The present invention relates to methods of and systems for ranking users. More particularly, the present invention relates to a method of and a system for ranking members within a services exchange medium.
There are job searching sites that allow a user to search through a list of registered job seekers to find the most qualified job seeker. Typically, the job seekers register with a particular job site and provide their background and/or expertise in their profiles. The user is able to search job seekers who have experience in, for example, web programming, by entering the keyword “web programming” in a search field. The job site searches through the profiles and returns a results list of job seekers. A results list listing job seekers alphabetically is inconveniently organized as someone with a name towards the end of the alphabet, who may be well qualified, is listed at the bottom of the results list. The user has to scroll down the results list, while reviewing each result, before finally finding this person. This is troublesome and time consuming, especially if the results list is long. A results list listing job seekers based only on a keyword match also presents an inconvenience since the provider search result does not take into consideration of other important qualities that the user is seeking.
Some methods have been implemented to sort the job seekers and provide the results list in a more useful manner to users. U.S. Pat. No. 6,871,181 to Kansal teaches a method of assessing, scoring, ranking and rating technology vendors for the purpose of comparing vendor bids on a project. A score or ranking is developed for each of the vendors based upon the vendor's historical reliability as well as normalizing the vendor's ranking with respect to the other vendors for the purpose of determining the appropriate vendor. U.S. Patent App. No. 2006/0212359 to Hudgeon teaches ratings based on performance attributes such as service quality, timeliness and cost. Sites such as rentacoder.com and guru.com also use ratings which organize service providers. Rentacoder.com uses an equation which sums the cost of each job times the adjusted rating of each job minus each missed status report value. Guru.com ranks users by category and then based on feedback and money earned. While these ranking schemes are helpful in organizing data related to service providers on web sites, there are shortcomings which need to be addressed.
An object of the present invention is to provide a method of and a system for ranking within a services exchange medium. In the services exchange medium, buyers find and hire service providers “on demand” to get projects done quickly and cost effectively. Buyers can post projects and search for service providers. Service providers can search for projects to work on.
In one aspect, a computerized method of generating a results list includes periodically determining an activity score for each service provider and, upon receiving a query, calculating a total score based at least in part on the activity score. The activity score is typically based on a point scheme, wherein the point scheme increments points for a first set of activities and decrements points for a second set of activities within the services exchange medium. In some embodiments, the first set of activities includes using tools provided by and within the services exchange medium to complete jobs successfully, receiving feedback, and getting paid through the services exchange medium. In some embodiments, the second set of activities includes violating policies, engaging in disputes with other members, and submitting proposals below budget. The activity score is typically stored on a computing device. Prior to the step of calculating, the method includes determining a search score for each service provider based on the query. If the query is a user-entered search text, then the search score depends on a number of matches between the user-entered search text and a professional profile and where the matches are located within the professional profile; the total score is a combination of the search score and the activity score. If the query is a system generated query to search for all service providers, then search score is set to a default value such that the activity score is a final determiner of rank in a results list. If the query is a system generated query to search for service providers associated with a job category, then the search score is set to a default value such that the activity score is a final determiner of rank in a results list. The method also includes sorting a results list based on the total score. In some embodiments, services providers associated with more than one job category are listed once in the results list. In some embodiments, the point scheme is tunable.
In another aspect, a computerized method to determine rank of service providers includes, for each service provider within each job category, calculating an activity score based on a point scheme, wherein the point scheme drives particular behaviors within a services exchange medium by adding points to and subtracting points away from a service provider. The method also includes, determining a search score upon receiving a search query, and combining the activity score with the search score, thereby resulting in a total score. The total score typically establishes a rank position of the service provider among service providers returned in a first results list. In some embodiments, the search query is a user-entered search text, and the search score depends on a number of matches between the user-entered search text and a professional profile and where the matches are located within the professional profile. In some embodiments, the search query is a system generated query, and the search score is set to a default value such that the activity score is a final determiner of the rank position in the first results list. The service providers returned in the first results list are associated with a job category or, alternatively, are from all job categories. In some embodiments, the activity score establishes a different rank position in a second results list than the rank position in the first results list. In some embodiments, the point scheme is tunable. In some embodiments, a service provider associated with more than one job has more than one activity score, wherein the combining includes selecting the highest activity score to determine the total score.
