5 ms·

This Reddit Comment describes what's happening here well: https://www.reddit.com/r/google/comments/gtexcj/google_gave_away_our_business_listing_to_a/fscjgyp/ ht

This Reddit Comment describes what's happening here well: https://www.reddit.com/r/google/comments/gtexcj/google_gave_away_our_business_listing_to_a/fscjgyp/ https://www.reddit.com/r/google/comments/gtexcj/google_gave_... >The core reason it happened... this place doesn't qualify to be on the map in the first place and it thus confuses the system. >The secondary reason... the name of a feature is supposed to be the name and nothing more. >A real estate agency qualifies to be on the map. Google also lets certain professionals to be on the map, with realtors being one such professional. >This is neither of those, this is a "team". It's not allowed on the map anymore than the team or shift I'm on at my job. >Here's the exterior. As you can see the name of the agency is "Summit Sotheby's International Realty", that's on the map at https://goo.gl/maps/cVEtvvRqCnJq5aEJ8 https://goo.gl/maps/cVEtvvRqCnJq5aEJ8. >Other than the agency, all that then qualifies to be at this location are listings for individual realtors. So a listing that says "Cindy Wallace" and nothing more in the title is allowed. Instead we have her trying to keyword stuff her listing with Park City Utah Real Estate - Cindy Wallace Team. She also uses the category of Real Estate Agency when she isn't one, she needs to use the Real Estate Agents category. Probably doesn't work the trend of trying to represent your "team" as it's own agency. >It's pretty common for people to not follow the rules and then complain that the algorithms don't do what they want. Follow the rules and the algorithms will then work.

pdonis 6y ago
If what this reddit comment is saying is correct, it seems to me to mean that Google's business reviews are unreliable information. The complaint is not that "The Fisher Group" should be on the map instead of "Summit Sotheby's". The complaint is that reviews which used to be attached to one agent (Stan/Ben Fisher) are now attached to a different agent (Cindy Wallace). Apparently this happened because two different Google Business accounts (one that Stan/Ben Fisher had had for years, and one that Cindy Wallace just created) got merged into one. That seems to me to be a problem for two reasons: (1) How can Google not comprehend the idea of multiple business accounts at the same address? (2) How can Google merge a newly created Google Business account with one that has existed for years without checking with the owner of the one that has existed for years? Saying "well, the person who set up the new account made a mistake" is not a good answer. Of course, AFAIK these people aren't paying Google, so to Google they're not customers, they're just users whose data Google wants to sell. But maybe if enough people get the idea that Google is simply incapable of providing accurate data on businesses and reviews, and stop depending on Google for that information, and word of that gets around, Google might start thinking that maybe they need to do something. (Not that I'll be holding my breath.)
- MattGaiser 6y ago
  Eh, reviews are so full of fakes and mindless angry people that they are unreliable anyway. I don't see this as being the straw that breaks things.
  - PunksATawnyFill 6y ago
    You’re not the business owner who just had his reputation stolen.
    - MattGaiser 6y ago
      And it will be users, not business owners, who decide whether that matters. So far users have accepted everything from Yelp's bullying to DoorDash's grabbing of online real estate, to Amazon's army of fake reviews.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
- kebman 6y ago
  > Of course, AFAIK these people aren't paying Google, so to Google they're not customers, they're just users whose data Google wants to sell. It might sound different, but it's really not. For years the Norwegian state colleted data on certain groups and individuals for Communist activity. When some of them understood what was going on, they naturally wanted to see the information being collected. Soon it became a campaign called "I want to see my folder." And this is essentially what Google has. They have folders on people whose information they have mined. Perhaps they may sell it, but it remains questionable whether they even have the right to sell other people's data, due to confidentiality. Now, of course, perhaps Google has acquired some permission to do this, and perhaps even user permission, but then it should be obvious that Google is indeed getting the assets from a voluntary customer, and that some kind of exchange is going on, that should be valuable for both parties. Even if Google has the right to mine those data, the people being mined are obviously "paying" Google, or being useful to Google, which the act of paying essentially is. Thus they're essentially giving up something, to get something else. That should entitle them to at least some measure of support, and some measure of fairness when it comes to your own data and how your organizational structure is modelled.
gumby 6y ago
Seems like a procrustean ontology ill-suited for describing the how the actual world works. I'm disappointed that Google would try to jam people into these pre-designed groups.
- bootlooped 6y ago
  What do you think the alternative is, let users put whatever they want?
  - gumby 6y ago
    Sure, why not? It’s not like Google cares what you put on your company’s homepage so why should they care what’s in that little panel? This group could call themselves a “full-stack acquisition service provider” (as so many companies on HN do) and that should be up to them. Here, this team description is how they want to think of themselves, and how they want customers and potential customers to think of them. You could argue that doing something unusual differentiates them or you could think it makes it harder for customers to find them or know how to work with them but that’s their issue not Google’s. I don’t think Google’s being malevolent here, but I don’t think I they are doing the right thing. Perhaps another “Myths programmers think about...” is needed.
    - bootlooped 6y ago
      There is already a place for totally free-form user-defined data: web sites. This team is free to buy a domain, do SEO on it and put whatever they want there. It certainly is Google's issue when it's their database of business listings and related info.
      - gumby 6y ago
        I think this case demonstrates that it’s foolish for G to try to decide how businesses should represent themselves if their objective is to maintain a useful database. It’s like having an address database and requiring that each address has a number and street. We have a post on that on HN every six months or so, and I’m glad for it. Software is supposed to be designed for humans; humans shouldn’t have to contort themselves for the sake of software.

