# US 2014/0156660 A1 · Methods and systems for quantifying and tracking software application quality > Agents: this data is available as JSON from the patentgrep API and MCP server — see https://patentgrep.com/llms.txt - Number: US 2014/0156660 A1 - Document ID: US20140156660A1 - Status: Published application - Kind: A1 - Application number: 13/910,433 - Filed: 2013-06-05 - Published: 2014-06-05 - Earliest claimed: 2012-06-05 - Assignees: Utest, Inc. - Applicants: uTest, Inc. - Inventors: Jason Arbon; Jeffrey Carollo; Roy Solomon; Sebastián Schiavone - Web page: https://patentgrep.com/patent/US20140156660A1 ## CPC - G06Q 30/0201: Market modelling; Market analysis; Collecting market data - G06F 16/24578: {using ranking} - G06F 16/248: Presentation of query results - G06F 16/951: Indexing; Web crawling techniques - G06Q 30/0203: Market surveys; Market polls - G06Q: INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR - G06F: ELECTRIC DIGITAL DATA PROCESSING (computer systems based on specific computational models G06N) ## Abstract A computer-implemented method and system for quantifying and tracking software application quality based on aggregated user reviews. ## Claims ### Claim 1 A computer-implemented method for indicating the quality of a software application, comprising the steps of: (a) aggregating a plurality of user reviews for the software application; (b) classifying each user review of the software application into one or more quality attributes; and (c) determining a score for each of the one or more quality attributes based on the user reviews classified for the quality attribute; and (d) presenting the score for each of the one or more quality attributes for the software application. ### Claim 2 (depends on 1) The method of claim 1, wherein the score is based at least in part on a user rating score provided in each user review. ### Claim 3 (depends on 1) The method of claim 1, further comprising (e) 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, and (f) determining a total score for the software application based on weighted scores for each of the one or more quality attributes. ### Claim 4 (depends on 1) 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. ### Claim 5 (depends on 1) 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. ### Claim 6 (depends on 1) 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. ### Claim 7 (depends on 1) 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. ### Claim 8 (depends on 1) 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. ### Claim 9 (depends on 1) The method of claim 1, further comprising determining a quality rank for the software application with respect to other software applications in the same category. ### Claim 10 (depends on 1) The method of claim 1, further comprising tracking quality attributes or quality rank of the software application over a given period of time. ### Claim 11 (depends on 1) The method of claim 1, further comprising aggregating quality information for a plurality of software applications in a quality portfolio. ### Claim 12 (depends on 1) The method of claim 1, further comprising defining one or more quality tasks based on the scores to address identified quality issues. ### Claim 13 (depends on 1) The method of claim 1, wherein the software application comprises a mobile device app. ### Claim 14 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 the 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) classify each user review of the software application into one or more quality attributes; and (c) determine a score for each of the one or more quality attributes based on the user reviews classified for the quality attribute; and (d) present the score for each of the one or more quality attributes for the software application. ### Claim 15 (depends on 14) The system of claim 14, wherein the score is based at least in part on a user rating score provided in each user review. ### Claim 16 (depends on 14) The system of claim 14, further comprising instructions for (e) 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, and (f) determining a total score for the software application based on weighted scores for each of the one or more quality attributes. ### Claim 17 (depends on 14) The system of claim 14, 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. ### Claim 18 (depends on 14) The system of claim 14, wherein the one or more quality attributes comprise accessibility, accuracy, availability, content, elegance, inter-operability, localization, performance, pricing, privacy, satisfaction, security, stability, or usability. ### Claim 19 (depends on 14) The system of claim 14, wherein the plurality of user reviews are aggregated from application marketplace, social media, automated testing services, or crowd testing services. ### Claim 20 (depends on 14) The system of claim 14, wherein the user reviews each include a rating score, rating text, device information, date/time of review, and software application version number. ### Claim 21 (depends on 14) The system of claim 14, wherein each user review is classified by analyzing substring matches, statistically improbable phrases, or n-grams, or by using machine learning. ### Claim 22 (depends on 14) The system of claim 14, further comprising instructions for determining a quality rank for the software application with respect to other software applications in the same category. ### Claim 23 (depends on 14) The system of claim 14, further comprising instructions for tracking quality attributes or quality rank of the software application over a given period of time. ### Claim 24 (depends on 14) The system of claim 14, further comprising instructions for aggregating quality information for a plurality of software applications in a quality portfolio. ### Claim 25 (depends on 14) The system of claim 14, further comprising instructions for defining one or more quality tasks based on the scores to address identified quality issues. ### Claim 26 (depends on 14) The system of claim 14, wherein the software application comprises a mobile device app.