I thought i would share this and even though it has been discussed in days of yore, what is the consensus or rule to follow here. I will show two images from the same photo, simply cropped. They are very different by from exact same loc. Can I post each photo to a different POI since they are NOT duplicates by in fact taken from one image. I know @MortenCopenhagen has brought this up in the past I believe. @WilfriedB@tony_b@ErmesT
As you can see, one image is only of JC Penny, poi, and the other is of the mall. Thoughts?
I don’t think there is a written precise guideline on this.
Here are my experiences:
Maybe twice I “forgot” to take an extra photo as more businesses shared the same entrance door. So I did what you are asking about: Crop hard to make a second “not duplicate” photo. The outcome was that the cropped image did not go public. Likely because of the much lower resolution (size).
So based on this is experience I recommend you check that the smaller file is not too small. At an other occasion where I had to crop very aggressively this also did not go public.
I doubt the spam filters will pick up on what you did.
The most valid detailed advise can be deducted by observing the outcome of uploading both to each their place and draw a conclusion based on that. What the spamfilters do is pretty much a pseudo guideline. Of cause it could be taken down later, but I doubt it.
Just today I was at a place with 3 businesses sharing the entrance.
Notice how different the photos are. I’m concerned that the one zoomed in the most will not go public. Probably because not much surrounding the signs are shown.
These have not been processed yet, and I will check the three Maps listings before deciding where they be uploaded to.
Roger and over.
PS
Don’t be tempted to mirror an image to make a “different” copy as this can mess up peoples spacecial navigation.
PPS
After uploading my 2 images will share the result.
The other photo shows as a Photo Update from visitors and last under the All photos tab. It’s also in the Latest tab. This can change within the next 2-3 days. Place link.
Thanks @MortenCopenhagen I think waiting 3 to 4 days now is a good approach to check how they are doing, whether private or public. I might upload the JC Penny one and see how it does
Edit: lol, I was just about to upload it and another photo I took is the featured one! Rofl
I’ve only done something like this on rare occasions, but I can’t say what the outcome was. It isn’t often that I go back to a photo to see the performance. What @StevenBerlin presents could pass as “not duplicate” in my opinion, but we never know what to expect the Maps algorithm to decide.
The rule “no duplicates” is kind of strange anyway. I see so many comments of local guides here, who have “tons” of hidden media, but also many, many duplicates, some even on multiple places, which did go public.
So I really don’t know, how the filters handle duplicates. Maybe they only react, after 100s duplicates have been found …?
@MortenCopenhagen@tony_b@WilfriedB funny thing is, and this was NUTS. A girl friend came over. We literally spent a week going through 20,000 plus photos. I deleted every single photo she did not see, and yet, i still have over 300 private. I guess. I think. I have no way of knowing anymore. I deleted 18 million views, roughly 200 photos. Sad!
Clearly the no duplicate photo guideline is not strictly unforced if at all.
I speculate that the guidelines is meant to stop points hunters spamming the same photos repeatedly.
This discussion makes me believe that it is not checked by the spam filters but only when performing a manual check of a suspected profile. It makes sense as checking could require a lot of computer resources. If the spamfilters checked for duplicates the only sensible action would be to reject/block them immediately.
Just thinking aloud here.
I think @StevenBerlin should relax and not worry about this. Your photos and intentions are fine.
I think we learned a lot from this discussion.
Requiring LGs to dig deep and monitor their contributions closely like some of us do, can noway be a fair and realistic requirement. Google would end up will almost no Local Guides.
Yes, absolutely - I do this regularly, and IMO it’s a legitimate use case.
You can definitely use the same photo for different locations when it genuinely serves both. I’ve done it countless times. When I visit the restaurant or gift shop on the grounds of a stately home, I’ll upload that same photo to both the restaurant/gift shop listing and the stately home listing - it’s the same image, but it’s relevant context for each: the shop’s atmosphere and stock matter for its own page, and it shows visitors what’s available on-site at the estate.
Same principle applies to any nested venue - a cafe in a castle, a bar in a hotel, a stall in a market. If they have multiple locations, each have different user input that we may support.
I also occasionally reuse a photo on the same location in a different way:
A storefront sign or a window display that’s part of a wider exterior shot might get cropped and uploaded separately, because on its own it tells a slightly different story - the sign alone reads as “identification,” while the same sign in the full facade shot reads as “atmosphere and context.”
I try to put more effort when I want to “crop to feel, like its own contribution” rather than a lazy duplicate. In those cases I’ll usually shift the angle slightly, or adjust the framing rather than just cropping the identical file - it takes few more seconds, but it keeps each upload feeling distinct rather than repetitive.
Bottom line: if a photo (or a cropped/reframed version of it) genuinely helps someone understand that specific location, it’s a fair contribution - regardless of whether the same base image is doing double duty elsewhere.
When I visit the restaurant or gift shop on the grounds of a stately home, I’ll upload that same photo to both the restaurant/gift shop listing and the stately home listing
I’m not sure what you mean. In isolation this sounds like you ignore the redundant photos guidelines.
