IP Library Granted Patent US 7,912,836
Granted Patent B2
US 7,912,836 · App. 12/020,983 · Granted Mar 22, 2011

Method and apparatus for a ranking engine

View Patent ↗
Loading inventors, assignments & file history…
Monitor This Case
Get email alerts when status or documents change.
Order Certified Copies
Most orders are placed with the USPTO same day — all within 24 business hours.
Order via The Patent Place →
Pre-filled with this patent's details
Quick Facts
Patent No.
US 7,912,836
App. No.
12/020,983
Granted
Mar 22, 2011
Kind
B2
Abstract

A computer-implemented method is provided for ranking files from an Internet search. In one embodiment, the method comprises assigning a score to each file based on at least one of the following factors: recency, editorial popularity, clickthru popularity, favorites metadata, or favorites collaborative filtering. The file may be organized based on the assigned scores to provide users with more accurate search results.

Claims (383)

1. A computer-implemented method for organizing a collection of files from an Internet search, the method comprising:

by at least one computer:

assigning a score to each file based on at least the following factors: recency, editorial popularity, clickthru popularity, favorites metadata, and favorites collaborative filtering;

organizing the files based on the assigned scores; and

displaying the files as organized;

wherein the clickthru popularity for each file is based on an aggregation of at least:

a first clicks-per-minute value for each file;

a second clicks-per-hour value for each file; and

a third clicks-per-day value for each file.

2. The method of claim 1 wherein the score is RT and is determined using the following formula:

R

T

=

W

r

R

r

Term

1

+

W

e

R

e

Term

2

+

W

c

R

c

Term

3

+

W

md

R

md

Term

4

+

W

cf

R

cf

Term

5

where

:

0

<

R

i

<

1

and

:

1

=

W

r

+

W

e

+

W

c

+

W

md

+

W

cf

0

<

R

T

<

1.

3. The method of claim 2 wherein recency is weighted based on the following formula for Rr:

R

r

{

1

-

1

t

e

(

d

c

-

d

F

)

,

For

(

d

c

-

d

F

)

<

t

e

0

,

For

(

d

c

-

d

F

)

>

t

e

t e =expiration time (perhaps ˜30 days)

d c =current date

d F =date found.

4. The method of claim 2 wherein editorial popularity is weighted between 1 and 0 and is based on at least one of the following: Neilsen ratings, known brand names, website popularity (e.g. Alexa ranking), or the judgment of a professional or corporation with expertise in online media.

5. The method of claim 1 wherein weighting of favorites metadata is R md =0 if no matches are found or 1 if a keyword field in the metadata of the file matches any favorite titles in a user's favorite titles file, any favorite people in a user's favorite people file, or any keyword in a user's favorite keywords file.

6. The method of claim 1 wherein weighting of collaborative filtering favorites metadata is R cf

R cf,l =W sim ( S max,l )+(1− W sim ) P 1 ,

where:

W

sim

=

similarity

weighting

factor

=

C

ma

x

sim

(

1

-

1

1

+

n

i

)

,

where:

0≦C max sim ≦1.

7. The method of claim 6 wherein R cf is a weighted sum of the maximum user similarity for an item l and the popularity of item l among K-Nearest Neighbors such that 0≦R cf ≦1.

8. A computer-implemented method for organizing a collection of files from an Internet search, the method comprising:

by at least one computer:

assigning a score to each file based on favorites collaborative filtering W cf R cf and at least the following factors: recency W r R r , editorial popularity W e R e , clickthru popularity; W c R c , and favorites metadata W md R md ;

organizing the files based on the assigned scores; and

displaying the files as organized;

wherein the clickthru popularity for each file is based on an aggregation of at least:

a first clicks-per-minute value for each file that is multiplied by a first weight;

a second clicks-per-hour value for each file that is multiplied by a second weight; and

a third clicks-per-day value for each file that is multiplied by a third weight;

wherein the multiplication of the first, second and third weights is configured to affect a relative impact of the first clicks-per-minute value, the second clicks-per-hour value, and the third clicks-per-day value.

