Re: Check the facts: may replace review request to Regional Leads?
I'm pretty sure you have a 1000x trusted level, than mine.
Whether it is or not has no bearing on this discussion; Google is the one to decide how much trust each person has. If you do not have sufficient trust you need to work on earning it.
Anyway, my proposal is basically the same of asking for other users to confirm a change in mm, or posting into board asking a rl for verification
Again, the same rules applied there, people were not to approve edits for which they had no personal knowledge.
We are not here to make a "mine is bigger than yours" post on mm edits or trust level, we are in LGC trying to find a solution for users that need update approval.
The solution is the same solution that has been in place for years, wait for it to be properly reviewed.
Flash - LG Connect Moderator, Maps Platinum Product Expert, Map Maker Platinum Product Expert, RER and Regional Lead
Due to the volume I receive, I do not respond to unsolicited private messages
Re: Check the facts: may replace review request to Regional Leads?
@GreggG wrote:
I'm pretty sure you have a 1000x trusted level, than mine.
Whether it is or not has no bearing on this discussion; Google is the one to decide how much trust each person has. If you do not have sufficient trust you need to work on earning it.
Anyway, my proposal is basically the same of asking for other users to confirm a change in mm, or posting into board asking a rl for verification
Again, the same rules applied there, people were not to approve edits for which they had no personal knowledge
This is simply not true. Some enlighted RL in the past approved hundreds of my update requests.
Do you think that my trust level could be enough to be a TV?
Re: Check the facts: may replace review request to Regional Leads?
Anyway, I can't understand why did you personalized this thing on me: it's not about my trust level, all my updates are actually approved in few hours,.it's about all the fellow local guides struggling with simple local edits stuck for weeks.
Re: Check the facts: may replace review request to Regional Leads?
Hi Lucio, if an RL was doing things like that they were simply incorrect in doing so. What could have been happening is that an RL following process approved aspects of the review for which personal knowledge was not necessary and the algorithms approved the rest; but this can't be done via Check the Facts as there is no training, no monitoring after training, and no approval options it is purely designed for local knowledge hence the Local Guides program.
Google Maps Platinum Product Expert, Top Contributor for Google Map Maker (Product Retired) and Regional Lead (Product Retired).
Thanks for bringing this discussion to our attention.
As @Flash mentioned and it's also mentioned in our Local Guides Community Guidelines policy, 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.
Approving edits that you are not familiar, although can be seen as a speedier resolution, can have serious implication to your Google Account. It can hurt your trust score and if the edit you approved turned out to be spam, you entire account can be blacklisted.
Edits go through moderation (either by users or Google staff) because we want the most accurate information as possible to prevent users from abusing the system and to also make it faster for future user edits.
So to summarize, only check the factsof places you know.
Due to the volume of private messages Google Moderators receive, I do not read or respond to private messages. Please post publicly so others may benefit from your discussion. Thank you.
Hi Lucio, if an RL was doing things like that they were simply incorrect in doing so. What could have been happening is that an RL following process approved aspects of the review for which personal knowledge was not necessary and the algorithms approved the rest; but this can't be done via Check the Facts as there is no training, no monitoring after training, and no approval options it is purely designed for local knowledge hence the Local Guides program.
Hi @GregMcG thanks for your thoughts. I agree, but I think this is the direction where the whole thing is going: no more mapmaker, no more RL, only crowd.
Thanks for bringing this discussion to our attention.
As @Flash mentioned and it's also mentioned in our Local Guides Community Guidelines policy, 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.
Approving edits that you are not familiar, although can be seen as a speedier resolution, can have serious implication to your Google Account. It can hurt your trust score and if the edit you approved turned out to be spam, you entire account can be blacklisted.
Edits go through moderation (either by users or Google staff) because we want the most accurate information as possible to prevent users from abusing the system and to also make it faster for future user edits.
So to summarize, only check the factsof places you know.
Thanks @GusMoreira, I think that all these warnings must be better explained to all the local guides, since is so actual easy to make fact checking without having any knowledge of the place you are reviewing. Sometimes I made some errors, just for a glitch of my phone. So, if fact checking could bring to ban from local guides program, this must be well known by everyone.
