secondary rating groups (FIG. 4 shows one secondary rating group of
rating group 240). The user may be allowed to designate the primary
and secondary rating groups, or such designation may be made by,
e.g., the parental control unit 220. As explained below, the
primary rating group is the rating group that is first accessed by
the parental control unit 220 in order to select a rating for
particular requested content. If the primary rating group does not
include a rating for the particular requested content, the parental
control unit 220 applies a rating established by the secondary
rating group. The parental control unit 220 receives the selection
and associates one or more users with the selected rating groups
(410). Associating one or more users may include storing
information in the rating groups that directs the parental control
unit 220 to refer to those rating groups when the user sends a
requests for content.
[0036] The process 400 includes the client 102 sending a request
for content (415). The request for content may be for any, for
example, Internet based content, such as, for example, a webpage, a
downloadable file, an email, or a message-board. The parental
control unit 220 receives the request for content which prompts the
parental control unit 220 to determine if the client 102 is
associated with a rating group (420).
[0037] If it is determined in operation 420 that the client 102 is
not associated with a rating group 230-240, the parental control
unit 220 redirects the request for content to the resource through
the network 106 (425). The resource 108 receives the request for
content and sends the requested content to the client 102 (430)
through the network 106. The client 102 then receives the requested
content (435).
[0038] If it is determined in operation 420 that the client 102 is
associated with a rating group, the parental control unit 220 sends
a query for a rating of the requested content to the primary open
rating group 230 (440). The primary open rating group 230
determines whether a rating for the requested content is
established by the primary open rating group 230 (445).
[0039] If it is determined in operation 445 that a rating for the
requested content is established by the primary open rating group
230, the rating established by the primary open rating group 230 is
sent to the parental control unit 220 (450). The parental control
unit 220 receives the rating for the requested content. Using
information stored about the client and the received rating for the
requested content, the parental control unit 220 determines and
sends information for example, as discussed with respect to
operation 355, based on the accessed rating to the client 102
(455). The information based on the accessed rating indicates
whether some or all of the requested content is or is not to be
blocked, and may include information detailing a lack of stored
rating for the requested content. The client 102 receives the
information based on the accessed rating (460).
[0040] If it is determined in operation 445 that a rating for the
requested content is not established by the primary rating open
group 230, process 400 determines whether a rating for the
requested content is established by the secondary closed rating
group 240 (465). If it is determined in operation 465 that a rating
for the requested content is established by the secondary closed
rating group 240, then the rating is sent to the parental control
unit 220 (468).
[0041] A user may set up multiple rating groups to be applied in a
specified, or hierarchical, order. For example, as indicated in
FIG. 4, a first rating group 230 is searched for a rating for
particular content. If a rating is not found, then a second closed
rating group 240 is searched. Tertiary, and further, rating groups
may also be designated by, for example, a user. Additionally, the
decision at any point in the hierarchy may require input from
multiple rating groups. Moreover, if multiple secondary rating
groups are associated with the user (not shown), each of the
multiple secondary rating groups may be accessed to determine a
rating for the requested content, and the ratings may be combined
to form a final rating. The combination may include, for example,
taking an average or a median or using some other mathematical or
logical operation.
[0042] Process 400 includes the parental control unit 220 receiving
the rating for the requested content, using information stored
about the client and the received rating to determine information
based on the accessed rating, and sending the information to the
client 102 (470). The information based on the accessed rating
indicates whether the requested access to some or all of the
content is or is not to be granted. The client 102 receives the
information based on the accessed rating (475).
[0043] If it is determined in operation 465 that a rating for the
requested content is not established by the secondary closed rating
group 240, the requested content is sent to the client 102 (430).
Other implementations, however, may block the requested
content.
[0044] The previous description is an example implementation of the
process 400 of selecting and applying a rating, and other or
different operations may be included. For example, multiple
hierarchies of ratings groups beyond a primary and secondary may be
employed. Further, selected ratings may be based on all available
ratings, such as, for example, by selections the most common rating
for the requested content from among the available ratings.
[0045] Referring to FIG. 5, system 500 includes the network service
provider 204, which includes a parental control unit 220, and
compiled ratings for a first open rating group 230 and a second
closed rating group 240.
