<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Google Places to Rollout Repair Option for Merged Listings</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blumenthals.com/blog/2011/01/18/google-places-to-rollout-fix-to-merging-issue-this-quarter/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blumenthals.com/blog/2011/01/18/google-places-to-rollout-fix-to-merging-issue-this-quarter/</link>
	<description>Developing Knowledge about Local Search</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 May 2013 20:55:31 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike</title>
		<link>http://blumenthals.com/blog/2011/01/18/google-places-to-rollout-fix-to-merging-issue-this-quarter/comment-page-1/#comment-554495</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Sep 2011 12:01:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blumenthals.com/blog/?p=8869#comment-554495</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[@Rafael

Not likely]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Rafael</p>
<p>Not likely</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rafael</title>
		<link>http://blumenthals.com/blog/2011/01/18/google-places-to-rollout-fix-to-merging-issue-this-quarter/comment-page-1/#comment-554422</link>
		<dc:creator>Rafael</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Sep 2011 02:15:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blumenthals.com/blog/?p=8869#comment-554422</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Is there anyway I can have 2 businesses approved? Here is the case:

a. Businesses has the same name.
b. Businesses are located on different areas. (Branches)
c. All areas are using the same mobile number]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Is there anyway I can have 2 businesses approved? Here is the case:</p>
<p>a. Businesses has the same name.<br />
b. Businesses are located on different areas. (Branches)<br />
c. All areas are using the same mobile number</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike</title>
		<link>http://blumenthals.com/blog/2011/01/18/google-places-to-rollout-fix-to-merging-issue-this-quarter/comment-page-1/#comment-550298</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Jun 2011 02:43:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blumenthals.com/blog/?p=8869#comment-550298</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Donovan

I am not defending it in the least. I am stating that is the material reality within which we live. Its kind of like gravity. No matter how hard I try I can&#039;t jump high enough to dunk a basketball regardless of my intentions and my wishes.

Google isn&#039;t broken per se, its just that is is how it works. It works for 90, 95, 98 or maybe 99% of the cases in the U.S.... it just sucks at edge cases like yours.... where it is a nearly impossible for G&#039;s algo to distinguish the difference between spam, multiple similar businesses at the same location, businesses that move from one suite to another that all are trying to have the &quot;optimal&quot; business name, businesses that swap phone numbers. It is a situation where even an intelligent human can&#039;t tell which are real and which aren&#039;t without a site visit and even then they might be confused. An algo is at best an imperfect mirror of reality. 

I can keep trying to dunk or I can play at a different game. In your case, if you find Google that important....given that you know that they are incapable of resolving this particular situation... you need to find an alternative strategy.

That strategy, if it is to include Google, would be as i noted above... it sucks. I agree. It also sucks that I can&#039;t dunk. ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Donovan</p>
<p>I am not defending it in the least. I am stating that is the material reality within which we live. Its kind of like gravity. No matter how hard I try I can&#8217;t jump high enough to dunk a basketball regardless of my intentions and my wishes.</p>
<p>Google isn&#8217;t broken per se, its just that is is how it works. It works for 90, 95, 98 or maybe 99% of the cases in the U.S&#8230;. it just sucks at edge cases like yours&#8230;. where it is a nearly impossible for G&#8217;s algo to distinguish the difference between spam, multiple similar businesses at the same location, businesses that move from one suite to another that all are trying to have the &#8220;optimal&#8221; business name, businesses that swap phone numbers. It is a situation where even an intelligent human can&#8217;t tell which are real and which aren&#8217;t without a site visit and even then they might be confused. An algo is at best an imperfect mirror of reality. </p>
<p>I can keep trying to dunk or I can play at a different game. In your case, if you find Google that important&#8230;.given that you know that they are incapable of resolving this particular situation&#8230; you need to find an alternative strategy.</p>
<p>That strategy, if it is to include Google, would be as i noted above&#8230; it sucks. I agree. It also sucks that I can&#8217;t dunk. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Donovan</title>
		<link>http://blumenthals.com/blog/2011/01/18/google-places-to-rollout-fix-to-merging-issue-this-quarter/comment-page-1/#comment-550286</link>
		<dc:creator>Donovan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Jun 2011 00:21:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blumenthals.com/blog/?p=8869#comment-550286</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[You&#039;re correct about the move Mike but the bottom line is Google&#039;s results look like shit and if their whole thing is about relevancy then integrating a broken local system into search is ...

Mike you write like you&#039;re defending how Google handles the verification process or the local listing as whole. The systems broken plain and simple. You stated the reason my listing has merged or is no longer showing is the move from 210 to 212 .. also, phone numbers, business name and then go on to say that the Google algo can&#039;t distinct the two business then why is Google charging for things like boost, etc.

I want to point out a few things:

Their name: Vegas Wet
Our Name: Las Vegas Escorts

..... Our names are not similar

Their Number: 702-669-5240
Our Number: 702-733-4949

... Our number has been updated in all major data sources. (and address)

Our listing: http://maps.google.com/maps/place?cid=3409458686756646442

Their listing: http://maps.google.com/maps/place?cid=6548725046538814013

... clearly different cid # but as it was shown in my video my info is on the places page but when you view the listing it shows their info (broken system)

