Online Chat Message Editing With Confidence-Based Approval

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing online chat communications often contain errors and inaccuracies that cannot be corrected by group members, leading to confusion and persistence of errors in chat histories.

Innovation Solution

A communication system that allows group members to suggest and make edits to messages, with a confidence scoring system to evaluate the accuracy of edits based on user history, expertise, and relationship, and utilizes natural language processing to improve message accuracy.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If messages are made immutable after posting, then message integrity and authorship authority are preserved, but errors and inaccuracies cannot be corrected leading to persistent confusion

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvemessage integrityVSAvoidmessage correction capability

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSEase of operation

Solution Approach 1:

The system dynamically changes message editability based on timing and user actions. Messages transition from editable (when first posted) to locked (after timeout period), but can be re-unlocked by the original author if needed. This dynamic state management resolves the contradiction by allowing corrections during a window while preserving integrity afterward.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #15Dynamics

Solution Approach 2:

The system introduces an intermediary approval mechanism where edit suggestions are proposed but not immediately applied. The original message author acts as an intermediary who must approve or reject edits, preserving their authority while enabling correction possibilities. This mediator layer resolves the contradiction between immutability and corrigibility.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

2Ease of operation

If any group member can edit any message, then error correction capability is maximized, but user authority and message ownership are compromised

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveerror correction capabilityVSAvoiduser authority

Core Design Contradiction:

Ease of operationVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The system applies different edit permissions to different users based on their relationship to the message. The original author has full control and can approve/reject any edit suggestions. Other group members can only propose edits subject to the author's approval. This localized permission structure enables correction capability while preserving user authority.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #3Local quality

Solution Approach 2:

The system requires preliminary approval from the message author before edits are applied. Edit suggestions are prepared in advance but held in a pending state until the author reviews and approves them. This preliminary action sequence ensures user authority is maintained while enabling correction capability.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #10Preliminary action

3Loss of information

If all edit suggestions are presented to all group members, then transparency and collective review are improved, but information overload and processing complexity increase

Engineering Contradiction:

ImprovetransparencyVSAvoidnotification system complexity

Core Design Contradiction:

Loss of informationVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The notification system is segmented to target specific user groups rather than broadcasting to all members. Edit suggestions are notified to the message author and optionally to subset members based on criteria like topic expertise or role. This segmentation maintains transparency for relevant users while reducing overall system complexity.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The system implements partial notification by selectively notifying only certain group members about edit suggestions rather than all members. This partial action approach maintains necessary transparency while avoiding the complexity and information overload of universal notifications.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #16Partial or excessive action

4Reliability

If edit approval requires original author review, then message ownership and quality control are maintained, but correction time and process duration increase

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvequality controlVSAvoidcorrection time

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The system performs preliminary filtering and preparation of edit suggestions before presenting them to the author. Automated checks validate obvious corrections (typos, formatting) and pre-review them, so the author only needs to approve or reject pre-validated changes rather than reviewing raw suggestions. This preliminary action reduces the author's review time while maintaining quality control.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #10Preliminary action

Data Source

PatentUS12621257B2System and method for facilitating online chat edits using user confidence scores

Publication Date: 2026.05.05 RINGCENTRAL INC

AI summary

A method includes receiving a plurality of textual data from one or more users within an online chat group. The method also includes rendering the plurality of textual data for each user of the online chat group. The method includes further enabling one user from the online chat group to edit a textual data originated by another user from the online chat group. A notification is rendered on a graphical user interface (GUI) that the textual data originated by the another user has been edited. In response to a user selection thereof, the edit is accepted, rejected, or further edited.