[0046] The first open rating group 230 includes various categories
such as a content category 232 describing a piece of content,
several user rating categories 234a-c, and an overall rating
category for the rating group 238. The first rating open group 230
includes three entries 233, organized as three rows 233a-c. An
entry for the content category 232 in the first row 233a is listed
as "Content #1" and includes descriptive information, including,
for example, the piece of content's location. The user rating
entries 234a-c for the first row 233a are listed as 4, 5, and 6,
respectively, and the overall rating 238 is listed as 5 which is an
average value.
[0047] The first open rating group 230 also may include weights
(e.g. between zero and one, inclusive) for each of the user rating
categories 234a-c, which weighting may be the same or different. In
the example shown in FIG. 5, each of the user rating categories
234a-c are weighted equally. In another example, user rating
category 234a may be weighted twice as much as user rating
categories 234b-c, which would produce an overall rating 238 of
4.75.
[0048] Weights may vary based on, for example, the authority, the
judgment, the position, or the trustworthiness of the user
contributing the ratings. An individual that created the first
rating open group 230, or individuals satisfying all of the
desirable characteristics of rating contributors, or particularly
designated individuals (e.g. the nuclear members of a family), may
be given higher weights. For example, rules may direct users that
have been members for a given amount of time or are more active,
may be given more weight than less active or newer members. Also, a
member which consistently votes against the majority or members who
consistently vote to allow all content may be given less or no
weight.
[0049] The previous description is an example implementation of the
system 500 including a network service provider and compiled
rankings. Other implementations may be organized differently and
may include different or fewer elements. The value of the overall
rating 239 may be computed by a method other than averaging each
individual value for the entry ratings 236. For example, weights as
described above may be associated with each vote and included in
the computation. Also, non-linear computations or regression of
weights or votes, such as where larger deviations are minimized
(e.g. "least squares" or quadratic), may be included to minimize
the effect of votes that are significantly different than the
majority.
[0050] Referring to FIG. 6, process 600 enables creation of a
rating group and compilation of ratings. The process 600 may be
used in conjunction with the system 200 of FIG. 2 and the
discussion below describes the process 600 in the context of the
system 200. However, other
[0051] systems may be used.
[0052] The process 600 includes a client 102 sending a request to
create a rating group (605). The request includes characteristics
associated with the rating group. The parental control unit 220
receives the request to create the rating group and also receives
the characteristics associated with the request for the rating
group. The associated characteristics are used by parental control
unit 220 to determine properties of the rating group such as, for
example, whether the rating group is open or closed, the method of
vote computation to determine overall ratings for content, and the
requirements needed for a user to join the rating group. A closed
group may, for example, only enable users of certain names or
characteristics to join. The parental control unit 220 forms the
rating group (610), and the rating group is added to a set of
previously established rating groups (615).
[0053] Process 600 includes a separate sub-process for processing a
request to join the new group. The sub-process includes a client
202 sending a request to the parental control unit 220 to join the
rating group on behalf of user #2 (620). The parental control unit
220 receives the request and verifies that user #2 satisfies the
required characteristics of the rating group (625).
[0054] If user #2 satisfies the required characteristics of the
rating group, user #2 is added to the rating group (630). If user
#2 does not satisfy the required characteristics of the rating
group in operation 625, then user #2's request to join the rating
group is denied by the parental control unit 220 (632), and the
denial is received by the client 202 (634).
[0055] Process 600 includes another separate sub-process for
receiving and processing a rating. The sub-process includes the
client 202 sending a rating for a particular piece of content on
behalf of user #2 to the parental control unit 220 (635). The
parental control unit 220 receives the rating (637), and determines
whether user #2 belongs to the rating group (638). If user #2
belongs to the rating group, then the parental control unit 220
associates user #2's rating with the rating group (640).
Associating a rating with a rating group may include weighting the
user #2 rating to an appropriate value. Further, the overall rating
for the particular piece of content is updated and compiled (650).
If user #2 does not belong to the rating group, then the parental
control unit 220 denies the rating submission from user #2
(660).
[0056] The previous description is an example implementation of the
process 600 of creating a rating group and compiling ratings, and
other or different operations may be included. For example, an open
rating group 230 could be created that has no required
characteristics, or in which there are desired characteristics that
are not enforced.
