Abstract:
Disclosed herein is a social networking system aimed at creating a reviewable legacy for users. The described social network allows subscribers and public users to contribute events that previously occurred and discuss the significance of these events to themselves and others. Through the use of a plurality of subscribers and the public alike, the contributed events to the social network will create a searchable history of society. Additionally, the submitted events will include the impressions of the people who experienced them providing a zeitgeist record uncontaminated by subsequent historical impressions.

Description:
FIELD OF THE INVENTION 
       [0001]    The present invention relates to the field of social media. More particularly, the present invention relates to creating a searchable database of events, which are internally tagged and categorized. 
       BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION 
       [0002]    Presently social media and the Internet allow users to chronicle daily activities. This chronicling is accomplished in several different ways. For example, Facebook approaches this process through “status updates.” Status updates are placed on a user&#39;s “timeline” and are viewable directly, or in the aggregate, on the Facebook “newsfeed.” These updates range in importance from daily minutia to the birth of children. Users are unable to flag statuses for content; however, Facebook operates in such a manner that it will recognize commonalities between status updates, and group like statuses together in the “newsfeed.” For example, if ten “friends” of a given user are posting statuses about a particular baseball game, those status updates will be condensed together. 
         [0003]    Twitter, another popular social media service, does allow a user to flag posts by categories with “hashtags.” These tags and the rate particular tags are used are tabulated and represented to the public to show which tags were popular at any given point in time. 
         [0004]    These services social networking, and others, do not provide a way for users to actively flag events, and then allow the service to compile the tagged events into a viewable, searchable history.
       An article entitled, “A Final Act: Writing Your Own Obituary” by Grade Bonds Staples appeared in the Nov. 4, 2012 issue of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. This article discussed the desire of people to be able to either ensure that enough about their lives was known that their loved ones could adequately eulogize them or that they would be able to do it themselves. While this article discussed a product which aided purchasers in writing a complete obituary, it does not completely fulfill the need of certain people to adequately leave their mark or legacy on the world after they are gone.       
 
         [0006]    Accordingly, there is a need for a system that can effectively chronicle a presentable history, in point of fact, a legacy which users can search for content. The present invention provides a method of chronicling personal legacy, so as to allow a broader history to be ascertained. 
       SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION 
       [0007]    It is an object of the present invention to provide a social networking system that develops a searchable history of society through participation of subscribers and the public alike. 
         [0008]    It is an additional object of this invention to provide, on a personal level, the ability to leave a legacy of one&#39;s life. 
         [0009]    To achieve the objects of the invention described above and those that will be understood hereafter, the social network is a method for chronicling personal data over a social network using a database having users comprising: storing in a database a user profile for a user of a social network system, the user profile viewable by a social network user interface; entering event data into the social network user interface, the event data including information about an event in the life of a user and having at least one criteria flag, wherein the at least one criteria flag is a detail pertaining to the event; cataloging entered event data into the database, organized by criteria flag; searching the database for event data using at least one criteria flag as a search term; and displaying search results on the social network user interface. 
         [0010]    In an exemplary embodiment of the system of the present invention, a private and secure database is established. Subscribers to the system establish submission accounts on the system&#39;s general database using the Internet. The system&#39;s subscribers log into their accounts and contribute to the general database. These contributions comprise events of relevance or importance to the subscriber&#39;s life. The events entered in the database are tagged and sorted by various criteria. Criteria for an event includes location, time, activity, participants as well as any suitable criteria determined by the software and user parameters. For example, as subscribers enter more and more data, they build their own (and other&#39;s) life story and a historical timeline. Entry points include such things as people that have impacted their lives, favorite books, important music, and significant movies. Obviously, there are too many different categories to mention. Basically, a subscriber enters what is impactful in their lives. From this data, a subscriber constructs his/her own obituary (or “faux-bituary”). 
