The present application relates generally to the field of computer technology and, in specific exemplary embodiments, to methods and systems for automatically identifying website content that may be interesting visitors of a website in the absence of any information on the visitors' interest or preferences.
Various techniques are employed by website operators to attract Internet users to their websites. One example of such a technique includes using search engine optimization to allow the website content to be ranked higher in search results presented by search engines. Various advertising such pay per click (PPC) advertising may also be used to bring users to a website. Once the user lands on a website, the next issue becomes how immediately engage the user with the website by presenting him or her with interesting content that would cause the user to remain on the site and begin to explore the site. However, in many cases, the website operator does not have any information about the user's preferences and interests because the user is a first time visitor to the website. Therefore, a solution that would engage first time visitors to a website by identifying and presenting interesting content to first time visitors is highly desirable.
The appended drawings are merely used to illustrate exemplary embodiments of the present invention and cannot be considered as limiting its scope.
The description that follows includes illustrative systems, methods, techniques, instruction sequences, and computing machine program products that embody the present invention. In the following description, for purposes of explanation, numerous specific details are set forth in order to provide an understanding of various embodiments of the inventive subject matter. It will be evident, however, to those skilled in the art that embodiments of the inventive subject matter may be practiced without these specific details. In general, well-known instruction instances, protocols, structures and techniques have not been shown in detail.
As used herein, the term “or” may be construed in either an inclusive or exclusive sense. Similarly, the term “exemplary” is construed merely to mean an example of something or an exemplar and not necessarily a preferred or ideal means of accomplishing a goal. Additionally, although various exemplary embodiments discussed below focus on quality control of experts, the embodiments are given merely for clarity and disclosure. Alternative embodiments may employ other systems and methods and are considered as being within the scope of the present invention.
Embodiments of the present invention provide systems and methods for identifying and presenting interesting content to visitors of a website with the goal of immediately engaging such visitors to a website. In exemplary embodiments of the present invention, the parameters used to identify the interesting content within the website are independent of the visitors' preferences and therefore even first time visitors to a website may be provided with interesting content that may engage them with the website.
Embodiments of the present invention further provide systems and methods for automatically identifying and presenting interesting content is partially based on the density of topics that appear in more than one subject categories.
In alternative embodiments, interesting content identification is at least partially based on the absolute topic density. In yet other embodiments of the present invention, the interesting content identification is partially based on the “readability” of the content. Readability of contents varies based on factors such as good sentence structure, long sentence lengths, etc.
In yet other embodiments of the present invention, the content “interestingness” value is calculated based on a weighted average of multiple factors including at least inter-category topic density, absolute topic density, and content readability.
In exemplary embodiments, the consultation system 102 provides a forum where users may post or pose questions for which experts may provide answers. The consultation system 102 may provide the forum via a website. In some embodiments, at least portions of the forum (e.g., asking of questions or receiving of responses) may occur via the website, mobile phone, other websites, text messaging, telephone, video, VoIP, or other computer software applications. Because the consultation system 102 is network based e.g., Internet, public switched telephone network (PSTN), cellular network, the users using the consultation system 102 and experts providing answers may be geographically dispersed (e.g., may be located anywhere in the world). As a result an expert may provide answers to a user thousands of miles away. Additionally, the consultation system 102 allows a large number of users and experts to exchange information at the same time and at any time.
By using embodiments of the present invention, a user posting a question may easily obtain a tailored answer. Accordingly, one or more of the methodologies discussed herein may obviate a need for additional searching for answers, which may have the technical effect of reducing computing resources used by one or more devices within the system. Examples of such computing resources include, without limitation, processor cycles, network traffic, memory usage, storage space, and power consumption.
In various embodiments, a user may pose a question and one or more experts may provide answers. In various embodiments, the question may be matched with a category of experts, more specific set of experts, or even individual experts, sometimes on a rotating basis by user selection, a keyword based algorithm, a quality based algorithm (or score or rating), or other sorting mechanism that may include considerations such as, for example, likely location or time zone. A back-and-forth communication can occur. Part of the back-and-forth communication may be the experts asking the users to supplement their question with necessary missing details that would help the expert provide a satisfactory answer. Embodiments of the present invention may eliminate the need for experts to have to spend time and effort to solicit from the users, missing question details. In various embodiment of the present invention, the consultation system 102 will automatically identify question details embedded in the submitted question and will attempt to either automatically confirm the embedded question details or solicit the details from the user in case the relevant details were not provided.
