WO2022123324A1

WO2022123324A1 - Method and system for composing a ranking of contents or subjects

Info

Publication number: WO2022123324A1
Application number: PCT/IB2021/050916
Authority: WO
Inventors: Francesco ANNUNZIATA
Original assignee: Worldcapp S.R.L.
Priority date: 2020-12-11
Filing date: 2021-02-04
Publication date: 2022-06-16

Abstract

1. A method (1) for composing a ranking of contents or subjects comprising the steps of: A) preparing a plurality of contents or subjects related to different campaigns or competitions; B) voting on the contents or subjects, the voting being carried out by users and experienced users each expressing a predetermined number of preferences among the contents or subjects; D) comparing the vote cast by users with the vote cast by experienced users so as to identify a number of users aligned to the vote of experienced users and a number of users misaligned to the vote of experienced users; E) defining a corrective coefficient as a function of the comparison and more precisely as the ratio of the number of desired aligned users and the number of aligned users; F) drawing up a final corrected ranking using the corrective coefficient; G) assigning a score to the users as a function of the final corrected ranking; H) drawing up a ranking of users as a function of the assigned score in order to reward the users as a function of an alignment with the final corrected ranking.

Description

DESCRIPTION

“Method and system for composing a ranking of contents or subjects”

*******

TECHNICAL FIELD

The present invention relates to a method and a system for composing a ranking of contents or subjects. In particular, the present invention relates to an algorithm which in a competition among contents or subjects composes a ranking in a "meritocratic” manner such as to take due account of the assessments of a competent jury of experts.

The term contents means all contents created or produced in the light of competitions, marketing campaigns or other similar competitions.

In other words, the term contents means photographs, videos, images, texts, drawings and other similar contents or a combination thereof.

Preferably, the present invention is applied for creative contents, but is not limited to such a type of contents.

Furthermore, the present invention also relates to “subjects”, understood as persons (e.g., personality of the year, best football player, etc.) or as creators of the aforesaid creative contents (influencers, photographers, film-makers, composers, musicians, literary authors, designers, curators of marketing campaigns and the like). The term creators of creative contents can also be understood as a team of creatives.

In any case, it should be considered that the present invention can be applied to any situation where it is necessary or desired to resort to the combined judgement of a jury of experts (experienced users) and a popular jury (users) and therefore also to fields other than those related to social networks, the world of influencers or subjects (for example, a magazine which wants to publish the list of the best football players of all time with the participation of its readers).

PRIOR ART To date, the phenomenon of influencers is increasingly widespread who, being personable, having communication skills or knowing how to sell a product, are becoming increasingly influential in the field of marketing or other types of communication campaigns.

The phenomenon is increasingly widespread and the great success of such creators is determined by their ability to correspond to the preferences of the general public.

Nevertheless, such a field (as well as similar fields, for example that of photography) does not always reward those creators who follow certain creative standards for their contents, often and willingly favouring those creators who touch the “hearts” of users.

Similarly, such a trend is widespread in other fields such as, for example, photography, where the creator who manages to satisfy the aesthetic tastes of the general public is more successful than the creator who follows certain more sophisticated photographic techniques.

Moreover, since the success or failure of creators is dictated by the number of users who follow them (and consequently by their tastes), a situation has arisen in which small or medium-sized creators who are able to create creative contents which meet certain objective standards are not able to stand out.

In other words, the current landscape is far from meritocratic, benefiting and highlighting those creators who satisfy aesthetic or sympathetic standards (in relation to the specific context of belonging) rather than those creators who, for objective merits, deserve greater attention.

In particular, such a problem is also felt from the perspective of engaging the aforementioned creators, where those who want to advertise their product will prefer to select and hire those who have a greater following than those who have objective qualitative merits in the field to which they belong.

Another aspect to consider concerns the need for companies to be increasingly conceived as a community where people feel involved in a multi -di recti on al dialogue, between users and between brands and users. Too often such an interaction is not adequately stimulated and risks producing disappointing results. The ability to make collective choices commensurate with the brand's reputation is not sufficiently cultivated.

