Dynamic Rating Criteria Selection for User Feedback Systems

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Conventional rating systems for transaction objects often present either too few or too many rating criteria, leading to either insufficient information for users or a cumbersome rating process, respectively, as users struggle to provide detailed ratings when faced with generic or numerous criteria.

Innovation Solution

An information processing device that obtains and analyzes user-posted information to identify and present appropriate rating criteria, reducing the rating burden by dynamically selecting criteria based on user preferences and feedback, such as positive or negative comments, to provide relevant subordinate rating criteria.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Ease of operation

If few preset rating criteria are used for a transaction object, then the rating process becomes simpler and less burdensome for users, but the ratings become less informative and fail to capture detailed user concerns

Engineering Contradiction:

Improverating process simplicityVSAvoidrating information quality

Core Design Contradiction:

Ease of operationVSLoss of information

Solution Approach 1:

The rating criteria are made dynamic rather than static. The system automatically adjusts and presents rating criteria based on the specific transaction object being rated and the user's rating history, transforming the fixed criteria structure into an adaptive one that optimizes both simplicity and information quality for each rating instance

Inventive Principle:

Principle #15Dynamics

Solution Approach 2:

Different rating criteria are applied locally based on the specific transaction object type and user context. Instead of using uniform criteria for all ratings, the system tailors the criteria presentation to match the particular item being rated and the user's demonstrated preferences, ensuring appropriate detail level for each specific rating task

Inventive Principle:

Principle #3Local quality

2Loss of information

If many preset rating criteria are used for a transaction object, then more detailed rating information can be obtained, but the rating process becomes cumbersome and burdensome for users

Engineering Contradiction:

Improverating information qualityVSAvoidrating process simplicity

Core Design Contradiction:

Loss of informationVSEase of operation

Solution Approach 1:

The system extracts and presents only the relevant rating criteria from the full set of available criteria based on the transaction object type and user context. By filtering out unnecessary criteria and presenting only those that are applicable and important for the specific rating task, the system maintains information quality while reducing the burden on users

Inventive Principle:

Principle #2Taking out (Extraction)

Solution Approach 2:

Instead of presenting all possible rating criteria (excessive action), the system presents a partial set that is sufficient for capturing the essential rating information needed. This partial action approach provides just enough detail to maintain rating quality without overwhelming the user with excessive criteria

Inventive Principle:

Principle #16Partial or excessive action

3Productivity

If generic superordinate rating criteria are used, then the rating process is easier to complete, but the ratings lack specificity and detail that users need for informed decisions

Engineering Contradiction:

Improverating completion efficiencyVSAvoidrating specificity

Core Design Contradiction:

ProductivityVSMeasurement precision

Solution Approach 1:

The rating criteria are segmented into hierarchical levels (superordinate and subordinate). The system presents superordinate criteria for quick overall assessment and automatically expands to subordinate criteria when users indicate interest or when the transaction object type requires detailed evaluation, enabling both efficient completion and precise measurement as needed

Inventive Principle:

Principle #1Segmentation

4Loss of information

If subordinate rating criteria are presented to all users, then detailed rating information can be captured, but users experience increased rating burden and reduced completion rates

Engineering Contradiction:

Improverating detail captureVSAvoidrating completion rate

Core Design Contradiction:

Loss of informationVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

The system performs preliminary analysis of the transaction object and user profile before presenting rating criteria. By pre-determining which subordinate criteria are relevant based on the item type and user's rating history, the system prepares an optimized criteria set that captures necessary detail while avoiding unnecessary criteria that would reduce completion rates

Inventive Principle:

Principle #10Preliminary action

Data Source

PatentUS10311491B2Information processing device, information processing method, and information processing program

Publication Date: 2019.06.04 RAKUTEN GROUP INC

AI summary

The information providing server obtains at least one of the first posted information on the plan posted by the user, the piece(s) of second posted information on the other plan(s) posted by the user, and the piece(s) of third posted information on the plan posted by the other user(s). Then, the information providing server identifies the subordinate rating criterion/criteria used for the user to rate the plan based on the obtained piece(s) of posted information, and presents the identified subordinate rating criterion/criteria to the user who rates the plan.