A we-media content publishing, auditing and checking method and system

Abstract

The application provides a self-media content publishing, auditing and checking method and system, and belongs to the technical field of semantic analysis and data processing; the method comprises an input checking step: when it is detected that the text content in the input box that has not been recognized exceeds a first preset number of words, an input box content recognition engine is started to determine whether the text content of the current input box meets the publishing standard; a publishing auditing step: when a submission operation of the input box content is detected, a submission progress display interface is displayed; during the display of the submission progress display interface, the input box content is pre-submitted to a server, and the server performs auditing on the submitted content; when the submitted content meets the auditing standard, the submission progress display interface is ended, and a publishing page of the submitted content is displayed; the application can realize rapid auditing and checking of large-scale self-media user concurrent submission of content, accurately locate the auditing result and visually feed back the result to the user, improve the content publishing experience of the self-media, and enhance the user stickiness.

Description

TECHNICAL FIELD

[0001] The present application belongs to the technical field of resource sharing and cloud computing, and particularly relates to a self-media content publishing, auditing and checking method and system, a computer readable storage medium, a computer program product and an electronic device for implementing the method. BACKGROUND

[0002] With the development of network technology and mobile terminal technology, represented by network media, microblog, WeChat and the like, the self-media has penetrated into the daily life of the public and become an important way for the public to obtain content, due to its rich content, personalized expression, strong interaction and high-speed transmission. The self-media platform takes the user as the core and adopts the form of self-publishing, creating a new way of information dissemination.

[0003] Unlike the strict auditing mechanism of traditional media when publishing content, the production cost of self-media content is relatively low, and almost any organization or individual can produce and publish network information content, becoming an independent media person. The content production process lacks rules and regulations, and is stimulated by commercial interests. The quality of the content produced and published by the self-media is uneven, and even content that violates laws and regulations may appear.

[0004] Therefore, the network self-media platform gradually explores the method of auditing information articles through artificial intelligence technology, trains article auditing models based on machine learning and deep learning algorithms, and uses machine-assisted artificial detection of article content. A self-media content publishing, auditing and checking system is proposed in Chinese patent application No. CN202410079789, which automatically learns and corrects text to ensure that the content published on various platforms has undergone strict auditing; a self-media article hidden danger identification method and system are proposed in Chinese patent application No. CN109933646A

[0005] The application proposes a self-media article hidden danger identification method and system, which identifies the hidden dangers of self-media articles to provide a basis for preventing self-media articles from misleading or harming the public.

[0006] However, in actual application, it is found that the user experience of the existing self-media content auditing mechanism needs to be improved, mainly in that the auditing interaction mode is single, the user can only know whether the article content passes the audit, and cannot know where the content does not meet the standard when the content fails to pass the audit, and the auditing interface is not user-friendly; data communication congestion easily occurs in the auditing process, as the number of registered users of the self-media platform increases dramatically, and in the case that the number of users requesting publishing and auditing is large at the same time, the auditing process is slow; the same content needs to be audited multiple times and repeatedly, and each auditing needs to occupy a large data communication bandwidth, resulting in waste of data resources. SUMMARY

[0007] In view of the defects of the existing self-media content review mechanism, the application provides a self-media content publishing review verification method and system, a computer readable storage medium, a computer program product and an electronic device for implementing the method.

[0008] In the first aspect of the application, a self-media content publishing review verification method is provided, which can be implemented based on an electronic device and includes the following steps:

[0009] Input verification step: when it is detected that the un-recognized text content in the input box exceeds the first preset number of words, start the input box content recognition engine to determine whether the text content of the current input box meets the publishing standard;

[0010] Publishing review step: when a submission operation of the input box content is detected, display a submission progress display interface; during the display of the submission progress display interface, pre-submit the input box content to the server, and the server performs the review of the submitted content;

[0011] When the submitted content meets the review standard, end the submission progress display interface and display the publishing page of the submitted content.

[0012] The submission progress display interface includes an audit progress bar and an audit mark graph;

[0013] The audit progress bar displays the audit progress of the server in auditing the submitted content;

[0014] The audit mark graph is used to display the audit result of the server in auditing the submitted content.

[0015] In the publishing review step, the server audits the pre-submitted content in preset semantic units, and each time when a preset number of semantic ranges pass the audit, the submission progress displayed by the submission progress display interface also gradually increases;

[0016] When a certain semantic unit fails to pass the audit, skip the semantic unit that fails to pass the audit and the context semantic units, and continue to perform the publishing review step.

[0017] In the publishing review step, the server audits the submitted content in preset semantic units, and when a certain semantic unit fails to pass the audit, the submitted content does not meet the review standard.

