11-09-2017 08:32 AM
It has now been a full month since I had initially posted the series of 'Forever Not Applied', which at this moment in time has become an alternative benchmark to explaining why our edits are 'not applied', with several moderators constantly moving similar posts to it. At this point, we know that it is due to an algorithm shift in an attempt to strike a balance between the spammers of bad data and the genuine local guides who really strive to make a difference. But there has been silence, and no real material solution has been found, and a community of dedicated mappers is growing weary and tiresome of making futile edits.
The current state of suggesting genuine, real edits by diligent local guides is extremely unhealthy. Local Guides and their communities are being discouraged to improving the accuracy of their local areas. Some people have voiced their concerns and are even desperate to see change in this process. Like a broken record, I have also complained and vented to my hearts' content, but that has been worn out and now I am actively seeking for change.
So in this post, I will be looking at the current moderation process. Given that now 100% of the edits that I suggest over the past week are now being instantly not applied in comparison to my mother's account, I would like to suggest a new route to follow in the form of an idea, that of which I humbly made drastic improvements to my own workplace (before I got fired, that is).
The current moderation process is this:
It's a simple process, but the billion possibilities of the algorithm behaving the way that it does, as well as the various length of time it takes for Google to review an edit or feedback isn't as efficient as the way it has thought out to be. There is also the premise of having the intermediary of Google staff reviewing the local guide's edit as well, but as Gus has mentioned here and in accordance with the Local Guides Community Guidelines, you should only add/edit/approve/deny an edit if you have first-hand knowledge of the place or you have personally checked that the information is real.
What further mystifies me is how Google staff attains such first-hand knowledge or check an edit's validity if they have not been there themselves. There is a great skew of power between local guides and Google's review process and its algorithms. This argument is however partially defeated by the Google Maps users who rampantly provide bad data, which results in the need to strike the fine balancing act of approvals and rejections. But the premise of having genuine edits immediately not applied is extremely poor form, and a sheer mistake on the algorithm's part, not even giving any sort of breathing space for any human intervention.
A few nights ago, I stumbled upon OpenStreetMap, or OSM for short. Without going into too much information OpenStreetMap is a transparent, community-driven platform for map data, giving its users almost free reign on editing its various features. While I can only imagine that this is a taste of what Google Map Maker was like, I for one actually enjoy using their editing feature and how they've managed it. The tutorial was spunky, there's a public history of edits and changesets that is publicly viewable and traceable, and I think that can efficiently monitor bad edits as well as provide a strong conjoined feeling of accountability towards a community of dedicated mappers and editors, one that Google Maps currently lacks on the client-side.
Of course privacy is a concern, and given the high volume of edits that Google Maps faces on a daily basis from 50 million local guides all across the world, as well as information from third-parties, business owners and databases alike. While it might seem like a long shot, I have therefore put together the following, to improve the moderation process based on the current status of our editing prowess and inspired from several mapping data programs and moderation.
The proposed moderation process is this:
As is it clear and evident that I am quite heavily inspired by OpenStreetMaps, and in a resolve to reduce the hierarchical need for top-heavy decisionmaking and review, I will be continually composing and working towards making Google Maps a better platform, that also encourages the rights and editing powers of genuine local guides, protects map data from corruption and bad edits, and expedites local and regional edits with boundless incentives.
11-09-2017 08:46 AM
Hi @Briggs this remind me exactly the previous Map Maker environment.
Obviously I agree, although some RL weren't so collaborative and their choice must be done with great care.
Great post, really. One of the best post on this topic I ever read.
11-09-2017 10:20 AM - edited 11-09-2017 10:34 AM
Dashboard
In the proposed moderation process, I mentioned some sort of dashboard in which a hypothetical regional lead-like role such as Timothy Cress (TC) might have exclusive access to. What does this special dashboard represent, and what sort of features might it enable for TC to look at on a broader level? For someone like TC to have the following features, it is presumed that they would have been a major and top contributor of Google Maps, communicated well with the Google team and is also under a strict non-disclosure agreement. Anywho, let's take a look.
Possible features of the Regional Lead dashboard
Now there's a lot of information right now I've communicated, but how would I facilitate these activities? Of course, it first comes down to selecting the most dedicated local guides who will not defect, and who will uphold their integrity in following the required NDA. There are so many edits that are being looked at on a global scale, how will we distinguish between what we should just approve immediately and also reject immediately? Well, for TC and the algorithms to work together there needs to be further tiers of trust, and also editing difficulties levels as well. Here is what I would like to call risk assessment: the combination of the current trust level of a local guide, and the editing difficulty of their suggestion.
Risk Assessment
This feature may or may not already be embedded in our current algorithms, but giving local guides a bit more substance in their current trust levels and their suggestions at least some traction (instead of all of them being not applied unfairly). There are three elements which are illustrated below that make up the holistic risk assessment approach.
There is a lot of mentioning of a 'regional lead', which we can only hope to be optimistic in the return of such. I don't know if I've just unearthed a large can of worms, but of course there are many other factors that need to be considered, such as regional familiarity, a physical Google presence, privacy legislation, Internet usage, political pressure, the list goes on.
It's getting late and I can't really think of anything else right now, so I'll continue my writings another time.
-
P.S. Thank you @LucioV! I looked back into Local Guides Connect and the product forums in posts circa late 2016 and I saw a lot of disapproval and reminscence posts about their dismay of scrapping Map Maker and the Regional Lead program, which inspired me to compose these posts. I truly am seeking the success and the improvement of Google Maps and despite what's happening now, I'm going against the urge to vent and instead harnessing it into something that might be useful for a change.
11-09-2017 10:34 AM
@Briggs you are amazing.
This is not a FR, this is a complete project executive summary that should land on some Google Maps Program Manager.
If you want to prepare a PDF i will be happy to forward to all PM i know; but the better way should be that @TraciC, @LuisRG and @GusMoreira escalate this complete request for evaluation.
11-09-2017 10:39 AM
Once again, thank you @LucioV!
It's not complete as of yet. I initially reached the post character limit, hence the reason why the post split into two. I'm not finished, there still a lot of information I'm piecing together and considering as well (including language and translations, addresses and collaboration, and some things that staying up late is currently melting my mind right now), but I would be more than happy for any sort of escalation to reach anyone for further consideration.
Besides, you did put together my performance review, hehe!
11-09-2017 07:30 PM
@Briggs One of the best posts i ever read on connect .
Awesome
11-09-2017 07:33 PM
@Briggs : Also with trusted percentage , their should be more power . Exactly what i was suggesting in each meetup . Well written buddy
11-28-2017 06:36 AM
12-01-2017 06:41 AM
Благодаря !
Владимир Йосифов,
https://www.facebook.com/Vitosha.Boulevard.Sofia/posts/1511353062283188
12-01-2017 07:02 AM
Wow!!! @Briggs you've made some really good suggestions here.