It's always annoyed me that zooming in on a building will not reliably show the business that operates there. I understand that at low zoom levels you may need to filter what is displayed based on the high density, but when I zoom in I want to see everything that is there. Sometimes I am forced to go to street view to read the sign, then type the company name into the search box to force the business marker to show up and get clickable.
I've found Apple Maps is a little better in this regard. They show a higher density of business markers at any given zoom level.
Yes, I've noticed their results are definitely becoming more opaque and driven by what they want to show you. (This is even when there isn't a sponsored option on the map.)
Yesterday I was having the same issues as the top commenter except I was having trouble getting Google to label various mountain peaks I had zoomed in on.
It would be nice if they'd fix the missing labels on roads, even at the highest zoom with no clutter. Likewise, highway speed limits that were changed over a year ago.
A few days ago I was trying to see if a anything new had taken over a vacant restaurant space yet, previous occupant had closed in July.
When I zoomed in, it would still only show me the Permanently Closed business listing for the old restaurant.
Searching by address, they do have a listing for its replacement. But they were prioritizing the dead restaurant on the map because why would I want to know current info from a map when they can be useless instead?
And it's not like this is a restaurant in the first floor of a tower with a bunch of businesses stacked on top of it competing for map space. It's a single floor, there's only one occupant.
OpenStreetMap-based maps tend to be much better in this regard. Although this is counterbalanced by the fact that they tend to have less data on businesses in general.
Which is not surprising, as those two have very different priorities.
- OSM want's a detailed and reliable map.
- Google maps tries to either sell your data to clients, or make you buy from them.
Their business data is their priority for maps. You can see that clearly when you look at location history changes over past decade or so. It used to be actual user location history and it was glorious. Now it's "near what businesses you were more or less, help us rate them".
It's a great moment to again remind about existence of low-friction tools that you can use to add business data (among others) to OSM, like StreetComplete app, available on F-droid and Google Play :)
> It's always annoyed me that zooming in on a building will not reliably show the business that operates there.
It's actually much worse than that.
I will often see the business name as I'm zooming in, but if I zoom too far, it's no longer available. You have to find "just the right zoom level" for displaying the given business.
As if it were some weird mind game they were playing with you.
There are two 40-floors buildings nearby to each other in Tbilisi, Georgia, that are missing on Google Maps. All businesses have to put POI just "somewhere".
One man from Google told me that there are staff members responsible for Georgia maps but they are chilling :)
A lot of these place names are user-created and I’ve definitely seen completely wrong and bogus place names on Google Maps. It seems that they hide a lot of these when the business owner doesn’t actively take control of the business page. I suppose it’s partly for accuracy, partly to encourage businesses to verify the listing on their maps.
I guess there's various reasons, ranging from "it's hard to make auto-layout algos produce stuff as dense as painstakingly handcrafted maps" to "let's make it harder to scrape/copy data"
Back then it was dedicated map makers that created maps. Now it's mainly programmers. So its not surprising that quality tanks when you go from disciplinary expert staff to IT day laborers.
The most annoying thing is when you search for instance for "Chinese restaurants" and Google maps shows me Japanese restaurants while hiding actual Chinese restaurants.
In Tokyo when I search for convenience stores, a lot of the time Google Maps will also show ATMs, assuming that's the reason I want to go to a convenience store. Inversely, if I search for a bank branch, it'll show convenience stores. The fuzzy search results can be very frustrating sometimes.
Its not possible to be better because its not possible for even Google or Apple to verify anything anyone claims which is not static btw. The info keeps changing all the time with biz disputes/divorces/inheritence wars etc etc.
>I am forced to go to street view to read the sign, then type the company name into the search box to force the business marker to show up and get clickable. I've found Apple Maps is a little better in this regard.
the way you juxtapose them calls for pointing out, Apple Maps don't have streetview which makes Apple Maps a lot less convenient.
Hardly anything unless in a major city, no way to easily tell if there is any coverage other than randomly clicking until it shows, also doesn't tell you the date taken.
Google street view has the 2d overlay letting you know where there is coverage, shows the date taken along with previous imagery, and they have coverage nearly everywhere in the US at a least, although some of its pretty old.
Apple Maps does seem to have more up to date satellite / aerial imagery though.
Hard to overstate how valuable all that street view coverage is on the Google side.
My little Swedish village has full Look Around coverage, and clicking on the ⋯ icon shows an “Imagery” menu item that tells me the month and year the coverage was last updated. I think you’re underestimating where they’re currently at.
In the US is has basically zero coverage outside any major city. Google on the other hand has exentiqive coverage into rural areas, albeit some of it old, at least its there, where it has newer coverage it usually has multiple one at different times allowing one to look back in time as well, very useful.
I just double-checked my village. Every single road and cul-de-sac that I could find, with no exceptions, has full coverage on Apple. Google on the other hand, has coverage for maybe 50-55% of the roads. The worst example is a residential area on the outskirts where they’ve driven the car in, down one side-street, then given up and gone home.
On the other hand, they do have historical coverage, have to give them that.
In areas with partial coverage Apple Maps has basically the same overlay showing where Look Around is available. It just doesn't have a great indicator as to why the option is greyed out when there's no coverage.
I mean in Google Maps you can drag the little man over the map and it has a map layer that highlights all the roads available, so you can easily see where it is and is not. Not randomly picking a point and seeing if indicator is available.
As interesting as StreetView is, it's such a colossal privacy invasion, it's absurd. In my neighbourhood, you can literally see in peoples windows, into their living rooms.
And how is this any different from walking down the sidewalk? They're on the road, they're not stuffing cameras into your living room window to try to catch you walking around nekkid or anything. It is literally documenting what public view looks like.