[0018] In the publishing auditing step, when the server audits all semantic units, if there is a semantic unit that fails to pass the audit, the publisher is prompted that the current submission content does not meet the publishing standard, the server only saves the semantic unit that passes the audit standard, displays the semantic unit that fails to pass the audit and the context semantic unit of the semantic unit that fails to pass the audit in the input box, and returns to the input verification step.

[0019] The aforementioned self-media content publishing auditing verification method can also be connected to a cloud resource platform through various forms of electronic devices and automatically implemented through computer program instructions. The computer program instructions can be stored in different forms of storage media and loaded into a computer electronic device for execution.

[0020] When implemented by computer program instructions, the flowchart of the method in the form of computer pseudo code is as follows:

[0021] S1: Detect the number of words InputWordNum of the current text content TXTInput that has not been recognized in the input box;

[0022] S2: When InputWordNum>PreSetNum, enter step S3;

[0023] Otherwise, return to step S1; wherein PreSetNum is a first preset number of words;

[0024] S3: Determine whether the current text content TXTInput in the input box meets the publishing standard;

[0025] When TXTInput does not meet the publishing standard, prompt the user to modify in the input box and return to step S1;

[0026] When TXTInput meets the publishing standard, enter step S4;

[0027] S4: Determine whether a submission operation of the input box content is detected;

[0028] If yes, enter step S5; otherwise, return to step S1;

[0029] S5: Display a submission progress display interface; during the display of the submission progress display interface, pre-submit the input box content to the server, and perform auditing of the submission content by the server;

[0030] When the submission content meets the auditing standard, end the submission progress display interface and display a publishing page of the submission content.

[0031] The auditing of the submission content by the server in step S5 includes:

[0032] S510: obtaining input box content TXT submitted to the server in advance;

[0033] S520: decomposing the input box content TXT into N semantic units, i.e. TXT={T1, T2, …, TN}, N is an integer greater than 2;

[0034] S530: i=1;

[0035] S540: when i

[0036] when i>N, entering step S570;

[0037] S550: i=i+1, returning to step S540;

[0038] S560: taking Ti, Ti+1, Ti-1 as candidate prompt content, i=i+2, returning to step S540;

[0039] S570: displaying all candidate prompt content in the input box, returning to step S1.

[0040] The submission progress display interface in step S5 comprises an audit progress bar and an audit mark graph;

[0041] The audit progress bar displays the audit progress of the server in auditing the submission content;

[0042] The audit mark graph is used for displaying the audit result of the server in auditing the submission content.

[0043] In the third aspect of the present application, a computer readable storage medium is further provided for storing computer instructions, which, when executed on an electronic device, cause the electronic device to perform all or part of the steps of the aforementioned self-media content publishing audit verification method.

[0044] In the fourth aspect of the present application, a computer device is further provided, which comprises a processor and a memory, the memory being used for storing instructions, and the processor being used for invoking the instructions in the memory, so that the computer device performs the aforementioned self-media content publishing audit verification method.

[0045] In the fifth aspect of the present application, a computer program product is further provided, which comprises a computer program, when the computer program is executed, all or part of the steps of the aforementioned self-media content publishing audit verification method are implemented.

[0046] In a sixth aspect, corresponding to the method of the first aspect, a self-media content publishing review verification system is also proposed, which can be used to implement the self-media content publishing review verification method of the first or second aspect.

[0047] The system comprises:

[0048] The input verification unit starts the input box content recognition engine when it is detected that the un-recognized text content in the input box exceeds the first preset number of words, to determine whether the text content of the current input box meets the publishing standard;

[0049] The publishing review unit displays a submission progress display interface when it detects a submission operation of the input box content, and pre-submits the input box content to the server during the display of the submission progress display interface, and the server audits the pre-submitted content in a preset semantic unit;

[0050] When the submitted content meets the audit standard, the submission progress display interface is ended, and a publishing page of the submitted content is displayed;

[0051] The submission progress display interface comprises an audit progress bar and an audit mark graph, the audit progress bar displays the audit progress of the server in auditing the submitted content, and the audit mark graph is used to display the audit result of the server in auditing the submitted content;

[0052] When the server has audited all semantic units, if there is a semantic unit that does not pass the audit, the publisher is prompted that the current submitted content does not meet the publishing standard, the server only saves the semantic units that pass the audit standard, and displays the semantic unit that does not pass the audit and the context semantic units of the semantic unit that does not pass the audit in the input box.

