Scoring device, scoring method, and scoring program

Abstract

To provide a scoring device, a scoring method, and a scoring program that can calculate a similar distribution of scores regardless of the degree of importance given to each evaluation item.SOLUTION: A scoring device comprises: an evaluation information storage unit which stores evaluation for a plurality of evaluation items for each of a plurality of evaluation objects; a receiving unit which receives a specific evaluation object out of the plurality of evaluation objects and receives a weight for each of the plurality of evaluation items; a first conversion unit which converts evaluation of the plurality of evaluation items into one first score for each of the plurality of evaluation objects according to the weight so that a representative value becomes a target specific value; a second conversion unit which converts each of the first scores into a second score for a set of the first scores for each of the plurality of evaluation objects so that a representative value becomes a specific value; and a transmitting unit which transmits a specified one out of the second score.SELECTED DRAWING: Figure 7

Description

[Technical field]

[0001] The present invention relates to a scoring device, a scoring method, and a scoring program. [Background technology]

[0002] Users do not know the quality of a product or service being sold until they actually use it. To bridge this information gap, users refer to the evaluation information given to each evaluation item by users and researchers who have already used the product or service, as well as the evaluation scores (points) that quantify this evaluation information. For example, there are services such as restaurant review sites where actual users rate restaurants, and publication review sites where actual readers rate books. For example, by looking at the scores posted on a restaurant review site, users can make inferences such as "3.5 points or more means it's delicious" and "less than 3 points means it's not delicious." [Prior art documents] [Patent documents]

[0003] [Patent Document 1] JP 2005-123925 A Summary of the Invention [Problem to be solved by the invention]

[0004] Each user has different priorities for each item of a product or service. For example, when it comes to restaurants, some people prioritize taste, while others prioritize customer service. The degree of importance placed on each evaluation item varies from user to user. However, general review sites only list one type of score, and there are no evaluation items, and even if there were, users would not be able to weight the evaluation items according to their preferences.

[0005] Therefore, it is desirable to be able to calculate a score according to the degree of importance (weight) that a user places on each evaluation item.

[0006] However, it is inconvenient if the "probable score" is different when emphasizing only a specific evaluation item and when emphasizing all evaluation items equally. For example, if all stores are in the 3-point range when "emphasis is placed only on taste," and all stores are in the 2-point range when "equal emphasis is placed on taste and customer service," it becomes difficult for users to understand the meaning of the numbers. For example, assume that a certain store will receive a score of 3 when the user first "emphasizes only on taste," and then 2.9 when "equal emphasis is placed on taste and customer service." On the surface, this is a 0.1-point drop, but since all stores are in the 2-point range when "equal emphasis is placed on taste and customer service," the relative position of this store has increased significantly. However, the user will understand that this store has "bad customer service" because of the 0.1-point drop. This does not effectively fulfill the purpose of scoring, which is to eliminate information gaps.

[0007] Therefore, in both cases, it is easier for users to understand the meaning if the "likely scores" (distribution of scores) are similar. For example, whether one places "emphasis only on taste" or "equal importance on taste and customer service," a restaurant of average level will be about 3 points, and it is desirable for the distribution of scores around 3 to be similar. In this case, regardless of the emphasis placed on the criteria, a common interpretation of the scores can be achieved, such as "a restaurant with 3 points is average level," "a restaurant with 3.5 points is high level," and "restaurants with a score of 4 or above are very rare and are the highest level." In other words, it is convenient for interpretation if the distribution of scores that appear is similar regardless of the emphasis placed on the criteria.

[0008] The present invention has been made in consideration of the above-mentioned problems, and aims to provide a scoring device, a scoring method, and a scoring program that can calculate a similar distribution of scores regardless of the degree of emphasis placed on each evaluation item. [Means for solving the problem]

[0009] The scoring device of the present invention is characterized in that it comprises an evaluation information storage unit that stores evaluations for multiple evaluation items for each of multiple evaluation objects; a receiving unit that receives a specific evaluation object from the multiple evaluation objects and receives weights for each of the multiple evaluation items; a first conversion unit that converts the evaluations of the multiple evaluation items for each of the multiple evaluation objects into a single first score according to the weight; a second conversion unit that converts each of the first scores into a second score for a set of first scores for each of the multiple evaluation objects so that a representative value becomes a targeted specific value; and a transmitting unit that transmits a specified one of the second scores.

