I cannot say what we discussed at LG Summit 2017 [that is under NDA], but I can tell you that most of the new features in maps are coming from the previous summit and from the feedback board.
We were invited to use the feedback board as they pay a lot of attention to what is written there.
Nobody can ensure that they will approve all the required changes, but for sure they will pay attention.
I don't want to move this thread in the Feedback-and-Feature-Requests board, because this is started with a different subject, but I'm inviting all of you to start and be part of a new thread in there
I'm looking at these detailed reviews, but unfortunately for myself I cannot endorse these additional points for ratings, nor do I like the current system. Why?
Given that it only takes one click to get a rating, ratings will only give one point. Who's not to point out that if you just type "Good" or "ok" when writing a review, how does that entitle you to five points whereas someone else who writes a lovely comprehensive review that essentially outlines their entire experience, describing to the readers so perfectly still get the same amount? While the extra five points for a detailed seems excellent, I believe we should segregate and stake a threshold, say a spectrum of points depending on the length of the review.
For example, refer to the points below:
Review under 40 characters: 1 point
Review between 40-79 characters: 2 points
Review between 80-119 characters: 3 points
Review between 120-159 characters: 4 points
Review between 160-199 characters: 5 points
Review over 200 characters: 6-10(*) points
This further incentivises the desire for longer, succinct and descriptive experiences which better encourages and informs the local guide to make a decision as to choose the place and vice-versa, valuing the longer-written, non-abbreviated local guides and also scaling back the spammy sorts (point-hoarders especially) who don't contribute much or little value whatsoever.
Furthermore, how about people who like reviews or find a review helpful? Don't you think that they should be included in the total? Well, anyone could just like a review that just says "ok" and then amass the spammers and bots who uselessly do everything and contribute to the downfall of us all. I propose that finding a review should be contributing points and adding value to a local guide's activity and work. I describe it below.
*reviews that are marked helpful by the community will accrue bonus points for each like, but these are only applicable to reviews greater than or equal to 200 characters. There is a hard cap though in the additional amount of points you can receive for your review being marked as helpful.
Those are my two cents. I do also agree with @ProfArunCM that if you're going to announce new features, that the community should be trying and witnessing them within the span of a few days, or even a week. I still do not have this feature, nor the new badges to track my progress, and as a beta tester it is a little disappointing. And that the features actually do roll out faster.
Just reading your reply, that is absolutely interesting. I think that the General idea is to migrate from quantity to quality. I mean, we espect that a long review should ensure higher quality, and generally speaking is what we have but, what can happen if, discovering this, someone decides just to copy/paste some 200 characters of text?
With the new technologies I'm expecting that a text can be verified (in therm of logic of the content an Olson to see if the very identical test have already been written by a user)
And more, I'd addition to what you said, what about a thumb down, for useless review? I know it can be a new source of complaints, but also an instrument for putting down a lot of really useless reviews.
A skillful negotiator, who instinctively reads a situation correctly, understands the motivations and feelings of the other party, and chooses the right time to proceed or withdraw. Polite, courteous, respectful and charming at all times and in all situations, without being obsequious. Unfailingly courteous even when dealing with a difficult person or situation. Communicates reasonably well, but not someone you would choose to present a case effectively or to get across detailed instructions. Ermes generally seems to listen to others and take on board their views. Ermes is generally good with detail and checks work thoroughly, but there have been one or two minor errors in work presented in the current period.
Should a local guide decide to write the same 200+ character review over and over again to all these different places, you'd think that people would either report the review (still spam!) or there would be functions where Google will notice the exact same thing over and over again. Short and sweet they would like to say!
The only implication to denoting the length of reviews is if you're in Japan, China, United Arab Emirates or a place that condenses whole phrases of words into just one letter, character or symbol and doesn't use the English alphabet system. Thumbs down would be great, although as we're fostering a positive and inclusive community, don't you think that when you write such a great and stellar five-star review, and you see that it only has two thumbs down, that can also be prone to discussion and undesirable behaviour also.
I enjoy @LucioV's performance review of you by the way.
Works well in association with another leader. A good number 2, commanding the respect of a team. Below average build – and reluctant to get involved in physically demanding jobs, even as part of a team. From a set of data, Briggs is able to establish a principle, or work out a rule, or suggest a reason for failure or success. His analysis is always accurate and sometimes original. Polite, courteous, respectful and charming at all times and in all situations, without being obsequious. Unfailingly courteous even when dealing with a difficult person or situation.
Communicates reasonably well, but not someone you would choose to present a case effectively or to get across detailed instructions. Briggs generally seems to listen to others and take on board their views.
Thanks for your note about countries that are using symbolic characters that condensate words.
Good point, I think you have to post this in the Feedback-and-Feature-Requests board.
My ideas was of course only something to talk about, as I know that what we are discussing is helpful and is taken in consideration. I think that this kind of verification can be made by an algorithm, like it can be for duplicated photos
2022
| 9 Badges so far! | 