In yet another aspect, a system for generating a provider results list comprises a processor and an application executed by the processor. The application periodically determines an activity score for each service provider and, upon receiving a query, calculates a total score based at least in part on the activity score. In some embodiments, the application is executed online. The activity score is typically based on a point scheme, wherein the point scheme increments points for a first set of activities and decrements points for a second set of activities within the services exchange medium. The activity score is typically stored on a computing device. In some embodiments, the activity score is determined using on a rolling window. Prior to the calculating, the application determines a search score for each service provider based on the query. If the query is a user-entered search text, then the search score depends on a number of matches between the user-entered search text and a professional profile. Where the matches are located within the professional profile; the total score is a combination of the search score and the activity score. If the query is a system generated query to search for all service providers, then search score is set to a default value such that the activity score is a final determiner of rank in a results list. If the query is a system generated query to search for service providers associated with a job category, then the search score is set to a default value such that the activity score is a final determiner of rank in a results list. The method also includes sorting a results list based on the total score. In some embodiments, services providers associated with more than one job category are listed once in the results list. In some embodiments, the point scheme is tunable. In some embodiments, the point scheme does not cap a number of points the point scheme awards to service providers.
In the following description, numerous details are set forth for purposes of explanation. However, one of ordinary skill in the art will realize that the invention may be practiced without the use of these specific details. Thus, the present invention is not intended to be limited to the embodiments shown but is to be accorded the widest scope consistent with the principles and features described herein or with equivalent alternatives.
Reference will now be made in detail to implementations of the present invention as illustrated in the accompanying drawings. The same reference indicators will be used throughout the drawings and the following detailed description to refer to the same or like parts.
Embodiments of the present invention are directed to a method of and a system for ranking members within a services exchange medium. Members typically include service providers and buyers. In the services exchange medium, a buyer is able to search and hire service providers “on demand” to get projects done quickly and cost effectively. In the services exchange medium, a service provider is able to create a professional profile that describes the service provider's professional abilities. Preferably, the service provider is able to associate themselves with one or more job categories, such as Administrative Support and Legal. A buyer is able enter a search text in a search field, or activate a link to a particular job category or to all job categories, and then review professional profiles of those service providers returned as part of the search results to make an informed hiring decision.
The web page 100 includes a search component 102 which allows a user to search for service providers. In some embodiments, the search component 102 includes a text box for entering text, a drop-down menu for selecting which type of profiles to search through and a command button for initiating the search. For example, if the user wants to search through all service providers, the user selects “providers” in the drop-down menu. The drop-down menu is able to include any set of profiles to search through, for example, service providers and projects. The search will return all service providers within the services exchange medium.
Alternatively, if the user then wants to search for service providers that have experience with the Ajax programming language, the user types the search term “ajax” in the text box. Then, the user presses “enter” or clicks on the command button to begin the search. The search will return all relevant service providers that have experience with the Ajax programming language.
Alternatively, the user is able to click on a specific job category 105 without entering search text. The search will return all service providers associated with that job category. Exemplary job categories include Web & Programming, Design & Multimedia, Writing & Translation, Administrative Support, Sales & Marketing, Finance & Management, Legal, and Engineering & Manufacturing. More or less categories are contemplated.
The results list 104 is displayed on the web page 100 and includes names of service providers and other pertinent data. The service providers returned as part of the results list 104 are preferably sorted in a significant manner useful to the user searching for a qualified service provider within the services exchange medium.
In some instances, the order in which the results list 104 is sorted depends solely on an activity score. In some instances, the order in which the results list 104 is sorted depends on a total score, which is a combination of a search score for the search results of the professional profile and an activity score. The combined score can be formed using a simple mathematical summation, a weighted summation or any predetermined means for forming a composite score. For example, the search score accounts for half of the total score and the activity score accounts for the other half of the total score for determining the order of the result list 104. Alternatively, the activity score enhances or amplifies the search score. The search score and the activity score are each described in turn below.
Search Score
If the user searches by entering a search term/phrase, then the search examines the text in each professional profile and determines if there is at least one match between the search term/phrase and the text. A search score is then determined for the result of the search of each service provider. The search score of the result typically depends on the number of matches and where the match or matches are located. As illustrated in
In some embodiments, if the user simply clicked on a link to a specific job category or a link to all job categories, then the search score is set to a default value such that the activity score is the final determiner of rank in the results list 104.
Activity Score
In some embodiments, an activity score is determined for each service provider associated with each job category. In other words, if the service provider is associated with multiple job categories, the service provider will receive an activity score for each category.