OBJECTS OF THE PRESENT INVENTION

The technical task of the present invention is thus to provide a method and a system for composing a ranking of contents or subjects which are able to overcome the prior-art drawbacks which have emerged.

The object of the present invention is therefore to provide communities built by companies and more generally by organizations with a method and a system for composing a meritocratic ranking of contents or subjects. A further object of the present invention is therefore to provide a method and a system for composing a ranking of contents or subjects in which users are led to indicate preferences reasoned from a point of view of objective parameters rather than from parameters of personal preference. Finally, an object of the present invention is also to ensure a climate of fair competition and/or a level playing field.

The defined technical task and the specified objects are substantially achieved by a method and a system for composing a ranking of contents or subjects comprising the technical features set forth in one or more of the appended claims. The dependent claims correspond to possible embodiments of the invention.

The stated technical task and specified objects are substantially achieved by a method for composing a ranking of contents and subjects comprising the steps of:

- preparing a plurality of contents or subjects related to different campaigns or competitions;

- voting on the contents or subjects, the voting being carried out by users and experienced users (the experts are first and foremost users) each expressing a predetermined number of preferences among the contents or subjects;

- comparing the votes cast by users with those cast by experienced users;

- defining a corrective coefficient as a function of the comparison representative of a greater contribution from users who voted in a similar way to experienced users and more precisely as a ratio between the desired number of aligned users and the number of aligned users;

- drawing up a final corrected ranking using the corrective coefficient;

- assigning a score to the users as a function of the corrected ranking;

- drawing up a ranking of users as a function of the assigned score in order to reward users as a function of an alignment with the corrected ranking.

Advantageously, the method is capable of generating a meritocratic ranking which enhances and rewards the contents or subjects in light of more objective criteria less influenced by extremely subjective preferences of users.

Advantageously, the method is capable of enticing users to express a preference for objectively more deserving contents or subjects in light of the possible reward of the users themselves.

Furthermore, the specified technical task and the specified objects are substantially achieved by a system for composing a ranking of contents or subjects comprising: at least one central computer programmed to perform the above method and a plurality of peripheral terminals connected via a network to the central computer and configured to send signals containing the plurality of contents or subjects to the central computer and send signals containing the votes of the contents or subjects to the central computer.

The central computer is configured to send a final response signal representative of the user ranking and the final corrected ranking of contents or subjects (for example ten) to the plurality of peripheral terminals. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE FIGURES

Further features and advantages of the present invention will become more apparent from the indicative and thus non-limiting description of an embodiment of a method and a system for composing a ranking of contents and subjects.

Such a description will be set out below with reference to the appended drawings, which are provided solely for illustrative and therefore nonlimiting purposes, in which:

- Figure 1 is a schematic representation of the method object of the present invention;

- Figure 2 is a schematic representation of a further operation of the method object of the present invention.

DESCRIPTION OF ONE OR MORE PREFERRED, BUT NONEXCLUSIVE, EMBODIMENTS OF THE PRESENT INVENTION

The method 1 object of the present invention is to be understood as applicable by means of a user interface device which could be a smartphone or a personal computer. In other words, the present method 1 is to be understood as an algorithm for managing a program or similar software integrated or installable on the aforesaid user interface device or usable via a web page. Therefore, the present method 1 is attributable to an algorithm (or part of the algorithm) for managing and processing the aforesaid data in order to compose a ranking of contents or subjects which is meritocratic and which allows to highlight those contents or subjects which are distinguished for objective merits, as will be clearer from the continuation of the present description.

It should be noted that below, the description will mainly refer to creative contents, the latter being the preferred case of application of the present invention. However, the description should not be limited to this type of contents, but rather extended to other types of contents and subjects as expressed above. The term creative contents means all contents created or produced in the light of competitions, marketing campaigns or other similar competitions.

In other words, the term creative contents means photographs, videos, images, texts, drawings and other similar contents or a combination thereof.

The term creators of creative contents means influencers, photographers, film-makers, composers, musicians, literary authors, designers, curators of marketing campaigns and the like. The term creators of creative contents can also be understood as a team of creatives.