[0053] The technical solution of the present application realizes two-stage publishing review verification of self-media content through the input verification step and the publishing review step, and displays a submission progress display interface when it detects a submission operation of the input box content, the submission progress display interface comprises an audit progress bar and an audit mark graph, the audit progress bar displays the audit progress of the server in auditing the submitted content, and the audit mark graph is used to display the audit result of the server in auditing the submitted content, which avoids the problem of single audit interaction mode in the prior art;

[0054] Meanwhile, during the submission progress display, the input box content is pre-submitted to the server, which then reviews the submitted content. When the server has reviewed all semantic units, if any semantic units fail the review, the server will notify the publisher that the submitted content does not meet the publishing standards. The server will only save the semantic units that pass the review standards, and display the semantic units that fail the review, along with their context semantic units, in the input box, returning to the input verification step. This avoids the technical problems of data communication blockage and the need for multiple, repeated reviews of the same content during the review process.

[0055] Further advantages of the present invention will be further detailed in the Specific Embodiments section in conjunction with the accompanying drawings. Attached Figure Description

[0056] To more clearly illustrate the technical solutions in the embodiments of the present invention or the prior art, the drawings used in the embodiments will be briefly introduced below. Obviously, the drawings described below are only some embodiments of the present invention. For those skilled in the art, other drawings can be obtained based on these drawings without creative effort.

[0057] Figure 1 This is a flowchart of the main body of a self-media content publishing review and verification method according to an embodiment of the present invention;

[0058] Figure 2 These are schematic diagrams illustrating different modes of the submission progress display interface shown during method execution;

[0059] Figure 3 This is a flowchart illustrating the method implemented using computer program instructions;

[0060] Figure 4 This is a schematic diagram of the functional units of a self-media content publishing review and verification system according to an embodiment of the present invention. Detailed Implementation

[0061] In the specific embodiments of this application, if the embodiments of the relevant technical solutions involve user-related data, then when the embodiments of this application are applied to specific products or technologies, user permission or consent is required, and the collection, use and processing of the relevant data must comply with the relevant laws, regulations and standards of the relevant countries and regions.

[0062] Specifically, this application may display a prompt interface, pop-up window, or output voice prompt information before and during the collection of user data. This prompt interface, pop-up window, or voice prompt information serves to inform the user that their data is being collected. This ensures that the application only begins the steps for collecting user data after receiving confirmation from the user regarding the prompt interface or pop-up window; otherwise (i.e., without user confirmation), the steps for collecting user data end, meaning no user data is collected. In other words, all user data collected by this application is collected with the user's consent and authorization, and the collection, use, and processing of related user data must comply with the relevant laws, regulations, and standards of the relevant countries and regions.

[0063] See Figure 1 , Figure 1 This is a flowchart of the main process of a self-media content publishing review and verification method according to an embodiment of the present invention.

[0064] exist Figure 1 The self-media content publishing review and verification method proposed in this invention is divided into two stages: the input verification stage and the publishing review stage, which correspond to the input verification steps and the publishing review steps, respectively.

[0065] In the input validation step, when the number of unrecognized text contents detected in the input box exceeds the first preset number of characters, the input box content recognition engine is activated to determine whether the text content of the current input box meets the publishing standards.

[0066] Specifically, when publishing content on a self-media platform, self-media publishers typically use two input methods:

[0067] (1) Platform input method: that is, directly enter the relevant content word by word in the input box provided by the self-media platform, and click publish after the input is completed;

[0068] (2) Copy and paste method after third-party editing: After entering and editing all the content on the third-party software, copy the whole text into the input box provided by the self-media platform, and then click publish.

[0069] In existing technologies, the review of content to be published on self-media platforms usually takes place after the self-media publisher clicks the publish button. The entire content to be published is then reviewed. If the review is successful, the content can be published on the self-media platform. If the review fails, the content is flagged as in violation of regulations, and the publisher is required to check and modify it before republishing, repeating the above process.

[0070] As can be seen, the existing technology described above has the following problems:

[0071] (1) The review interaction method is simple. Users can only know whether the article content has passed the review. When it fails the review, they cannot know exactly where it does not meet the standards. The review interface is not user-friendly.

[0072] (2) When there are a large number of users requesting review at the same time, the review process is prone to data communication blockage and the review process is slow.

[0073] (3) The same content needs to be reviewed multiple times and repeatedly. Each review requires a large amount of data communication bandwidth, resulting in a waste of data resources.

[0074] The technical solution proposed in this invention will solve the above-mentioned problems by applying several corresponding improved technical means.

[0075] First, the technical solution of the present invention moves the review and verification mechanism of self-media published content to the input stage, and performs the verification operation at the input stage.