The user may accept an answer provided by one or more of the experts. In an alternative embodiment, the user may be deemed to have accepted the answer if the user does not reject it. By accepting the answer, the user validates the expert's answer which, in turn, may boost a score or rating associated with the expert. The user may also pay the expert for any accepted answers and may add a bonus. The user may also leave positive, neutral or negative feedback regarding the expert. More details regarding the consultation system 102 and its example functions will be discussed in connection with
The exemplary user client 106 is a device associated with a user accessing the consultation system 102 (e.g., via a website, telephone number, text message identifier, or other contact means associated with the consultation system 102). The user may comprise any individual who has a question or is interested in finding answers to previously asked questions. The user client 106 comprises a computing device (e.g., laptop, PDA, cellular phone) which has communication network access ability. For example, the user client 106 may be a desktop computer initiating a browser for access to information on the communication network 104. The user client 106 may also be associated with other devices for communication such as a telephone.
In exemplary embodiments, the expert client 108 is a device associated with an expert. The expert, by definition, may be any person that has, or entity whose members have, knowledge and appropriate qualifications relating to a particular subject matter. Some examples of expert subject matters include health (e.g., dental), medical (e.g., eye or pediatrics), legal employment, intellectual property, or personal injury law), car, tax, computer, electronics, parenting, relationships, and so forth. Almost any subject matter that may be of interest to a user for which an expert has knowledge and appropriate qualifications may be contemplated. The expert may, but does not necessarily need to, have a license, certification or degree in a particular subject matter. For example, a car expert may have practical experience working the past 20 years at a car repair shop. In some embodiments, the expert may be a user (e.g., the expert posts a question).
The expert client 108 may comprise a computing device (e.g., laptop, PDA, cellular phone) which has communication network access ability. For example, the expert client 108 may be a desktop computer initiating a browser to exchange information via the communication network 104 with the consultation system 102. The expert client 108 may also be associated with other devices for communication such as a telephone.
In accordance with one embodiment, an affiliate system 110 may be provided in the exemplary environment 100. The affiliate system 110 may comprise an affiliate website or other portal which may include some of the components of the consultation system 102 or direct their users to the consultation system 102. For example, the affiliate system 110 may provide a website for a car group. A link or question box may be provided on the affiliate website to allow members of the car group to ask questions. The environment 100 of
The U.S. patent application Ser. No. 113/464,269, entitled “Method And Apparatus For identifying And Eliciting Missing Question Details In A Consultation System” is the parent application to the present application and describes in detail the system and methods for identifying missing details in questions posted by users to the exemplary online consultation system of the present invention. Embodiments of the present invention provide for system and methods that provide improvement over the parent application by providing the ability for on-the-fly question detail extraction and topic category suggestion.
Returning now to
The table I below includes a few examples of user submitted questions.
As seen from the sample questions, each question may cover one or more topics and will be posted to either a user selected topic category or a category automatically selected by the consultation system 100. The U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/464,167, entitled “Method and Apparatus for Automated Topic Extraction Used For The Creation And Promotion Of New Categories In A Consultation System” filed on May 4, 2012, now U.S. Pat. No. 8,463,648, discloses a system and method of automatically extracting subject matter topics from text, and in the case of the exemplary consultation system 100, extracting topics from user posted questions. In reviewing exemplary question number three from the above table, the topics covered by the question include, “2002 Chevy Malibu” and “air condition vent” in the car category and more specifically in “automotive repair” category, “my son” in the car and possibly medical category, and more specifically “pediatric medicine,” “black spider” in car category, animal category and pest control. So, question number three has by one count eight topics in total and at least three cross-category topics. Similarly question number two includes eight topics with three cross-category topics. However, question number one has five topics and zero cross-category topics.
Returning now to the
The filtered topics are then scored. In exemplary embodiments of the present invention, topic scoring may use a modified TFIDF methodology. The topics with highest score associated with that subject matter category are identified as the best topics for that subject matter category.
In operation 206, an inter-category topic density value is calculated for each question. The inter-category topic density is calculated for each question by identifying the number cross-category topics included in the question. As previously discussed, in the example questions above, questions two and three each may have an inter-category topic density value of three (3) (e.g. question #3 includes topics related to: cars, car repair, spiders, medical, etc.), and question number one will have an inter-category topic density of zero (0) associated with it.
In the context of the present invention, relatively speaking, questions/contents that include a higher density of inter-category topics are assumed to be more interesting. This assumption is reasonable and likely to yield the good results because content including higher inter-category topics density s more likely to relate to unique or special issues and therefore more likely to be interesting to the broadest group of people, regardless of each person's specific interest. Since very' little to no information is known about the likes and dislikes of a first time visitor to a website, the “interestingness” of a question should be measured based on parameters independent of the visitors likes and dislikes, and mainly dependent of the inherent properties of the content. The term “interestingness” as used in this specification refers to a question's attractiveness to a reader/user. In the case of a new visitor to a website, interestingness of the content has to be mostly based on factors intrinsic to the content. So, in the case of the exemplary questions in table I, question 3 is presumed to be relatively more interesting because it includes an inter-category topic density 4. Question number two with an inter-category topic density of 3 is presumed to be more interesting than question one with an inter-category topic density of zero. In reality, question 3 and 2 are both interesting, because they include unusual occurrences and therefore they are more likely to attract and keep a visitor's interest, similar to other content such as the news or a movie, where unusual subject matters are more interesting.
