Is there some kind of filtering applied. The missing images, 4 out of 13, from what I can tell aren’t photos, but digitised images of maps, old newspaper clippings etc. They have been visible to others in the past, maybe still are to some, as the view count is quite high.
A similar image does show up on on a nearby but different place
You’ve made several mistakes and the system’s decision to filter your photo was correct.
The photo doesn’t belong to this specific POI and it shows the whole area.
You uploaded the photo to more than one place. This is forbidden. Each photo shows one aspect of one POI and duplicates aren’t appreciated.
Historical photos aren’t appreciated on the map since photos should represent the current conditions of the place and show what people should expect when they go there. You can upload such photos to other websites like Wikimedia Commons.
The photo should be taken on the place and adding photos of pieces of paper/photos from other sources is not a good choice.
So I even suggest removing the photo on the other POI you mentioned.
And a little bit more about the POI itself. You added it with a descriptive name. Descriptions aren’t allowed on names. It should be only “Charles Grimes Memorial”. The address clearly shows where it is located.
Thanks for the reply and your perspective. I’m still learning my way around as a guide, contributor. guidelines, quirks and foibles …
Will explain / say a couple of things in response.
1/ I have a different perspective on historic maps and photos for historic points of interest. They are particularly valuable. That’s a major factor in why people visit them. Especially when those historic points of interest mark or even more commemorate that very place and some of those things are no longer there. Like a river junction where one of the rivers has been diverted as in my example.
2/ I uploaded exactly the same historic map image twice to see if it was something about that particularly image which meant it wouldn’t be filtered. But more generally a photo is often relevant to two or even more places.
3/ Google maps did appreciate the photos of the old maps. It told me so in notifications. But didn’t then tell me it had changed its mind. Seems it never tells you that in fact.
4/ Multiple pictures of coffees or hamburgers at a cafe which don’t really vary or capture anything new are way less valuable.
5/ I’m interested in how much manual versus automatic decision making / reviewing there is. Does anyone know?
6/ There is something odd in that even images which are filtered, that (I now realise) I can see in my contributions but aren’t publicly shown, still keep increasing in view count, albeit more slowly. Are these bot views?
7/ Names often include a short description, e.g. a recent book “Outlive: The Science and Art of Longevity”, a village in England “Witham on the Hill”. That said, brevity and appropriate naming is important.
Regards
Geoff: user of google maps from before it was that.
1/ Sharing historic photos is not the biggest violation, but they are very likely to be taken down.
2/ Sharing the same photo to more than one pin is a serious violation, that can result in you being removed from the Local Guides program.
3/ The messages thanking us for photos and suggesting we upload photos are not based on any intelligence. They are pretty dumb. They will even suggest you to upload the same photo again.
4/ I agree.
5/ My guess is that 99.8% is done by computers.
6/ Yes, and views from when you look at your list of photos. The first 10 views or so are pretty much automatic. Keep in mind our photos can also be used in Google Search and they can be promoted to also represent the city district, the city, or the country. You can check this by visiting the photo tab called “By you” under the city.
7/ The naming rules were created to make sure businesses do not add unnecessary and redundant info in the name. Also, short names allow more pins to be shown on the map, and they make it faster to spot what you are looking for. So please follow the naming guidelines.
I appreciate your independent views, I have been there too. But as we study the guidelines and consider what is more helpful to Maps users our perceptions can change.
I’ve been reading the UGC guidelines more closely.
I see one (main?) reason descriptors / tag lines on business names not allowed, as allows superflous spruiking, which I have no doubt would occur e.g. “Bob’s Auto Mechanic Shop: Best In The World”, rather than objective expansion of a name, such as used in books titles, and some place names.
I still regard for historic sites and monuments some explanatory historic material is good, although not something I’ll put much effort into advocating GM to encompass. At least I understand now why some, but not all, photos, and even some places, go missing from public view, and the rationale.
I have no doubt this has been asked many times before, and I should (and will) search, but are photos which are filtered by GM ever tagged as such?
I’m also going to look at geotagged linking between GM and e.g. wikipedia. A large part of my interest is in the historic evolution and heritage of my local area(s).
Embark on a journey through the supernatural with a captivating assortment of hell hound images . These eerie and atmospheric visuals offer a glimpse into the mythological and folklore-inspired realm of these mysterious and malevolent creatures. Whether you’re a fan of dark fantasy or seeking inspiration for your next horror project, these hell hound promise to evoke a shiver down your spine.
