Authority Score Calculation for Review Reliability

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Current systems lack an effective method to generate and display an authority score for reviews, which represents the trustworthiness or reliability of user-generated content, especially in real-time and location-specific contexts, leading to challenges in distinguishing authentic reviews from inauthentic ones.

Innovation Solution

A method and system that utilize visit data and review data to calculate an authority score, incorporating factors like beacon detection, location matching, and recency of visits, and display this score visually to users, enhancing the reliability of review ratings.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If traditional review systems are used without authority scoring, then the system is simple and easy to operate, but the reliability of review data cannot be effectively distinguished

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvereview data reliabilityVSAvoidsystem complexity

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The system segments review evaluation into multiple independent components: visit data verification, review data analysis, authority score calculation, and visual display. Each component processes specific aspects separately before integrating results, allowing complex reliability assessment to be broken down into manageable segments that can be processed independently and then combined.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The authority score acts as an intermediary metric that bridges raw review data and user trust. Instead of directly evaluating complex review authenticity, the system introduces an intermediate authority score that synthesizes multiple verification factors (visit data, review patterns, user behavior) into a single interpretable metric that users can easily understand and rely upon.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

2Measurement precision

If comprehensive visit data and multiple calculation factors are used, then the authority score accuracy is improved, but the calculation complexity and processing time increase

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveauthority score accuracyVSAvoidcalculation complexity

Core Design Contradiction:

Measurement precisionVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The system performs preliminary actions by collecting and verifying visit data before review submission, and pre-calculating user behavior patterns. By preparing verification data in advance and establishing baseline metrics beforehand, the system reduces the complexity of real-time authority score calculation while maintaining high accuracy through pre-processed information.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The system dynamically adjusts calculation parameters based on data availability and review context. Different weights and factors are applied depending on the specific situation (e.g., verified visit data versus unverified, different review types), allowing the calculation to adapt its complexity to match the precision requirements of each specific evaluation case.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #35Parameter changes

3Loss of information

If visual indications with multiple characteristics are displayed, then the information conveyed about review reliability is enhanced, but the visual complexity and user cognitive load increase

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvereview reliability informationVSAvoiduser comprehension ease

Core Design Contradiction:

Loss of informationVSEase of operation

Solution Approach 1:

The system uses color variations to encode different levels of authority and review reliability. Visual indications incorporate color intensity, hue, or saturation changes that correspond to authority score ranges, allowing users to quickly assess review trustworthiness through intuitive color perception rather than analyzing multiple separate data points, thus reducing cognitive load while preserving information.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #32Color changes

4Loss of time

If real-time authority score calculation is implemented, then the timeliness of review verification is improved, but the processing speed and system resources required increase

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveverification timeVSAvoidprocessing power

Core Design Contradiction:

Loss of timeVSPower

Solution Approach 1:

The system implements periodic action by calculating authority scores at specific intervals and triggers rather than continuously. Scores are updated periodically based on new visit data, review submissions, or user interactions, allowing the system to balance real-time verification needs with processing resource management by performing calculations only when necessary rather than maintaining constant computation.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #19Periodic action

Data Source

PatentUS11507986B2Review recordation and evaluation systems and methods

Publication Date: 2022.11.22 REVUIE LTD

AI summary

A computer-implemented system and method for generating and displaying an authority score through a software application executed by a process or a computing device. The processor may receive visit data indicative of a user's presence and review data describing an entity at a location. The processor may determine an authority score for the review data and perform a calculation using at least a portion of the visit data as at least one input. The processor may generate and cause a visual indication of the authority score to be displayed by a display device.