SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ESTIMATING TIME TO PERFORM ELECTRONIC ACTIVITIES

1 . A system, comprising:

one or more hardware processors configured by machine-readable instructions to:

identify, by one or more processors, an electronic activity identifying a sender and one or more recipients and a body including content;

determine, by the one or more processors, using a quality estimation model, a quality of electronic activity (QoE) score corresponding to an estimated quality of the electronic activity, the determining further comprising;

parse, by the one or more processors, the content of the electronic activity;

generate, by the one or more processors, using a language complexity determination engine, a language complexity score indicating a level of language complexity;

determine, by the one or more processors, a character count or word count;

determine, by the one or more processors, an estimated amount of time taken to generate the electronic activity using the language complexity score and the character count or word count; and

generate, by the one or more processors, the QoE score corresponding to the estimated quality based on the estimated amount of time; and

store, by the one or more processors, in a data structure, an association between the electronic activity and the QoE score.

2 . The system of claim 1 , wherein determining the QoE score further comprises:

identifying, by the one or more processors, a first node profile corresponding to the one or more recipients of the electronic activity;

determining, by the one or more processors, a job title value associated with a field-value pair for the first node profile for the recipient;

generating, by the one or more processors, an importance score for the electronic activity based on the job title value of the recipient; and

wherein generating the QoE score is based on the estimated amount of time and the importance score.

3 . The system of claim 1 , wherein determining the QoE score further comprises:

identifying, by the one or more processors, a first node profile corresponding to the one or more recipients of the electronic activity;

determining, by the one or more processors, a job title value associated with a field-value pair for the first node profile for the recipient;

identifying, by the one or more processors, a second node profile corresponding to the sender of the electronic activity;

determining, by the one or more processors, a job title value associated with a field-value pair for the second node profile for the sender;

generating, by the one or more processors, an importance score for the electronic activity based on the job title value of the recipient and the job title value of the sender; and

wherein generating the QoE score is based on the estimated amount of time and the importance score.

4 . The system of claim 1 , wherein determining the QoE score further comprises identifying, by the one or more processors, a presence of one or more typographical errors in the content of the electronic activity; and

wherein generating the QoE score is based on the estimated amount of time and the presence of the one or more typographical errors.

5 . The system of claim 1 , wherein determining, by the one or more processors, using the quality estimation model, the QoE score further comprises:

comparing, by the one or more processors, the electronic activity with at least one other electronic activity transmitted or received by an electronic account of the sender of the electronic activity to determine a difference in the content between the electronic activity and the at least one other electronic activity; and

wherein generating the QoE score is based on the estimated amount of time and the difference in the content between the electronic activity and the at least one other electronic activity.

6 . The system of claim 1 , wherein the electronic activity is a second electronic activity, and wherein the one or more hardware processors are further configured by machine-readable instructions to:

determine that the second electronic activity is a response to a first electronic activity;

determine a first timestamp corresponding to the first electronic activity and a second timestamp corresponding to the second electronic activity; and

wherein determining the estimated amount of time comprises determining, by the one or more processors, a difference between the first timestamp and the second timestamp.

7 . The system of claim 1 , wherein the one or more hardware processors are further configured by machine-readable instructions to:

identify a plurality of second electronic activities transmitted by the sender within a predetermined time window of the electronic activity;

compare, by the one or more processors, the electronic activity with each second electronic activity to determine a difference in the content between the electronic activity and the second electronic activity;

determine, by the one or more processors, that the difference in content between the electronic activity and each second electronic activity satisfies a predetermined threshold;

assign, by the one or more processors, to the electronic activity and each second electronic activity, a tag responsive to determining that the difference in content is satisfies the predetermined threshold;

wherein generating the QoE score of the electronic activity is based on the tag assigned to the electronic activity.

8 . A method, comprising:

identifying, by one or more processors, an electronic activity identifying a sender and one or more recipients and a body including content;

determining, by the one or more processors, using a quality estimation model, a quality of electronic activity score corresponding to an estimated quality of the electronic activity, the determining further comprising;

parsing, by the one or more processors, the content of the electronic activity;

generating, by the one or more processors, using a language complexity determination engine, a language complexity score indicating a level of language complexity;

determining, by the one or more processors, a character count or word count;

determining, by the one or more processors, an estimated amount of time taken to generate the electronic activity using the language complexity score and the character count or word count; and

generating, by the one or more processors, the QoE score corresponding to the estimated quality based on the estimated amount of time; and

storing, by the one or more processors, in a data structure, an association between the electronic activity and the QoE score.

9 . The method of claim 8 , wherein determining the QoE score further comprises:

identifying, by the one or more processors, a first node profile corresponding to the one or more recipients of the electronic activity;

determining, by the one or more processors, a job title value associated with a field-value pair for the first node profile for the recipient;

generating, by the one or more processors, an importance score for the electronic activity based on the job title value of the recipient; and

wherein generating the QoE score is based on the estimated amount of time and the importance score.