In operation 208, for each question, a total topic density value is calculated. In this case, the total topic density counts all topics found M a content including but not limited to inter-category topic. Similarly to operation 206, it is presumed that all other things being equal, the interestingness score of a question is higher when the question relates to more topics and thus has a higher topic density. In the example of the questions in table I, questions 2 and 3 each include eight topics and are thus presumed to be more interesting than question I including only five topics.
In operation 210, for each question, a “readability” or “presentability” score is calculated. The question “readability” score may be based on multiple parameters and reflects the readability and the ease of comprehension by a typical user. For example, it is presumed that contents with fewer grammatical errors and a minimum text length are more readable, easier to understand and therefore more appropriate content to be presented to a first time visitor as examples of interesting questions. The readability score details are further discussed in relation to
In operation 212, additional inputs may be considered in computing an overall “interestingness” score for a question/content. If the visitor to the online consultation system 100 is not a first time visitor, there may be information available about him that could identify his interest based on for example his previous browsing habit, including what he clicked on, how long he spent reading a particular web page or content, and whether the user converted from a visitor to a paid user of the system by submitting a question for an expert. These additional inputs may be used to further refine or filter the types of questions that may be used in the interestingness analysis for the returning visitor,
In exemplary embodiments of the present invention, users may land on the online consultation system 100 through Search Engine Optimization (SEO) Pay Per Click (PPC) advertising. In either SEO or PPC advertising, information related to the search or the PPC link that brought the user to the online consultation system 100 may be incorporated in the interestingness score or be used as a filter to limit the set of topics that may be of interest to a particular user. In operation 214, a total interestingness score is computed for each question. In exemplary embodiments of the present invention, the interestingness score is calculated as a weighted average of the inter-category topic score, the absolute topic score, the question presentability score, and any other input signal that may be available and relevant. It would be apparent to one of skill in the art, that the weighted average may be adjusted to apportion a greater weight to parameters that are considered more important and less weight to parameters that are considered less important.
In operation 216, the questions with the highest interestingness scores are identified as the questions that are most likely to attract the interest of generic users solely based on properties inherent to the content. In the case of a first time visitor to the online consultation system 100, very little may be known about the visitor's preferences and interests. Therefore, one exemplary application of embodiments of the present invention may be in identifying questions or content with highest interestingness score to be presented to first time visitors where little is known about the visitor.
Once the presentability score, topic density score, and inter-category topic density score are calculated for each question, the questions with the highest overall scores are selected for presentation to the visitors. In alternative embodiments of the present invention, other factors such link analysis, what topic or topics brought the user to the website, previous users conversion rate, interest, time users spent on reading a content, etc, may be used to filter the questions selected for presentation, to further reflect possible user preferences. Once the questions with the highest interestingness score are identified, they are presented to the visitors of the online consultation system 100.
In operation 508, a score based on the length of the question compared to the length of the display window is computed. The length of the display window may be important because if the question needs to be cut off to fit the display window, the displayed portion of the question may not be easily comprehensible. Ideally, the length of the text to be displayed should be exactly the same as the display window. Shorter questions are less desirable because they have less content, but a short question can be fully displayed and therefore it is more desirable than a longer question. Therefore, in alternative embodiments, a penalty may be associated with the questions that are too long or too short. In one exemplary embodiment, under length questions may be penalized with factor of one for each character less than the display window length. Longer questions may be penalized with a factor or 5 or 10, for each character over the display window length. This weighting factor favors questions that have a character length that is exactly that of the display window length or slightly shorter. Questions that are much longer than the display window length are heavily penalized. As previously discussed, longer questions are more likely to be cut off in a manner that makes them incomprehensible. In alternative embodiments, the question length penalization is less heavily weighted because the user may scroll through the lengthy content and view the entire question despite its length.
In operation 510, a presentability score is computed that is a sum of the capitalization score, punctuation score, grammar score, and character length compared to display window size.
Once the presentability score, topic density score, and intercategory topic density score are calculated for each question, the questions with the highest overall scores are selected for presentation to the visitors. In alternative embodiments of the present invention, other factors such link analysis, what topic or topics brought the user to the website, previous users conversion rate, interest, time users spent on reading a content, etc, may be used to filter the questions selected for presentation, to further reflect possible user preferences.