The activity score is determined according to a point scheme. The point scheme allows service providers to earn points based on activities and achievements within the services exchange medium. The point scheme drives particular behaviors within the services exchange medium by rewarding points for certain behaviors and taking away points for other behaviors. For example, the point scheme rewards points to service providers who market their services effectively, deliver great work, maintain high levels of client (e.g., buyer) satisfaction and develop lasting client relationships within the services exchange medium. A service provider's activity score can become negative since the point scheme is able to deduct or take away points from the service provider. Point deduction is further discussed below.
In some embodiments, the point scheme does not cap the number of points it awards to service providers. Depending on how “active” a service provider is within the services exchange medium, the service provider is able to earn as many points as the service provider desires. Due to the competitive nature of service providers to obtain points (in order to be listed further on top of a results list to more likely win jobs within the services exchange medium), the point scheme helps better recognize and promote service providers who deliver great results. In some embodiments, the point scheme is tunable.
The point scheme is similar to a reward system implemented by a store. The more purchases a customer makes (e.g., activity/behavior), the more points the customer will accumulate. The accumulated points allow the customer to receive, for example, discounts on future purchases. The incentive motivates the purchaser to make even more purchases at the store (e.g., driving behavior). Similar to the reward system, the point scheme awards points to service providers for certain behavior within the services exchange medium.
In some embodiments, the point scheme is based on three performance indicators: service delivery, client relationships and marketing. However, the point scheme can be based on more or less performance indicators. In some embodiments, the activity score is a mathematical function of scores earned for each performance indicator (e.g., service delivery score, client relationships score, marketing score). Each performance indicator is, in turn, discussed below.
Service Delivery. Points under the service delivery category can be earned by using tools provided by and within the services exchange medium to complete jobs successfully, receiving feedback and/or getting paid through the services exchange medium. In some embodiments, service delivery metrics include earnings, feedback, status reports, cancellations, violations, and disputes. More or less service delivery metrics are contemplated.
The “earnings” metric is defined as all earnings within, for example, the past six months. The “earnings” metric is a positive metric, which contributes/adds to the service provider's service delivery points.
The “feedback” metric is defined as the number of final feedbacks received within, for example, the past six months. The “feedback” metric is also a positive metric, which contributes/adds to the service provider's service delivery points.
The “status report” metric is defined as the number of status reports submitted within, for example, the past six months. The “status report” metric is also a positive metic, which contributes/adds to the service provider's service delivery points. In some embodiments, points are only awarded if payment for a project associated with the status report is received.
The “cancellations” metric is defined as the number of job cancellations due to poor performance within, for example, the past six months. The “cancellations” metric is a negative metric, which takes away from the service provider's service delivery points. In some embodiments, service delivery points are reduced only for job cancellations due to poor performance from the service provider; other cancellations have no impact on the service delivery points.
The “violations” metric is defined as the number of policy violations within, for example, the past six months, across all categories in some embodiments. The “violations” metric is also a negative metric, which takes away from the service provider's service delivery points.
The “disputes” metric is defined as the number of disputes within, for example, the past six months. The “disputes” metric is also a negative metric, which takes away from the service provider's service delivery points.
To earn service delivery points (e.g., improve service delivery statistics), the service provider can use the tools provided by and within the services exchange medium, including workrooms and status reports. The tools typically provide a solution for managing online work, provide clients and service providers with a practical way to set up engagements, manage the work and exchange payment for results. For example, workrooms and status reports provide visibility and serve as an important reference for job progression. Other tools include job postings, milestones, tracker, one-click invoicing and escrow.
To earn service delivery points, the service provider can also send a “complete” status report after completion of a job, as it will prompt the client to leave a feedback.
In addition, the service provider can earn service delivery points when the service provider is paid through the services exchange medium. Earnings per client are important as they are a measure of the strength of the relationship and of the value exchanged between the service provider and the client over time on the services exchange medium. Service providers with high earnings per client are typically able to build solid relationships and typically deliver higher level of client satisfaction. By keeping clients on the services exchange medium, these service providers benefit the rest of the community within the services exchange medium.
To prevent service delivery points from being deducted, the service provider can avoid job cancellations. The service provider is thus encouraged to carefully consider jobs the service provider pursues to make sure that the service provider can meet or exceed client expectations.
To prevent service delivery points from being deducted, the service provider can also avoid policy violations.
