that Google decided to keep experienced/respected Editors' changes ''pending'' rather instant

[BdeJong991]

I think many others here may recognize this situation, after months of accurate editing and getting a high approval rate for your map/place edits, Google rather keeps you ''pending'' for review now when you make changes to places.

In the old Map maker, Google attached value to the reputation of individual editors, and the alghoritm actually decided you could instantly publish most of what you tried to apply, due to your state of service.

Still it can happen changes are instantly published, but very rarely; most of the times now, even with small changes, you go through a long review process. This demotivates me. Before switching to Maps editor, the Map Maker community was full of users who attached real value to their integrity in reviewing what they were going to change, making sure they were accurate in that, making edits as qualitative as Google employees would, in order to help Google improve their maps as a high-standards volunteer who made contributions that went through because of Google having that knownledge about their skills. Now, this changed, Google is treating users like sheep, relying on alghoritms even heavier than co-editor review of their changes, in the process not leveraging the user's state of service/historic edit acceptance rate or count, while deciding by alghoritm if the change can just pass through and be instantly published or not.

Does anyone feel the same, of being undervalued in edit integrity which you have previously proven? If my edits are lagging behind by many days or weeks due to this overcautious review process, I will lose motivation. I don't see real results from my work, and Google relies heavily on volunteer map makers.

[BdeJong991]

I also noticed that after a few weeks of being pending, my legitimate edits made to just a business their opening times is ''not applied'', just like a previous legitimate edit.

Google started relying on alghoritms rather than humans reviewing if an edit is accurate, not even leaving a typing space to add links/evidence to the source of your information that something to a place has changed.

I would usually attach a news article something opened up, a changed official opening times source, etcetera, but right now there's not any interaction with reviewers to show you got it at the right end, nor to debate rejected edits constructively. Now please don't come with the help topic on unsuccessful edits, as it doesn't foresee the case your changes are legitimate but not applied because Google shuts down interaction and the review might have even been automatised in bulk for pending edits by AI.

Google is just making most of the valuable Map editors leave due to their new choices made by a few executives in a back office, because right now no real result is seen from our efforts of editing. And as most big tech companies do they have no open communication channel for input to reach them/you cant really talk to them, even this topic is silent although I'm pretty sure this is a shared concern for many others feeling just like me. But Google might realise contributions will come to a complete stall, by these design choices, while Google is a company that relies on locals who know around and gets half of their data and insights from people looking to contribute, who are now losing motivation to do so.

I'm not saying Map maker should return in place of Maps, but atleast Google should bring back that editors feel their edits/contributions have effect or are really going through.

[Flash]

Hello,

I'm not quite sure where you are seeing the differences between Map Maker and the current process.

When Map Maker was available edits still went through algorithms first and the were supplemented by human review.  Edits made in Map Maker could run the range from being instantly applied, or they could end up taking many weeks for a Googler to review them, just as it is now.

With regards to attaching a news article in Map Maker, that would normally force a reviewer to deny your edit.  You cannot use such sources for your edits and including them calls the edit into question.

There has been little change in approval processes, other than the elimination of volunteer reviewers.

[BdeJong991]

@Flash You said about adding a news article or link, you misunderstood me as I mean in Map maker there was an ability to prove your edit was accurate by having a way to link the source in the EDITING comments, which is not the actual edit or something that is being added. Did you never see that or have you arrived after Map maker shut down? I don't think you can deny that having a way to prove something, like opening times for a business have changed (link to offficial site with current opening times) or article for a new business that opened to add the place.. is useful, to combat unreasonable edit refusals. It's nowhere to be found now, any way of dialogue or written discussion in the Maps edit tab.

Also i understand your words about the alghoritms, but in this case it means that alghoritm lost trust that recognized mappers built over time. Even minor edits are denied easier than before with Map maker.. your prior edit success rate no longer matters these days. Also after weeks no one has been reviewing my minor edits, or maybe they did but it didn't result in any real effect like the change going through (then the alghoritm outweights it) as it was pending for a really long time until getting wrongfully denied (again, if there only was a way to reference sources like I said was in Map maker)

I get the current version of Maps may rely even heavier on alghoritms or it became tougher, but altogether and reading some other topics in this section you can hardly deny there's something wrong with that alghoritm then, and what my concern is, that this will demotivate editors (confirmed by other topics) as it became 9 times harder to make a successful edit, as 9 out of 10 it can get denied even when accurate and even when made again.

[BdeJong991]

Flash please do not delete my reply where I'm explaining why your post misunderstood my point, I will try to report you now.