[0010] In the above scoring device, the evaluation information storage unit may store evaluations for the multiple evaluation items as numerical values, and the first conversion unit may calculate the first score by converting the evaluations for the multiple evaluation items based on the weights.

[0011] The scoring method of the present invention is characterized in that a computer executes the following processes: storing evaluations for multiple evaluation items for each of multiple evaluation objects; receiving a specific evaluation object from the multiple evaluation objects and receiving a weight for each of the multiple evaluation items; converting the evaluations for the multiple evaluation items for each of the multiple evaluation objects into a single first score according to the weight; converting each of the first scores for a set of first scores for the multiple evaluation objects into a second score so that a representative value becomes a target specific value; and transmitting a specified one of the second scores.

[0012] The scoring program of the present invention is characterized in that it causes a computer to execute the following processes: storing evaluations for multiple evaluation items for each of multiple evaluation objects; receiving a specific evaluation object from the multiple evaluation objects and receiving a weight for each of the multiple evaluation items; converting the evaluations for the multiple evaluation items for each of the multiple evaluation objects into a single first score according to the weight; converting each of the first scores for a set of first scores for the multiple evaluation objects into a second score so that a representative value becomes a targeted specific value; and transmitting a specified one of the second scores. Effect of the Invention

[0013] According to the present invention, it is possible to provide a scoring device, a scoring method, and a scoring program that are capable of calculating a similar distribution of scores regardless of the degree of importance attached to each evaluation item. [Brief description of the drawings]

[0014] [Figure 1] FIG. 1 is a block diagram of a scoring system according to an embodiment. [Diagram 2] 1A is a block diagram of an evaluator terminal, a scoring device, and a user terminal, and FIG. 1B is a block diagram for explaining the hardware configuration of the scoring device. [Diagram 3] FIG. 2A is a diagram illustrating each piece of evaluation information stored in the evaluation information storage unit, and FIG. 2B is a diagram illustrating an example of an evaluation score stored in the evaluation information storage unit. [Figure 4] FIG. 13 is a diagram illustrating "weighting type 1." [Diagram 5] FIG. 13 is a diagram illustrating an example of “weighting type 2”. [Figure 6] FIG. 11 is a sequence diagram illustrating an example of the operation of the scoring system. [Figure 7] FIG. 11 is a sequence diagram illustrating an example of the operation of the scoring system. [Figure 8]FIG. 13 illustrates a flowchart showing details of the operation of the scoring device. [Figure 9] FIG. 13 illustrates a flowchart showing details of the operation of the scoring device. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS

[0015] Hereinafter, an embodiment will be described with reference to the drawings.

[0016] Fig. 1 is a block diagram of a scoring system 100 according to an embodiment. As illustrated in Fig. 1, the scoring system 100 has a configuration in which one or more evaluator terminals 10 are connected to a scoring device 20 via a telecommunication line 40 such as the Internet, and one or more user terminals 30 are connected to the scoring device 20 via the telecommunication line 40.

[0017] The evaluator terminal 10 is a terminal used by each evaluator. The evaluator terminal 10 transmits and receives information to and from the scoring device 20 via an electric communication line 40. The user terminal 30 is a terminal used by a user. The user terminal 30 transmits and receives information to and from the scoring device 20 via an electric communication line 40. The evaluator terminal 10 and the user terminal 30 may be terminals such as desktop PCs and notebook PCs, or may be mobile terminals such as smartphones. The scoring device 20 is a server or the like. The electric communication line 40 may have a configuration in which wired and wireless connections are mixed.

[0018] The evaluation target is a product, a service, a human resource, or an organization. The evaluator is a person who evaluates the product, the service, the human resource, or the organization. In this embodiment, the product, the service, the human resource, or the organization that is the subject of evaluation is not particularly limited. In this embodiment, as an example, a food and beverage service provided by a restaurant of a specific genre (as an example, a coffee shop) is described. Therefore, as an example, the evaluator in this embodiment is a person who actually receives the food and beverage service provided by the coffee shop and evaluates the service content.

[0019] The user according to the present embodiment is, for example, a person who obtains a rating for a particular coffee shop. The rating is calculated by the scoring device 20.