The method 1 comprises a first step of preparing “A” a plurality of creative contents related to different campaigns or competitions.

In other words, the method 1 includes providing all those contents, for example designed for a marketing campaign, including those deemed best or most suitable for the purpose of the campaign or competition.

For example, a customer, such as a company which intends to sell a product, may request the creation of creative contents suitable for advertising the product and different creators present their creative contents. The present method 1 therefore includes preparing "A” the aforesaid contents so that the customer can select the best thereof from a meritocratic point of view.

Another example can be represented by a customer, such as a company which intends to sell a product, which wants to reward the best marketing campaigns conducted by influencers on social networks in favour of their audience of followers. Also in this case, the present method 1 includes preparing "A” campaign contents so that the customer can reward the best thereof from a meritocratic point of view.

Yet another example could be represented by a magazine which seeks to publish a ranking of the best football players of all time (subjects), involving its readers and a jury of famous sports journalists. In this case, the readers represent “normal” users, while the jury of famous sports journalists represents the experienced users. The method 1 includes that a plurality of users vote on the aforesaid creative contents. In particular, such a voting step “B” of the creative contents is carried out by the experienced users and users. Each user expresses a predetermined number of preferences among the creative contents.

Preferably, the voting step “B” is carried out by the users and experienced users expressing a number of preferences between two and ten.

It should be noted that "users” may represent a popular jury, while “experienced users” may represent a jury of experts.

The number of preferences may be chosen a priori before the start of the voting “B”. In other words, the method 1 for each specific competition will require a limited number of preferences to be expressed.

Preferably, the voting step “B” is also carried out by expressing at least one vote among the preferences expressed. The vote is generally positive and indicates a specific approval of the selected preference.

Alternatively, the vote can be expressed regardless of preferences, i.e., the vote can be addressed to a content or subject not indicated among the preferences.

It should be noted that the term experienced users can be understood as users belonging to the specific field of creative contents. In other words, the voting “B” is carried out by users who express their preference based on their personal tastes and/or on a deeper and usually more objective assessment and a plurality of “field operators” who can best express a critical opinion on the creative contents provided and vote on those deemed most deserving from an objective technical point of view. The experienced users are identified as such a priori.

Based on the above votes, the method 1 preferably includes drawing up “C” a ranking of the creative contents or creators of creative contents.

Preferably, the method includes drawing up a first ranking of the creative contents or creators of creative contents as a function of the votes of the users and a second ranking of the creative contents or creators of creative contents as a function of the votes of the experienced users.

The ranking (or the first and second rankings) thus drawn up may include the total creative contents or, for example, be a "top ten” of the ten best creative contents (or creators). In the following description, reference will be made, for simplicity, to the example of the "top ten” but any consideration made with reference to such an example will also be understood as rankings related to the total creative contents or creators or other rankings (such as top hundred, top thousand or other formats).

The “top ten” thus generated identifies the preferences expressed from an objective and subjective point of view. However, depending on the number of inexperienced users with respect to the number of users voting, the ranking thus drawn up "C” is inevitably influenced by a certain degree of subjectivity related to the subjective tastes of the individual users.

For this reason, the method 1 includes comparing "D” the vote cast by users with the vote cast by only experienced users. The comparison step “D” is carried out by defining a number of users aligned to the experienced users and a number of users misaligned to the experienced users.

Preferably, the comparison step “D” is carried out by defining a convergence coefficient identifying a number of concurrent preferences in the first and second rankings so as to verify a convergence or divergence of the first and second rankings. In other words, the convergence coefficient identifies a number of identical preferences in the voting of users and in the voting of experienced users.

For example, the convergence coefficient can be defined with a value between two and six.

If from the comparison of the first and second rankings the coefficient is met (or exceeded), i.e., there is a match with the number of preferences between the two rankings, the ranking of creative contents or creators of creative contents drawn up matches with the final ranking, considered sufficiently meritocratic.