Please tell me how this post warrants to be deleted other than you not wanting to answer to it again or Google failing to react properly to this issue:

before it got deleted (I saved it..) this is what I wrote on your last post:

''You said about adding a news article or link, you misunderstood me as I mean in Map maker there was an ability to prove your edit was accurate by having a way to link the source in the EDITING comments, which is not the actual edit or something that is being added. Did you never see that or have you arrived after Map maker shut down? I don't think you can deny that having a way to prove something, like opening times for a business have changed (link to offficial site with current opening times) or article for a new business that opened to add the place.. is useful, to combat unreasonable edit refusals. It's nowhere to be found now, any way of dialogue or written discussion in the Maps edit tab.

Also i understand your words about the alghoritms, but in this case it means that alghoritm lost trust that recognized mappers built over time. Even minor edits are denied easier than before with Map maker.. your prior edit success rate no longer matters these days. Also after weeks no one has been reviewing my minor edits, or maybe they did but it didn't result in any real effect like the change going through (then the alghoritm outweights it) as it was pending for a really long time until getting wrongfully denied (again, if there only was a way to reference sources like I said was in Map maker).

I get the current version of Maps may rely even heavier on alghoritms or it became tougher, but altogether and reading some other topics in this section you can hardly deny there's something wrong with that alghoritm then, and what my concern is, that this will demotivate editors (confirmed by other topics) as it became 9 times harder to make a successful edit, as 9 out of 10 it can get denied even when accurate and even when made again.

@Flash when editors voice their concerns in this section, concerns = frustration, censoring it is a bad idea. Especially when they feel not served by your comment which is trying to enlighten them, and want to explain why your comment does not fit their situation or resolves it because it's based on your misintepretation. I'm recording while re-posting this, if you delete it again I will contact media for censorship as I can also show there's a general dissatisfaction from the situation altogerher.. censorship is a nice way to top off that Google cannot go into a dialogue about the issues and ends up shutting it down not to feel responsible for what they are causing amongst editors.

[BdeJong991]

For others reading; to sum it up, i tried replying to Flash's post but he keeps deleting my post by abusing his moderator power or portraying a Google who doesn't want to discuss these issues any further.

To not make myself look dumb in my words, to keep short what I posted: I wasn't talking about including any sources or links to the actual edit, but just to the editor discussion that was once possible with Map maker, so it can aid in reviewing to notice the edit information source is accurate. I also contested some other things from his post, but if I do again I will probably end up being censored again. I tried to staff-report Flash and said that as he represents Google, censoring my posts can have the media take it as Google trying to shut down dialogue about to which degree the community likes chances after the Map maker shutdown.. something cannot be a flop, aslong they make sure voices aren't heard..

[JeslynL]

@BdeJong991 I'd like to clarify that your posts were not removed. They were, instead, picked up by automatic spam filters we have in place on Connect. I have since looked into it and released them from spam quarantine. We encourage and welcome differing opinions on this community forum but would prefer everyone keeping conversations friendly. Thank you.

[BdeJong991]

oh well before I thought it was censorship i remained civil, my bad as I should know censoring posts like mine can never be the intention.

Feel free to remove posts where I accused staff of deleting the posts/any reference to this mistaken dialogue, and thanks for resolving that spam filter thing.

[Flash]

---

---

Hi @BdeJong991

@Flash You said about adding a news article or link, you misunderstood me as I mean in Map maker there was an ability to prove your edit was accurate by having a way to link the source in the EDITING comments, which is not the actual edit or something that is being added. Did you never see that or have you arrived after Map maker shut down?

---

I used Map Maker within it's first week of existence, and was an RER, RL and TC for Map Maker.  As I stated, it was never allowed that you used any 3rd party sources.  Using such sources is almost always a violation of copyright, which Google is not willing to do.  The Map Maker Terms of Service specified that Map Maker was for entering personal knowledge only, and further stated that 3rd party sources could not be used (in addition to other items such as mentioning that copyright must always be respected).  For these reasons when reviewing your edits we normally had to deny edits when such links were included.

The comments field was for you to mention how it was part of your personal knowledge, such as "I ate here last night".

Also i understand your words about the alghoritms, but in this case it means that alghoritm lost trust that recognized mappers built over time. Even minor edits are denied easier than before with Map maker.. your prior edit success rate no longer matters these days.

---

You are referring to editing trust, and it remains in force today.  I and most very experienced mappers have the vast majority of our edits approved via trust; but that takes a long time to accumulate.  That too is no different, it took a long time in Map Maker also.  This is also not a different trust, if you earned it in Map Maker it then it continues.  What you have to realize is that if you were quoting inappropriate documents, the reviewers might have pushed some of your edits through if their allowed resources confirmed them, but they would have marked your edit to not add trust or even to negatively affect trust due to the 3rd party references.  I cannot say this has happened to you, all I can tell you is the option was there for reviewers.

A small group of users were affected by an recent algrithm change, if you found your edits suddenly being accepted much less a month ago then perhaps you are part of that group.  Google is tweaking the algorithms which should help those people, but if like most people you saw no difference.over the past few months then the tweaks will also likely make no difference.