4 ms·

This isn't a bug. Recommendations are just hard. He's trivializing it, but specifically mentions that including one 5.7 miles away would be fine. And then prom

This isn't a bug. Recommendations are just hard. He's trivializing it, but specifically mentions that including one 5.7 miles away would be fine. And then promptly says because he visited it before. That's some complicated intelligence and pattern matching that he's asking for. What exactly should it be ranking by? Proximity and popularity and traffic density and Google rating and awhole load of other things. The rules that Google apply obviously work for some scenarios, but not this one. Could it be better, obviously, but that's not a bug.

bfred_it 9y ago
I feel that Google Maps search quality has gone down in the past few years. Sometimes searching "Coffee shops" will not show anything within a mile and I have to reposition, press "Search this area" and then it will show the Starbucks a block away. Probably still better than Apple, which pointed me to a 19-hours-away store when asking for "directions to Albertsons" a couple years ago: https://i.imgur.com/jSCrToj.jpg https://i.imgur.com/jSCrToj.jpg
SmellyGeekBoy 9y ago
Seems like a case of adding "ORDER BY number_of_previous_visits, distance" to a SQL query...
- mattmanser 9y ago
  Having actually programmed search functionality like this I can assure you, it's really not. That's what you start with. Even if you put aside that distance is something that has to be calculated through triangulation as many systems now include that. Especially when you add in rankings, you start having to think about sorting by multiple layers, circles of distance with ranking sorted by that. So the really good match 20 miles away is shown lower than the pretty good match 5 miles away, but they're both shown above the bad match 7 miles away. And that's before you add categories, past history, any paid ranking, etc. And then the queries get really expensive and you've got to decide what to fudge or not to keep the system responsive and stop your search system eating all your CPU. And you can bet people will still find scenarios where they'll say "why's it doing this? I'd expect the order to be different". This is pattern matching and value assignment, something humans are amazing at and computers aren't.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    >Having actually programmed search functionality like this I can assure you, it's really not. That's what you start with. Even if you put aside that distance is something that has to be calculated through triangulation as many systems now include that. It already prints a distance. It could use that. Or, if it is some kind of point to point distance, it could calculate a driving distance and use that if it wanted to be extra smart. Add the type of place it shows, and be done with it. >Especially when you add in rankings, you start having to think about sorting by multiple layers, circles of distance with ranking sorted by that. We've been doing multiple criteria sorting for millennia. It's not rocket science either. >So the really good match 20 miles away is shown lower than the pretty good match 5 miles away, but they're both shown above the bad match 7 miles away. Why is one "really good" and the other's (that are also of the same store) not? They are bloody stores of a franchize. Don't try to be clever and define what's "good" and just show them to me sorted by distance AND type (in case there's a city called that too or something). End of story. >And you can bet people will still find scenarios where they'll say "why's it doing this? I'd expect the order to be different". People might or might not say anything. But way fewer will be confused by a distance sorted list + an indication of what the item they saw is (store, city, village etc), than with this clusterfuck of a result.
    - mattmanser 9y ago
      There's a massive difference to printing 10 distances from your result set, and calculating 10 million. I'm not sure why you had to exaggerate "millennia". How does a computer know that searching "Wawa" means you want the store and not the town? You haven't even considered that. It's a search term. And a really good system would clearly takes a load of things you're not considering into account, relevance, rank, personal relevance, historical relevance age, etc. A really good system might even helpfully try to include traffic density, how busy a store was, etc. What if all the stores near him have 1 star google reviews? What if some of those Wawas are paying for adverts and some aren't? What if some of them have opening times set up, and some don't? As I say, their ranking system might be working great for other things, but something like this it spits out crap.
antihero 9y ago
For location based stuff it seems pretty logical functionality to at offer the ability to sort results by travel time or at least distance. I still have to log into god-awful store websites and use their store locators because they'll give me the information I need.
coldtea 9y ago
>This isn't a bug. Recommendations are just hard. What is hard about ordering a bloody list of places by distance? >He's trivializing it, but specifically mentions that including one 5.7 miles away would be fine. And then promptly says because he visited it before. Well, they could first add the bloody sorting, then we can think about whether they should mark or prioritize previously visited places (which itself does not take any "complicated intelligence and pattern matching" -- it's just persisting visited places and consulting their list).
- fjsolwmv 9y ago
  I like you feigned exasperation at the simplicity of it all and then immediately noticed one of many many complicating factors.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    My point is that all the "complicating factors" are still trivial -- each alone, or put together. My second point is also that even if they weren't (for some exotic cases) , the most common cases and sane defaults, remain trivial -- and anything else could be relegated to settings and the like. My third point is also that no matter how easy or hard the complicating factors, a screen like the one shown by the poster, is an utter failure. To continue on this 2nd and 3rd point, it's like people are trying to defend Clippy, the office assistant, by saying that "AI is hard". It might be, but getting Clippy out of my bloody monitor and not having it disturb me when I try to compose a Word document, is very easy. MS could always do that (and that's what they ended up doing).