If on the other hand, the comparison between the first and second rankings shows a divergence of results (for example, only one creative content or creator is common between the two rankings), the aforesaid definition of the number of users aligned to the experienced users and the number of users misaligned to the experienced users is applied. In other words, the comparison is carried out so as to identify a number of users aligned to the vote of the experienced users and a number of users misaligned to the vote of the experienced users.

Aligned users is meant as those users who have expressed preferences as close as possible to the preferences of the experienced users (preferably coincident). In detail, the aligned users are meant as those who have expressed at least one preference or vote which coincides with those of the experienced users (preferably from 2 to 6), i.e., who have expressed preferences in some form, objectively demonstrable and/or explainable, attributable to those of one or more experts (examples: technical level, complexity achieved, high artistic content, etc.).

Misaligned users is meant as those users who have expressed preferences which differ from the preferences of the experienced users.

In other words, the comparison “D” is carried out in order to identify which users have expressed a preference with a sort of objectivity and which are solely motivated by their personal preferences.

Thereby, the method includes calculating “E” a corrective coefficient as a function of the comparison and drawing up “F” a final ranking corrected by means of the corrective coefficient (if necessary).

In other words, if the first and second rankings described above do not diverge from each other, a ranking of creative contents or creators would be obtained immediately.

Otherwise, if there is a divergence between the two rankings, the aligned users and the misaligned users to the experienced users would be defined and, based on such a differentiation, the space of the solutions would be explored to calculate and apply the corrective coefficient and draw up a final ranking which is simultaneously corrected as little as possible in terms of the increase in the desired aligned users and as much as possible in line with the convergence coefficient.

The comparison step “D” can alternatively or in parallel be carried out by defining a ratio between the number of aligned users and the total number of users. Following such a comparison, the corrective coefficient is applied if the ratio between the number of aligned users and the total number of users is below a predetermined threshold.

In other words, the method 1 includes drawing up “F” a final corrected ranking if the number of misaligned users is greater with respect to the number of aligned users.

The corrective coefficient applied is defined by the number of desired aligned users divided by the number of aligned users. For example, the number of desired aligned users is half the total number of users.

In other words, if more than half of the users are misaligned to the vote of the experienced users, the corrective coefficient is applied.

Therefore, the corrective coefficient can preferably be calculated as:

Corrective coefficient = Number of Desired Aligned Users I Number of Aligned Users = (total users/2) I aligned users.

For example, taking several examples with a total number of voters of one thousand, the corrective coefficient is applied in the following situations:

Therefore, if the number of misaligned users were below a certain threshold, the corrective coefficient would not be applied and the “corrected” ranking would coincide with the first ranking drawn up, as it is sufficiently objective.

Alternatively or in parallel, the comparison step “D” can be carried out by defining a percentage ratio between the number of aligned users and the number of misaligned users.

The corrective coefficient is applied if the ratio between the number of aligned users and the number of misaligned users is below a predetermined percentage value. For example, the predetermined percentage value could be equivalent to two-thirds of aligned users with respect to the number of misaligned users. In other words, if the number of aligned users with respect to the number of misaligned users is less than about 66%, the corrective coefficient is applied.

The corrective coefficient is defined by the ratio between the number of desired aligned users and the number of aligned users:

Corrective coefficient = Desired Number of Aligned Users/ Number Aligned Users.

Therefore, if the ratio between aligned and misaligned users were not equal to 66% (i.e., two-thirds), the corrective coefficient would be applied so as to draw up “F” the final corrected ranking. In other words, in all the above cases the ranking is corrected so as to meet the "top ten” with respect to the choices of the experienced users. In other words, if the first and second rankings described above do not diverge from each other, a ranking of creative contents or creators would be obtained immediately. Otherwise, if there were a divergence between the two rankings, the aligned users and the misaligned users to the experienced users would be defined, and based on such a differentiation it would be decided, as described above, whether to calculate and apply the corrective coefficient, drawing up the final corrected ranking. If the final corrected ranking resulted in creative contents or creators of equal ranking, one creative content or creator would be placed ahead of the other as a function of the ranking position of the voting users. In other words, all the users (experienced and non-experienced) qualified to vote occupy a previously accrued ranking position and, in case of equal ranking, one creator or user would be placed in a higher position with respect to the other based on the weight accrued until that moment by the voter. In the rare cases where the equal ranking condition was confirmed, one creator would be placed in a higher position with respect to the other based on their position in the user ranking, previously matured.