Modules, Components, and Logic
Certain embodiments described herein may be implemented as logic or a number of modules, engines, components, or mechanisms. A module, engine, logic, component, or mechanism (collectively referred to as a “module”) may be a tangible unit capable of performing certain operations and configured or arranged in a certain manner. In certain exemplary embodiments, one or more computer systems (e.g., a standalone, client, or server computer system) or one or more components of a computer system (e.g., a processor or a group of processors) may be configured by software (e.g., an application or application portion) or firmware (note that software and firmware can generally be used interchangeably herein as is known by a skilled artisan) as a module that operates to perform certain operations described herein.
In various embodiments, a module may be implemented mechanically or electronically. For example, a module may comprise dedicated circuitry or logic that is permanently configured (e.g., within a special-purpose processor, application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), or array) to perform certain operations. A module may also comprise programmable logic or circuitry as encompassed within a general-purpose processor or other programmable processor) that is temporarily configured by software or firmware to perform certain operations. It will be appreciated that a decision to implement a module mechanically, in the dedicated and permanently configured circuitry or in temporarily configured circuitry (e.g., configured by software) may be driven by, for example, cost, time, energy-usage, and package size considerations.
Accordingly, the term module or engine should be understood to encompass a tangible entity, be that an entity that is physically constructed, permanently configured (e.g., hardwired), or temporarily configured (e.g., programmed) to operate in a certain manner or to perform certain operations described herein. Considering embodiments in which modules or components are temporarily configured (e.g., programmed), each of the modules or components need not be configured or instantiated at any one instance in time. For example, where the modules or components comprise a general-purpose processor configured using software, the general-purpose processor may be configured as respective different modules at different times. Software may accordingly configure the processor to constitute a particular module at one instance of time and to constitute a different module at a different instance of time.
Modules can provide information to, and receive information from, other modules. Accordingly, the described modules may be regarded as being communicatively coupled. Where multiples of such modules exist contemporaneously, communications may be achieved through signal transmission (e.g., over appropriate circuits and buses) that connect the modules. In embodiments in which multiple modules are configured or instantiated at different times, communications between such modules may be achieved, for example, through the storage and retrieval of information in memory structures to which the multiple modules have access. For example, one module may perform an operation and store the output of that operation in a memory device to which it is communicatively coupled. A further module may then, at a later time, access the memory device to retrieve and process the stored output. Modules may also initiate communications with input or output devices and can operate on a resource (e.g., a collection of information).
Exemplary Machine Architecture and Machine-Readable Medium
With reference to
The exemplary computer system 600 may include a processor 602 (e.g., a central processing unit (CPU), a graphics processing unit (GPU) or both), a main memory 604 and a static memory 606, which communicate with each other via a bus 608. The computer system 600 may further include a video display unit 610 (e.g., a liquid crystal display (LCD) or a cathode ray tube (CRT)), in exemplary embodiments, the computer system 600 also includes one or more of an alpha-numeric input device 612 (e.g., a keyboard), a user interface (UI) navigation device or cursor control device 614 (e.g., a mouse), a disk drive unit 616, a signal generation device 618 (e.g., a speaker), and a network interface device 620.
Machine-Readable Medium
The disk drive unit 616 includes a machine-readable medium 622 on which is stored one or more sets of instructions 624 and data structures (e.g., software instructions) embodying or used by any one or more of the methodologies or functions described herein. The instructions 624 may also reside, completely or at least partially, within the main memory 604 or within the processor 602 during execution thereof by the computer system 600, the main memory 604 and the processor 602 also constituting machine-readable media.
While the machine-readable medium 622 is shown in an exemplary embodiment to be a single medium, the term “machine-readable medium” may include a single medium or multiple media (e.g., a centralized or distributed database, or associated caches and servers) that store the one or more instructions. The term “machine-readable medium” shall also be taken to include any tangible medium that is capable of storing, encoding, or carrying instructions for execution by the machine and that cause the machine to perform any one or more of the methodologies of embodiments of the present invention, or that is capable of storing, encoding, or carrying data structures used by or associated with such instructions. The term “machine-readable medium” shall accordingly be taken to include, but not be limited to, solid-state memories and optical and magnetic media. Specific examples of machine-readable media include non-volatile memory, including by way of exemplary semiconductor memory devices (e.g., Erasable Programmable Read-Only Memory (EPROM), Electrically Erasable Programmable Read-Only Memory (EEPROM), and flash memory devices); magnetic disks such as internal hard disks and removable disks; magneto-optical disks; and CD-ROM and DVD-ROM disks. The term “machine-readable medium” shall also be taken to include any non-transitory storage medium.