I never understood why the "collaborative filtering" approach never took off with most review options. Google Maps shows you what the average person thinks is a good restaurant, meaning the rich get richer faster and tiny statistical noise converts to durable competitive advantage.
Instead, I'd love for Google to understand me well enough to show me which restaurants I would disproportionately love compared to other people based on its understanding of my taste profiles. That way, the love can be shared amongst a much wider base of restaurants and each distinctive restaurant could find its 10,000 true fans.
On top of that, it actually gives me an incentive to rate things. Right now, you only rate from some vague sense of public service instead of "this can actively improve your experience with our product".
It's not just Google Maps, Netflix used to operate on the model of deep personalization that they've slowly de-emphasized over the years. I'm still waiting for Letterboxd to introduce a feature to give me personalized film recs based on the over 1000 ratings I've given it over the years as a paying customer but they seem in no hurry to do so. Amazon used to take your purchase history into account when ordering search results but I think that's also been significantly de-emphasized.
About the only arena this is widespread is streaming music services like Spotify.
I have a theory: They realized the right approach is to focus purely on the yes/no of what you choose to consume, rather than trying to optimize the consumption experience itself.
Remember how YouTube and Netflix used to let you rate things on 1-5 stars? That disappeared in favor of a simple up/down vote.
Most services are driven by two metrics: consumption time and paid subscriptions. How much you enjoy consuming something does not directly impact those metrics. The providers realized the real goal is to find the minimum possibly thing you will consume and then serve you everything above that line.
Trying to find the closest match possible was actually the wrong goal, it pushed you to rank things and set standards for yourself. The best thing for them was for you to focus on simple binary decisions rather than curating the best experience.
They are better off having you begrudgingly consume 3 things rather than excited consuming 2.
The algorithmic suggestion model is to find the cutoff line of what you're willing to consume and then surface everything above that line ranked on how likely you are to actually push the consume button, rather than on how much you'll enjoy it. The majority of which (due to the nature of a bell curve) is barely above that line.
I think Netflix realized that reducing ratings to a simple thumbs up/down was a bad idea after all. A while back they introduced the ability to give double thumbs up which, if you can treat non-rating as a kind of rating, means they're using a four point scale: thumbs down, no rating, thumbs up, double thumbs up.
Netflix are right that 5-stars is too many, it translates to a 6 point scale when you include non-rating, and I don't think there is a consistent view on what "3 stars" means, and how it's different to either 4 stars or 2 stars ( depending on the person ).
For some people 3 stars is an acceptable rating, closer to 4 stars than 2 stars. For others, 3 stars is a bad rating, closer to 2 stars than 5 stars. And for others still, it doesn't give signal beyond what a non-rating would be, it's "I don't have a strong opinion about this".
Effectively chopping out the 3-star rating, leaves it with a better a scale of:
- Excellent, I want to put effort into seeking out similar content
- Fine, I'd be happy to watch more like it
- Bad, I didn't enjoy this
- Terrible, I want to put effort into avoiding this
With the implicit:
- I have no opinion on this
But since it's not a survey, it doesn't need to be explicit, that's coded into not rating it instead.
These are comparable to a 5 point Likert scale:
"I enjoy this content"
- Strongly agree
- Agree
- Neither Agree nor Disagree
- Disagree
- Strongly Disagree
The current Netflix scale effectively merges Disagree and Strongly Disagree, and for matters of taste that may well be fine.
It would be interesting to conduct social science with a similar scale with merged Disagree and Strongly disagree to see if that gave it any better consistency.
When given a 5-star choice “very bad/bad/ok-ish/good/very good”, I rarely pick one of the extremes.
I suspect there are others who rarely click “bad” or “good”.
Because of that, I think you first need to train a model on scaling each user’s judgments to a common unit. That likely won’t work well for users that you have little data on.
So, it’s quite possible that a ML model trained on a 3-way choice “very bad or bad/OK-ish/good or very good” won’t do much worse than on given the full 5-way choice.
I think it also is likely that users will be less likely to click on a question the more choices you give them (that certainly is the case if the number of choices gets very high as in having to separately rate a movie’s acting, scenery, plot, etc)
Combined, that may mean given users less choice leads to better recommendations.
I’m sure Netflix has looked at their data well and knows more about that, though.
I apply my own meaning to the 5-star rating, and find it to work really well:
1 = The movie was so bad I didn't/couldn't finish watching it.
2 = I watched it all, but didn't enjoy it and wouldn't recommend it to anyone.
3 = The movie was worth watching once, but I have no interest in watching it again.
4 = I enjoyed it, and would enjoy watching it again if it came up. I'd recommend it.
5 = a great movie -- I could enjoy watching it many times, and highly recommend it.
> The current Netflix scale effectively merges Disagree and Strongly Disagree, and for matters of taste that may well be fine.
I'm a bit skeptical about this.
To me there's a big difference between "This didn't spark joy" and "I actively hated this": I might dislike a poorly-made sequel of a movie I previously enjoyed, but I never ever want to see baby seals getting clubbed to death again.
Every series has that one bad episode you have to struggle through during a full rewatch. Very few series have an episode bad enough that it'll make you quit watching the series entirely, and ruin any chance at a future rewatch.
I mean, if you read about how current industry-standard recommendation systems work, this is pretty bang on, I think? (I am not a data scientist/ML person, as a disclaimer.)
If e.g. retention correlates to watch time (or some other metric like "diversity of content enageged with"), then you will optimize for the short list of metrics that show high correlation. The incentive to have a top-tier experience that gets the customer what they want and then back off the platform is not aligned with the goal of maintaining subscription revenue.