[0057] Implementations may also allow a rating group to be provided
by a third party, such as, for example, a recognized group with a
known ideology. Users may prefer to select such a known rating
group as, for example, one of several hierarchically organized
rating groups. Depending on various factors, such as the
availability of ratings from such known rating groups, users may be
charged a fee for access to ratings from the known rating group.
Implementations may also allow users to contribute ratings to the
known rating group, perhaps requiring that these users meet various
qualifications or pay a fee.
[0058] Implementations may also provide an administrative user in a
rating group, with privileges beyond the privileges extended to
other users that are members of the rating group. For example, the
administrative user may be required to approve or reject (1) all
(or some, e.g., based on designated criteria) users before those
users are allowed to become members of the rating group, (2) all
ratings of content (or some, e.g., ratings of particular content)
from members, (3) all compiled ratings of content, wherein the
compiled ratings are compiled from the member's ratings, or (4)
only specific compiled ratings, such as, for example, ratings that
indicate that content is suitable for all audiences.
[0059] Other implementations do not explicitly require a user to
join a rating group in order to rate content. One implementation
allows a user to identify itself and to submit content ratings.
These rating are made available as a rating group. Thus, for
example, a user #1 may notice that a user #2 has submitted various
ratings. If user #1 trusts the ratings of user #2, then user #1 may
designate user #2 as a rating group to be applied as access control
to content requests from user #1 (or from other users, for example,
under the supervision of user #1). Further, user #1 may notice that
multiple users have submitted ratings, and if user #1 trusts all of
the multiple users, then user #1 may designate that an average (for
example) be taken over the ratings of all of the multiple users,
and this average may then be applied as an access control rule for
content requests from user #1 (or from other users, for example,
under the supervision of user #1).
[0060] As is evident from the breadth of the disclosure,
implementations, features, and techniques described herein, as well
as variations or combinations of them, may be implemented at least
in part, for example, in an operating system or in a stand-alone
application or utility, running on one or more of a variety of
devices. Such devices may include, for example, a personal
computer, a server, a router, a gateway, or a special-purpose
computer or machine. Moreover a device may also include, for
example, discrete or integrated hardware, firmware, and software. A
device may include, for example, a processor, which refers to
processing devices in general, including, for example, a
microprocessor, an integrated circuit, a programmable logic device,
and a device containing a software application.
[0061] Such a device may be configured to perform one or more
processes. For example, implementations may be embodied in a device
that includes one or more computer readable media having
instructions for carrying out one or more processes. The computer
readable medium may include, for example, a storage device such as,
for example, a hard disk, a compact diskette, a random access
memory ("RAM"), and a read-only memory ("ROM"). A computer readable
medium also may include, for example, formatted electromagnetic
waves encoding or transmitting instructions. Instructions may be,
for example, in hardware, firmware, software, and in an
electromagnetic wave. Instructions may be found in, for example, an
operating system, a separate application, or a combination of the
two. A processor may be, for example, both a device configured to
carry out a process and a device including computer readable media
having instructions for carrying out a process.
[0062] Referring to FIG. 7A, an exemplary graphical user interface
(GUI) of a hierarchal ratings group selection screen 700 includes
main entries 705 that may contain one or more levels of
sub-category entries 715 and 720 and group selection options 735
and 740.
[0063] The GUI 700 enables a user to browse and select ratings
groups through a hierarchal selection process. The top level 705
displays general categories of ratings groups. The main entries 705
include a title, such as the religions entry 710, that describes
the nature of the material that is rated. Each of the main entries
705 may include the number of ratings groups that are
sub-categories to the entry. The religions entry 710 and the
included sub-categories 715 and 725 include ratings that are
adapted to user preferences based on a religious motivation, and
may or may not include ratings based on other motivations. For
example, a ratings group within the religions entry 710, may deny a
request for blasphemous subject matter, but may not deny a request
for violent subject matter.