[0020] Fig. 2(a) is a block diagram of an evaluator terminal 10, a scoring device 20, and a user terminal 30. As illustrated in Fig. 2(a), the evaluator terminal 10 includes an input device 11, a display device 12, etc. The user terminal 30 includes an input device 31, a display device 32, etc. The input devices 11, 31 are a keyboard, a mouse, a touch panel, etc. The display device 32 is a liquid crystal display, etc. The scoring device 20 includes an evaluation information storage unit 21, a score calculation unit 22, a receiving unit 23, a first conversion unit 24, a second conversion unit 25, a transmitting unit 26, etc.

[0021] FIG. 2(b) is a block diagram for explaining the hardware configuration of the scoring device 20. As illustrated in FIG. 2(b), the scoring device 20 includes a CPU 101, a RAM 102, a storage device 103, a communication device 104, an input device 105, and the like. These devices are connected by a bus or the like. The CPU (Central Processing Unit) 101 is a central processing unit. The RAM (Random Access Memory) 102 is a volatile memory that temporarily stores a program executed by the CPU 101, data processed by the CPU 101, and the like. The storage device 103 is a non-volatile storage device. For example, a ROM (Read Only Memory), a solid state drive (SSD) such as a flash memory, a hard disk driven by a hard disk drive, and the like can be used as the storage device 103. The function of each part of the scoring device 20 is realized by the CPU 101 executing the scoring program stored in the storage device 103. The function of each part of the scoring device 20 may be configured by a dedicated circuit or the like. The communication device 104 is an interface to the electric communication line 40. The input device 105 is an input device such as a keyboard, a mouse, or a touch panel.

[0022] The evaluator inputs an evaluation of the coffee shop that he or she actually visited into the evaluator terminal 10 and transmits it to the scoring device 20. There are multiple evaluation items. For example, evaluation items include "taste," "service," and "atmosphere." The evaluation may be a numerical value, or may be a choice of specific words or phrases ("good," "average," "bad"). When the evaluation is a numerical value, it may be input with a decimal point, for example, from 1 to 5, or only integers may be input. Each evaluation input by the evaluator is stored in the evaluation information storage unit 21.

[0023] Fig. 3(a) is a diagram illustrating each piece of evaluation information stored in the evaluation information storage unit 21. As illustrated in Fig. 3(a), the evaluation information is associated with an evaluation ID. The evaluation ID is an identifier for identifying each piece of evaluation information. The evaluation information includes a store ID, evaluations of each evaluation item, etc. The store ID is an identifier for identifying each store.

[0024] The score calculation unit 22 calculates a representative value of each evaluation for each store and for each evaluation item as an evaluation score, and stores it in the evaluation information storage unit 21. Examples of the representative value are the average value and the median. FIG. 3(b) is a diagram illustrating evaluation scores stored in the evaluation information storage unit 21. When the evaluations included in the evaluation information are not numerical values ​​but specific options ("good", "average", "bad"), the score calculation unit 22 converts these options into numerical values ​​and calculates a representative value of each evaluation as the evaluation score. For example, "good" = 5, "average" = 3, "bad" = 1, etc.

[0025] Each store is represented by "i", and the set I of these stores is represented by {1, 2, ..., n}. These stores are the targets of evaluation comparison with each other. "i" corresponds to the store ID.

[0026] Using user terminal 30, the user specifies the coffee shop for which the user wishes to know the evaluation. Next, using user terminal 30, the user inputs the degree of importance (weight) that the user places on each of the common evaluation items. For example, the user inputs weights such as "taste = 5, service = 3, ambience = 2." The result of this input can be expressed in vector form as w = (5, 3, 2). This means that the user places particular importance on taste.

[0027] The receiving unit 23 receives the specified store and the weight w from the user terminal 30. The first conversion unit 24 uses the information stored in the evaluation information storage unit 21 to calculate the first scores of all stores in the set according to the input weight w. That is, the first conversion unit 24 converts the information required for evaluation into a first score. For example, the first conversion unit 24 calculates the first score by using the weight w to calculate a weighted arithmetic mean, weighted geometric mean, or the like of information called evaluation score. For example, it is assumed that (taste, customer service, atmosphere) = (3, 3.5, 4) for a certain store. In this case, the first score of the store is {(3 x 5) + (3.5 x 3) + (4 x 2)} / (5 + 3 + 2) = 3.35. The first score calculated for store i under the weight w is multiplied by x i =f(i,w).

[0028] In the scoring device 20, a vector of any length x=(x1, x2, ..., x n ), for vectors of the same length g(x) = (g1(x),g2(x),…,g n A rule (conversion function g) for converting the vector of first scores into the vector of second scores (x) is set in advance. This rule takes a vector of first scores as input and a vector of second scores as output. The second conversion unit 25 converts the second score g i That is, the second conversion unit 25 converts the first score into the second score.