In some embodiments, the service delivery score is derived by manipulating the points received for each service delivery metric using a predetermined means.
Client Relationships. Points under the client relationships category can be earned by building strong client relationships, which are a measure of the quality of services delivered. In some embodiments, client relationships metrics include client recommendations, earnings per client, number of clients, and repeat clients. More or less client relationship metrics are contemplated.
The “client recommendations” metric is defined as the percentage of clients who recommend the service provider. The “client recommendations” metric is a positive metric, which contributes/adds to the service provider's client relationships points.
The “earnings per client” metric is defined as the average earnings per client within, for example, the past 12 months. The “earnings per client” metric is also a positive metric, which contributes/adds to the service provider's client relationships points.
The “number of clients” metric is defined as the number of clients within, for example, the past 12 months. The “number of clients” metric is also a positive metric, which contributes/adds to the service provider's client relationships points.
The “repeat clients” metric is defined as the number of repeat clients within, for example, the past 12 months. The “repeat clients” metric is also a positive metric, which contributes/adds to the service provider's client relationships points.
To earn client relationships points (e.g., improve client relationships statistics), the service provider can meet or exceed expectations by delivering quality work on time and on budget, and by providing excellent customer service. Clients that are satisfied with their experience will typically indicate their willingness to recommend the service provider to others when they submit their final feedback.
To earn client relationships points, the service provider can also develop strong relationships with the service provider's clients. Repeat clients are good for the service provider and for the users within the services exchange medium. Keeping clients on the services exchange medium typically improves the service provider's earnings per client.
To earn client relationships points, the service provider can also develop new client relationship, by building a portfolio of active clients within the services exchange medium.
In some embodiments, the client relationships score is derived by manipulating the points received for each client relationships metric using a predetermined means.
Marketing. Points under the marketing category can be earned by creating strong profiles, submitting quality proposals for jobs relevant to their specific expertise, pricing their services within budget ranges and ensuring that the work is awarded on the services exchange medium. Typically, service providers who market themselves effectively help bring high quality work to the services exchange medium. In some embodiments, marketing metrics include bookings, job accept rate, tested skills, verified credentials, and proposals below budget. More or less marketing metrics are contemplated.
The “bookings” metric is defined as the value of accepted jobs within, for example, the past six months. In some embodiments, cancelled jobs are not counted. The “bookings” metric is a positive metric, which contributes/adds to the service provider's marketing points.
The “job accept rate” metric is defined as the percentage of jobs accepted within, for example, the past six months. The “job accept rate” metric is also a positive metric, which contributes/adds to the service provider's marketing points.
The “tested skills” metric is defined as the number of tested skills in the professional profile, across all categories in some embodiments. The “tested skills” metric is also a positive metric, which contributes/adds to the service provider's marketing points.
The “verified credentials” metric is defined as the number of verified credentials in the profile, across all categories in some embodiments. In some embodiments, personal credentials are not counted. The “verified credentials” metric is also a positive metric, which contributes/adds to the service provider's marketing points.
The “proposals below budget” metric is defined as the number of proposals priced below budget within, for example, the past six months. The “proposals below budget” metric is a negative metric, which takes away points from the service provider's marketing points. In contrast, points are awarded those proposals priced within and/or above budget within, for example, the past six months.
To earn marketing points (e.g., improve marketing statistics), the service provider can submit high quality proposals, particularly proposals that reflect a clear understanding of the job requirements and set realistic expectations.
To earn marketing points, the service provider can also set a price within the budge range indicated by the client. However, if the service provider submits a proposal below budge, then the service provider is penalized. In general, low-ball bidding within the services exchange medium leads to price erosion.
To earn marketing points, the service provider can also create a strong professional profile by, for example, adding tested skills when available and verifying credentials. Professional profiles with tested skills and verified credentials typically win more business within the services exchange medium; thus, it is beneficial to promote these professional profiles since they do a better job converting prospective clients into long-term employers within the services exchange medium.
In some embodiments, the marketing score is derived by manipulating the points received for each marketing metric using a predetermined means.
Scoring Details
The service delivery score, the client relationships score and the marketing score are mathematically combined to obtain the service provider's activity score using a predetermined means. In some embodiments, the point scheme is category-specific, which advantageously allows the service provider to see how well the service provider is doing relative to other service providers within each job category that the service provider is associated with.