You want them to watch the next thing, not the best thing.
They're only useless in that they aren't displayed for your peers, but that was always the least-useful function.
Being able to see a counter that reads as "Twenty-three thousand other people also didn't like this video!" doesn't serve me in any meaningful way; I don't go to Youtube to seek validation of my opinion, so that counter has no value to me. (For the same reason, the thumbs-up counter also has no value to me.)
But my ratings remain useful in that the algorithm still uses the individualized ratings I provide to help present stuff that I might actually want to watch.
As we all know, investors and advertisers love growth; Youtube thrives and grows and gathers/burns money fastest when more people use it more. The algorithm is designed to encourage viewership. Viewership makes number go up in the ways that the money-people care about.
Presenting stuff to me that I don't want to watch makes the number go up -- at best -- slower. The algorithm seeks to avoid that situation (remember, number must only go up).
Personally rating videos helps the machine make number go up in ways that benefit me directly.
---
Try to think of it less like a rating of a product on Amazon or of an eBay seller; try not to think of it as an avenue for publicly-displayed praise or admonishment. It's not that. (Maybe it once was -- I seem to recall thumbs-up and thumbs-down counts being shown under each thumbnail on the main feed a million years ago. But it is not that, and it has not been for quite a long time.)
Instead, think of it as one way in which to steer and direct your personalized recommendation algorithm to give you more of the content you enjoy seeing, and less of what you're not as fond of.
Use it as a solely self-serving function in which you push the buttons to receive more of the candy you like, and less of of the candy that you don't like.
I have literally not rated anything at all, ever since YouTube removed dislikes, and my recommendations are working fine. Ratings indicate(d) if a given video was likely to be a waste of my time or not, and in an age of AI slop, this feature is more desirable than ever.
Someone should make a SponsorBlock/Dearrow-type addon to flag AI slop.
I think Spotify and other streaming services have a problem very similar to the restaurants. Take an artist with a 40 year career and a dozen acclaimed albums and bags of songs almost everyone loves, and when that artist comes up it is always the same one or two songs. The most played songs, causing feedback and making the problem worse. In my mind, one of the core reasons for asking for recommendations is to discover something different, which means ignoring or maybe even penalizing popularity, because you are likely already familiar with the popular by definition.
I found Spotify surprisingly good at recommending new music. Not amazing, but considering how low the bar is thanks to other services like Netflix I'veveen pleasantly surprised.
For example it recommended a band with just a hundred monthly plays which I loved. Almost all bands it recommends has less than 10k monthly plays, so not huge "safe bets", and most are quite decent.
Netflix's DVD recommendations worked this way. It identified cohorts with similar categorical preferences and recommended content other people in the group enjoyed.
If the service actually shows you things you want to see, then you're less likely to click on ads (or "sponsored results") which you also don't want to see.
Perhaps more importantly, if such organic growth is possible, it lowers the incentive for businesses to buy ads.
> About the only arena this is widespread is streaming music services like Spotify
And even they can't get it right, and will give me promoted content before they give me anything related to my tastes. Pandora is the only recommendation engine that actually gives me what I would consider to be valid results. Shame they refuse to improve their audio quality, or I'd jump ship to Pandora. Until then, I'll keep using their free tier to curate Spotify playlists.
I was part of the team that built exactly this. It launched in 2010. Some Googlers of that era are probably still annoyed at all the internal advertising we did to get people to seed the data. This is one of the launch announcements:
https://maps.googleblog.com/2010/11/discover-yours-local-rec...
> Google Maps shows you what the average person thinks is a good restaurant
I'm fairly sure this isn't true. At least, I still get (notably better) results searching while signed in. Couldn't tell you what the mechanism for that is these days, though. But at least back in 2010, the personalization layer was wired into ranking. You can see in the screenshots how we surfaced justifications for the rankings as well.
Pretty much immediately after launch, Google+ took over the company, the entire social network we had was made obsolete because it didn't require Real Names(tm), and a number of people who objected (including me) took down all our pseudonymous reviews. Most of the team got split off into various other projects, many in support of Google+. As best as I can tell the product was almost immediately put into maintenance mode, or at least headcount for it plummeted like 90%. Half of my local team ended up founding Niantic, later much better known for making Pokemon Go.
As for why collaborative filtering didn't take off, I can offer a few reasons. One is that honestly, the vast majority of people don't rate enough things to be able to get a lot of signal out of it. Internally we had great coverage in SF, London, New York, Tokyo, and Zurich since Geo had teams in all those places and we pushed hard to get people to rate everything, but it dropped off in a hurry elsewhere. The data eventually fills up, but it takes a while. I'm told we had 3x the volume of new reviews that Yelp had at the time, but Yelp mostly only covered the US, while Google Maps was worldwide, so density was quite low for a long time. It was probably 5-10 years before I started hearing business owners consistently talk about their Google reviews before their Yelp reviews.
Another thing is that people are really bad at using the whole rating scale. On a 1-5 scale, you'll probably find that 80% of the reviews are either 1 or 5 stars. Even more so in a real life situation where you meet the humans involved. While you can math your away around that a bit, at that point you're not getting a ton more signal than just thumbs up/down (anecdotally I've heard that's why Netflix moved away from 5 stars). And then at that point, you might be getting better signal from "were you motivated enough to rate this at all?", which is why there's the emphasis on review counts. Many people just won't review things badly unless things have gone terribly wrong. I sat in on a few UX interviews, and it was really enlightening to hear users talk about their motivations for rating things, many of which were way different than mine.
BTW I'm familiar with linkrot, but I just discovered link poisoning.
