Internet topics ranking system and method based on user prestige

Abstract

The invention relates to an internet subject ranking system and a method based on user prestige. The invention relates to the internet field and solves the problems of too simple basis, evenness and subjectivity when various person subjects, affair subjects and objects subjects on the internet are ranked. The invention introduces the concept of user prestige during the ranking process. A user input subject information for recommendation; different users grade the recommended subject; the system calculates the score and the ranking of the subject according to grades and the prestige of the users participating in the evaluation and calculates the user prestige of the presenter according to the score of the recommended works, and finally integrates the subject ranking and related information and then reveals the subject ranking and the related information to all the users. By adoption of the system and the method, correlation and interaction of recommendation and evaluation are realized; the ranking system can gradually distinguish the users into valuators with different appreciation abilities and endow the users with different evaluation influences through analyzing recommendation quality of the users, thereby the ranking results are more objective and more persuasive.

Description

Technical field: [0001] The invention relates to the field of the Internet, and proposes a system and method for ranking various people, things, and things on the Internet based on user prestige. Background technique: [0002] Currently, there are one or more deficiencies in the voting, scoring, and ranking systems of various people, things, and things on the Internet. [0003] 1) There are clear requirements for the start and end time of the competition, and users can only participate in the specified time period. [0004] 2) Some sponsors only select so-called "experts" as judges, and ordinary users can only be passive recipients of ranking results. [0005] 3) Some organizers only choose ordinary users to participate in the evaluation, and all the qualifications of voting or rating personnel are the same, and there is no distinction between experts and ordinary users, nor can it reflect the difference in the appreciation level of the participants. Their ratings and ranki...

AI Technical Summary

Problems solved by technology

[0003] 1) There are clear requirements for the start and end time of the competition, and users can only participate in the specified time period

[0004] 2) Some organizers only choose so-called "experts" as judges, and ordinary users can only be passive recipients of ranking results

[0005] 3) Some organizers only choose ordinary users to participate in the evaluation, and all the qualifications of voting or rating personnel are the same, and there is no distinction between experts and ordinary users, nor can it reflect the difference in the appreciation level of the participants. Their ratings and rankings of topics The degree of influence is the same

[0006] 3) Some organizers distinguish between expert and ordinary user groups, and set different scoring weights for different groups, but the criteria for distinguishing experts and ordinary users are determined subjectively by the organizer, and there is no objective basis

[0008] 6) Participating topics are determined by the sponsor, and ordinary users cannot freely recommend them

[0010] 8) In terms of scoring and ranking calculation methods, it is often only through the simple summation and averaging of the number of votes on the topic or the ratings of each user, or simply distinguishing between experts and ordinary users and weighting the comprehensive scores of experts and ordinary users and other methods to determine the final score and ranking of the topic, which cannot really reflect the level of the topic

Images