Execution History Tracking for Reliable User Review Filtering
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Existing systems for reviewing media and software lack reliability and efficiency, particularly for lengthy or voluminous content like games and books, as users can review products without completing them, leading to unreliable and insufficient review samples.
Innovation Solution
An information processing device and system that tracks execution history, allowing only partially completed media to be reviewed based on predetermined criteria such as time, frequency, or extent of use, and limits multiple reviews to prevent mass posting, ensuring reviews are from users who have engaged with the content.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Ease of operation
If a user can review a product without completing it, then the ease of reviewing is improved, but the reliability of the review deteriorates
Solution Approach 1:
The system requires users to complete a predetermined portion (e.g., 30% or 1 hour) of the review target content before enabling review functionality. This partial completion requirement ensures users have sufficient exposure to the content to provide reliable feedback, while not demanding 100% completion which would be overly burdensome. The review enablement flag is set when execution time or execution amount reaches the threshold.
2Reliability
If a user must complete the entire product before reviewing, then the reliability of the review is improved, but the ease of reviewing and user burden deteriorates
Solution Approach 1:
Instead of requiring full completion (100%), the system accepts partial completion at a predetermined threshold (e.g., 30% or 1 hour). This resolves the contradiction by finding an optimal balance point that provides sufficient reliability without imposing excessive user burden. The system tracks execution history and automatically determines when the threshold is met.
3Quantity of substance
If there is no limit on the number of reviews per user, then the quantity of review samples is improved, but the reliability deteriorates due to mass posting
Solution Approach 1:
The system performs preliminary verification by checking the review enablement flag and execution history before accepting a review. This preliminary action prevents mass posting by ensuring each review meets minimum quality criteria (predetermined execution time or amount). The server validates these conditions before storing the review, maintaining reliability while allowing multiple legitimate reviews.
4Adaptability or versatility
If the review target is selected from all available products, then the adaptability of the review system is improved, but the reliability deteriorates due to inclusion of unviewed products
Solution Approach 1:
The system extracts and filters the review target from the set of all available products based on execution history data. Only products that have been actually executed/viewed by the user and meet the predetermined threshold are extracted as valid review targets. This extraction process eliminates unviewed products from the reviewable set, maintaining adaptability while ensuring reliability.
Data Source
AI summary
An information processing device performs data communication with a server through a predetermined network, and transmits a result of reviewing a review target to the server. The information processing device executes, in accordance with an operation of a user, execution processing of any review target which is selected from a plurality of review targets, and updates and stores an execution history of the review target. The information processing device extracts a reviewable review target from the plurality of review targets based on the stored execution history of each review target. The information processing device generates review information reviewing at least one extracted review target in accordance with an operation of the user, and transmits the review information to the server.