I was reading the blog post on my Android phone and saw the Maps links to Firefly and Home Restaurant. So I tapped the Home Restaurant link and it took me to the Google Maps app in my normal home position with my home in the center. I thought for a moment that maybe it confused Home restaurant with my home.
So I tapped the Back button and nothing happened. Tapped it several more times with no luck. Finally I used the ||| button and swiped Maps up to kill it.
Then I tried the Firefly link, with the same results.
On the web, both links work fine, but someone forgot to test that these old links still work on Android.
Turns out that Home Restaurant is closed, but Firefly is alive and well. Their menu looks tasty, and the FAQ is something to behold:
> Instead, I'd love for Google to understand me well enough to show me which restaurants I would disproportionately love compared to other people based on its understanding of my taste profiles.
I mean... this sounds like the perfect use case for a third party app like "My taste restaurant finder"? There are undoubtedly apps out there like this.
I don't think Google Maps (a general purpose maps app) should try to be everything for everyone. It's good enough for what it is.
related to your letterboxd suggestion, https://couchmoney.tv is quite good! it uses trakt instead of letterboxd but it's given me quite a few good suggestions. their FAQ describes a similar approach to what you've been talking about, it tries to find movies and tv you like disproportionately like.
The reason is money. Google (in spite of what they would have you believe) does not show you what is "good" for you, it shows you what it gets paid to show you (paid in various, sometimes very complicated ways).
I am sad that Google services are so popular, because it makes the world a little bit worse for everyone. This includes not only Google Maps, but also Gmail (did you know that Google is quite active at censoring your E-mail and you will never see certain E-mails?).
I would really like to see more competition, ideally without the ever-present enshittification (I'm pretty sure Apple Maps will go down the drain, too, because KPIs and money).
>Instead, I'd love for Google to understand me well enough to show me which restaurants I would disproportionately love compared to other people based on its understanding of my taste profiles.
I don't want for Google to collect data on me, build a profile and "understand" me. I want Google just to return relevant search results.
> Instead, I'd love for Google to understand me well enough to show me which restaurants I would disproportionately love compared to other people based on its understanding of my taste profiles. That way, the love can be shared amongst a much wider base of restaurants and each distinctive restaurant could find its 10,000 true fans.
This kind of ties into "but your computer is broadcasting a cookie and you're being tracked" paranoia though.
People have been convinced by uninformed twaddle that somehow folk are looking through their screen at them to see what they're doing and that this is bad, but it also means you get fed an awful lot of adverts that really don't fit your demographic.
I don't mind if advertisers or supermarkets are profiling me based on things I like. You want to show me things I like? Good. The flip side is I'd prefer you not to show me things I don't like.
Youtube seems to be hilariously bad at this latter part, and all I get are adverts for a bank I'm already with and have been for 30 years, adverts for online gambling sites which I will never be interested in, adverts for Google's AI slop which I will never be interested, and adverts for online grammar-checking services that don't work in the UK because they convert everything into some weird North American creole dialect, which - again - I will never use.
Yes, take a look at my restaurant-using profile. Recommend stuff I like.
Google's Maps search ranking doesn't seem sophisticated to me. In fact it seems unbelievably naive. Ranking is Google's core business and yet they seem to forget how to do it when a map is involved.
When I want to find something that's actually good, I use this site: https://top-rated.online. At first glance it looks like an unremarkable SEO spam site, but it's actually a great way to get properly ranked Google Maps reviews. It uses proper Bayesian ranking, so it won't show you a 5 star place with two reviews over a 4.9 star place with 2,000 reviews, as Google often will. And it has good sorting and filtering options so you can, for example, filter or sort by number of reviews.
Maps's search as a whole is terrible even from a UX perspective: search something with some filters, realise that you want to change a letter in the search? Byebye filters.
Some filters are available with a specific subset of words but not with another.
Zoom in a location, look for a common word? There are good chances it will zoom out and send you to the other side of the globe instead. Then pan back, hit "Search in this area" and bam it works.
Some devices can make reviews and some can't (tested on different devices, even Google ones).
Search for a specific word which might be in a review (say, "decaf") and you get even stuff which doesn't even remotely contain the word (I'd expect an empty result if no place has mentioned my keyword).
And many more.
It's just insane how a huge company just seem focused in making a "good enough" experience instead of being the leader. Maybe it's for the best but if they went 1 sprint/quarter into "let's fix glaring BS UX issues in our products", they would probably destroy so many alternatives out there.
Maybe it's on purpose to avoid some anti-trust kind of response? We'll never know.
Years ago I worked on the Google Maps team. IMO Google has underinvested in Maps UI for a long time due to a lack of competition and a lack of appreciation for the value of the product because the amount of direct revenue attributable to it is low. It's practically in maintenance mode.
I've said for decades that Google is terrible at search in every area except Google Search. Youtube search? Terrible! Chrome history search? Abysmal! Gmail search? Atrocious! Google Maps Search? At some point, standing in a middle of a mall searching for "coffee" returned only 3 SERPs despite me standing in front of a coffeeshop that I could not get to show up.
I find YouTube search to be serviceable. At least it has decent filtering and sorting options. Gmail search is just OK, but I haven't found anything much better. Chrome history search, though, is completely worthless. Especially since it got merged into that myactivity thing that is utter garbage, completely non-functional for any purpose. There's so much potential in searching a complete history of everything you've ever personally seen online, and it would make Chrome more sticky. Incredible fumble by Google here.
Youtube search does a baffling thing where it shows you 5 SERPs, then a bunch of unrelated things it thinks you like, then another 5 SERPs. It used to only show you the top 5 SERPs before switching to "suggested videos" for the rest of the scroll. Truly a terrible product when that was the design.
