Methods and systems for quantifying and tracking software application quality

1. A computer-implemented method for indicating quality of a software application, comprising the steps of:

(a) aggregating a plurality of user reviews for the software application;

(b) analyzing each user review of the software application for signals in quality to classify the user review into one or more quality attributes;

(c) determining a score for each of the one or more quality attributes based on the user reviews classified for the quality attribute;

(d) presenting the score for each of the one or more quality attributes for the software application;

(e) wherein the act of determining the score includes applying a weight to each of the one or more quality attributes, said weight derived from user reviews for other software applications in a similar or same category to that of the software application;

(f) determining a total score for the software application based on weighted scores for each of the one or more quality attributes;

determining a quality rank for the software application relative to other software applications in the same category;

tracking quality attributes or quality rank of the software application over a given period of time; and

aggregating quality information for a plurality of software applications in a quality portfolio.

2. The method of claim 1 , wherein the score is based at least in part on a user rating score provided in each user review.

3. The method of claim 1 , wherein each user review is classified into one or more quality attributes based on the text of the user review, the length of the user review, or sentence structure in the user review.

4. The method of claim 1 , wherein the one or more quality attributes comprise accessibility, accuracy, availability, content, elegance, inter-operability, localization, performance, pricing, privacy, satisfaction, security, stability, or usability.

5. The method of claim 1 , wherein aggregating a plurality of user reviews comprises aggregating the user reviews from application marketplace, social media, automated testing services, or crowd testing services.

6. The method of claim 1 , wherein the user reviews each include a rating score, rating text, device information, date/time of review, and software application version number.

7. The method of claim 1 , wherein classifying each user review comprises analyzing substring matches, statistically improbable phrases, or n-grams, or by using machine learning.

8. The method of claim 1 , further comprising defining one or more quality tasks based on the scores to address identified quality issues.

9. The method of claim 1 , wherein the software application comprises a mobile device app.

10. A computer system, comprising:

at least one processor;

memory associated with the at least one processor; and

a program supported in the memory for indicating quality of a software application, the program containing a plurality of instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to:

(a) aggregate a plurality of user reviews for the software application;

(b) analyze each user review of the software application for signals in quality to classify the user review into one or more quality attributes;

(c) determine a score for each of the one or more quality attributes based on the user reviews classified for the quality attribute;

(d) present the score for each of the one or more quality attributes for the software application;

(e) apply a weight to each of the one or more quality attributes, said weight derived from user reviews for other software applications in a similar or same category to that of the software application;

(f) determine a total score for the software application based on weighted scores for each of the one or more quality attributes;

determine a quality rank for the software application relative to other software applications in the same category;

track quality attributes or quality rank of the software application over a given period of time; and

aggregate quality information for a plurality of software applications in a quality portfolio.

11. The system of claim 10 , wherein the score is based at least in part on a user rating score provided in each user review.

12. The system of claim 10 , wherein each user review is classified into one or more quality attributes based on the text of the user review, the length of the user review, or sentence structure in the user review.

13. The system of claim 10 , wherein the one or more quality attributes comprise accessibility, accuracy, availability, content, elegance, inter-operability, localization, performance, pricing, privacy, satisfaction, security, stability, or usability.

14. The system of claim 10 , wherein the plurality of user reviews are aggregated from application marketplace, social media, automated testing services, or crowd testing services.

15. The system of claim 10 , wherein the user reviews each include a rating score, rating text, device information, date/time of review, and software application version number.

16. The system of claim 10 , wherein each user review is classified by analyzing substring matches, statistically improbable phrases, or n-grams, or by using machine learning.

17. The system of claim 10 , further comprising instructions for defining one or more quality tasks based on the scores to address identified quality issues.

18. The system of claim 10 , wherein the software application comprises a mobile device app.