Typically, the chart 300 tracks the service providers's activities and achievements within a job category. In this example, the chart 300 displays information regarding the job category of Writing & Translation, which is selected using a drop-down menu 305. The drop-down menu 305 allows the service provider to see scoring details for other job categories that the service provider is associated with.
The chart 300 also includes a rank section 310. The rank section 310 displays the service provider's current rank among all members associated with the Writing & Translation job category. The ranking within the specific job category is typically based on the activity points earned. The rank section 310 also displays the service provider's rank from the week before. In some embodiments, the rank section 310 also graphically illustrates, using an arrow, whether the service provider's current rank went up or down within the job category. In some embodiments, the rank section 310 also display the number of current members within the job category. In this example, the service provider went down in rank from the previous week (e.g., from 196 to 215) in the Writing & Translation job category.
The chart 300 also includes a score section 315. The score section 315 displays the service provider's current activity score and the activity score from the previous week. In some embodiments, the last two digits of the activity score are dropped when the activity score is displayed. For example, an activity score of 12342 is displayed as 123; an activity score of 199 is displayed as 1; an activity score of 99 is displayed as 0; an activity score of −55 is displayed as 0; and, an activity score of −100 is displayed as −1. As discussed above, since the point scheme deducts point points away for certain activities and behavior within the services exchange medium, it is possible for the service provider to have negative points.
In this example, the service provider earned points for activities and achievements within the services exchange medium during the week, thereby increasing the activity score from 118 to 128. However, since other service providers associated with the Writing & Translation job category were more “active” than the service provider was during the week, the service provider's rank went down since the previous week.
Points are earned under the performance indicators-service delivery 320, client relationships 340 and marketing 360. These points help determine the service provider's rank in search results. Each of the performance indicators is associated with an improve statistics link 330, 350, 370 and a ranking chart 335, 355, 365. Clicking on an improve statistics link 330, 350, 370 allows the service provider to view ways to improve statistics (e.g., to earn points) for the particular performance indicator. Ways to earn points or improve earnings for each of the performance indicators are discussed above. The ranking chart 335, 355, 375 graphically illustrates the service provider's rank among the service providers associated with the job category for the particular performance indicator, which is based on the points earned for that performance indicator. The ranking chart 335, 355, 375 also numerically and/or graphically shows how much (percentage-wise) the service provider's rank has increased or decreased from the week before for the particular performance indicator.
Under the service delivery indicator 320, information for the different service delivery metrics are displayed. Particularly, the earnings metric 321, the feedback metric 322, the status reports metric 323, the violations metric 324, the cancellations metric 325, and the disputes metric 326 are displayed. As discussed above, more or less service delivery metrics are contemplated.
Under the client relationships indicator 340, information for the different client services metrics are displayed. Particularly, the client recommendations metric 341, the earnings per client metric 342, the number of clients metric 343, and the repeat clients metric 344 are displayed. As discussed above, more or less client relationships metrics are contemplated.
Under the marketing indicator 360, information for the different marketing metrics are displayed. Particularly, the bookings metric 361, the job accept rate 362, the tested skills metric 363, the verified credentials metric 364, and the proposals below budget metric 365 are displayed. As discussed above, more or less marketing metrics are contemplated.
In some embodiments, the chart 300 is viewable by the service provider within the professional profile. Alternatively or in addition, the chart 300 is displayed in proposals submitted by the service provider and, as such, is viewable by clients.
In some embodiments, the activity score is calculated periodically (e.g., on a weekly basis) using a rolling window (e.g., the past six months). All calculations are preferably stored in a data source coupled to or within the services exchange medium to provide historical views to the service providers. Since the activity score is periodically calculated, it is already determined and made available when computing a total score.
Results List
In some instances, the order in which the results list 104 is sorted depends on the total score, which is a combination of the search score and the activity score. The combined score can be formed using a simple mathematical summation, a weighted summation or any predetermined means for forming a composite score.
Referring back to
In some instances, the order in which the results list 104 is sorted depends solely on the activity score. As discussed above, if the user searches for service providers across all job categories or searches for service providers associated with a particular job category, then a search score is set to a default value such that the activity score is the final determiner of rank in the results list 104. In some embodiments, the search score is not determined for each service provider since no search term/phrase was entered.