Youtube is not in the business of giving you accurate search results or information. It's now in the business of getting you to watch any video, related or not to your query, in order to serve you ads.
> It's now in the business of getting you to watch any video, related or not to your query, in order to serve you ads.
Youtube was in this business from day 1. Even before Google. Youtube was never going to be anything other than an ad-platform with videos to lure in the products.
Vid.me tried to be a video platform with videos to lure in users, but it went bankrupt, because nobody wanted to pay and nobody wanted to watch ads.
It is a very crude method for injecting diversity into search results (and the browsing experience). It can't be turned off and still shows up even if very specific search terms are used.
Hard to believe it is the best possible video search implementation for their ad serving goals.
They fear tiktok is outcompeting them with even more aggressive attention hijacking, I guess, so they can't resist showing up something "This wasn't what you were looking at but can I get you to click it?"
the unrelated videos it shows me are so far from anything I'm interested in that I can only conclude it's showing both of us the same stuff, just lowest common denominator popularity.
>videos I'm also interested in, sometimes more than what I'm searching for
therefore, based on my argument, you must have horrible taste
>I've said for decades that Google is terrible at search in every area except Google Search.
From my point of view Google Search is terrible, too. Is hard to find relevant results, you mostly get results optimized to make money, or junk. You have to explore tens or hundreds of results to find the needle in the haystack.
The solution is what Lauren did, she rolled her own. Once that took teams of experts and big bucks. Now a single ML expert can do it for small bucks because she "needed a restaurant recommendation" and didn't trust the available ones. Soon any mild mannered programmer will have the same capability, and then the muggles will get it, in a mass, just for the asking of their favorite chat bot.
If the progression holds, oodles of recommendation engines can bloom, and it'll be trivial to fork and customize a favorite with a prompt. As the friction of doing large analysis jobs tends toward nil, the Google moat dries up and their commanding height subsides. Too optimistic?
Can we make a decentralized search engine. Which breaks down into two questions, is it technically feasible and is it socially feasible?
(Maybe the word search would be a bit more broad than retrieving web pages. It could be for everything right.)
I don't know but I'm inclined to say that the difficulty will be more on the social side than on the technical side.
The web was very decentralized 20 years ago, and we had all manner of peer to peer systems already. There just doesn't seem to be much appetite for that kind of thing, at least in the mainstream.
Although there might be something to it, with the AI part of the equation.
Like we had self hostable services for a long time, most people just don't want to be a sysadmin.
Well, I gave Claude root on my $3 VPS. Claude is my sysadmin now. I don't have to configure anything anymore. Life is good :)
The data is the key though. How did they effectively scrape the data? Does every restaurant have a website? I bet half rely on Google Maps. So IMHO you are too optimistic because regularly and effectively getting the data is the hard part, not the model.
This right here. Every time I see these types of articles, I jump straight to the chapter regarding data, and it usually a single line of "I scraped the data", sometimes with explanation, most times not.
In this case it seems like she used their API to get the data. But as she notes, scraping can quickly mean having to spend money. And that's where the scraping dream ends for many people - if they have to spend money in any way, shape, or form, it's a non-starter.
Google maps is doing the same thing to local business success that social media algorithms are doing to political success. The algorithm controls what you perceive as the consensus of others. It is a dangerous world to have such power so highly concentrated.
Perhaps such things should be controlled democratically instead of by a single person or a small group of people whose companies are organized as dictatorships.
It is controlled democratically. The people have democratically ceded their knowledge gathering to large companies. Because people are above all else lazy
"Decide" is a heavily weighted word here. From what did they decide? Was the field from which they were deciding, perhaps monopolized, or ologipopalized? Was there information skewed by the entities hoping to be chosen? Do said entities have stunning amounts of capital and power that let them prevent competition?
First off, let me see ALL the restaurants in my city, not just the 10 recommended ones.
Second, stop moving the map when I search for things. Why does google maps on both mobile and desktop, change your search area. I put the map in one place because I want to search there.
Third, stop scrubbing bad reviews. When every restaurant is 5 stars, theres no point
I often think it would be cool if there was a widely understood hand sign for asking people in a restaurant how they rate it. You stand outside the window and make the "Is it good?" sign, and whoever sees it from inside would hold up 1 to 5 fingers to give their star rating.
Point twice to them. Point to the space in front of your lap. Point to your face and mimic sad face and later happy face, while pointing your thumb down then up, à la Roman emperor.
Nicely done. I think from a product perspective it is interesting that:
- Humans really value authentic experiences. And more so IRL experiences. People's words about a restaurant matter more than the star rating to me.
- There is only one reason to go somewhere: 4.5 star reason. But there are 10 different reasons to not go: Too far, not my cuisine, too expensive for my taste. So the context is what really matters.
- Small is better. Product wise, scale always is a problem, because the needs of the product will end up discriminating against a large minority. You need it to be decentralized and organic, with communities that are quirky.
All this is, somehow, anethma to google maps or yelp's algorithm. But I don't understand why it is _so_ bad — just try searching for 'salad' — and be amazed how it will recommend a white table cloth restaurant in the same breath as chipotle.
There are many millions that want to use the product _more_ if it was personalized. Yet somehow its not.
> People's words about a restaurant matter more than the star rating to me.
I find that both offer an incredibly poor signal. I can usually get a much better idea of the quality of the place by looking at pictures of the food (especially the ones submitted by normal users right after their plate arrives at the table). It's more time consuming to scroll through pictures manually than to look at the stars, but I'm convinced it's a much better way to find quality.
Maybe that could be a good angle for this kind of tool. At least until this process becomes more popular and the restaurants try to game that too by using dishonest photography.
