Reply to An Update on the Map Edits Review Process

[AdamGT]

Thanks for your reply @Flash but I cannot see how it would add an impossible level of complexity to the algorithms. The Not Applied is received almost instantly so it's obvious that this is by code logic. So this is how it would work. The code would test for a set of n conditions, condition-1, condition-2.......through to condition-n so if it passes condition-1 it would then test for condition-2 and so on until it tested for condition-n. If it passes all tests it drops out of the bottom and the edit is accepted. If it fails any of the tests, then at the point of failure the code would know the reason  why it failed so it would be simple to just return that reason back to the LG.

I condition-1 is true then 

  Not Applied

If condition-1 is true then 

  Not Applied

If condition-1 is true then 

  Not Applied

         .

         .

         .

         .

If condition-n is true then 

  Not Applied

else

  The edit has passed all n conditions so edit is Accepted

You say that "Algorithms today involve a lot of machine learning. Machine learning means they learn that an edit is bad, but doesn't mean they know exactly why it's bad." Nonetheless the suggested edit was rejected for some specific reason whether it knows exactly or not why it's bad, just tell us what it thinks is wrong with the suggested edit.  Simples!!!

You went on to say "In the days of the advanced editing tool Map Maker, Google tried experimenting with humans providing explanations, and found that 99% of people didn't come back to read the explanation." I'm not here suggesting that Google needs to employ a team of humans to provide an explanation, and again as per my above comments believe that it an be done automatically by the program. 

You finished off by saying that "In this case it's something one could figure out on their own, the feature neither has a proper name nor is there an appropriate category for it". Well that may or may not be true but judging by the number of posts on this board about Not Applieds looks to me that many LGs have problems with this and surely because of this it warrants Google trying to improve this aspect of map edits. Also, I would add, there are many places where a proper name does not exist or there is no appropriate category. Many times I and I'm sure thay many of my fellow LGS have had to compromise in the choice of category for a place creation. For example, check out the map entry for the Statue of Liberty. This is a monument yet it has been given the category National Park, why? Because there is no category of Monument! Perhaps the contributor could have tried Statue but once again there is no category of Statue! So you see sometimes there is no apporopriate category. 

You finished your reply saying that you "are here in the forums to answer such questions for you; please do post if you have other questions." Thank you for this. I posted another question about a month ago now and it has been stuck in some rejected queue since. It's on the topic of Never Applied so would you be kind enough to review and approve it. Perhaps it was considered spam by some program and has been waiting for human checking. As you will readily see it is not spam. I would appreciate your advice on theproblem I have raised therein.

One again thanks for your reply.

[OStr]

---

@AdamGT wrote:

So this is how it would work. The code would test for a set of n conditions, condition-1, condition-2.......through to condition-n so if it passes condition-1 it would then test for condition-2 and so on until it tested for condition-n. If it passes all tests it drops out of the bottom and the edit is accepted. If it fails any of the tests, then at the point of failure the code would know the reason  why it failed so it would be simple to just return that reason back to the LG.

I condition-1 is true then 

  Not Applied

If condition-1 is true then 

  Not Applied

---

Alas, @AdamGT, this is not how heuristic algorithms work. The way such algorithms work is by assigning weights to a long list of parameters, such as the number of successful edits you made in the past, the number of failed edits others made to the POI you're editing, the number of hits Google gets for that business, and so on. These are all added up, each multiplied by its corresponding weight, and the total is then compared to a set threshold. None of these conditions by itself is enough to qualify or disqualify an edit, so your list of conditions algorithm simply wouldn't do the job. If-then-else algorithms are great for simple tasks like an online change of address form, but they're not very useful for more complicated situations, especially when fighting ever vigilant spammers.

With a heuristic algorithm, the software could tell you something like, "Your edit achieved a calculated trust level of 0.8759. A trust level of 1.0000 is required to automatically approve an edit."  Would that be helpful to you?  I'm sure it would only be confusing to most people.

[MrLens]

Hahahhaaaa @Briggs... You are really

---

@Briggs wrote:

---

@GusMoreira wrote:

This means that most of your correct edits should be instantly applied, however, some of your edits may still be denied due to policy or other issues. You should expect to see your edits return to the state prior to the algorithm adjustment.

---

I appreciate the update and I'm elated to know that a fix has been implemented. 64 long days have elapsed since The Great Algorithm Shift, and I'll remember the 13th of December 2017 as a hallmark of the forever not applied era.

That being said, we shall progress forward. Whenever some of our edits might still be denied or immediately rejected and I can't figure out any of the 13 billion reason why, I hope you don't mind me posting here on Local Guides Connect to vet the suggestion and dissect it for community members and a diagnostic team to help out. As I had posted, there were two places that I had an issue attempting to update which were immediately not applied which is quite mysterious:

• St. Paul The Hermet Church is spelt wrong, Hermet is Hermit.
• TALKING TABLES for capitalisation purposes only.