In the scenario where the user searches for service providers across all job categories those service providers who are associated with more than one job category will be listed once, typically based on their highest activity score. Since points awarded are dependent on, for example, earnings and there is no cap on earnings, service providers associated with certain job categories (e.g., Web & Programming) tend to earn more points than those associated with other job categories (e.g., Writing & Translation). Since the same activity scores are used when ranking service providers associated with a particular job category and when ranking service providers across all job categories, service providers associated with the Writing & Translation job category tend to be listed towards the end of the results list 104 compared to those service providers associated with the Web & Programming job category. For example, although the service provider is ranked 215 in the Writing & Translation job category (
In Operation
At a Step 410, search scores are generated. If the user searches by entering a search term/phrase, then a search score is determined for the result of the search of each service provider. The search examines the text in each professional profile and determines if there is at least one match between the search term/phrase and the text. The search score of the result typically depends on the number of matches and where the match or matches are located. Alternatively, if the user simply clicked on a specific category or on all categories without providing a search term/phrase, then the search score is set to a default value such that the activity score is the final determiner of rank in the results list.
At a Step 415, activity scores are determined. In some embodiments, activity scores are calculated periodically (e.g., weekly). As such, the Step 415 can occur before the Step 405, the Step 410, or both.
At a Step 420, total scores are calculated. As discussed above, a total score is a combination of a search score for the search results of a professional profile and an activity score. The combined score can be formed using a simple mathematical summation, a weighted summation or any predetermined means for forming a composite score. For example, the search score accounts for half of the total score and the activity score accounts for the other half of the total score for determining the order of the result list. Alternatively, the activity score enhances or amplifies the search score. In instances where a service provider is associated with more than one job category, then the highest activity score is used to determine the service provider's total score.
At a Step 425, a results list is displayed. The results list is sorted by the total score. After the Step 425, the process ends.
The steps of the present invention are embodied in machine-executable instructions. These instructions can be used to cause a general-purpose or special-purpose processor that is programmed with the instructions to perform the steps of the present invention. Alternatively, the steps of the present invention can be performed by specific hardware components that contain hardwired logic for performing the steps, or by any combination of programmed computer components and custom hardware components.
In some embodiments, the present invention is provided as a computing device.
Examples of suitable computing devices include a personal computer, laptop computer, computer workstation, a server, mainframe computer, mini-computer, handheld computer, personal digital assistant, cellular/mobile telephone, smart appliance, gaming console or any other suitable computing device.
The present invention has been described in terms of specific embodiments incorporating details to facilitate the understanding of principles of construction and operation of the invention. Such reference herein to specific embodiments and details thereof is not intended to limit the scope of the claims appended hereto. A person skilled in the art would appreciate that various modifications and revisions to a method of ranking within a services exchange medium will occur. Consequently, the claims should be broadly construed, consistent with the spirit and scope of the invention, and should not be limited to their exact, literal meaning.
This patent application is a continuation in part of the co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/287,994, filed Oct. 14, 2008, entitled “METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR RANKING USERS,” which is hereby incorporated by reference.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
4703325 | Chamberlin et al. | Oct 1987 | A |
4799156 | Shavit et al. | Jan 1989 | A |
5008853 | Bly et al. | Apr 1991 | A |
5220657 | Bly et al. | Jun 1993 | A |
5548506 | Srinivasan | Aug 1996 | A |
5557515 | Abbruzzese et al. | Sep 1996 | A |
5592620 | Chen et al. | Jan 1997 | A |
5664115 | Fraser | Sep 1997 | A |
5715402 | Popolo | Feb 1998 | A |
5732400 | Mandler et al. | Mar 1998 | A |
5794207 | Walker et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
5835896 | Fisher et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5842178 | Giovannoli | Nov 1998 | A |
5862223 | Walker et al. | Jan 1999 | A |
5905975 | Ausubel | May 1999 | A |
5924082 | Silverman et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
5949976 | Chappelle | Sep 1999 | A |
5956715 | Glasser et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
5966130 | Benman, Jr. | Oct 1999 | A |
5987498 | Athing et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
6009154 | Rieken et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
6041307 | Ahuja et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
6049777 | Sheena et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