I've had this happen to me, posted a factual restaurant review 12 months later threatened with defamation and it's auto removed by Google. It seems there are agencies that use legal framework to do bulk removal requests to Google for any low reviews no matter the content. The in-authentic Korean restaurant in Cologne went from a 1.9 to a 4.6. It's impossible to trust reviews in Germany due to these corrupt bully tactics.
This happened to me a few times for my reviews in Germany. My 1-star reviews were flagged by the business as "defamation" although it contained only facts and personal opinions. I provided additional proof like screenshot of their documents (one of them was a language school), but they deleted my review at the end.
I was so frustrated, I even considered deleting all of my two hundred something reviews from Google Maps.
I already deleted all my reviews from Google Maps. Spent all that money and effort installing a wheelchair elevator in a listed building, then when updating the info to say basically, "it's still not exactly wheelchair-friendly as a 120 year old building, but there is a wheelchair elevator and a HC toilet now", Google algorithmically accused me of lying.
You just made me check a business where I left a negative review and was threatened with a lawsuit. I didn't remove it, but Google did automatically. Looks like I'm still algo-banned from leaving a review there (I even tried a 5-star review with no text, and was told their AI found it a violation of content policy, lol) but now above most of the obviously bought 5-star reviews with generic test is a 6-month-old negative review with a lot of "likes", stating the owner files criminal complaints against negative reviewers, they appealed to Google twice, they defended themselves in court, and they saw other negative reviews had been reviewed. (possibly mine)
Of course, it also has a reply from the owner, stating this review that says he files criminal complaints against reviewers is a complete lie, and therefore, he's filing a criminal complaint against this reviewer.
Yeah, reviews are useless in Germany as a result. If anyone from Google is reading this, PLEASE add a tag to establishments that remove reviews by legal means!
I’ve almost moved on from online reviews. So many are fake, so many these days are slop. Half the time a 3.5 place is rated so low because people pick the most random ass reasons to slap it with 1 star.
Also I’ve decided I don’t want to live my life by following what Google says I should do as a default. Sometimes I go to a place that sucks. But that happened when I checked Google reviews anyway!!
I mostly ignore the ratings and spot-check some reviews with good and bad ratings. If the good reviews actually describe something concrete and the bad reviews are nonsense, I take both of those as a good sign. If the good reviews are vague and the bad reviews are actually justified, then the place is probably not so good.
Similar with online shopping. If all the one-star reviews are complaining about the shipment being lost in the mail or other irrelevant nonsense, the product is probably pretty good.
About the only reviews worth reading are 4-2 stars out of 5. 5s are overblown or fake. 1s quite often are about something dumb. A 3 for for example is apt to at least be thoughtful
Google Maps or any other aggregator has an inherent interest in market participant diversity. A lot of suppliers would mean competition, which results in ad spend, which result in higher revenue for the aggregator. Same with Google Search.
It's an interesting equilibrium point. They want local businesses to suffer enough to pay up for ads. But also not too much that they die. A good local business that does not need to advertise because it is simply good is actually a burden to the aggregator even though it is exactly what the end users want to see.
In the past, when I was a in position to build a search engine, we took the trouble of always including organically ranked results that were genuinely good, regardless of whether we got paid or not. I felt it was a long term investment into creating real value for our end users and therefore our service.
Google Maps stopped being a reliable way to find good restaurants a long time ago. Any time in my city when I see a place with a high rating and suspiciously large number of reviews, searching for "five stars" in the reviews inevitably finds customers helpfully mentioning that they got free food in exchange. I've even seen places advertise the bribe openly on Maps. It would be trivial to detect this and punish offenders, but Google chooses not to.
I've been mulling over starting a boutique social network focused on location reviews with real life friends exclusively.
I'll go against the grain slightly and say that usually Google ratings are quite reliable for me. At times I notice they're exaggerated and it usually coincides with someone coming to ask me to rate them at the end of the meal.
I don't think this is saying that the ratings are unreliable, but rather that searching by rating isn't a guarantee that a high-rated restaurant will show up due to the other factors at play.
You don't get a sorted list from highest rated to lowest rated, but rather, momentum of reviews, number of reviews, changes in rating etc.
My suspicion is that there probably is also a noticeable difference between companies that advertise on Google vs. those that don't. Anecdotally, the gym closest to me has higher ratings than all the other gyms in my area, but when I moved to the area it never showed up on Google Maps for me. It was only by walking by it that I decided to look it up on Google Maps specifically by name that it showed up for me.
There are good businesses out there that don't get a lot of reviews because they don't ask for them. Relying upon customers to do this without a prompt is not something I'd recommend.
Very interesting. But I wonder how much Google (and other) Maps can actually shape the scene. For tourist hotspots with a lot of visitors, it IS clearly the driving force. But for locals, I don’t think it has an overwhelming effect. Locals know their restaurants and they visit them based on their own rating. They could explore total strange and new ones, but then they will form their own rating and memory immediately and will not get fooled/guided by algorithm (the next time)
Yeah, can’t comment about London, as I’ve only been a tourist there, but assuming it works like in Tokyo. In a big city, with basically unlimited amount of dining options, a lot of people will try different places. In the past year, I don’t think I’ve repeated a single dinner spot more than 3 time, and I basically eat out every day. This is always a discovery problem, and word of mouth/google maps/tabelog/etc. is a major sales driver here.
Now, if I think about the time I lived in Vancouver, it was the opposite. You don’t have that many options, after a while you basically make a list of your favourites and rotate.
Long-time Tokyo/Yokohama resident here. I’m basically the same: Especially if I’m by myself and near a train station or retail area, I just walk around to see what’s available and choose someplace to eat. Only if I am planning a meal with others do I look for options online, and then, in addition to Google and Apple maps, I also use sites such as tabelog.com and restaurant.ikyu.com.