This is followed by a step of assigning "G” a score to the users as a function of the corrected ranking.

The step of assigning “G” a score to the users is carried out by comparing the preferences expressed by the individual user and the corrected ranking.

The step of assigning “G” the score is carried out by assigning a weight to each preference expressed by the individual user present in the final corrected ranking as a function of the number of votes assigned to the creative contents, i.e., to the creators of creative contents belonging to the corrected ranking of the top ten.

In other words, all the users who voted (or only the users aligned to the preferences of the experienced users) will be given a score based on each match with the final corrected ranking. The score is calculated based on the number of votes obtained by the relative creative (i.e., creative content).

Therefore, if a user had expressed a preference for a certain creative content in the final corrected ranking, the score assigned would be equal to the number of votes which such a creative content received during the voting “B”.

Furthermore, if the user had expressed a vote in addition to their preference, the score assigned would be double the votes which the creative content received during the voting “B”.

At this point, the method 1 includes drawing up “H” a ranking of the users as a function of the assigned score in order to reward the users as a function of an alignment with the final corrected ranking.

In the case of equal ranking, one user would be placed ahead of the other based on their participation, as a voting user, in the competitions preceding the composition of the rankings object of this document. In the rare cases where the equal ranking condition was confirmed, one user would be placed in a higher position with respect to the other based on their user registration date.

The rewards awarded to the users may include discounts or subscriptions to magazines in the field relating to the creative contents, as well as other similar types of rewards.

In other words, even without drawing up and looking at the position in the final corrected ranking, the users receive a score which rewards them if they had expressed a preference more dictated by objective criteria.

Thereby, the method 1 is capable of creating a meritocratic ranking with which a customer is capable of selecting the best creative content from an objective point of view which knows how to enhance the product as well as the creator of the creative content itself.

Furthermore, user awards encourage users to formulate a more reasoned preference based on the most deserving aspects of the creative content rather than on personal tastes.

The present invention also relates to a system for composing a ranking of creative contents or of creators of said creative contents.

The system comprises at least one central computer (such as a server or other similar means) programmed to perform the method 1 and a plurality of peripheral terminals (i.e., user interface devices) connected via a network to the central computer.

Each peripheral terminal is configured to send signals containing the plurality of creative contents to the central computer and send signals containing the votes of the creative contents to the central computer.

The central computer is configured to send a final response signal representative of the user ranking and the final corrected ranking of the ten creative contents, i.e., of the ten creators to the plurality of peripheral terminals. Furthermore, the system comprises anti-fraud logic, aimed at preventing the same user (normal or experienced) from expressing their votes several times within the same competition.

In particular, the central computer is configured to: identify each terminal enabled to send said signals containing the votes of the creative contents; receive said signals containing the votes of the creative contents only once for each terminal.

In detail, the anti-fraud logic is preferably applied to mobile terminals (smartphones) which are easily identifiable (telephony capability).

Furthermore, the system includes that the central computer is configured to receive said signals containing the votes of the creative contents only from users (normal or experienced) who registered before the start of the competition (for those registered after, the votes are not counted for the competition).

Advantageously, the anti-fraud logic also allows to ensure a climate of fair competition and/or a level playing field.

In other words, the system (i.e., the central computer) is to be understood as configured to implement and carry out the method described above and the various steps which compose it already described above.

The present invention is able to overcome the drawbacks which have emerged in the prior art.

In particular, the present invention is advantageously capable of drawing up a meritocratic ranking which is capable of highlighting all those creatives who, in an increasingly crowded field, would not otherwise be able to assert themselves.

Furthermore, the present invention allows the enhancement of all those creative contents which follow certain objective criteria of the field to which they belong, such as a particular photographic style and method rather than the subject (such as a model) which could elicit the preferences of users. In other words, the present invention provides a solution capable of judging all creatives equally as well as raising the quality standard thereof in the light of objective canons and not of a preference influenced by the personal tastes of a non-industry user. Furthermore, the present invention aims to encourage a reasoned choice by users who, in view of a possible reward, would express their preference by trying to base their vote on the canons which could be the most deserving.