pdonis 6y ago

If what this reddit comment is saying is correct, it seems to me to mean that Google's business reviews are unreliable information. The complaint is not that "The Fisher Group" should be on the map instead of "Summit Sotheby's". The complaint is that reviews which used to be attached to one agent (Stan/Ben Fisher) are now attached to a different agent (Cindy Wallace). Apparently this happened because two different Google Business accounts (one that Stan/Ben Fisher had had for years, and one that Cindy Wallace just created) got merged into one. That seems to me to be a problem for two reasons: (1) How can Google not comprehend the idea of multiple business accounts at the same address? (2) How can Google merge a newly created Google Business account with one that has existed for years without checking with the owner of the one that has existed for years? Saying "well, the person who set up the new account made a mistake" is not a good answer. Of course, AFAIK these people aren't paying Google, so to Google they're not customers, they're just users whose data Google wants to sell. But maybe if enough people get the idea that Google is simply incapable of providing accurate data on businesses and reviews, and stop depending on Google for that information, and word of that gets around, Google might start thinking that maybe they need to do something. (Not that I'll be holding my breath.)

MattGaiser 6y ago
Eh, reviews are so full of fakes and mindless angry people that they are unreliable anyway. I don't see this as being the straw that breaks things.
- PunksATawnyFill 6y ago
  You’re not the business owner who just had his reputation stolen.
  - MattGaiser 6y ago
    And it will be users, not business owners, who decide whether that matters. So far users have accepted everything from Yelp's bullying to DoorDash's grabbing of online real estate, to Amazon's army of fake reviews.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
kebman 6y ago
> Of course, AFAIK these people aren't paying Google, so to Google they're not customers, they're just users whose data Google wants to sell. It might sound different, but it's really not. For years the Norwegian state colleted data on certain groups and individuals for Communist activity. When some of them understood what was going on, they naturally wanted to see the information being collected. Soon it became a campaign called "I want to see my folder." And this is essentially what Google has. They have folders on people whose information they have mined. Perhaps they may sell it, but it remains questionable whether they even have the right to sell other people's data, due to confidentiality. Now, of course, perhaps Google has acquired some permission to do this, and perhaps even user permission, but then it should be obvious that Google is indeed getting the assets from a voluntary customer, and that some kind of exchange is going on, that should be valuable for both parties. Even if Google has the right to mine those data, the people being mined are obviously "paying" Google, or being useful to Google, which the act of paying essentially is. Thus they're essentially giving up something, to get something else. That should entitle them to at least some measure of support, and some measure of fairness when it comes to your own data and how your organizational structure is modelled.

gumby 6y ago

Seems like a procrustean ontology ill-suited for describing the how the actual world works. I'm disappointed that Google would try to jam people into these pre-designed groups.

bootlooped 6y ago
What do you think the alternative is, let users put whatever they want?
- gumby 6y ago
  Sure, why not? It’s not like Google cares what you put on your company’s homepage so why should they care what’s in that little panel? This group could call themselves a “full-stack acquisition service provider” (as so many companies on HN do) and that should be up to them. Here, this team description is how they want to think of themselves, and how they want customers and potential customers to think of them. You could argue that doing something unusual differentiates them or you could think it makes it harder for customers to find them or know how to work with them but that’s their issue not Google’s. I don’t think Google’s being malevolent here, but I don’t think I they are doing the right thing. Perhaps another “Myths programmers think about...” is needed.
  - bootlooped 6y ago
    There is already a place for totally free-form user-defined data: web sites. This team is free to buy a domain, do SEO on it and put whatever they want there. It certainly is Google's issue when it's their database of business listings and related info.
    - gumby 6y ago
      I think this case demonstrates that it’s foolish for G to try to decide how businesses should represent themselves if their objective is to maintain a useful database. It’s like having an address database and requiring that each address has a number and street. We have a post on that on HN every six months or so, and I’m glad for it. Software is supposed to be designed for humans; humans shouldn’t have to contort themselves for the sake of software.