[0076] When self-media publishers use the platform input method, that is, directly enter the relevant content word by word in the input box provided by the self-media platform, the number of unrecognized text contents (number of words) in the input box can be detected in real time by detecting the current input position (such as the current input cursor position);

[0077] In one embodiment, when the unrecognized text content in the input box exceeds a first preset number of characters, the input box content recognition engine is activated to determine whether the text content in the current input box meets the publishing standards.

[0078] In another embodiment, to ensure the integrity of semantic recognition, the input box content recognition engine is only activated when the unrecognized text content in the input box exceeds a first preset number of characters and the current input position reaches the semantic end position, in order to determine whether the text content of the current input box conforms to the publishing standard. Here, the semantic end position can be a period, semicolon, exclamation mark, or other marker indicating the end of a sentence or paragraph. If the current input position reaches the semantic end position, for example, if the current input cursor is located after a period, semicolon, or exclamation mark, it means that the currently input sentence or paragraph has semantically ended, and relevant semantic recognition can be performed.

[0079] At this point, the input box content recognition engine is activated to determine whether the text content of the current input box conforms to the publishing standards.

[0080] The input box content recognition engine can be activated to determine whether the text content of the current input box meets the publishing standards. This can be achieved on a local device using known existing technologies. For example, it can be done by using a preset sensitive word library, a preset violation word library, or a pre-trained article vulnerability recognition model to determine whether the text content of the current input box meets the publishing standards.

[0081] On the other hand, when self-media publishers use a third-party editing and copy-paste method, that is, they enter and edit all the content on third-party software and then copy the whole text into the input box provided by the self-media platform, the above input verification steps can also be used.

[0082] Specifically, after each copy-paste operation in the current input box, if the text content corresponding to the copy-paste operation exceeds a first preset number of characters, the input box content recognition engine is activated to determine whether the text content of the current input box meets the publishing standards.

[0083] In this method, since each copy-paste operation usually corresponds to new, unrecognized text, there will be no duplicate recognition.

[0084] As can be seen, because input validation is performed during the input validation phase, the publisher can receive the validation results of the current input text in real time and know in a timely manner whether it has passed the review. If it fails the review, the publisher is prompted to make modifications in real time, which improves the user experience.

[0085] The above process can be expressed in computer programming language, and the pseudocode is as follows:

[0086] Step 1: Detect the number of unrecognized text characters in the input box (TXTInput, InputWordNum);

[0087] Step 2: If InputWordNum > PreSetNum, proceed to Step 3; otherwise, return to Step 1; PreSetNum is the first preset word value.

[0088] Step 3: Determine whether the currently unrecognized text content TXTInput in the input box meets the publishing standards;

[0089] If the TXTInput does not meet the publishing standards, prompt the user to modify the input box and return to step 1; if the TXTInput meets the publishing standards, proceed to step 4.

[0090] Step 4: Determine if a submission operation of the input box content has been detected; if yes, proceed to the publication review step; otherwise, return to step 1.

[0091] After the above input verification stage, local resources can be used to initially verify and review the text content of the content to be published during the input stage, ensuring that the text portion of the self-media content that the user is about to submit does not have any obvious violations.

[0092] However, the verification at the input stage can only review and verify the actual text input by the user. On the one hand, the text content entered by self-media users may be transformed into other content after submission and publication. For example, the hyperlinks entered may be directly displayed as corresponding images, videos, or audio content after publication. This content may also pose risks if not reviewed. Furthermore, multiple text contents combined together and in context may contain inappropriate expressions. On the other hand, the content recognition engine resources available locally are limited, and the updates to the recognition library or recognition model may be delayed, which may cause some inappropriate content to evade review. Therefore, further review and verification are needed at the publication stage.

[0093] Therefore, after the publisher finishes entering the information in the input box and clicks submit, the method enters the publication review stage, i.e., the publication review step.

[0094] The release review process includes a pre-submission sub-step, a semantic decomposition sub-step, and a review sub-step.

[0095] Continuing with the pseudocode above, the following sub-steps are described:

[0096] Pre-submission sub-step: After the user clicks the submit button, all the content of the current input box (TXT format) is pre-submitted to the server.

[0097] The meaning of pre-submission here is: the server caches the input box content TXT by opening a temporary storage area, that is, it temporarily stores the input box content TXT, but does not actually save it, that is, the temporary content will not be published;

[0098] Semantic decomposition sub-step: Decompose the input box content TXT into N semantic units, i.e., TXT = {T1, T2, ..., TN}, where N is an integer greater than 2;

[0099] As an example, the semantic unit here can be a semantic sentence, a semantic paragraph, etc.; when the input box content TXT also includes content that may be converted into other formats (for example, the hyperlinks mentioned above may be directly displayed as corresponding images, videos or audio content after publication), such as when the input box content TXT includes hyperlinks, the display content corresponding to the hyperlinks will be treated as a separate semantic unit.