Transmission Medium
The instructions 624 may further be transmitted or received over a communications network 626 using a transmission medium via the network interface device 620 and utilizing any one of a number of well-known transfer protocols (e.g., HTTP). Examples of communication networks include a local area network (LAN), a wide area network (WAN), the Internet, mobile telephone networks, Plain Old Telephone (POTS) networks, and wireless data networks (e.g., WiFi and WiMax networks). The term “transmission medium” shall be taken to include any intangible medium that is capable of storing, encoding, or carrying instructions for execution by the machine, and includes digital or analog communications signals or other intangible medium to facilitate communication of such software.
Although an overview of the inventive subject matter has been described with reference to specific exemplary embodiments, various modifications and changes may be made to these embodiments without departing from the broader spirit and scope of embodiments of the present invention. Such embodiments of the inventive subject matter may be referred to herein, individually or collectively, by the term “invention” merely for convenience and without intending to voluntarily limit the scope of this application to any single invention or inventive concept if more than one is, in fact, disclosed.
The embodiments illustrated herein are described in sufficient detail to enable those skilled in the art to practice the teachings disclosed. Other embodiments may be used and derived therefrom, such that structural and logical substitutions and changes may be made without departing from the scope of this disclosure. The Detailed Description, therefore, is not to be taken in a limiting sense, and the scope of various embodiments is defined only by the appended claims, along with the full range of equivalents to which such claims are entitled.
Moreover, plural instances may be provided for resources, operations, or structures described herein as a single instance. Additionally, boundaries between various resources, operations, modules, engines, and data stores are somewhat arbitrary, and particular operations are illustrated in a context of specific illustrative configurations. Other allocations of functionality are envisioned and may fall within a scope of various embodiments of the present invention. In general, structures and functionality presented as separate resources in the exemplary configurations may be implemented as a combined structure or resource. Similarly, structures and functionality presented as a single resource may be implemented as separate resources.
These and other variations, modifications, additions, and improvements fall within a scope of embodiments of the present invention as represented by the appended claims. The specification and drawings are, accordingly, to be regarded in an illustrative rather than a restrictive sense.
The present application is a continuation-in-part application of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/464,230 filed on May 4, 2012, which is incorporated herein by reference.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
5384703 | Withgott et al. | Jan 1995 | A |
5566302 | Khalidi et al. | Oct 1996 | A |
5642520 | Takeshita et al. | Jun 1997 | A |
5918240 | Kupiec et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
5937422 | Nelson et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
5960383 | Fleischer | Sep 1999 | A |
6018543 | Blois et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
6029195 | Herz | Feb 2000 | A |
6144672 | Brauner | Nov 2000 | A |
6172675 | Ahmad et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6173279 | Levin et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6212494 | Boguraev | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6223165 | Lauffer | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6289304 | Grefenstette | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6629097 | Keith | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6638317 | Nakao | Oct 2003 | B2 |
6754654 | Kim et al. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6823325 | Davies et al. | Nov 2004 | B1 |
6871199 | Binnig et al. | Mar 2005 | B1 |
6963830 | Nakao | Nov 2005 | B1 |
7013325 | Vivian et al. | Mar 2006 | B1 |
7058626 | Pan et al. | Jun 2006 | B1 |
7146128 | Okubo | Dec 2006 | B2 |
7146358 | Gravano et al. | Dec 2006 | B1 |
7200808 | Nagao | Apr 2007 | B1 |
7209908 | Li et al. | Apr 2007 | B2 |
7289982 | Saito et al. | Oct 2007 | B2 |
7376893 | Chen et al. | May 2008 | B2 |
7454393 | Horvitz et al. | Nov 2008 | B2 |
7516113 | Horvitz et al. | Apr 2009 | B2 |
7672831 | Todhunter et al. | Mar 2010 | B2 |
7739215 | Horvitz et al. | Jun 2010 | B2 |
7783622 | Vandermolen | Aug 2010 | B1 |
7831688 | Linyard et al. | Nov 2010 | B2 |
7962326 | Tsourikov et al. | Jun 2011 | B2 |
8005665 | Chaney et al. | Aug 2011 | B2 |
8046472 | Kumar | Oct 2011 | B2 |
8150750 | Ray | Apr 2012 | B2 |
8250018 | Wong et al. | Aug 2012 | B2 |
8280888 | Bierner et al. | Oct 2012 | B1 |
8332394 | Fan et al. | Dec 2012 | B2 |
8392360 | Dicker et al. | Mar 2013 | B1 |
8457979 | Kurtzig et al. | Jun 2013 | B2 |
8463648 | Bierner et al. | Jun 2013 | B1 |
8463791 | Bierner et al. | Jun 2013 | B1 |
8473499 | Song et al. | Jun 2013 | B2 |
8516077 | Linyard et al. | Aug 2013 | B2 |