It will be about due and high time that I now focus my pursuits away from the negative connotations that have risen from the infamous thread and divert my energy back to mapping and productive pursuits, and it's all thanks to you and your team. I will be in hot pursuit of the following topics now over time and will hopefully continue to think of ideas to further improve the process and Google Maps as a whole. It's been a rough time for me and the affected members of the group, but we're glad it's all over now.

Topics in Pursuit:

• The reinstatement of Maprang Thai in Lawson, removed around 22/11/2017. Since I can change categories seamlessly now, there should be no more issue in changing it from Restaurant to Thai Restaurant.
• The collaboration of removing irrelevant photos from the map, especially from Lennox Bridge in Parramatta. While I'm glad my photo accurately represents the heritage-listed bridge, there are still many photos of the Three Sisters in Katoomba, the Sydney Harbour Bridge and the Opera House, in making sure we are extremely diligent in our removals. Great work has been done, but we're probably halfway there with this particular case.
• Checking the facts when advising whether photos are relevant to a place or not, only seeming to be currently enabled in Los Angeles.
• Effective dealing and communication with GMB spammers and/or listing databases, such as adding lengthy marketing taglines, adding or blocking incorrect representation information to the listing's name and the inclusion of location/containment information. Right now there is a plethora of automation software as well as a single owner-initiated click which "protects" this incorrect information of these businesses, and so I'm hoping we will see more evolve in that field.
• An Overhaul of the Current Moderation Process.

Thank goodness, I can now breathe a sigh of relief. I can't really do much edits at the moment since it's blazing hot outside (37ºC) and because I am a snowflake who can't stand hot temperatures.

Let's move.

---

a phenomenon to be studied.

[Briggs]

Wha @MrLens?

---

@MrLens wrote:

Hahahhaaaa @Briggs... You are really...a phenomenon to be studied.

---

How so? Me confused.

[deepak_bhalla]

@GusMoreira

Thank you for the post. Some relief for LGs like me.

Cheers!

[Flash]

---

@AdamGT wrote:

Thanks for your reply @Flash but I cannot see how it would add an impossible level of complexity to the algorithms.

---

As @OStr mentions, it is not a simple case of if A then B.

---

Many times I and I'm sure thay many of my fellow LGS have had to compromise in the choice of category for a place creation. 

---

Doing so would be considered a bad edit.  Google is only accepting certain edits, and the categories are a big clue as to whether they are accepting them or not.

For example, check out the map entry for the Statue of Liberty. This is a monument yet it has been given the category National Park, why? Because there is no category of Monument! Perhaps the contributor could have tried Statue but once again there is no category of Statue! So you see sometimes there is no apporopriate category.  

---

It would be helpful to understand that there are two different levels of categories that are not acceptable.

One is items that are not to be mapped at all.  A trailhead is an example, but also included would be a tree, a bench, a mailbox, etc.

The other is items that are on the Map, but which have not been opened for mapping in Google Maps.  Examples include everything in the transit layer, most water features, political boundaries, polygons, etc.

Monuments fit into that second set.  The category does exist and it was a category to which we had access in the advanced mapping tool Map Maker.  (I'll mention that Monument would not be the appropriate cateory for the Statue of Liberty, as the more exact category of Statue also exists.)  With the retirement of that tool Google is now working on adding advanced editing features to Maps.  At this time they are only accepting edits in certain sub-sets of the categories.  Monument and Statue are not in one of the sub-sets being accepted.

If a feature is not editable, it should not be forced onto the map using inappropriate information.  Doing so puts one's account at risk.

[AdamGT]

Thanks once again for your reply @Flash 

Just to clarify if I may, you said that "Monument would not be the appropriate cateory for the Statue of Liberty, as the more exact category of Statue also exists" and went on to say "At this time they are only accepting edits in certain sub-sets of the categories. Monument and Statue are not in one of the sub-sets being accepted." So are you perhaps saying that Statue once existed but at the present time is not an acceptable category and if so is this perhaps why the Statue of Liberty has been added to the category of National Park?

[Flash]

Statue still exists, we just do not have the ability to edit it.

Features can have multiple categories, but within Maps we can only see and edit the primary one.

[AdamGT]

When you say Edit am I to read that you also mean add a new POI in the secondary category?

Also, it would be helpful to see a list of these secondary categories. Can you direct me to this?

[MrLens]

@Briggs, I'm simply trying to say that I like your communication style; It's very diplomatic.

Cheers Bro!!!