[0100] Review sub-step: The server reviews the pre-submitted content in preset semantic units, that is, reviews each Ti to see if it meets the release standards.

[0101] In the prior art, when the self-media review mechanism detects a Ti that does not meet the release standard, the review process is usually stopped, and then the user is prompted that the current content does not meet the release standard, and the review of the remaining content is abandoned. This will result in the need to repeat the review once after the user modifies it again, wasting data resources.

[0102] In this embodiment, when a semantic unit fails to pass the review, the semantic unit that fails to pass the review and the context semantic units are skipped, and the release review step is continued.

[0103] Of course, as long as a semantic unit fails to pass the review, the submitted content does not meet the review standard. However, this application conducts a one-time review of all content and gives a comprehensive review opinion and marked position.

[0104] When the server has reviewed all semantic units, if there are semantic units that fail to pass the review, the publisher is prompted that the currently submitted content does not meet the release standard. The server only saves the semantic units that meet the review standard, displays the semantic units that fail to pass the review and the context semantic units of the semantic units that fail to pass the review in the input box, and returns to the input verification step.

[0105] Continuing the above pseudocode, the review sub-step continues to execute as follows:

[0106] step 5: Let i = 1;

[0107] step 6: When i < N, determine whether Ti meets the release standard. If so, enter step 7; otherwise, enter step 8;

[0108] When i > N, enter step 9;

[0109] step 7: i = i + 1, return to step S540;

[0110] step 8: Take Ti, Ti+1, and Ti-1 as candidate prompt contents, let i = i + 2, and return to step 6;

[0111] step 9: Display all candidate prompt contents in the input box and return to step S1.

[0112] As can be seen in the above embodiment, when the server has reviewed all semantic units, if there are any semantic units that have not passed the review, the server will prompt the publisher that the current submitted content does not meet the publishing standards. The server will only save the semantic units that have passed the review standards, and display the semantic units that have not passed the review and their context semantic units in the input box, and return to the input verification step. This ensures that the same content will not be reviewed and verified repeatedly, because only the semantic units that have not passed the review and their context semantic units will be returned to the input box for the user to modify and resubmit for review. The parts that have already passed the review do not need to be resubmitted, saving data resources, and at the same time, it allows the publisher to clearly know the specific location that needs to be modified.

[0113] Meanwhile, the server only stores semantic units that pass the review standards. Even if a large number of users request to publish for review at the same time, data blocking will not occur because the server only needs to allocate a cache area for data storage and retrieval most of the time without repeatedly saving data.

[0114] As a further improvement, in the publication review step, when a submission operation of the input box content is detected, a submission progress display interface is displayed; during the display of the submission progress display interface, the input box content is pre-submitted to the server, and the server performs the review of the submitted content.

[0115] When the submitted content meets the review criteria, the submission progress display interface ends, and the publication page of the submitted content is displayed.

[0116] In general existing technologies, users can only know whether the article content has passed the review. If it fails the review, they cannot know exactly why it does not meet the standards. The review interface is also unfriendly.

[0117] For this reason, see Figure 2 , Figure 2 These are schematic diagrams illustrating different modes of the submission progress display interface shown during method execution.

[0118] Specifically, the submission progress display interface includes an audit progress bar and an audit marker image;

[0119] The review progress bar displays the review progress of the submitted content by the server;

[0120] The review marker image is used to display the review results of the server on the submitted content.

[0121] In the publication review step, the server reviews the pre-submitted content in preset semantic units. Each time a preset number of semantic ranges pass the review, the submission progress displayed on the submission progress display interface gradually increases. When a semantic unit fails the review, the failed semantic unit and its context semantic units are skipped, and the publication review step continues.

[0122] Next, let's take a specific example, combined with... Figure 2 The principles of the above-described improved embodiments are explained.

[0123] Assuming the TXT input box content to be submitted to the server contains 200 segments, when the publisher clicks the submit button, the submission progress display interface is shown. At this time, the review progress bar is turned on (showing the starting point and progress 0), and there is no review mark.

[0124] Meanwhile, the content TXT in the input box is decomposed into 200 semantic units, that is, 200 paragraphs.

[0125] Assuming the first 49 paragraphs all pass the review (meet the publication standards), the progress bar advances one step after each paragraph is reviewed (assuming the progress bar has a total of 200 steps); at this time, there is still no review mark image (because the current 49 paragraphs have all passed the review).

