Dismiss
InnovationQ will be updated on Sunday, Oct. 22, from 10am ET - noon. You may experience brief service interruptions during that time.
Browse Prior Art Database

A method for peer review before social media content is allowed to be released

IP.com Disclosure Number: IPCOM000248416D
Publication Date: 2016-Nov-25
Document File: 3 page(s) / 241K

Publishing Venue

The IP.com Prior Art Database

Abstract

A method for requiring peer reviews before allowing social media content to be released.

This text was extracted from a PDF file.
This is the abbreviated version, containing approximately 51% of the total text.

Page 01 of 3

A method for peer review before social media content is allowed to be released

Disclosed is a method for requiring peer reviews before allowing social media content to be released. The reviewer(s) of the contents can depend on the content itself.

Social media is now used by everyday users as well as politicians and celebrities. It is acceptable and normal for user's to communicate through social media. Unfortunately, it is also possible for those users to make costly mistakes with their tweets or social media postings. In most cases, many are off-the-cuff remarks or tweets in the heat of anger that have very negative implications hours or days after the offending publication.

What is needed is some sort of sanity check that prevents rogue tweets or postings. The disclosed method is to have social media accounts have one or more peer reviewers of content that is about to made public. The reviewer of the contents can depend on the content itself. When a user composes and sends a tweet (as an example of social media), then the content of the tweet is examined. Based on pre-determined keywords, the list of peer reviewers become active. These peer reviewers can then see the tweet and vote to approve or disapprove of the continued transmission of said tweet.

The approval or disapproval method can come in one of many ways. Assuming the

number of approvers is "N", where N > 0 and is NOT the person who is tweeting or posting.

Options:
1) ALL N-Reviewers must approve a tweet before it can go out.

2) If X peer reviewers, where 0 < X <= N, approve of the tweet, it can go out.

3) if X peer reviewers, where 0 < X <= N, disapproves of the tweet, it will not go out.
4) If no peer reviewers review the tweet in a set time (for example 30 minutes), the tweet will be stored as a draft and not sent out.

A scenario is shown in Figure 1, where a baseball player named...