The accepted solution by @GusMoreira , is incomplete. "not applied" status is not addressed there. I can understand that the "Pending" will one-day become either "Accepted" or "Denied". But, what is "Not Applied" I have lot of "not applieds". What I can't understand is,Even after providing basic information including photos, phone numbers...., which are needed for verification , still they are "Not Applied" PLEASE ,I need a straight forward answer
I agree this is frustrating and it makes me pause and wonder if it's worth it to submit new businesses. I think I'm at about a 50% accepted/not applied ratio.
Like MonkeyMan, I have attempted to add businesses where I took photos at the location, entered the official name (which was NOT already in Maps) and included other information such as hours and location.
It's annoying to look back thru my timeline (a US feature?) and see that Google "knows" that I was present at that location and has a record of the picture(s) I submitted, but shows it as an unknown "visit". So, they know I was there, can see the photo, sometimes with people patronizing the business, but still insist no business is present?
My "practical" rationalization is that it's just a bug in the system. My cynical explanation is that some other guide intentionally "sabotaged" my submission so they could go back later and add it themselves (towards the badge). Or, that unless the business is currently advertising with Google, they don't want to bother/can't confirm it.
I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say.
Are you asking/stating (as I am) that when a submission for a new business is rejected that I would like a way to "appeal" the rejection?
Clearly, the businesses I have submitted DO EXIST, so what is the rationale? Is it that they believe the business is already present, just with another name? Or, are they disputing that it is STILL in business? Or, something else?
I think that instead of a simple rejection, we should get a reason and a way to appeal. I've had times where there WAS another business with the same name, but it was ANOTHER store/location. For example, the main restaurant is in the city, but they have a smaller restaurant, with the same name, at the airport. To me, this is no different than a chain like McDonalds. Just because ONE McD's has been entered into google maps, doesn't mean that they ALL have. So don't reject my submission on the basis of a similar name (at another address).
If that was NOT your statement/question, please try restating.
Adding something such as a cemetery or a church that has existed for over 100 years and then that addition is rejected? Really?! Google Maps seems to be very out of touch with what exists and how to find it; that is the whole idea of mapping and they are missing the point in a big way. Not really a mapping system that I would trust with any accuracy whatsoever.
Someone posted a remark about "not taking it personally." Well, when it's my time and effort that's being wasted because Google Maps doesn't know what exists or what doesn't exist, yes, I do take that personally. I am a very good mapper and researcher; Google Maps is a sub-par mapping system that simply can't keep up with the times.
I have same problem - I am trying to map Nature reservation place (https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma%C5%A1tale) which consists of several rocks in forest area. I have prepared VR content for some of those places. Google Maps have no defined places in that area now, but when I have tryed to add it ... result is 1 place accepted (https://goo.gl/maps/bzpzmE9J7NQ2), but 4 similars refused. Why, why, why the f**k????? Problem is that those places have similar importance, so it does not make sense to present just one, in the middle of anonymous forest, even it seems that accepted one was chosen totally randomly.
I do not want to take it personally, but this system wastes my time I'm willing to invest for people around me... my other VR content has much more than milion views, so Google should see I am not spammer and trust me little bit more...
The basic premise of some of the condescending "it's all your fault" threads recommended by so many of the Local Connect Moderators is that the "NOT APPLIED" errors are a direct result of faulity - or unverifiable - information.
However most of us know by now - by direct (and fairly bitter) experience that the accuracy of the details is NOT the issue.
Those involved with the Google Maps team have access to one of the most powerful search engines in the world and if they cannot verify simple facts which are easily accessible by novices then something is very wrong with their management structure.
The Place Creation edits I have posted have all been rejected except for one (which was in the very early days of my becoming a contributor) and I have taken a lot of time to ensure that each and every detail was correct.
In addition I would provide photographic proof of the existence of the places I submitted as well as direct links to their websites which could have been used to confirm each and every piece of information that was included in the form.
Nevertheless the moronic Google Bot rejected the additions time and time and time again and the Local Connect Moderators don't do much other than to point people to the guidelines or to public accuse the contributors of not being careful or trustworthy enough.
When is this sad and sorry situation going to be resolved by someone higher up in the chain of command ?
😞
POSTSCRIPT :
I posted a lengthy comment that was meant to begin a new discussion so that others could contribute but a Local Connect Moderator has put an end to this by moving it into an old topic which was already 77 pages long and LOCKED !
If this is not an example of blatant censorship then I simply do not know what is.
On Monday I shall be doing my level best to speak to someone in authority in the UK offices of Google Inc. as it is becoming blatantly obvious that participation in a forum which is being controlled by Local Connect Moderators who behave in this way is simply counter-productive.
😞
■ "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes ?" ■ "Who watches the watchers ?" ■ the satirical poet, Juvenal ■ 1st century Rome ■
2022