bfred_it 9y ago

I feel that Google Maps search quality has gone down in the past few years. Sometimes searching "Coffee shops" will not show anything within a mile and I have to reposition, press "Search this area" and then it will show the Starbucks a block away. Probably still better than Apple, which pointed me to a 19-hours-away store when asking for "directions to Albertsons" a couple years ago: https://i.imgur.com/jSCrToj.jpg https://i.imgur.com/jSCrToj.jpg

SmellyGeekBoy 9y ago

Seems like a case of adding "ORDER BY number_of_previous_visits, distance" to a SQL query...

mattmanser 9y ago
Having actually programmed search functionality like this I can assure you, it's really not. That's what you start with. Even if you put aside that distance is something that has to be calculated through triangulation as many systems now include that. Especially when you add in rankings, you start having to think about sorting by multiple layers, circles of distance with ranking sorted by that. So the really good match 20 miles away is shown lower than the pretty good match 5 miles away, but they're both shown above the bad match 7 miles away. And that's before you add categories, past history, any paid ranking, etc. And then the queries get really expensive and you've got to decide what to fudge or not to keep the system responsive and stop your search system eating all your CPU. And you can bet people will still find scenarios where they'll say "why's it doing this? I'd expect the order to be different". This is pattern matching and value assignment, something humans are amazing at and computers aren't.
- coldtea 9y ago
  >Having actually programmed search functionality like this I can assure you, it's really not. That's what you start with. Even if you put aside that distance is something that has to be calculated through triangulation as many systems now include that. It already prints a distance. It could use that. Or, if it is some kind of point to point distance, it could calculate a driving distance and use that if it wanted to be extra smart. Add the type of place it shows, and be done with it. >Especially when you add in rankings, you start having to think about sorting by multiple layers, circles of distance with ranking sorted by that. We've been doing multiple criteria sorting for millennia. It's not rocket science either. >So the really good match 20 miles away is shown lower than the pretty good match 5 miles away, but they're both shown above the bad match 7 miles away. Why is one "really good" and the other's (that are also of the same store) not? They are bloody stores of a franchize. Don't try to be clever and define what's "good" and just show them to me sorted by distance AND type (in case there's a city called that too or something). End of story. >And you can bet people will still find scenarios where they'll say "why's it doing this? I'd expect the order to be different". People might or might not say anything. But way fewer will be confused by a distance sorted list + an indication of what the item they saw is (store, city, village etc), than with this clusterfuck of a result.
  - mattmanser 9y ago
    There's a massive difference to printing 10 distances from your result set, and calculating 10 million. I'm not sure why you had to exaggerate "millennia". How does a computer know that searching "Wawa" means you want the store and not the town? You haven't even considered that. It's a search term. And a really good system would clearly takes a load of things you're not considering into account, relevance, rank, personal relevance, historical relevance age, etc. A really good system might even helpfully try to include traffic density, how busy a store was, etc. What if all the stores near him have 1 star google reviews? What if some of those Wawas are paying for adverts and some aren't? What if some of them have opening times set up, and some don't? As I say, their ranking system might be working great for other things, but something like this it spits out crap.

antihero 9y ago

For location based stuff it seems pretty logical functionality to at offer the ability to sort results by travel time or at least distance. I still have to log into god-awful store websites and use their store locators because they'll give me the information I need.

coldtea 9y ago

>This isn't a bug. Recommendations are just hard. What is hard about ordering a bloody list of places by distance? >He's trivializing it, but specifically mentions that including one 5.7 miles away would be fine. And then promptly says because he visited it before. Well, they could first add the bloody sorting, then we can think about whether they should mark or prioritize previously visited places (which itself does not take any "complicated intelligence and pattern matching" -- it's just persisting visited places and consulting their list).

fjsolwmv 9y ago
I like you feigned exasperation at the simplicity of it all and then immediately noticed one of many many complicating factors.
- coldtea 9y ago
  My point is that all the "complicating factors" are still trivial -- each alone, or put together. My second point is also that even if they weren't (for some exotic cases) , the most common cases and sane defaults, remain trivial -- and anything else could be relegated to settings and the like. My third point is also that no matter how easy or hard the complicating factors, a screen like the one shown by the poster, is an utter failure. To continue on this 2nd and 3rd point, it's like people are trying to defend Clippy, the office assistant, by saying that "AI is hard". It might be, but getting Clippy out of my bloody monitor and not having it disturb me when I try to compose a Word document, is very easy. MS could always do that (and that's what they ended up doing).