9. The method of claim 8 wherein the score is R T and is determined using the following formula:

R

T

=

W

r

R

r

Term

1

+

W

e

R

e

Term

2

+

W

c

R

c

Term

3

+

W

md

R

md

Term

4

+

W

cf

R

cf

Term

5

where

:

0

<

R

i

<

1

and

:

1

=

W

r

+

W

e

+

W

c

+

W

md

+

W

cf

0

<

R

T

<

1.

10. The method of claim 9 wherein recency is weighted based on the following formula for R r :

R

r

{

1

-

1

t

e

(

d

c

-

d

F

)

,

For

(

d

c

-

d

F

)

<

t

e

0

,

For

(

d

c

-

d

F

)

>

t

e

t e =expiration time (perhaps ˜30 days)

d c =current date

d F =date found.

11. The method of claim 9 wherein editorial popularity is weighted between 1 and 0 and is based on at least one of the following: Neilsen ratings, known brand names, website popularity (e.g. Alexa ranking), or the judgment of a professional or corporation with expertise in online media.

12. The method of claim 8 wherein weighting of favorites metadata is R md =0 if no matches are found or 1 if a keyword field in the metadata of the file matches any favorite titles in a user's favorite titles file, any favorite people in a user's favorite people file, or any keyword in a user's favorite keywords file.

13. The method of claim 8 wherein weighting of collaborative filtering favorites metadata is R cf

R cf,l =W sim ( S max,l )+(1− W sim ) P l ,

where:

W

sim

=

similarity

weighting

factor

=

C

m

ax

sim

(

1

-

1

1

+

n

i

)

,

where:

0≦C max sim ≦1.

14. The method of claim 13 wherein R cf is a weighted sum of the maximum user similarity for an item l and the popularity of item l among K-Nearest Neighbors such that 0≦R cf ≦1.

15. A system comprising:

a computer including a ranking engine having programming code for sorting results of a search query based on scores;

wherein the scores for files found in the search are based on clickthru popularity; and

wherein the clickthru popularity for each file is based on at least:

a clicks-per-minute value for each file that is multiplied by a first weight;

a clicks-per-hour value for each file that is multiplied by a second weight; and

a clicks-per-day value for each file that is multiplied by a third weight;

wherein the multiplication of the first, second and third weights is configured to affect a relative impact of the clicks-per-minute value, the clicks-per-hour value, and the clicks-per-day value.

Assignments (5)
CHANGE OF NAME Recorded Dec 20, 2021
From: FACEBOOK, INC.
To: META PLATFORMS, INC.
Reel/Frame 058961/0436 →
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Jun 28, 2012
From: TRUVEO, INC.
To: FACEBOOK, INC.
Reel/Frame 028464/0744 →
TERMINATION AND RELEASE OF SECURITY INTEREST IN PATENT RIGHTS Recorded Nov 16, 2010
From: BANK OF AMERICA, N A
To: AOL INC; AOL ADVERTISING INC; GOING INC; LIGHTNINGCAST LLC; MAPQUEST, INC; NETSCAPE COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION; QUIGO TECHNOLOGIES LLC; SPHERE SOURCE, INC; TACODA LLC; TRUVEO, INC; YEDDA, INC
Reel/Frame 025323/0416 →
SECURITY AGREEMENT Recorded Dec 14, 2009
From: AOL INC.; AOL ADVERTISING INC.; BEBO, INC.; ICQ LLC; GOING, INC.; LIGHTNINGCAST LLC; MAPQUEST, INC.; NETSCAPE COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION; QUIGO TECHNOLOGIES LLC; SPHERE SOURCE, INC.; TACODA LLC; TRUVEO, INC.; YEDDA, INC.
To: BANK OF AMERICAN, N.A. AS COLLATERAL AGENT
Reel/Frame 023649/0061 →
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Apr 16, 2008
From: TUTTLE, TIMOTHY D.; BEGUELIN, ADAM L.; KOCKS, PETER F.
To: TRUVEO, INC.
Reel/Frame 020813/0537 →