         [0011]    These criteria are run through a “truth engine” where the system determines by comparison, if submissions are incorrect. For example, if a plurality of unrelated subscribers submit data events stating a certain conference occurred on a particular date in Houston, Tex., the system recognizes such a data event as most likely a true statement. A discrepancy flag occurs when a subscriber claims to have attended the same conference, but in Buffalo, NY. This discrepancy event shares at least one criteria flag with a plurality of others, however it that disagrees with the majority on a separate criteria flag. Such a discrepancy event would be considered an outlier. The outliers may be outright rejected, corrected, or taken into account when determining the system&#39;s certainty of the facts of a given event. Depending on the particular software engine, a statistical confidence interval may be derived and the appropriate action taken. 
         [0012]    Additionally, subscribers can contribute impressions of a given event. These impressions can simply be stored and presented in catalog fashion. Alternatively, the impressions may be collated, such that the system may construct a summary of the event. For example, were a plurality of subscribers to mention attending a particular summer camp, and the impression mentioned the effect of a particular camp counselor on the subscriber&#39;s lives, the collated summary would include a description of that counselor and the positive, or negative affects the counselor had on others. 
         [0013]    This data is then presented to subscribers in multiple ways. In one preferred embodiment a user views a personal profile of all the events that subscriber submitted. Additionally, a subscriber can view events that particular subscriber was mentioned in, or collated event summaries in which the subscriber was mentioned. In a second preferred embodiment, subscribers can search by criteria associated with particular events in order to find other matching criteria. For example, were a subscriber wanting to know participants at a summer camp, in a given location on a given date, the system could allow searches of that nature which would reveal subscribers who had submitted events matching the search criteria. 
         [0014]    Different ranks or classes for subscribers may also be established to allow greater or weaker searching ability. Additionally privacy features would exist wherein subscriber submitted events would be shielded from search at varying degrees. 
         [0015]    It is an advantage of the present invention to provide a crowd sourced history logging method which can readily be searched. It is further an advantage of the present invention to automatically check for historical discrepancies created by the “crowd.” 
     
    
     
       BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWING 
         [0016]    For a further understanding of the objects and advantages of the present invention, reference should be had to the following detailed description, taken in conjunction with the accompanying drawing, in which like parts are given like reference numerals and wherein: 
           [0017]      FIG. 1  is a preferred embodiment of a social networking system. 
           [0018]      FIG. 2  is a flow chart illustrating submission of data by a registered subscriber to the central database. 
           [0019]      FIG. 3  is a flow chart illustrating the receipt of data on the central database. 
           [0020]      FIG. 4  is an example of a social networking user profile and interface. 
           [0021]      FIG. 5  is an illustration of a particular event contained within the central database. 
           [0022]      FIG. 6  is a flow chart illustrating the search capabilities of the social networking system. 
       
    
    
     DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION 
       [0023]    The invention will now be described with respect to  FIG. 1 .  FIG. 1  is a preferred embodiment of a social networking system generally denoted by the numeral  20 . The system includes a central database which is denoted by numeral  22 . The central database stores the data of the social network  20  in accordance with this invention. Internal to this central database  22  is social networking software  24  which is used to process the data submitted to the network, and present that data in a preferred manner over the internet  26 . Additionally, in the exemplary embodiment shown in  FIG. 1 , the central database  22  includes a truth engine  28  which compares and verifies data submitted against itself. When reviewing multiple sources of data, the truth engine  28  detects outliers and rejects, corrects, or takes the outliers into account when determining the system&#39;s certainty of the facts of comparable data. 
         [0024]    The social networking software  24  allows others to communicate with the central database over the Internet  26  using suitable Internet browsers known in the art. The interface presented to others would differ depending on whether the outsider was a registered subscriber  30  or anyone in the public  32 . As a registered subscriber  30 , one creates a user profile on the central database  22 . Both classes of users  30 ,  32  are able to submit data to the central database  22 . While both registered subscribers  30  and public users  32  may search the central database  22 , the extent to which each can do so may differ. Other differences between registered subscribers  30  and public users  32  will be covered in greater detail below. 