6061665 | Bahreman | May 2000 | A |
6064980 | Jacobi et al. | May 2000 | A |
6078906 | Huberman | Jun 2000 | A |
6092049 | Chislenko et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
6101482 | DiAngelo et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6119101 | Peckover | Sep 2000 | A |
6119149 | Notani | Sep 2000 | A |
6128624 | Papierniak et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6141653 | Conklin et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6154731 | Monks et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
6161099 | Harrington et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
6208659 | Govindarajan et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6223177 | Tatham et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6226031 | Barraclough et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6233600 | Salas et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6311178 | Bi et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6336105 | Conklin et al. | Jan 2002 | B1 |
6374292 | Srivastava et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6415270 | Rackson et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6442528 | Notani et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6484153 | Walker et al. | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6557035 | McKnight | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6564246 | Varma et al. | May 2003 | B1 |
6567784 | Bukow | May 2003 | B2 |
6598026 | Ojha et al. | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6832176 | Hartigan et al. | Dec 2004 | B2 |
6859523 | Jilk et al. | Feb 2005 | B1 |
6871181 | Kansal | Mar 2005 | B2 |
7310415 | Short | Dec 2007 | B1 |
7406443 | Fink et al. | Jul 2008 | B1 |
7437327 | Lam et al. | Oct 2008 | B2 |
7444374 | Baker | Oct 2008 | B1 |
7587336 | Wallgreen et al. | Sep 2009 | B1 |
8024225 | Sirota et al. | Sep 2011 | B1 |
8224755 | Goodman et al. | Jul 2012 | B2 |
8380709 | Diller et al. | Feb 2013 | B1 |
20010011222 | McLauchlin et al. | Aug 2001 | A1 |
20010034688 | Annunziata | Oct 2001 | A1 |
20010041988 | Lin | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20020010685 | Ashby | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020023046 | Callahan et al. | Feb 2002 | A1 |
20020032576 | Abbott et al. | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20020120522 | Yang | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020120554 | Vega | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020129139 | Ramesh | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020133365 | Grey et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020194077 | Dutta | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20020194112 | dePinto et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20030046155 | Himmel et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030055780 | Hansen et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030101126 | Cheung et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030191684 | Lumsden et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030220843 | Lam et al. | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20040063463 | Boivin | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040122926 | Moore et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040128224 | Dabney et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040215560 | Amalraj et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040230511 | Kannan et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20050043998 | Bross et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20060031177 | Rule | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060122850 | Ward et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060136324 | Barry et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060155609 | Caiafa | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060195428 | Peckover | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060212359 | Hudgeon | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20070027746 | Grabowich | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070027792 | Smith | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070067196 | Usui | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070078699 | Scott et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070162379 | Skinner | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070174180 | Shin | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070192130 | Sandhu | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070233510 | Howes | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20080059523 | Schmidt et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080065444 | Stroman et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080082662 | Dandliker et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080109491 | Gupta | May 2008 | A1 |
20080134292 | Ariel et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080154783 | Rule et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080187114 | Altberg et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20080294631 | Malhas et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20090011395 | Schmidt et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090017788 | Doyle et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090055404 | Heiden et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090055476 | Markus et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090116403 | Callanan et al. | May 2009 | A1 |
20090132345 | Meyssami et al. | May 2009 | A1 |
20090177691 | Manfredi et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090199185 | Slawson et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20090210282 | Elenbaas et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20090234706 | Adams et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090287592 | Brooks et al. | Nov 2009 | A1 |