I haven’t been outside Japan for nearly a decade so I can’t compare it with other countries, but my impression is that Japan has more small restaurants than some other places. It’s not unusual to go into a ramen, curry, gyoza, soba, or other eating place with fewer than a dozen seats and staffed by just one or two people.
The existence of such small places increases the eating-out options. I don’t know why such small food businesses are viable here but not elsewhere; perhaps regulatory frameworks (accessibility, fire, health, tax, labor, etc.) play a role.
Totally. We’re definitely lucky over here. From my talks with people in restaurant industry in NA, it’s just extremely expensive to start a business, on top of the regulatory restrictions that you’ve mentioned. And obviously the holy grail of money making - liquor. I can get beer in almost every random ramen shop near me. It takes months/years of approval to open a place with a liquor license in Vancouver, Canada. Margins on alcohol are huge, that gives breathing room to little margins places make from food.
Unless, as a local looking for new spots to try, your first step is going to Google Map and searching "restaurants". I'm certainly guilty of this sometimes.
I think it's less about tourist vs local, and more about the breadth of restuarants you have available. I live outside of a major metropolitan area in South Europe, there are restuarants going out of business and opening up every day in the city, no one can keep track of all them.
If you can just say "Peruvian" and it finds all restaurants around you within 2km, you might get 30 options. At that point, using the wisdom of the crowd for some initial filtering makes a lot of sense.
Personally I love going to completely unknown restaurants that has just opened and have zero reviews yet which Google Maps helps with too, but looking at how others around me use Google Maps, a lot of them basically use it for discovering new restaurants to try, and we're all locals.
Depends if you live in a big city with a lot of restaurant turnover or not.
This is actually a big frustration for me how I can search food and get totally different results over the same area in the frame. I seem to remember in the old days of google maps you'd see, you know, everything in the area. Like pins on pins on overlapping pins. And you'd click through them or zoom in as appropriate. You found everything. It all worked.
Then someone had the brilliant idea that this was all too busy, and you should have pins omitted until you have sometimes zoomed so far in you are filling your map viewer frame with the doorstep of that business...
I wouldn't be surprised to learn businesses get charged to appear first. Seems like it tends to be things like fast food or national chains over new locally owned restaurants that pop up more often on google maps.
I'm not sure the overlapping pins idea would work for e.g. a 5 floor building with no multilevel maps and 6 businesses to a floor. Which is a common thing in some of the places Google maps.
> One practical problem I ran into early on is that Google Maps is surprisingly bad at categorising cuisines. A huge share of restaurants are labelled vaguely (“restaurant”, “cafe”, “meal takeaway”)
It's not only that; cuisines are also difficult to label as certain countries simple do not exist for Google when it comes to that.
I recall last year I wanted to change the type of "Alin Gaza Kitchen", my ex (closed now, unfortunately) fav. falafel place in Berlin from the non-descript "Middle-Eastern" to "Palaestinian" category.
I assumed this was available for any country/cuisine, like "German", "Italian" or "Israeli". But "Paleastinian" didn't exist as a category.
> Google Maps Is Not a Directory. It’s a Market Maker.
I understand the author's meaning, but this isn't what the term "market maker" means. To "make a market" is to stand ready to buy and sell, usually a security, in order to create liquidity in a market. Usually this resolves the issue of timing, because it is unlikely that someone wants to buy at the exact moment someone else wants to sell.
So to "make a market" in London restaurants, Google could buy food during the day and sell it at night when the shops are closed but people are hungry. (This would be silly.)
Perhaps a more precise term is "algorithmic gatekeeper."
Sample of 1, but the hidden gem near me I would actually consider a "hidden gem" that only people from the area know about, and it's a very good family run business.
Delivery apps like Grab and Uber Eats are even worse since they have even more perverse incentives (minimising delivery time and maximising 'sponsored' listings).
Other than being willing to scroll a lot, I haven't found any great ways to find new restaurants when using delivery apps, and I'm sure I use them far less because of the tedium involved. I think scraping listings and re-doing the algorithm yourself (as per post) is perhaps the best approach. E.g. Just being able to rank by user rating and filter for no less than 200 reviews and within 5km would be an outstanding improvement on the status quo, which is always the 50 closest restaurants to the delivery address - what a coincidence! - with a few 'sponsored' listings thrown in.
Very interesting, ive always wondered how google decides to show restaurants or other POIs if they overlap and there is a large density.
Im sure they favour the ones that use google ads, but i would not think that they are bullying places a la yelp.
Anyway its pretty crazy that nowadays your success as restaurant is so dependent on one huge platform. (… and actually, lets not forget the delivery platforms also)
I have gotten so sick of Google Maps that I've done the unthinkable, and have started walking around the city trying establishments at random.
It has yielded quite good results basically immediately. People (myself included) have gotten too used to living In The Box. Putting aside the time to just go for a walk around and pop into random shops and pubs has been wonderful.
It's a little funny that no one is a human face of (interface to) Google Maps, or any platform with longevity these days. Talk to the faceless pretend person if you have a problem, maybe you'll feel better.
Google Maps is the mind killer. We all worry about social media controlling the way we think, feel, vote etc. but Google Maps literally manipulates where people physically go in real life, what they do on holiday, where they hang out, what they eat etc. I got so sick of feeling like a four point five star Google Maps automaton I had to mostly stop with it. In addition to OSM, personal recommendations etc. the best substitute for me for a 4.5 star review is my nose, eyes and ears
Not sure if it's a London thing. In my city neither I, nor the people I know rely on Google maps reviews for picking restaurants. We either know the place, follow a recommendation or try the place based on menu, price, looks, vibe, position etc.