         [0025]    With particular reference to  FIG. 2 , there is shown a flow chart illustrating submission of data by a registered subscriber to the central database  22 . Using a web browser, the subscriber logs into their account  202 . This involves the entering of account information such as a user name and/or a password or other suitable means known in the art. Once logged in, the registered subscriber  30  contributes data to the central database  22 . These contributions comprise events of relevance or importance to that subscriber or another person the subscriber knows  204 . The subscriber may optionally record their impressions of the event  206 . This could include a summary, how the subscriber felt during the event, what the event meant to them, or any other connected thoughts. The subscriber then flags the event with at least one criteria  208 . Criteria for an event may include location, time, activity, participants, or other suitable criteria known in the art. For example, a subscriber could simply flag themselves as a participant in the event. Additional criteria flags may be added  210 . If the subscriber had flagged their identity as the first criteria flag, a secondary flag would potentially be the location the event took place. A tertiary flag may include the date in which the event occurred, and so on. 
         [0026]    This process would be similar for public users  32 . The primary difference being that the public user&#39;s identity would not be known by the system  20  during the contribution process. Therefore, the software  24  would be less certain how to sort criteria flags involving identities. To account for this, optionally, the social network software  24  may require public users to provide criteria flags that can be more readily verified, such as dates. 
         [0027]    With particular reference to  FIG. 3 , there is shown a flow chart illustrating the receipt of data on the central database  22 . This flowchart picks up where  FIG. 2  left off. First, an event is received by the central database  302 . Then, within the central database  22 , the criteria flags of the submitted event are compared to flags on other submitted events  304 . Additionally, the event title, or other information stored within the event could be compared to like information of other submitted events. Based on numerous factors, the submitted event is then catalogued in the database in potentially several fashions  306 . 
         [0028]    When the system  20  determines that a given event shares enough criteria flags (or title similarity) with another existing event, the events would be merged within the system  20  and considered the same event. Alternatively, a registered subscriber may opt to not allow events submitted to be merged with others. In that case the criteria flags would still be compared against each other and the system  20  would make note of the similar flags in, preparation for system searches conducted at a later date. In yet another method, when the system  20  detects that two events share many of the same criteria flags, the system  20  consults the truth engine  28  to determine what to do with the events. The truth engine  28  would be set such that a particular level of certainty is needed before the system  20  auto corrects outlier criteria flags in the cataloguing process. 
         [0029]    Once the system  20  has determined if multiple events are in fact the same event, impressions of that event may be summarized  308 . This process would involve the social networking software  24  of the central database  22  reviewing the impressions of merged submitted events and picking out keywords or commonly used phrases and names, and constructing a collated, crowd sourced story, of what occurred at an event, and how the participants felt about that particular event. Alternatively, rather than crowd sourcing an impression, in another preferred embodiment all of the impressions for a given event are logged and indexed  310 . 
         [0030]    With particular reference to  FIG. 4 , there is shown an example of a social networking user profile and interface. The user profile and interface  34  would be viewable on an Internet browser. Here, the example is for the registered subscriber  30 , “John Smith.” Somewhere on the interface, there would be a clickable “New Event” button  36  allowing a subscriber  30  to add a new event. Additionally, visitors accessing Mr. Smith&#39;s user profile would be able to view personal and contact info  37  that Mr. Smith had provided. When clicked it would prompt the subscriber  30  (or public user  32  where appropriate) to provide information regarding the event. 
         [0031]    Additionally on the user profile  14  of  FIG. 4  is a timeline display  38 . The timeline display  38  is an optional aspect of the present invention, and other suitable displays known in the art could be utilized. On the timeline are various events that the fictional, Mr. Smith, or other users have added to the central database  22 , wherein Mr. Smith&#39;s identity is a criteria flag. Each of these events can be individually selected and viewed in greater detail. Viewable on the timeline display  38 , and designated by the numeral  40 , is the event for a 1968 high school state football championship  40 . This event, along with the others, would include a title and be flagged with Mr. Smith&#39;s identity along with the date in which it occurred. For events that were not submitted by a registered user  30 , it is conceivable that no identity would be included as a criteria flag. 