20100017253 | Butler et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100115040 | Sargent et al. | May 2010 | A1 |
20100191591 | Silbert | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20110238505 | Chiang et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
20110302053 | Rigole | Dec 2011 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
0 952 536 | Oct 1999 | EP |
WO 0173645 | Oct 2001 | WO |
Entry |
---|
morebusiness.com, “How to Write Winning Business Proposals: Writing Strategies,” Office Action dated Oct. 6, 2011, <http://www.morebusiness.com/running—your—business/management/v1n11.brc>, published Aug. 1, 1998. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Nov. 8, 2010, U.S. Appl. No. 12/476,069, filed Jun. 1, 2009, Ved Ranjan Sinha et al. |
Shalil Majithia et al, “Reputation-based Semantic Service Discovery”, IEEE Computer Society,13th IEEE International Workshops on Enabling Technologies:Infrastructure for Collaborative Enterprises, 2004, pp. 1-6. |
Ziqiang Xu et al, “Reputation-Enhanced QoS-based Web Services Discovery”, School of Computing, Queen's University, Canada, 2007, pp. 1-8. |
Davenport, Thomas H. and Keri Pearlson, “Two Cheers for the Virtual Office”, summer 1998, abstract, retrieved from the Internet: <URL: http://www.pubservice.com/MSStore?ProductDetails.aspx?CPC=3944>. |
PCT International Search Report and Written Opinion, PCT/US06/22734, Jun. 3, 2008, 5 pages. |
Massimo Paolucci et al. “Semantic Matching of Web Services Capabilities” Carnegie Mellon University, 2002, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, p. 333-347. |
ants.com web pages [online]. Ants.com [retrieved on Aug. 22, 2008]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: http://www.ants.com/ants/>. |
bizbuyer.com web pages [online]. BizBuyer.com, Inc. [retrieved Aug. 18-21, 2000]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: http://www.bizbuyer.com/>. |
BullhornPro web pages [online]. Bullhorn, Inc. [retrieved on Jan. 4, 2001]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: http://www.bullhornpro.com/>. |
Cassidy, M., “Going for Broke,” San Jose Mercury News, Monday, Aug. 16, 1999, pp. 1E and 4E, published in San Jose, CA. |
efrenzy.com web pages [online]. eFrenzy, Inc. [retrieved on Aug. 22, 2000]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: http://www.efrenzy.com/index.isp>. |
Eisenberg, D. “We're for Hire, Just Click,” Time Magazine, Aug. 16, 1999, vol. 154, No. 7 [online] [retrieved on Aug. 19, 1999]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: http://www.pathfinder.com/time/magazine/articles/0,3266,29393,00.html>. |
eworkexchange.com web pages [online]. eWork Exchange, Inc. [retrieved on Aug. 18-22, 2000]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: http://www.eworks.com/>. |
eWork Exchange web pages [online]. eWork Exchange, Inc. [retrieved on Jan. 5, 2001]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: http://www.eworks.com/>. |
eWork ProSource web pages [online]. eWork Exchange, Inc. [retrieved on Jan. 3, 2001]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: http://www.ework.com/>. |
FeeBid.com web pages [online]. FeeBid.com [retrieved on Dec. 18, 2000]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: http://www.feebid.com>. |
freeagent.com web pages [online]. FreeAgent.com [retrieved Aug. 18-22, 2000]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: http://www.freeagent.com/>. |
guru.com.com web pages [online]. Guru.com, Inc. [retrieved Aug. 18, 2000]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: http://www.guru.com/>. |
Herhold, S., “Expert Advice is Collectible for Start-up,” San Jose Mercury News, Monday, Aug. 16, 1999, pp. 1E and 6E, San Jose, CA. |
hotdispatch.com web pages [online]. HotDispatch, Inc. [retrieved on Aug. 22, 2000]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: http://www.hotdispatch.com/>. |
“IBNL Forges Into the Future of Buying and Selling with Source Interactive Software,” PR Newswire, Jan. 10, 1996. [replacement copy retrieved on May 4, 2009]. Retrieved from Internet: <URL: http://www.highbeam.com>. |
Humphreys, Paul et al., “A Just-in-Time Evaluation Strategy for International Procurement,” MCB UP Limited, 1998, pp. 1-11. |
imandi.com web pages [online]. Imandi Corporation [retrieved on Aug. 22, 2000]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: http://www.imandi.com/>. |
Malone, Thomas W. et al., “The Dawn of the E-Lance Economy,” Harvard Business Review, Sep.-Oct. 1998, pp. 145-152. |
“Netscape Selects Netopia as the Exclusive ‘Virtual Office’ Offering on the New Netscape Small Business Source Service,” PR Newswire, May 11, 1998, Mountain View and Alameda, California. |
onvia.com web pages [online]. Onvia.com [retrieved Aug. 22, 2000]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: http://www.onvia.corn/usa/home/index.cfm>. |
Opus360 web pages [online]. Opus360 Corporation [retrieved on Jan. 3, 2001] Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: http://www.opus360com/>. |
smarterwork.com web pges [online]. smarterwork.com, Inc. [retrieved on Aug. 22, 2000]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: http://www.smarterwork.com/>. |
workexchange.com web pages [online]. WorkExchange, Inc. [retrieved Aug. 22, 2000]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: http://www.workexchange.com/unique/workexchange/index1.cfm>. |
madbid.com. <http://web.archive.org/eb/20080829025830http://uk.madbid.com/faq/>. |
Office Action dated Sep. 19, 2012, U.S. Appl. No. 12/476,039, filed Jun. 1, 2009, Ved Ranjan Sinha et al. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 12287994 | Oct 2008 | US |
Child | 12755304 | US |