A week ago I went to Venice and I only looked on Google maps to see what the menus and prices are, but I wasn't interested in the reviews themselves or the grade, bacause IMO, people have biases. One evening we went to one of the restaurants I spotted on Google maps but the rest of the evenings we wandered the streets, and picked what was close, if we liked the menus, the prices and the atmosphere.
One of the restaurants had only 3.4 grade on Google maps, few reviews and mostly locals ate there. The food was very good and the service was great.
I do not generally make my mind based on reviews from Google Maps, Booking, Amazon. Of course, if the overall grade is very low, I will give it some thoughts and maybe read some reviews. But generally I don't make a decision based on reviews.
So if you had an online business, you had to do SEO and optimize for search engines. Now, if you have a brick and mortar business you still have to keep the algorithms happy? Sounds like life becomes harder for some business owners.
We had a bizarre time as a brick and mortar being even allowed to be on Google Maps. We had to take multiple pictures and videos of outside of our business with our sign, and then schedule a call with someone not in our country (or didn't speak mandarin anyway), then show them in a video call our outside of the restaurant, us locking and unlocking the door of our restaurant, us opening our cash drawer, then showing receipts, then our back storage room. It was super uncanny.
>Because once you start looking at London’s restaurant scene through data, you stop seeing all those cute independents and hot new openings. You start seeing an algorithmic market - one where visibility compounds, demand snowballs, and who gets to survive is increasingly decided by code.
Seems a bit weird. That would mean most people in London would chose the restaurant based on Google maps reviews.
Interesting work, but ultimately silly: of course google maps ranks results. No one (yes, yes, I'm sure like 3 people) want a list of all results, unordered or ordered by something useless like name, when they type in restaurant. And I cannot put into words how uneager I am to have the city or state government manage what comes up when I put indian or burrito into a map.
Where in the post do you see the author arguing about "a list of all results"? To me, it merely draws attention to the fact that there is only one algorithm available in Google Maps, and you rely on Google to calculate "relevance" based on (to us) unknown and intransparent metrics. It draws attention to the kind of power Google has over businesses and our daily lives, without necessarily presenting alternatives. Nothing about that is "silly". It might be more relevant to me to learn about new, small, independent restaurants, but I don't have that choice. If I had access to the full data set, like e.g. OSM, I would.
Nowhere in the article is the author suggesting that local or state governments manage these algorithms, just that they be audited for fairness given the amount of power these algorithms hold in the market. Google operates something of a monopoly in Google Maps and its recommendations. You don't find an attempt to understand the efficacy of its rankings or how Google or market participants could be manipulating the rankings to benefit themselves interesting?
> At minimum, ranking algorithms with this much economic consequence should be auditable.
"At minimum". Immediately preceded by a paragraph starting by "For policy", with sentences like "If discovery now shapes small-business survival, then competition, fairness, and urban regeneration can no longer ignore platform ranking systems" or "tools of local economic policy".
That's perhaps not an outright call for regulation, but it's certainly suggesting it's warranted.
> No one (yes, yes, I'm sure like 3 people) want a list of all results, unordered or ordered by something useless like name
That's not what the author was suggesting (or indeed, what they built). They were trying to untangle the positive feedback bias showing up first in the rankings gives.
I think there's probably a lot more to untangle, but as a first pass it's super cool!
It's the feigned surprise and sort of attitude that google is doing something malicious or it's a subterfuge. Starting with a bolded "Google Maps Is Not a Directory. It’s a Market Maker." and inishing with eg
> the most important result isn’t which neighbourhood tops the rankings - it’s the realisation that platforms now quietly structure survival in everyday urban markets.
For any service like this, _of course_ ranking is at the core of it. A more honest article could have started there, eg "since you can't display all results, and doing so is useless to everyone, the heart of these products is their ranking algorithm and choices. Let's examine Google's."
A tone of breathless wonder is now the coin of the realm. Quality research and interesting analysis gets the same treatment as everything else, because that's what gets clicks and responses. Dinging an individual article for this is arbitrary and capricious.
Don't hate the player, hate the game. I hate the game too, fwiw.
Still a lie though. If you don't know / aren't familiar with a ranker, the author is priming you through the entire article to believe google is doing something wrong or malicious by ranking the results. Rather than the same thing search engines have been doing for 30 years. Whether their ranker is good or bad (and for whom) is separate.
Including, of course, the way many popular chain restaurants got there is they make food a lot of people like.
Over small areas you can get that, but the API only returns 20 results, so you will either need a ranking signal over a large area, or a grid search over tiny areas.
I just looked at google maps and (I didn't realize this previously), but you can scroll the results and it will change the map when you bump against the bottom of the list.
> This disproportionately rewards chains and already-central venues. Chains benefit from cross-location brand recognition. High-footfall areas generate reviews faster....
I think this is very likely false if you mean compared to the status quo ante. Before Maps, a well-loved but hard-to-find venue just wouldn't ever be seen by most people, and the absence of reviews made branding more important because it was all you had to go on. I'd be very doubtful if the proportion of independent cafes and restaurants decreases when Google Maps enters an area. (Couldn't find any causal research designs though....)
The more general point that the algorithm is not neutral (and probably never could be) must be right.
(I asked ChatGPT but it ended up with: "We have almost no clean exogenous variation in Maps rankings or feature rollouts at fine geographic scales that would let you estimate impacts on entry, survival, or market structure in a neat DiD/IV way.")
I've found Apple Maps is a little better in this regard. They show a higher density of business markers at any given zoom level.
reply