[0126] When the 50th paragraph was reviewed, it was found to be unqualified (not meeting the publication standards). At this point, the submission progress display showed a 25% review progress, along with the corresponding review marker. Figure 2 The review process continued, and issues were found in sections 50-60. As a result, the review progress and the corresponding sections marked on the review chart continued to increase. Starting from section 61, the review chart disappeared (because section 61 passed the review and met the release standards). The review continued to sections 90-110, and similar issues were found. The review progress and the corresponding sections marked on the review chart continued to increase.

[0127] In the above process, when the review reaches paragraph 50 and finds that paragraph 50 is unqualified, the review will proceed directly to paragraph 52. This means that paragraphs 49, 50, and 51 are all deemed to have problems (not meeting the publication standards). This is usually in line with semantic conventions, that is, when a semantic unit fails the review, the semantic unit that failed the review and its context semantic units are skipped, and the publication review steps are continued. This also speeds up the review process.

[0128] Regarding the specific display format, Figure 2Two display modes are provided: a linear submission progress display interface and a circular submission progress display interface. The principles of the two are similar, and those skilled in the art can freely choose according to the size of the display device, display mode, etc.

[0129] When the display device is square, a linear submission progress display interface can be used; when the display device is circular, a circular submission progress display interface can be used.

[0130] In a preferred embodiment, users can click on the review marker area on the submission progress display interface to directly locate and jump to the specific location of the corresponding semantic unit that failed the review, and then edit and modify it in the input box.

[0131] The above describes the specific implementation principle of the method embodiments.

[0132] The above method embodiments can also connect to a cloud resource platform through various forms of electronic devices and be implemented automatically through computer program instructions; the computer program instructions can be stored in different forms of storage media and loaded into a computer electronic device for execution.

[0133] When implemented using computer program instructions, see [link to relevant documentation]. Figure 3 , Figure 3 This is a flowchart illustrating the method implemented using computer program instructions.

[0134] The flowchart of the method in computer pseudocode form is as follows:

[0135] S1: Detect the number of characters in the currently unrecognized text content TXTInput (InputWordNum);

[0136] S2: When InputWordNum > PreSetNum, proceed to step S3;

[0137] Otherwise, return to step S1; where PreSetNum is the first preset word value;

[0138] S3: Determine whether the currently unrecognized text content TXTInput in the input box conforms to the publishing standard;

[0139] If TXTInput does not meet the publishing standards, prompt the user to modify the input box and return to step S1;

[0140] When TXTInput meets the publishing standard, proceed to step S4;

[0141] S4: Determine whether a submission operation of the input box content has been detected;

[0142] If yes, proceed to step S5; otherwise, return to step S1.

[0143] S5: Display the submission progress display interface; during the display of the submission progress display interface, pre-submit the content in the input box to the server, and the server performs the review of the submitted content.

[0144] When the submitted content meets the review criteria, end the submission progress display interface and display the release page of the submitted content.

[0145] The review of the submitted content performed by the server in step S5 includes:

[0146] S510: Obtain the input box content TXT pre-submitted to the server.

[0147] S520: Decompose the input box content TXT into N semantic units, that is, TXT = {T1, T2,..., TN}, where N is an integer greater than 2.

[0148] S530: Let i = 1.

[0149] S540: When i < N, determine whether Ti meets the release criteria. If so, go to step S550; otherwise, go to step S560.

[0150] When i > N, go to step S570.

[0151] S550: i = i + 1, and return to step S540.

[0152] S560: Use Ti, Ti + 1, and Ti - 1 as candidate prompt contents, let i = i + 2, and return to step S540.

[0153] S570: Display all candidate prompt contents in the input box and return to step S1.

[0154] Since each candidate prompt content includes at least three semantic units, there may be duplicates between multiple candidate prompt contents. Preferably, step S570 further includes de-duplicating all candidate prompt contents and then displaying them in the input box, and returning to step S1.

[0155] The submission progress display interface in step S5 includes a review progress bar and a review mark diagram.

[0156] The review progress bar displays the review progress of the server for the submitted content.

[0157] The review mark diagram is used to display the review result of the server for the submitted content.

[0158] In the above method embodiments, the specific review principle adopted in the publication review step is similar to that in the input verification step. As mentioned earlier, the input verification step uses a preset sensitive word library, a preset violation word library, and a pre-trained article vulnerability recognition model to determine on the local device whether the text content of the current input box meets the publication standards.

[0159] In the publication review process, since the relevant content to be identified has been pre-submitted to the server (server-side), the relevant review can be performed on the server based on cloud resources. Similarly, it can use preset sensitive word libraries, preset violation word libraries, pre-trained article risk identification models, etc., to determine whether each semantic unit of the relevant content to be identified meets the publication standards based on cloud resources.