10 . The method of claim 8 , wherein determining the QoE score further comprises:

identifying, by the one or more processors, a first node profile corresponding to the one or more recipients of the electronic activity;

determining, by the one or more processors, a job title value associated with a field-value pair for the first node profile for the recipient;

identifying, by the one or more processors, a second node profile corresponding to the sender of the electronic activity;

determining, by the one or more processors, a job title value associated with a field-value pair for the second node profile for the sender;

generating, by the one or more processors, an importance score for the electronic activity based on the job title value of the recipient and the job title value of the sender; and

wherein generating the QoE score is based on the estimated amount of time and the importance score.

11 . The method of claim 10 , wherein the importance score is generated based on the job title value of the recipient relative to the job title value of the sender.

12 . The method of claim 8 , wherein determining the quality score further comprises:

identifying, by the one or more processors, a presence of one or more typographical errors in the content of the electronic activity; and

wherein generating the QoE score is based on the estimated amount of time and the presence of the one or more typographical errors.

13 . The method of claim 8 , wherein determining, by the one or more processors, using the quality estimation model, the QoE score further comprises:

determining, by the one or more processors, that a portion of the content included in the electronic activity is included in a plurality of electronic activities previously transmitted or received by an electronic account of the sender of the electronic activity;

determining, by the one or more processors, a size of the portion; and

wherein generating the QoE score is based on the estimated amount of time and the size of the portion.

14 . The method of claim 8 , wherein determining, by the one or more processors, using the quality estimation model, the QoE score further comprises:

comparing, by the one or more processors, the electronic activity with at least one other electronic activity transmitted or received by an electronic account of the sender of the electronic activity to determine a difference in the content between the electronic activity and the at least one other electronic activity; and

wherein generating the QoE score is based on the estimated amount of time and the difference in the content between the electronic activity and the at least one other electronic activity.

15 . The method of claim 8 , wherein the electronic activity is a second electronic activity further comprising:

determining that the second electronic activity is a response to a first electronic activity;

determining a first timestamp corresponding to the first electronic activity and a second timestamp corresponding to the second electronic activity; and

wherein determining the estimated amount of time comprises determining, by the one or more processors, a difference between the first timestamp and the second timestamp.

16 . The method of claim 8 , further comprising:

identifying a plurality of second electronic activities transmitted by the sender within a predetermined time window of the electronic activity;

comparing, by the one or more processors, the electronic activity with each second electronic activity to determine a difference in the content between the electronic activity and the second electronic activity;

determining, by the one or more processors, that the difference in content between the electronic activity and each second electronic activity satisfies a predetermined threshold;

assigning, by the one or more processors, to the electronic activity and each second electronic activity, a tag responsive to determining that the difference in content satisfies the predetermined threshold;

wherein generating the QoE score of the electronic activity is based on the tag assigned to the electronic activity.

17 . The method of claim 8 , further comprising:

identifying, by the one or more processors, a plurality of QoE scores corresponding to the sender of the electronic activity;

assigning, by the one or more processors, a tag to a node profile associated with the sender based on the plurality of QoE scores.

18 . The method of claim 8 , further comprising:

identifying, by the one or more processors, a plurality of electronic activities transmitted by the sender within a predetermined time window;

generating a QoE score for each of the plurality of electronic activities; and

generating a report corresponding to a schedule of the sender based on the QoE score of the electronic activity and the QOE scores of the plurality of electronic activities.

19 . The method of claim 18 , wherein the plurality of electronic activities includes a first plurality of electronic activities; and further comprising

identifying, by the one or more processors, a plurality of second electronic activities corresponding to calendar entries within the predetermined time window, wherein generating the report comprises:

generating the report corresponding to a schedule of the sender based on the plurality of second electronic activities, the QoE score of the electronic activity and the QOE scores of the plurality of first electronic activities.

20 . A non-transient computer-readable storage medium having instructions embodied thereon, the instructions being executable by one or more processors to perform a method for generating a recommender score, the method comprising:

identifying, by one or more processors, an electronic activity identifying a sender and one or more recipients and a body including content;

determining, by the one or more processors, using a quality estimation model, a quality of electronic activity score corresponding to an estimated quality of the electronic activity, the determining further comprising;

parsing, by the one or more processors, the content of the electronic activity;

generating, by the one or more processors, using a language complexity determination engine, a language complexity score indicating a level of language complexity;

determining, by the one or more processors, a character count or word count;

determining, by the one or more processors, an estimated amount of time taken to generate the electronic activity using the language complexity score and the character count or word count; and

generating, by the one or more processors, the QoE score corresponding to the estimated quality based on the estimated amount of time; and

storing, by the one or more processors, in a data structure, an association between the electronic activity and the QoE score.