Sorry I was at my phone, so i was short.
Will add some considerations: the whole Fact Checking system is not included in the general guide lines, and seems really too easy to answer the question on surroundings: I, as a rule, NEVER answer to questions on places i know, if I don't know the answer. But is really too easy to answer to Fact Checks and questions on places. I think that a good mix of crowd generated informations, RL approvation on request queue, and Google operators for key updates, could be a nice solution to quicken updates.
But, as @ShafiulB wrote, maybe in the last HO you talked about something that could help, and available at LVL5 LG, so maybe the entire discussion could loss sense.
I want to add something to @GregMcG too: you wrote that RL that approve request updates of places they don't know personally was incorrect to do so. But i know for sure that this was a way that the majority of RL on MapMaker board were following.
I think that if something was wrong, but everybody knows, we have the chance to have something better now, don't go wall against wall on this questions, be kind and open to new possibilities.
If one year ago i could ask a RL i never met in person, and that never had an experience with a place i was asking a review, i think that today, i could ask some fellow local guides like @YK1001 an approval with fact checking (assuming that has some weight) for a legit update: am I wrong?
1. Who has how many weight on the Answers of Check the Facts, Google never tell the public. An it is easily adjusted in the back end, and I hope Google will adjust according to all the parameters they can collect. As AI improves, the number of parameters will only increase.
2. The principal of providing answers to Check the Facts are clear. As Google provided explicit guidance already. Not to answer without personal knowledge about the place. Of course there will be some aspects of interpretation that will always be case by case, like what is considered sufficient personal knowledge. Is a Google search result enough, as LGs are prompted to do in the Check the Facts UI?
3. Personally, I see when a tool is designed to be used in certain way, the public like us will find another way of using it. That is the nature of cloud sourcing. Thus to give correct weight to different users' input is critical, and that is the value of the AI based approval system. Like the Ratings of a place, the average score is not the straight arithmetic average of all inputs. Adjustments according to Human behavior are included.
4. It seems to me, there is a need to control for how long an edit can keep pending. For this I will suggest to set a time limit, as a start, of 8 weeks. At time out, AI will process the edit again, and if there is still not sufficient data to support a positive approve, it should be denied, so that LG can resubmit. Until a better control is in place, I think this is a good start.
Don't take the discussions personally, @LucioV. We are here to discuss what is allowed under the current situation, and what changes are needed to further improve the situation. We are not going after our personal gains here.
We do what we can and just leave the rest to Google.
4. It seems to me, there is a need to control for how long an edit can keep pending. For this I will suggest to set a time limit, as a start, of 8 weeks. At time out, AI will process the edit again, and if there is still not sufficient data to support a positive approve, it should be denied, so that LG can resubmit. Until a better control is in place, I think this is a good start.
Don't take the discussions personally, @LucioV. We are here to discuss what is allowed under the current situation, and what changes are needed to further improve the situation. We are not going after our personal gains here.
We do what we can and just leave the rest to Google.
Taking personally it's exactly what i didn't want to do when i opened this discussion @YK1001 thanks for pointing it out 😉
I think that the Fact Checking, as has been designed will not bring so great juice to AI decisions, so i think that the weight will be very low as, you noticed, the user is asked to check, wether or no he has real in person knowledge, using a google search.
This seems odd: you, google maps, are asking me to check if a user suggestion for an update can be confirmed... through a Google Search? So, from those considerations, added to the long delays in update reviewal (now that we are without RL) made me thinking about how to use the Fact Checking to HELP other trusted users (as like the guy that would like to see the Thehran main railroad station in the right place) to IMPROVE the map.
It's not about user's trust, as, in effect, i think to be trusted enough to be a TV, it's about the whole mechanism that seems a little odd.
So, welcome to the discussion, welcome ex-RL that bring their point of view, but no personalization around trusted level of users because, imho, no one knows his trusted level.
Thanks @YK1001 for helping me try this whole demo, built only for the scope of this discussion.
2022