[0160] Compared to local resources, cloud resources are richer, model training is more timely, and related character / lexicon databases are updated more frequently, while the models are also more comprehensive. Local resources can only perform basic recognition of text content, while cloud resources can support the creation of key feature libraries for resources such as text, speech, images, and videos, as well as the training of models to identify whether keyframe features of text, speech, images, and videos violate regulations. This allows for a more comprehensive and multi-faceted assessment of whether each semantic unit of the content to be recognized conforms to the publication standards.

[0161] Based on the method implementation examples, Figure 4 This diagram illustrates the functional unit composition of a self-media content publishing review and verification system according to an embodiment of the present invention.

[0162] It is understood that the relevant principles and steps of the system embodiment are consistent with those of the method embodiment, so there is no need to repeat the explanation. The two can be referenced and consulted with each other.

[0163] Figure 4 The system can be used to implement the self-media content publishing review and verification methods described in the first or second aspect.

[0164] The system includes:

[0165] Input validation unit: When the number of unrecognized text contents detected in the input box exceeds the first preset number of characters, the input box content recognition engine is activated to determine whether the text content of the current input box meets the publishing standards.

[0166] Release Review Unit: When a submission operation of the input box content is detected, a submission progress display interface is displayed; during the display of the submission progress display interface, the input box content is pre-submitted to the server, and the server reviews the pre-submitted content in a preset semantic unit;

[0167] When the submitted content meets the review criteria, the submission progress display interface ends, and the publication page of the submitted content is displayed.

[0168] The submission progress display interface includes a review progress bar and a review marker image; the review progress bar displays the review progress of the server on the submitted content; the review marker image is used to display the review result of the server on the submitted content.

[0169] When the server has reviewed all semantic units, if there are any semantic units that have not passed the review, it will prompt the publisher that the current submitted content does not meet the publishing standards. The server will only save the semantic units that have passed the review standards and display the semantic units that have not passed the review and their context semantic units in the input box.

[0170] The technical solution of this invention realizes two-stage publication review and verification of self-media content through input verification and publication review steps. When the submission operation of the input box is detected, a submission progress display interface is displayed. The submission progress display interface includes a review progress bar and a review marker image. The review progress bar displays the review progress of the server on the submitted content. The review marker image is used to display the review result of the server on the submitted content, thus avoiding the problem of the single review interaction method in the prior art.

[0171] Meanwhile, during the submission progress display, the input box content is pre-submitted to the server, which then reviews the submitted content. When the server has reviewed all semantic units, if any semantic units fail the review, the server will notify the publisher that the submitted content does not meet the publishing standards. The server will only save the semantic units that pass the review standards, and display the semantic units that fail the review, along with their context semantic units, in the input box, returning to the input verification step. This avoids the technical problems of data communication blockage and the need for multiple, repeated reviews of the same content during the review process.

[0172] Other technologies, principles, algorithms, or models not elaborated in detail in this application can be found in the prior art.

[0173] In the foregoing embodiments section, the present invention provides multiple embodiments, each of which can constitute an independent technical solution and may contribute to the prior art, and solve corresponding technical problems. However, it should be noted that different embodiments can be combined with each other without violating logic; at the same time, each embodiment can solve at least one technical problem, but it is not required that each individual embodiment solve multiple or all technical problems.

[0174] The foregoing has shown and described the method embodiments and systems of the present invention, but it will be understood by those skilled in the art that various changes, modifications, substitutions and variations can be made to these embodiments without departing from the principles and spirit of the present invention.

Claims

1. A method for reviewing and verifying self-media content publication, characterized in that, The method includes the following steps: Input validation steps: When the number of unrecognized text contents detected in the input box exceeds the first preset number of characters, the input box content recognition engine is activated to determine whether the text content of the current input box meets the publishing standards. Release review process: When a submission operation is detected in the input box, the submission progress display interface is shown; During the display of the submission progress interface, the content of the input box is pre-submitted to the server, and the server performs the review of the submitted content; The server reviews the pre-submitted content using preset semantic units; The submission progress display interface includes a review progress bar and a review marker image; the review progress bar displays the review progress of the server reviewing the submitted content; the review marker image is used to display the review result of the server reviewing the submitted content; When the server has reviewed all semantic units, if there are any semantic units that have not passed the review, it will prompt the publisher that the current submitted content does not meet the publishing standards. The server will only save the semantic units that have passed the review standards, display the semantic units that have not passed the review and their context semantic units in the input box, and return to the input verification step. When the submitted content meets the review criteria, the submission progress display interface ends, and the publication page of the submitted content is displayed.