[0064] Located within the religions entry 710 are multiple
religions sub-categories 715, such as Christian 720. The Christian
sub-category entry 720 includes three further sub-category entries
725. The Baptist entry 730 is a sub-category of the Christian entry
720 and includes ratings that are adapted to user preferences based
on a christian religious motivation, and in particular, based on a
Baptist motivation. The Baptist entry 730 includes the number of
group members (shown as 1300) and may include the number of voting
member (not-shown).
[0065] The selection option 735 and 740 enable a user to select a
ratings group and include a "join primary option" 735, and a "join
secondary option" 740. The "join primary option" 735 enables a user
to specify a chosen rating group as the primary rating group. The
"join secondary option" enables a user to specify a chosen rating
group as a secondary rating group.
[0066] In one implementation, entries that are higher in hierarchy
than a sub-category entry are separate ratings groups that function
independently of the sub-category entries. In another
implementation, entries that are higher in hierarchy than a
sub-category entry may include a ratings group that include rating
votes of the sub-categories. The ratings votes of the
sub-categories may by included in various ways. For example, the
religions entry 710 may deny any request that would be denied by
any of the sub-category entries 715. Also, the religions entry 710
may deny any request that would be denied by all or a combination
of the sub-category entries 715. Further, the religions entry 710
may calculate an average or weighted average of the sub-category
entries 715 ratings to determine whether to deny a request.
[0067] The previous description illustrates one of various
implementations of a ratings group selection screen. Other
implementations may be organized differently and may include
different or fewer elements. For example, the entries may be
organized in a non-hierarchal order, such as alphabetically.
[0068] Referring to FIG. 7B, a GUI of a ratings group information
screen 750 includes a detailed group information section 760, a
group summary section 770, a group voting requirements section 775,
and a group options section 780.
[0069] The detailed group information section 760 includes
information detailing information about the ratings group and
includes a group hierarchal order 762, a descriptive icon 764, and
a group statistics section 766. The group hierarchal order 762
details the location, within a group hierarchy, of the selected
ratings group. The descriptive icon 764 includes a picture that
illustrates the subject matter the ratings groups is directed to.
The group statistics section 766 includes information such as the
number of current members and the number of voting members.
[0070] The group summary section 770 includes a written summary of
the subject matter allowed or denied by the group. For example, the
written summary may specify that one subject matter is allowable
while another subject matter is blocked.
[0071] The voting requirements section 775 includes a written
description of the requirements of members to vote on content
ratings. For example, a voting requirements section 775 may detail
a length of time required by members and/or whose approval is
necessary to be able to vote.
[0072] The group options section 780 includes options directed to
the group that may be selected. For example, the options may
include joining the group as a primary or secondary group, or
requesting voting privileges for the group.
[0073] The previous description illustrates one of various
implementations of a ratings group information screen. Other
implementations may be organized differently and may include
different or fewer elements. For example, contact information for
group administrators may be included in the detailed group
information section 760.
[0074] Referring to FIG. 7C, a GUI of a vote submission screen 790
includes a content snapshot 792, a main voting option 794, and a
secondary voting option 796. The content snapshot 792 includes an
illustration or screenshot of the content the vote is directed to.
The screenshot may be, for example, a screenshot of a website or a
still shot of a multimedia file. The main voting option 794 enables
the user to submit a vote directed to a piece of content. The vote
may be, for example, whether the content includes a graphic
violence. The secondary voting option 794 enables users to submit
votes concerning characteristics that may be related to other
ratings groups. The secondary vote may be, for example, whether the
content includes nudity or adult language.
[0075] The previous description illustrates one of various
implementations of a vote submission screen. Other implementations
may be organized differently and may include different or fewer
elements. For example, the main voting option 794 may include a
vote of a number between 1-10 instead of a `yes` or `no.` Also, the
main voting option 794 may have multiple voting option per
submission that may adapt to received response. For example, if a
user submits a `yes` response designating the content includes
graphic violence, a more detailed question may be presented, such
as, "how graphic on a scale of 1-10 is the violence in the subject
matter?"
[0076] A number of implementations have been described.
Nevertheless, it will be understood that various modifications may
be made. For example, elements of different implementations may be
combined, supplemented, modified, or removed to produce other
implementations. Further, various technologies may be used,
combined, and modified to produce an implementation. Accordingly,
other implementations are within the scope of the following
claims.
* * * * *