User contributions via Check The Facts are very valuable in that they assist the algorithms in their decision making, but no one here has the power to publish edits such as was granted in Map Maker. Under the present system it will always be Google making the decision to approve, deny or end an edit. And as you have been told before, Check The Facts should not be promoted as a way to get edits published.
Thinking differently is what leads to people trying to circumvent processes by asking non-locals to "vote" on their edits.
You made several posts stating that Google has not made this clear to people and thus guides are doing things that can cause issues, but in fact Google has never asked more from the Local Guides than to edit the features they come across in their travels and to also verify local places. The incorrect perceptions in the community come about when people make assumptions and persist in spreading misinformation.
I would ask that you stop constantly arguing with the many mapping experts that have more experience than yourself, and once told something by them that you don't repeatedly post advice to the opposite. Many people come to these forums to learn to map better, and much of what you provide does help them, but answering questions you do not absolutely know the answer or making recommendations against what you have been advised will only lead to those people's expectations being improperly set and their edits being incorrect. You are often posting ways that people can possibly circumvent the system, to help everyone better please instead advise them how to follow processes as Google presented them. If you don't know the process or answer then it is not necessary to answer every post, the forum is like the map, leave what you do not know and someone else will supply the knowledge. If you think that someone might have incorrect information then feel free to tag one of the many mapping experts or the mods, and we will either let you know what is already know or we will get the answer if we don't know. It is not appropriate to insist you are always correct and tag Googlers each time someone with more knowledge and experience corrects you. You have helped a lot of people with your knowledge, please continue to do so and increase your knowledge to help even more.
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
User contributions via Check The Facts are very valuable in that they assist the algorithms in their decision making, but no one here has the power to publish edits such as was granted in Map Maker. Under the present system it will always be Google making the decision to approve, deny or end an edit. And as you have been told before, Check The Facts should not be promoted as a way to get edits published.
I was not doing this, here. You wrote that Check the facts is not involved in user update approval, and this is not true.
@GreggG wrote:
Thinking differently is what leads to people trying to circumvent processes by asking non-locals to "vote" on their edits.
No, thinking differently brings brightful solutions to issues. Here no one wrote about asking non-locals to "vote" on their edits.
@GreggG wrote:
You made several posts stating that Google has not made this clear to people and thus guides are doing things that can cause issues, but in fact Google has never asked more from the Local Guides than to edit the features they come across in their travels and to also verify local places. The incorrect perceptions in the community come about when people make assumptions and persist in spreading misinformation.
We are discussing about issues on late in update approvals. I only want to say that check the facts are part of user update approval process.
@GreggG wrote:
I would ask that you stop constantly arguing with the many mapping experts that have more experience than yourself, and once told something by them that you don't repeatedly post advice to the opposite. Many people come to these forums to learn to map better, and much of what you provide does help them, but answering questions you do not absolutely know the answer or making recommendations against what you have been advised will only lead to those people's expectations being improperly set and their edits being incorrect. You are often posting ways that people can possibly circumvent the system, to help everyone better please instead advise them how to follow processes as Google presented them. If you don't know the process or answer then it is not necessary to answer every post, the forum is like the map, leave what you do not know and someone else will supply the knowledge. If you think that someone might have incorrect information then feel free to tag one of the many mapping experts or the mods, and we will either let you know what is already know or we will get the answer if we don't know. It is not appropriate to insist you are always correct and tag Googlers each time someone with more knowledge and experience corrects you. You have helped a lot of people with your knowledge, please continue to do so and increase your knowledge to help even more.
I think you are wrong, and i'm doing exactly what you wrote, i'm tagging some experts, @GusMoreira and @Corrie to correct what are you writing.
Check the Facts IS part of the user update approval
People were discussing about ways to have updates approved before i wrote the thread regarding check the facts, and you are aware of this. I don't know the entire approval process, as you don't know, and i would like to remind you that we are both RS in Maps. Again, this is not a game to who have longer approval history or more trust, this is a discussion, about users, issues and tools. I really can't understand why you persist declaring false something that is obviously true.
This is not a personal position, i'm here to help other users, and to learn what i don't know, but this is not the case.
I really would love to argue with you in an unbiased way, but this is not in my hands: i really appreciate your work, and your kind words at the end of your post, but i think you are wrong when you write that Check the facts is not part of user update approval.
Best regards, with renewed esteem and real appreciation for your work,
I echo @JonasKL : calm down please. I think I understand what Gregg is saying and there is no reason to ask a LG Team member to correct him, as what he said now start to make sense to me. However, Lucio should be forgiven to believe in “his truth” as he was led that way by formal communications of the LG team and using some basic logic (even if this means that he jumped to an incorrect conclusion).
As with most heated arguments, we have a breakdown of communication here on which we could reflect. Throwing accusations at one another is not constructive. Telling some-one to stop doing something, where the other party is not understanding, is contra-productive too. Like in parenting situations, one can influence behaviour by explaining things (which I think Gregg was trying to do here to start with).
We are going off topic, so I shall continue at the original thread (where this argument is coming from) on the topic of Verify the Facts.
Thanks @JeroenM i'm absolutely calm and i respect all the other people work, just want to make everything more clearer to help better, as usual, i'm not trying to search for system exploitation.
I apologize with @Flash for this misunderstanding.
Hi @LucioV I have a feeling that a lot of your frustration may stem from very slight language misunderstandings. I hesitate to say this since I'm a monoglot so have utmost respect for those working in a second tongue, however:
@CorrieD wrote: In addition to submitting info, Local Guides can also verify suggestions that others have submitted.
The word 'verify' is not synonymous with 'approval'. When LGs use Check the facts to verify an edit, they are only giving Google another data point and we have no information how that is used. There has never been any indication from Google that LGs can approve an edit - either individually or through a concerted effort from a group of LGs crowd sourcing.
You're a great LG with bags of energy and talent but you're digging yourself into a hole pursuing this.
Hi @LucioV I have a feeling that a lot of your frustration may stem from very slight language misunderstandings. I hesitate to say this since I'm a monoglot so have utmost respect for those working in a second tongue, however:
@CorrieD wrote: In addition to submitting info, Local Guides can also verify suggestions that others have submitted.
The word 'verify' is not synonymous with 'approval'. When LGs use Check the facts to verify an edit, they are only giving Google another data point and we have no information how that is used. There has never been any indication from Google that LGs can approve an edit - either individually or through a concerted effort from a group of LGs crowd sourcing.
You're a great LG with bags of energy and talent but you're digging yourself into a hole pursuing this.
Thanks @Pea i do understand that "verify" isn't synonim of "approve", i'm only stating that CtF is PART of the process approval, with weights that me, you, Gregg, only users, we are not aware of.
We all know that now we don't have RL, and all edits are going to be approved by AI, Google Moderators, etc. I'm only adding, into this process, CtF, and i think that this is what Corrie meant when she shared the original announcement.
Thanks for your thoughts, i'm still learning English, this process will go on for my entire life, i suppose. 🙂
Let's keep this community as friendly as possible as we are all here to learn and share knowledge with everyone.
Both @LucioV and @Flash are right. Check The Fact is a part of approval process but not all of it, besides the votes we gather much more information to make the decision to publish a contribution or not.
Hope this clarify everything
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.
2022