8606739 | Apacible et al. | Dec 2013 | B2 |
8655866 | Provine et al. | Feb 2014 | B1 |
8732222 | Horvitz et al. | May 2014 | B2 |
8738617 | Brown et al. | May 2014 | B2 |
8954358 | Zhang | Feb 2015 | B1 |
9275038 | Bierner et al. | Mar 2016 | B2 |
20010021934 | Yokoi | Sep 2001 | A1 |
20020010574 | Tsourikov et al. | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020023144 | Linyard et al. | Feb 2002 | A1 |
20020065857 | Michalewicz et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020087314 | Fischer et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020087496 | Stirpe et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020116176 | Tsourikov et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020184206 | Evans | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20030028525 | Santos et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030130837 | Batchilo et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030140037 | Deh-Lee | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030144895 | Aksu et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030172368 | Alumbaugh et al. | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20030200079 | Sakai | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20040006560 | Chan et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040049499 | Nomoto et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040083224 | Yoshida | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040158337 | Forest | Aug 2004 | A1 |
20040205448 | Grefenstette et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20050055231 | Lee | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050086290 | Joyce et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050131874 | Verbitsky | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050182743 | Koenig | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20050266387 | Rossides | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20050278314 | Buchheit | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060036563 | Wu | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060041424 | Todhunter et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060106788 | Forrest | May 2006 | A1 |
20060149555 | Fabbrizio et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060167864 | Bailey et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060287970 | Chess et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20060294037 | Horvitz et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20070005564 | Zehner | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070022109 | Imielinski et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070094006 | Todhunter et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070124266 | Hearing et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070143238 | Kochunni et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070160970 | Kaplan | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070203863 | Gupta et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070239874 | Lazaridis et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070271256 | Chang et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20080027783 | Hughes et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080064018 | Griffin | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080077054 | Feuer et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080126280 | Liu et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
20080147741 | Gonen et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080160490 | Gomes et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080215976 | Bierner et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20080243539 | Barish et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080270169 | Kibar et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080311934 | Soderstrom | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20090055384 | Jain et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090063463 | Turner et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090112912 | Schimmel et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090162824 | Heck | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090177529 | Hadi | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090192966 | Horvitz et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090204426 | Thorne et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20090276419 | Jones et al. | Nov 2009 | A1 |
20100048229 | Rizzi | Feb 2010 | A1 |
20100057569 | Cantelmo et al. | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100161785 | Xue | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100191686 | Wang et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100217603 | Hammond et al. | Aug 2010 | A1 |
20100235311 | Cao | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20110004588 | Leitersdorf et al. | Jan 2011 | A1 |
20110040592 | Kurtzig et al. | Feb 2011 | A1 |
20110040662 | Kurtzig | Feb 2011 | A1 |
20110040694 | Kurtzig et al. | Feb 2011 | A1 |
20110041173 | Kurtzig et al. | Feb 2011 | A1 |
20110078167 | Sundaresan et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110131210 | Bierner | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20110131283 | Canning et al. | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20120095978 | Levin et al. | Apr 2012 | A1 |