2. The self-media content publishing review and verification method as described in claim 1, characterized in that, In the input verification step, when a self-media publisher directly inputs relevant content into the input box provided by the self-media platform by typing it word by word, the number of unrecognized text words in the input box is detected in real time by detecting the current input position.

3. The self-media content publishing review and verification method as described in claim 1, characterized in that, In the release review process, each time a preset number of semantic ranges pass the review, the submission progress displayed on the submission progress display interface gradually increases; If a semantic unit fails the review, skip the failed semantic unit and the context semantic unit, and continue with the publication review steps.

4. The self-media content publishing review and verification method as described in claim 1, characterized in that, In the publication review process, if a semantic unit fails to pass the review, the submitted content does not meet the review standards.

5. The self-media content publishing review and verification method as described in claim 1, characterized in that, When the display device is square, a linear submission progress display interface is used; when the display device is circular, a circular submission progress display interface is used.

6. A method for reviewing and verifying self-media content publication, wherein the method is executed by computer program instructions, characterized in that, The method includes the following steps: S1: Detect the number of characters in the currently unrecognized text content TXTInput (InputWordNum); S2: When InputWordNum > PreSetNum, proceed to step S3; Otherwise, return to step S1; where PreSetNum is the first preset word value; S3: Determine whether the currently unrecognized text content TXTInput in the input box conforms to the publishing standard; When TXTInput does not meet the release standard, prompt the user to modify it in the input box and return to step S1; When TXTInput meets the release standard, proceed to step S4; S4: Determine whether a submission operation for the content in the input box is detected; If yes, proceed to step S5; otherwise, return to step S1; S5: Display a submission progress display interface; the submission progress display interface includes a review progress bar and a review mark graph; During the display of the submission progress display interface, pre-submit the content in the input box to the server, and the server performs the review of the submitted content; the server reviews the pre-submitted content in preset semantic units; the review progress bar displays the review progress of the server reviewing the submitted content; the review mark graph is used to display the review result of the server reviewing the submitted content; When the server has reviewed all semantic units, if there are semantic units that do not pass the review, prompt the publisher that the current submitted content does not meet the release standard. The server only saves the semantic units that pass the review standard, displays the semantic units that do not pass the review and the context semantic units of the semantic units that do not pass the review in the input box, prompt the user to modify it in the input box, and return to step S1; When the submitted content meets the review standard, end the submission progress display interface and display the release page of the submitted content.

7. The self-media content publishing review and verification method as described in claim 6, characterized in that, The review of the submitted content by the server in step S5 includes: S510: Obtain the content TXT in the input box pre-submitted to the server; S520: Decompose the content TXT in the input box into N semantic units, that is, TXT = {T1, T2,..., TN}, where N is an integer greater than 2; S530: Let i = 1; S540: When i < N, determine whether Ti meets the release standard. If yes, proceed to step S550; otherwise, proceed to step S560; When i > N, proceed to step S570; S550: i = i + 1, return to step S540; S560: Use Ti, Ti+1, Ti-1 as candidate prompt contents, let i = i + 2, and return to step S540; S570: Display all candidate prompt contents in the input box and return to step S1.

8. The self-media content publishing review and verification method as described in claim 6, characterized in that, When the display device is square, a linear submission progress display interface can be adopted; when the display device is circular, an annular submission progress display interface is adopted.

9. A self-media content publishing review and verification system, characterized in that, The system includes: Input verification unit: When it is detected that the unrecognized text content in the input box exceeds the first preset number of characters, start the input box content recognition engine to determine whether the text content in the current input box meets the release standard; Release review unit: When it is detected that a submission operation for the content in the input box is performed, display the submission progress display interface; during the display of the submission progress display interface, pre-submit the content in the input box to the server, and the server reviews the pre-submitted content in preset semantic units; When the submitted content meets the review standard, end the submission progress display interface and display the release page of the submitted content; The submission progress display interface includes a review progress bar and a review marker image; the review progress bar displays the review progress of the server on the submitted content; the review marker image is used to display the review result of the server on the submitted content. When the server has reviewed all semantic units, if there are any semantic units that have not passed the review, it will prompt the publisher that the current submitted content does not meet the publishing standards. The server will only save the semantic units that have passed the review standards and display the semantic units that have not passed the review and their context semantic units in the input box.

10. A computer-readable storage medium having computer program instructions stored thereon, characterized in that, When the computer program instructions are executed by the processor, they implement the self-media content publishing review and verification method according to any one of claims 1 to 5 or 6-8.

Images