[0029] Hereafter, the second score g i The details of the calculation of (x) are explained below. This calculation method calculates n numbers (g1(x), g2(x), ..., gn (x)) share certain properties. For example, any vector x=(x1,x2,…,x n ), for n numbers (g1(x),g2(x),…,g n The median of (x) will always be the same. An example of such a function is the logistic function shown below.

number

[0030] Using this function, any vector x=(x1,x2,…,x n ), the median of the n numbers is med(x)=x j About g j (x)=m. This "m" is set in the scoring device 20. "k" is a parameter that controls the degree of scattering around "m" and is determined in advance by the administrator. The smaller "k" is, the more likely it is that several grams of "m" will be scattered around "m". i (x) are collected. The parameters m and k are changed as appropriate by the operator of the scoring system 100. Note that the output value of the function g changes depending on the parameters m and k, so strictly speaking, g (m,k) It is written as follows.

[0031] For example, see below. "Weighting Type 1" uses information from the same evaluation items, but weights various evaluation items evenly. "Weighting Type 2" gives stronger weighting to specific evaluation items. Figure 4 shows an example of "Weighting Type 1," and Figure 5 shows an example of "Weighting Type 2."

[0032] As shown in Figure 4, in weighting type 1, the numbers vary widely in the first score. There are values ​​below 2.5 and values ​​above 4. After conversion, all numbers are greater than 2.5 and less than 4 in the second score, and the median (E in the figure) is 3.2. This 3.2 is a preset value.

[0033] As shown in Figure 5, the first scores are generally larger in weighting type 2 than in weighting type 1. This is an example of how the first scores vary greatly depending on the weighting method. When converted to second scores, all numbers are greater than or equal to 2.5 and less than 4, and the median (E in the figure) is 3.2.

[0034] In other words, at the time of the first score, the distribution of numbers is very different depending on whether the weighting is type 1 or type 2. However, at the time of the second score, the distribution of numbers is similar whether the weighting is type 1 or type 2. In this example, a logistic transformation is applied so that no matter what the numbers are in the first score, the median value in the transformed second score is 3.2, and the numbers are scattered around that value.

[0035] The transmission unit 26 transmits the second score g calculated by the second conversion unit 25. i Of the items (x), the score (final score) of the store specified by the user is transmitted to the user terminal 30. The final score can be confirmed on the display device 32 of the user terminal 30.

[0036] Next, the exchange of information between each unit will be described. Figures 6 and 7 are sequence diagrams showing an example of the operation of scoring system 100. As illustrated in Figure 6, evaluation information is transmitted from evaluator terminal 10 to evaluation information storage unit 21. Evaluation information storage unit 21 stores the received evaluation information. Score calculation unit 22 acquires each piece of evaluation information from evaluation information storage unit 21 and stores it in evaluation information storage unit 21.

[0037] As illustrated in FIG. 7, the receiving unit 23 receives the store specified by the user and the weight w from the user terminal 30. The first conversion unit 24 calculates a first score for each store based on the evaluation score stored in the evaluation information storage unit 21 in accordance with the weight w. The second conversion unit 25 converts the first score calculated by the first conversion unit 24 into a second score. The transmission unit 26 transmits the second score g calculated by the second conversion unit 25 to the user terminal 30. iAmong (x), the score (final score) of the specified store is transmitted to the user terminal 30.

[0038] Figures 8 and 9 are diagrams illustrating flow charts showing detailed operations of the scoring device 20. Figure 8 is a flow chart of the processing performed between the scoring device 20 and the evaluator terminal 10. Figure 9 is a flow chart of the processing performed between the scoring device 20 and the user terminal 30.

[0039] 8, the evaluation information storage unit 21 determines whether or not evaluation information has been received from the evaluator terminal 10 (step S1). If the result of step S1 is "No," step S1 is executed again after a predetermined time.

[0040] If the result of the determination in step S1 is "Yes," the evaluation information storage unit 21 stores the evaluation information received in step S1 in the table of FIG. 3(a) (step S2).

[0041] Next, the score calculation unit 22 calculates the representative value (average value, median value, etc.) of each evaluation for each store and for each evaluation item as an evaluation score, and stores it in the table of Fig. 3(b) (step S3). Note that it is not necessary to calculate evaluation scores for all stores, and it is sufficient to calculate evaluation scores only for stores related to the evaluation information received in step S1. After that, after a predetermined time, the process is executed again from step S1.