20120116844 | Menich et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
20120130910 | Al-Alami | May 2012 | A1 |
20120131033 | Bierner | May 2012 | A1 |
20120185888 | Eyer et al. | Jul 2012 | A1 |
20120197813 | Kurtzig et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
20120197820 | Kurtzig et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
20120303356 | Boyle et al. | Nov 2012 | A1 |
20130041921 | Cooper et al. | Feb 2013 | A1 |
20130124532 | McQuarrie | May 2013 | A1 |
20130132308 | Boss et al. | May 2013 | A1 |
20130151236 | Iofinov | Jun 2013 | A1 |
20130166282 | Ridge | Jun 2013 | A1 |
20130254153 | Marcheret | Sep 2013 | A1 |
20130268319 | Palombo | Oct 2013 | A1 |
20130290225 | Kamath et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
20130290342 | Cooper et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
20130295546 | Bierner et al. | Nov 2013 | A1 |
20130297545 | Bierner et al. | Nov 2013 | A1 |
20130297553 | Bierner | Nov 2013 | A1 |
20130297625 | Bierner et al. | Nov 2013 | A1 |
20130311476 | Bierner | Nov 2013 | A1 |
20130311903 | Zadeh et al. | Nov 2013 | A1 |
20140003652 | Fedorovskaya et al. | Jan 2014 | A1 |
20140074826 | Cooper et al. | Mar 2014 | A1 |
20140114986 | Bierner et al. | Apr 2014 | A1 |
20140120513 | Jenkins | May 2014 | A1 |
20140136567 | Bhalotia | May 2014 | A1 |
20140156365 | Porter et al. | Jun 2014 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
101320374 | Dec 2008 | CN |
2004086583 | Mar 2004 | JP |
2008077054 | Jun 2008 | WO |
2011019852 | Feb 2011 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Schönhofen, Peter. “Identifying document topics using the Wikipedia category network.” Web Intelligence and Agent Systems: An International Journal 7.2 (2009): 195-207. |
Bischoff, Kerstin, et al. “Can all tags be used for search?.” Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on Information and knowledge management. ACM, 2008. |
Anick, Peter G., and Suresh Tipirneni. “The paraphrase search assistant: terminological feedback for iterative information seeking.” Proceedings of the 22nd annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval. ACM, 1999. |
Non-Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 13/464,230, dated Jul. 9, 2015. |
Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 13/464,269, dated Aug. 11, 2015. |
Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 13/464,287, dated Aug. 10, 2015. |
Non-Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 13/946,982, dated Jun. 29, 2015. |
Sferra, “Customer Service Webpage” http://www.sferra.com/content/100/customer-service.html, Oct. 10, 2011, pp. 1-4. |
Sears Brands LLC, “Customer Service Webpage” http://www.sears.com/shc/s/nb—10153—12605—NB—CSHome, Mar. 14, 2012, pp. 1-2. |
Bierner et al., U.S. Appl. No. 13/946,982, filed Jul. 19, 2013. |
Non-Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 13/946,982, dated Jul. 15, 2014. |
Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 13/946,982, dated Dec. 8, 2014. |
Advisory Action from U.S. Appl. No. 13/946,982, dated Mar. 23, 2015. |
Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 12/854,838, dated Mar. 20, 2015. |
Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 12/854,846, dated Apr. 7, 2015. |
Kurtzig, A. P., U.S. Appl. No. 12/854,846, filed Aug. 11, 2010. |
Non-Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 12/854,846, dated Oct. 11, 2011. |
Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 12/854,846, dated Jun. 6, 2012. |
Advisory Action from U.S. Appl. No. 12/854,846, dated Aug. 30, 2012. |
Non-Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 12/854,846, dated Dec. 18, 2014. |
Kurtzig et al., U.S. Appl. No. 12/854,838, filed Aug. 11, 2010. |
Non-Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 12/854,838, dated Feb. 15, 2012. |
Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 12/854,838, dated Jul. 20, 2012. |
Non-Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 12/854,838, dated Oct. 2, 2014. |
Kurtzig et al., U.S. Appl. No. 13/439,728, filed Apr. 4, 2012. |
Non-Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 13/439,728, dated Jul. 18, 2012. |
Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 13/439,728, dated Nov. 6, 2012. |
Advisory Action from U.S. Appl. No. 13/439,728, dated Jan. 11, 2013. |
Notice of Allowance from U.S. Appl. No. 13/439,728, dated Feb. 5, 2013. |
Bierner et al., U.S. Appl. No. 13/464,167, filed May 4, 2012. |
Non-Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 13/464,167, dated Aug. 28, 2012. |
Notice of Allowance from U.S. Appl. No. 13/464,167, dated Apr. 18, 2013. |
Bierner et al., U.S. Appl. No. 13/464,196, filed May 4, 2012. |
Notice of Allowance from U.S. Appl. No. 13/464,196, dated Aug. 13, 2012. |
Bierner et al., U.S. Appl. No. 13/598,450, filed Aug. 29, 2012. |
Notice of Allowance from U.S. Appl. No. 13/598,450, dated Feb. 26, 2013. |
Bierner et al., U.S. Appl. No. 13/464,230, filed May 4, 2012. |
Non-Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 13/464,230, dated Oct. 16, 2013. |
Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 13/464,230, dated Apr. 23, 2014. |
Advisory Action from U.S. Appl. No. 13/464,230, dated Jul. 30, 2014. |
Bierner, G., U.S. Appl. No. 13/464,252, filed May 4, 2012. |
Non-Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 13/464,252, dated Jun. 11, 2014. |
Bierner et al., U.S. Appl. No. 13/464,269, filed May 4, 2012. |