Furthermore, a creative who sees his or her content valued would be more attracted to creating better and better contents because the choice of the winner is based on criteria which depend on votes and preferences expressed by experienced users rather than on the extremely subjective preferences of users.

Claims

1. A method (1 ) for composing a ranking of contents or subjects comprising the steps of:

A) preparing a plurality of contents or subjects related to different campaigns or competitions;

B) voting on said contents or subjects, said voting step being carried out by users and experienced users each expressing a predetermined number of preferences among said contents or subjects;

D) comparing the vote cast by users with the vote cast by experienced users so as to identify a number of users aligned to the vote of experienced users and a number of users misaligned to the vote of experienced users;

E) defining a corrective coefficient as a function of the number of aligned users and misaligned users and representative of a greater contribution from users who voted in a similar way to experienced users;

F) drawing up a final corrected ranking of the contents or subjects i.e. creators as a function of the corrective coefficient;

G) assigning a score to the users as a function of said final corrected ranking;

H) drawing up a ranking of users as a function of said assigned score in order to reward said users as a function of an alignment with said final corrected ranking.

2. The method (1 ) according to claim 1 , wherein said comparison step (D) is carried out by defining a ratio between the number of aligned users and the total number of voting users.

3. The method (1 ) according to claim 2, wherein said corrective coefficient is applied if said ratio between the number of aligned users and the total number of users is below a predetermined threshold.

4. The method (1 ) according to claim 2 or 3, wherein said corrective coefficient is defined (E) by the number of desired aligned users divided by the number of aligned users, preferably said number of desired aligned users being half of the total number of users.

5. The method (1 ) according to claim 1 , wherein said step (E) of defining said corrective coefficient envisages that it is calculated as the ratio between a desired number of aligned users and the number of aligned users.

6. The method (1 ) according to claim 5, wherein said corrective coefficient is applied if said ratio between the number of aligned users and the number of misaligned users is below a predetermined percentage value.

7. The method (1 ) according to one or more of the preceding claims, wherein said voting step (B) is carried out by users and experienced users expressing a number of preferences between two and ten.

8. The method (1 ) according to one or more of the preceding claims, wherein said voting step (B) is further carried out by expressing at least one vote for one or more preferences or independently of said expressed preferences.

9. The method (1 ) according to one or more of the preceding claims, wherein said step of assigning (G) a score to the users is carried out by comparing the preferences expressed by the individual user and the corrected ranking.

10. The method (1 ) according to claim 9, wherein said step of assigning (G) the score is carried out by assigning a weight to each preference expressed by the individual user present in the final corrected ranking as a 19 function of the number of votes assigned to the contents or subjects i.e. to the creators of contents or subjects belonging to said final corrected ranking of a predetermined range of the best.

11. The method (1 ) according to one or more of the preceding claims, further comprising a step of (C) drawing up a ranking of the contents or subjects; and wherein said comparison step (D) is carried out by defining a convergence coefficient identifying a number of concurrent preferences in the voting of users and in the voting of expert users; if said convergence coefficient is not met, steps (E) and (F) shall be taken to correct, with as few changes as possible, said ranking of contents or subjects and align it with the aforementioned convergence coefficient.

12. A system for composing a ranking of contents or subjects, comprising:

- at least one central computer programmed to perform the method (1) according to any one of the preceding claims;

- a plurality of peripheral terminals connected via a network to the central computer and configured to: send signals containing said plurality of contents or subjects to the central computer; send signals containing the votes of the contents or subjects to the central computer; said central computer being configured to send a final response signal representative of said user ranking and said final corrected ranking of contents or subjects.

13. The system according to claim 12, characterized in that said central computer is configured to: identify each terminal enabled to send said signals containing the votes of the contents or subjects; receive said signals containing the votes of the contents or subjects of a 20 competition, only once for each terminal.