[0042] 9, the receiver 23 determines whether or not the weight w and the designated store have been received from the user terminal 30 (step S11). If the determination in step S11 is "No," step S11 is executed again after a predetermined time.

[0043] If the result of the determination in step S11 is "Yes", the first conversion unit 24 converts the evaluation score stored in the evaluation information storage unit 21 into a first score in accordance with the weight w (step S12).

[0044] Next, the second conversion unit 25 converts the first score of each shop obtained in step S12 into a second score (step S13).

[0045] Next, the transmission unit 26 transmits the score (final score) of the specified shop out of the second scores calculated in step S13 to the user terminal 30 (step S14). After that, after a predetermined time, the process is executed again from step S11.

[0046] According to this embodiment, the evaluation information storage unit 21 stores evaluations for a plurality of evaluation items for each of a plurality of evaluation objects. The receiving unit 23 receives a specific evaluation object from among the multiple evaluation objects, and receives weights for each of the multiple evaluation items. The first conversion unit 24 converts the evaluations for the multiple evaluation items for each of the multiple evaluation objects into one first score according to the weight. The second conversion unit 25 converts each of the first scores for a set of the first scores for each of the multiple evaluation objects into a second score so that the distribution of the scores satisfies a certain common property. The transmitting unit 26 transmits the score of the specified specific evaluation object from among the second scores for each of the multiple evaluation objects. With this configuration, regardless of the degree of importance given to each evaluation item, the numerical values ​​do not become biased, and a distribution of scores with a certain commonality can be calculated. For example, depending on which evaluation item is emphasized, all evaluation objects do not end up with only high numerical values, or all evaluation objects do not end up with only low numerical values. Therefore, even if the user changes the weights for the evaluation items, the user can have a common interpretation of the obtained scores.

[0047] Although the embodiments of the present invention have been described in detail above, the present invention is not limited to such specific embodiments, and various modifications and variations are possible within the scope of the gist of the present invention described in the claims. [Explanation of symbols]

[0048] 10 Evaluator terminal 20 Scoring Device 21 Evaluation information storage section 22 Score Calculation Section 23 Receiving section 24 First conversion unit 25 Second conversion section 26 Transmitter 30 User terminal 40 Telecommunications Lines 100 Scoring System

Claims

1. an evaluation information storage unit that stores evaluations of a plurality of evaluation items for each of a plurality of evaluation objects; a receiving unit that receives a specific evaluation target among the plurality of evaluation targets and receives a weight for each of the plurality of evaluation items; a first conversion unit that converts the evaluations of the plurality of evaluation items into one first score for each of the plurality of evaluation targets according to the weights; a second conversion unit that converts each of the first scores of the plurality of evaluation targets into a second score such that a representative value of the first scores of the plurality of evaluation targets becomes a target specific value; A scoring device comprising: a transmitting unit that transmits a specified one of the second scores.

2. the evaluation information storage unit stores evaluations for the plurality of evaluation items as numerical values, The scoring device according to claim 1 , wherein the first conversion unit calculates the first score by converting the evaluations of the plurality of evaluation items based on the weights.

3. A process of storing evaluations for a plurality of evaluation items for each of a plurality of evaluation targets; receiving a specific evaluation target from among the plurality of evaluation targets and receiving a weight for each of the plurality of evaluation items; A process of converting the evaluations of the plurality of evaluation items into a single first score so that a representative value for each of the plurality of evaluation targets becomes a target specific value according to the weights; A process of converting each of the first scores of the plurality of evaluation targets into a second score such that a representative value of the first scores of the plurality of evaluation targets becomes a specific value; and transmitting a specified one of the second scores, wherein the second score is executed by a computer.

4. On the computer, A process of storing evaluations for a plurality of evaluation items for each of a plurality of evaluation targets; receiving a specific evaluation target from among the plurality of evaluation targets and receiving a weight for each of the plurality of evaluation items; A process of converting the evaluations of the plurality of evaluation items into a single first score so that a representative value for each of the plurality of evaluation targets becomes a target specific value according to the weights; A process of converting each of the first scores of the plurality of evaluation targets into a second score such that a representative value of the first scores of the plurality of evaluation targets becomes a specific value; and transmitting a specified one of the second scores.

Images