         [0032]    Mr. Smith is able to set up permissions for other users. These permissions would specify whom and to what degree other registered subscribers  30  could contribute to Mr. Smith&#39;s timeline. For some events, like the state championship  40 , it is likely that any user could affect the description of the event, because it was likely a highly attended, public event. For other events, such as the birth of Mr. Smith&#39;s fictitious son, Timmy, denoted by the numeral  41 , Mr. Smith may wish to have stricter controls over who could affect the event. The method of categorizing other subscribed users may work similarly to the “friend” system of Facebook, marketed by Facebook, Inc. of Palo Alto, Calif., or the “circles” system of G+, marketed by Google, Inc. of Mountain View, Calif., or any other suitable system known in the art. 
         [0033]    With particular reference to  FIG. 5 , there is an illustration of a particular event contained within the central database  22 . More specifically,  FIG. 5  displays the state championship game  40  of  FIG. 4  when specifically selected. The selected event page  40 A here, would have been contributed entirely by Mr. Smith and has several notable elements. Among these are the title  42 , the criteria flags  44 , Mr. Smith&#39;s impressions of the event  46 , and any photographs of the event  48 . The sample criteria flags  44  consist of various facts or data points one could use to narrow down the description of the event. Here, the participant, John Smith, is noted, along with other data that helps narrow down exactly what event is being discussed, such as the teams involved, the state in which the game was played, the final score, and the team and town this particular participant was representing. Were this event to be merged with a plurality of others, a roster for each team could be crowd sourced (among other details). The final merged selected event pages  40 A would include all of the criteria flags submitted by each user  30 ,  32 . The merging would be possible through use of the truth engine  28 . With the given example, the fictional state championship game, were a plurality of users to say that the event occurred in the fictional state of “Washifornia,” but one user stated by criteria flag that the championship was held in Alabama, the truth engine  28  would determine either that there were two different events submitted, or that the lone user was lying to the system. 
         [0034]    Also on the selected event page  40 A would be the impressions  46  of the contributor. Here, the sample Mr. Smith discusses the memory of heroically catching the game winning pass. Were this impression  46  to be written by another subscriber  30 , the text would likely read from a different point of view. Were the impression  46  to be collated with others, there would likely be mentions of details concerning the distance the pass was thrown (here, 37 yards), along with how impressed various other subscribers were with this feat of athleticism. Finally, the selected event page  40 A would have uploaded photographs  48 . When one event was merged with another, the photographs would be added to an indexed album. With a plurality of events stored in the central database  22 , the social networking system  20  could effectively provide a crowd sourced history of a society. 
         [0035]    With particular reference to  FIG. 6 , there is shown a flow chart illustrating the search capabilities of the social networking system  20 . First, a user must open up a web browser and go to the URL associated with the social network ( 602 ). If the user is a public user  32 , that user  32  may search the system  20  using criteria flags anonymously ( 604 ). When searching anonymously, the public user  32  would only be able to view a certain top level of the central database  22 . The exact amount of data included in this top level would be determined by the operator of the central database  22  in combination with the permissions set by registered subscribers  30 . Once the public user  32  has initiated the search, the system  20  will output results  606 . 
         [0036]    A user that is a registered subscriber  30  can search the system using criteria flags, and potentially additional identity based search features  610 . Subscribers would have a greater access to the information on the central database  22  than public users  32 . The search results presented to registered subscribers would reflect this  612 . Additionally, certain subscribers  30  may have additional search permissions granted from other subscribers  10 A. With additional permissions granted, a subscriber&#39;s  30  search results would be improved  614 . 
         [0037]    In the course of use, the social networking system develops large quantities of event data. When compiled, the crowd sourced history of society is searchable, and presents the impressions and feelings of the participants, thereby creating a legacy for relatives, loved ones, and interested parties to view. 
         [0038]    While the foregoing detailed description has described several embodiments of the legacy social network in accordance with this invention, it is to be understood that the above description is illustrative only and not limiting of the disclosed invention. Particularly, the social legacy network need not have the exact user interface described. Additionally, while specific levels of user are set forth in the drawing, the legacy social network in accordance with this invention need not be limited by any specific rank or class of users. It will be appreciated that the embodiments discussed above and the virtually infinite embodiments that are not mentioned could easily be within the scope and spirit of this invention. Thus, the invention is to be limited only by the claims as set forth below.