Non-Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 13/464,269, dated Apr. 25, 2014. |
Bierner et al., U.S. Appl. No. 13/464,287, filed May 4, 2012. |
Non-Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 13/464,287, dated Jul. 10, 2014. |
Palombo, G., U.S. Appl. No. 13/741,287, filed Jan. 14, 2013. |
Non-Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 13/741,287, dated Dec. 29, 2014. |
Zadeh et al., U.S. Appl. No. 13/946,984, filed Jul. 19, 2013. |
Bierner, G., U.S. Appl. No. 13/946,986, filed Jul. 19, 2013. |
Porter et al., U.S. Appl. No. 14/176,007, filed Feb. 7, 2014. |
Just Answer, Terms of Service, 2004-2005 JustAnswer! pp. 1-12 http://web.archive.org/web/20080509130156/http://www.justanswer.com/tos.aspx. |
Just Answer, Expert FAQ'S, 2004-2005 JustAnswer! pp. 1 http://web.archive.org/web/20070208193005/http://www.justanswer.com/help—expert.aspx. |
Just Answer, Ask a Question, 2004-2005 Just Answer! pp. 1-2 http://web.archive.org/web/20080720171326/http://justanswer.com. |
Just Answer, Expert Agreement, 2004-2005 JustAnswer! pp. 1-3 http://web.archive.org/web/20051127005457/http://www.justanswer.com/sa.asp. |
International Preliminary Examination Report from International Application No. PCT/US2010/045232, dated Oct. 21, 2011. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion from International Application No. PCT/US2010/045232, dated Oct. 1, 2010. |
Supplementary European Search Report from EP Application No. 10808717.2, dated Jan. 21, 2014. |
Coutu, A., “Consultation Fee Rates—Consultant Fees,” Consultant Journal, May 26, 2006, pp. 1-5. |
Phillips, M., “Get Expert Answers with JustAnswer,” WebsiteMagazine.com, Aug. 29, 2008, pp. 1-2. |
Huntington, D.; “Expert Systems for Online Advice: Knowledge at Your Fingertips,” PCAI, Jul./Aug. 2000, pp. 26-27 and 49-50. |
Muller et al., “Electronic Marketplaces of Knowledge: Characteristics and Sharing of Knowledge Assets,” Proceedings of the International Conference on Advances in Infrastructure for e-Business, e-Education, e-Science, and e-Medicine on the Internet, Jan. 2002, pp. 1-12. |
Non-Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 13/464,252, dated Jan. 14, 2015. |
Non-Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 13/464,269, dated Jan. 26, 2015. |
Non-Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 13/464,287, dated Jan. 29, 2015. |
Non-Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 13/946,986, dated Apr. 3, 2015. |
Non-Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 14/176,007, dated Apr. 7, 2015. |
Kurtzig et al., U.S. Appl. No. 12/854,836, filed Aug. 11, 2010. |
Non-Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 12/854,836, dated Jul. 18, 2012. |
Kurtzig et al., U.S. Appl. No. 12/854,849, filed Aug. 11, 2010. |
Non-Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 12/854,849, dated Jun. 26, 2012. |
Kurtzig et al., U.S. Appl. No. 13/439,743, filed Apr. 4, 2012. |
Non-Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 13/439,743, dated Jun. 28, 2012. |
Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 13/439,743, dated Mar. 27, 2013. |
Non-Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 13/439,743, dated Dec. 5, 2012. |
Non-Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 12/854,846, dated Feb. 13, 2014. |
Notice of Acceptance from AU Application No. 2010282516 dated Jan. 31, 2014. |
Just Answer, Help, 2004-2005 Just Answer! pp. 1-10 https://web.archive.org/web/20050828022539/http://www.justanswer.com/help.asp#FAQ54. |
Yang et al., “Analyzing and Predicting Not-Answered Questions in Community-Based Question Answering Services,” Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2011, pp. 1273-1278. |
Raben, D.R., “Self-Presentation and the Value of Information in Q&A Websites,” Wiley INterscience, Aug. 7, 2009, pp. 2465-2473. |
Liu et al., “You've got answers: Towards personalized models for predictingsuccess in community question answering,” In Proceedings of the 46th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), 2008, pp. 97-100. |
Dror et al., “Will My Question be Answered? Predictiong “Question-Answerability” in Community Question-Answering Sites,” Yahoo Labs, 2013, pp. 1-16. |
Broder et al., “Syntatic Clustering of the Web,” SRC Technical Note, Jul. 25, 1997, pp. 1-13. |
Gharehchopogh et al., “Machine Learing based Question Classification Methods in Question Answering Systems,” International Journal of Innovation and Applied Studies, vol. 4, No. 2, Oct. 2013, pp. 264-273. |
Wei, L., “Question Classificaiton Using Language Modeling,” CIIR Technical Report: University of Massachusetts, 2002, pp. 1-7. |
Zhang et al., “Question Classification using Support Vector Machines”, SIGIR, 2003, pp. 1-7. |
Hermajakob, U., “Parsing and Question Classification for Question Answering”, 2001, Proceedings of the Workshop on Open-Domain Question Answering at ACL, pp. 1-6. |
Radev et al., “Probabilistic Question Answering on the Web,” 2002, pp. 408-419. |
Notice of Allowance from U.S. Appl. No. 13/464,287, dated Oct. 19, 2015. |
Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 13/464,230, dated Jan. 14, 2016. |
Non-Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 13/946,984, dated Jun. 1, 2016. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20130304749 A1 | Nov 2013 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 13464230 | May 2012 | US |
Child | 13946989 | US |