Electrical computers and digital processing systems: multicomput – Computer conferencing
Reexamination Certificate
1998-05-13
2002-01-15
Coulter, Kenneth R. (Department: 2154)
Electrical computers and digital processing systems: multicomput
Computer conferencing
C709S218000, C709S235000, C709S224000, C709S225000, C345S215000
Reexamination Certificate
active
06339784
ABSTRACT:
BACKGROUND
1. Technical Field
This invention relates to distributed computer services, particularly computer services having online forums.
2. Background Information
An online forum is a communications interchange in which people may communicate with others through successive electronic transmissions between respective computer systems. An online forum, or any other type of distributed computer services, may be implemented on a distributed computer system such as that shown in FIG.
1
. Forum participants (equivalently, users of the computer services) typically are scattered across a large geographical area and communicate with one or more central server systems
100
through respective client systems
102
(e.g., a personal or laptop computer). In practice, the server system
100
typically will not be a single monolithic entity but rather will be a network of interconnected server computers, possibly physically dispersed from each other, each dedicated to its own set of duties and/or to a particular geographical region. In such a case, the individual servers are interconnected by a network of communication links, in known fashion. One such server system is “America Online” from America Online Incorporated of Virginia.
Each client system
102
runs client software that allows it to communicate in a meaningful manner with corresponding software running on the server system
100
. The client systems
102
communicate with the server system
100
through various channels, such as a modem
104
connected to a telephone line
106
or a direct Internet connection using a transfer protocol such as TCP/IP (Transfer Control Protocol/Internet Protocol). The server system
100
is responsible for receiving input from the client systems
102
, manipulating the collective body of input information (and possibly information from other sources) into a useful format, and retransmitting the formatted information back to one or more clients
102
for output on an output device, such as a display screen.
Referring to
FIG. 2
, one type of forum is a “chat room”
200
, in which the various participants
204
(e.g., “Allens
9
,” “JOSHUAALEX,” etc.) may enter text which appears in a scrolling text window
202
on each participant's computer display screen. In the example in
FIG. 2
, the chat room
200
has
22
participants whose identities (or “screen names”) are listed in a scrolling window
210
. A participant
204
may respond to the comment of another participant
204
by entering a line of text in an edit box
206
and activating (e.g., by clicking with a pointer device, such as a mouse) a SEND button
208
. In response, the text in the scrolling text window
202
scrolls upwards and the newly entered line of text is displayed at the bottom of the scrolling text window
202
. In the illustrated example, the last participant to enter a comment was JOSHUAALEX, who typed “TEXAS.”
The chat room
200
shown in
FIG. 2
is “public”, meaning that it has multiple participants who were placed in the chat room by the computer-service provider and who most likely never have met or conversed with one another before. A comment by a participant in a public forum may be seen by all of the participants of the chat room. If a participant desires some privacy, that participant may “open” and enter a “private” chat room (for example, by clicking on a SETUP button
212
), and thereafter invite one or more other participants to enter the private chat room. Once in a private forum, participants may communicate with one another without fear that uninvited participants will be able to see their comments.
When a participant in a forum, whether public or private, makes a comment that others in the forum regard as offensive, in poor taste, wildly incorrect, or otherwise objectionable, the offending participant most likely will be “flamed” by one or more of the other participants. A “flame” is a reprimand or other stringent response directed at the offending party. One purpose behind flaming another participant is to dissuade the offender, through embarrassment or intimidation, from making further objectionable comments. In this manner, if the offending user chooses to curb his or her behavior in response to the flaming, a forum may be crudely regulated or “policed” by the forum's participants. However, the offending participant may continue to behave in an objectionable manner. Further, a participant who overly “flames” other participants may also be objectionable. Accordingly, participant policing of forums does not always work well. In such cases, offended participants may drop out of “flame-filled” forums, and/or the online service must devote resources to actively police problematic participants.
Other objectionable behavior includes sending one or more messages to “spoof” other users as to the sender's identity in order to try to get confidential information (e.g., credit card numbers or passwords) sent in response (sometimes called “password fishing”).
Another problem that can arise in online systems is “resource hogging”, where a participant uses features such as broadcast or multi-cast messaging to send a large number of messages to other users in a short period of time (sometimes called “spamming”). Such resource hogging deprives other users of server resources, and can slow an online system response time to undesirable levels.
Accordingly, the inventor has determined that there is a need for a better way to police recalcitrant participants in online forums and to reduce spamming. The present invention provides a method and means for accomplishing this goal.
SUMMARY
The invention provides a method and means for self-policing and automatically rate-limiting multiple-user online forums. The preferred embodiment of the invention includes a set of rules that permit users to censure other users. A censured user has one or more “privileges” (which may include access to the online computer system or the effective message rate of a communications connection) taken away or diminished; the privilege is gradually restored if the censured user behaves. The censuring participant and other pertinent participants are notified of the effect of the censuring on the censured user. In another aspect of the invention, the online computer system automatically tracks the rate at which a user sends certain types of messages, and can message rate limit a user who uses too many system resources by sending a large number of messages in rapid succession. The amount of rate limiting may be a function of the amount of censure that has been applied to the user being limited.
Advantages of this invention may include one or more of the following. The techniques described here enable a multiple-user online service (e.g., a chat room or other forum) to be self-policing. Access to the computer service for a particular user is automatically regulated by the computer based on input from other users concerning the conduct of the user under consideration, or based on the message rate of a user. Users of a computer-based system have the ability to sanction a misbehaving user and thereby have the offending user's access to the system denied or curtailed. Unlike the conventional “flaming” approach to policing, which typically fails because it relies on the misbehaving user curbing his or her own behavior or results in retaliatory “flaming”, the policing techniques described here are based on predetermined rules and operate automatically in response to votes cast by other users of the computer system. The offending user has no choice in the matter once he or she chooses to misbehave. Because the operation of these policing techniques are automatic, the computer-based service provider need not expend personnel time and resources to police public forums, direct user communications, and the like.
The details of one or more embodiments of the invention are set forth in the accompanying drawings and the description below. Other features, objects, and advantages of the invention will be apparent from the description and drawings, and f
Bosco Eric
Lippke David Lowell
Morris Harry W.
Steele Colin Anthony
America Online Inc.
Coulter Kenneth R.
Fish & Richardson P.C.
LandOfFree
Self-policing, rate limiting online forums does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.
If you have personal experience with Self-policing, rate limiting online forums, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Self-policing, rate limiting online forums will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-2841762