Hello @abermans,
I don’t agree with your statement. It has been stated many times here on Connect that posting the same photo to more than one listing can cause a permanent ban.
I just cross checked with Gemini and got this response
The rules governing duplicate/redundant photos and cross-posting restrictions are located across two primary Google documentation pages:
1. Google Maps User Generated Content Policy
The core rules regarding redundant media and spam apply to all Google Maps users:
Unclear & Repetitive Content / Repetitive Content: Prohibits posting the same media multiple times from a single account or across multiple accounts.
Stylistic Adjustments: States that dark, blurry, or redundant photos (e.g., uploading virtually identical angles of the same dish or location) will be automatically removed.
2. Local Guides Community Guidelines
The specific rule warning about account suspension or a permanent ban from the Local Guides program for uploading identical media to multiple listings is outlined in the program policies:
Relevant Section — Take clear & accurate photos & videos:
“Local Guides who duplicate photos across locations or post images that infringe on copyrights will be removed from the program.”
Summary Checklist for Local Guides
To keep your profile in good standing:
Do not cross-post: Never upload the exact same photo/video to two different place listings (even if a venue spans multiple business listings, such as a hotel and its internal restaurant).
Filter out redundancies: Avoid uploading multiple shots of the same subject taken from slightly different angles; select only the single best image.
However, the way @StevenBerlin cropped the photo, makes it two different pictures.
Regarding the photos that are the subject of this topic, even if it is not not necessarily a violation, it’s on borderline, because in fact one of the two photos is showing the whole area, while the other one is just a “zoomed” detail. The example shared by Morten in very different, because he took two different parts of the same photo.
I still remember a “former” Local Guide, banned a few years ago, who was always taking a single photo, and then modify it (rotation, different saturation, b&w, and so on). As I said, a former Local Guides
Thanks all for the pushback - fair enough, and I take the point.
I’m aware of the redundant/duplicate content guidelines, and I understand where they come from: nobody wants a location swamped with near-identical shots that add no real value, and I’ve seen plenty of accounts doing exactly that, still active, still pumping the same subject from marginally different angles with zero benefit to anyone.
That’s (IMO) clearly the behavior the policy was meant to catch.
Where I still push back a little is on the spirit versus the letter here.
A photo of a gift shop (that has OWN location) that also happens to be useful context for the stately home (having a different location) it sits inside isn’t spam - it’s one image doing genuinely useful work in two places.
It’s like saying a review for one including reference to the other are a duplicate.
They are not. They are servicing different audience in a different context.
There’s no copyright issue since the images are ours, so the concern isn’t ownership, it’s duplication detection and how Maps’ systems (and moderators) interpret “same file, two listings.”
That’s a technical/policy distinction, not a values one, and I get that policy has to draw a hard line somewhere even if it occasionally catches useful cases along with the spam.
If this is the case maybe even of cross-posting of sub-cropped images: save the cropped or reframed version as a distinct file before uploading (you can zoom and upload in google photos AFAIK) , rather than relying on Maps to somehow recognize “this is a meaningfully different crop of the same source.”
We have no visibility into how duplication detection actually works under the hood, and given WilfriedB’s summary and Ermes’s point about the zoomed-detail case sitting “on the borderline,” I’d rather people err on the side of a genuinely distinct file than assume the system will be lenient about intent.
Appreciate the detailed context and links, Morten’s and Ermes’s posts especially.
I’ll be more careful about this going forward.
Also, think about the computer resources needed to store and serve redundant content. I believe that also played a role when Google designer the guidelines.
Next, please also consider the Located inside:-field that takes care of what you mentioned without redundant data.
The solution about this point has been already provided by Google Maps, as was briefly mentioned by @MortenCopenhagen
This part was widely discussed in Connect to justify the “duplicates across locations”. For this violation the policies Google Maps can decide to suspend a Local Guide .
However, as the feature is not clearly mentioned on the guidelines, 5 years ago I wanted to close the gap. Local Guides Tips: How to add “Located Within” in Google Maps
@MortenCopenhagen fair point but after talking to David (map product manager) during on our visit in Dublin, data volume is not really a factor these days.
I suggested (what we asked for long time) tool for contribution “hygiene” and he was surprised reduction of contributions was even suggested. It was never a pain point for them.
They would happily appreciate as much increase of contributions as LGs can put for them in maps (avoiding spam).
Hence the push for videos at x10 or x20 per contribution storage, did not really matter as much as the change to the user experience.
I am an old tech clunker myself and spent most of my first salary (1500$ if I recall) on a 10mb hard drive somewhere in the mid 80s…so storage abundance is not something I take lightly but… The world has changed).
I’m a bit surprised at the divergence this discussion has taken with @abermans statement. The original discussion was about different parts of the same photo. In my personal experience, I’m more likely to split a wide photo of two adjacent shops by cropping the left-side shop ABC and then cropping the right-side shop XYZ from the original and posting the two separately. But even this is a rare occurrence for me.
.