To top it all off these guys have multiple lisitngs in the same vertical. If you do a search for Las Vegas Escorts the A and B listings are theirs using the same number on the site (702) 669-5240. I&#039;ve reported and get the same bullshit response from Google. I&#039;ve repeately asked Google to remove my images from the listings via DMCA request and nothings happend as well.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You&#8217;re correct about the move Mike but the bottom line is Google&#8217;s results look like shit and if their whole thing is about relevancy then integrating a broken local system into search is &#8230;</p>
<p>Mike you write like you&#8217;re defending how Google handles the verification process or the local listing as whole. The systems broken plain and simple. You stated the reason my listing has merged or is no longer showing is the move from 210 to 212 .. also, phone numbers, business name and then go on to say that the Google algo can&#8217;t distinct the two business then why is Google charging for things like boost, etc.</p>
<p>I want to point out a few things:</p>
<p>Their name: Vegas Wet<br />
Our Name: Las Vegas Escorts</p>
<p>&#8230;.. Our names are not similar</p>
<p>Their Number: 702-669-5240<br />
Our Number: 702-733-4949</p>
<p>&#8230; Our number has been updated in all major data sources. (and address)</p>
<p>Our listing: <a href="http://maps.google.com/maps/place?cid=3409458686756646442">http://maps.google.com/maps/place?cid=3409458686756646442</a></p>
<p>Their listing: <a href="http://maps.google.com/maps/place?cid=6548725046538814013">http://maps.google.com/maps/place?cid=6548725046538814013</a></p>
<p>&#8230; clearly different cid # but as it was shown in my video my info is on the places page but when you view the listing it shows their info (broken system)</p>
<p>To top it all off these guys have multiple lisitngs in the same vertical. If you do a search for Las Vegas Escorts the A and B listings are theirs using the same number on the site (702) 669-5240. I&#8217;ve reported and get the same bullshit response from Google. I&#8217;ve repeately asked Google to remove my images from the listings via DMCA request and nothings happend as well.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike</title>
		<link>http://blumenthals.com/blog/2011/01/18/google-places-to-rollout-fix-to-merging-issue-this-quarter/comment-page-1/#comment-550149</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 11 Jun 2011 12:18:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blumenthals.com/blog/?p=8869#comment-550149</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[@Donovan

Didn&#039;t you used to be at #210? And you moved to #212? Wasn&#039;t that a second move?

Because of your moving, because of the closeness of the businesses, the similarity of your businesses, the confusions about phone numbers, the fact that you moved more than once, the fact that there are numerous, numerous claimed listings at that address.... the Google Algo can not, does not, see you as a distinct entity. In fact, it is nearly impossible to tell the real businesses from the fake ones at the address. 

It is but an algo that assesses these things in an automated fashion... it is a wonder that it works at all given the reality on the ground. 

If you want Google to get is straight... create a unique identity, with a unique name, at a unique address and make sure that it is consistent across the internet. Your history is anything but... 

As it is now expecting google&#039;s algo to understand the differences between you all, when a human looking at the situation can&#039;t, is more than you can hope for.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Donovan</p>
<p>Didn&#8217;t you used to be at #210? And you moved to #212? Wasn&#8217;t that a second move?</p>
<p>Because of your moving, because of the closeness of the businesses, the similarity of your businesses, the confusions about phone numbers, the fact that you moved more than once, the fact that there are numerous, numerous claimed listings at that address&#8230;. the Google Algo can not, does not, see you as a distinct entity. In fact, it is nearly impossible to tell the real businesses from the fake ones at the address. </p>
<p>It is but an algo that assesses these things in an automated fashion&#8230; it is a wonder that it works at all given the reality on the ground. </p>
<p>If you want Google to get is straight&#8230; create a unique identity, with a unique name, at a unique address and make sure that it is consistent across the internet. Your history is anything but&#8230; </p>
<p>As it is now expecting google&#8217;s algo to understand the differences between you all, when a human looking at the situation can&#8217;t, is more than you can hope for.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Donovan</title>
		<link>http://blumenthals.com/blog/2011/01/18/google-places-to-rollout-fix-to-merging-issue-this-quarter/comment-page-1/#comment-550145</link>
		<dc:creator>Donovan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 11 Jun 2011 10:18:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blumenthals.com/blog/?p=8869#comment-550145</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hey Mike has there been any other updates regarding the merge listing repair option? I have an ongoing problem with my listing being merged with competitor after competitor. The listing I have now shows that I&#039;m receiving all the traffic but when you click on the link to see the lisitng it shows my competitors ... very fustrating. I&#039;ve created a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XN9Y0B9053A&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;quick screencast of what it&#039;s doing&lt;/a&gt;. If you can take a peak and fill me in on anything I&#039;d forever be indebted =o).]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey Mike has there been any other updates regarding the merge listing repair option? I have an ongoing problem with my listing being merged with competitor after competitor. The listing I have now shows that I&#8217;m receiving all the traffic but when you click on the link to see the lisitng it shows my competitors &#8230; very fustrating. I&#8217;ve created a <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XN9Y0B9053A">quick screencast of what it&#8217;s doing</a>. If you can take a peak and fill me in on anything I&#8217;d forever be indebted =o).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike</title>
		<link>http://blumenthals.com/blog/2011/01/18/google-places-to-rollout-fix-to-merging-issue-this-quarter/comment-page-1/#comment-544169</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Jan 2011 15:33:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blumenthals.com/blog/?p=8869#comment-544169</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hi Vlad

You are an optimist!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Vlad</p>
<p>You are an optimist!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Vlad</title>
		<link>http://blumenthals.com/blog/2011/01/18/google-places-to-rollout-fix-to-merging-issue-this-quarter/comment-page-1/#comment-544167</link>
		<dc:creator>Vlad</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Jan 2011 15:29:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blumenthals.com/blog/?p=8869#comment-544167</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Thanks for the update Mike. Happy to see Google is finally doing something about the Merged Listings problem. I also hope they&#039;ll come up up with a permanent fix in the long run so that listings don&#039;t get merged to begin with.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the update Mike. Happy to see Google is finally doing something about the Merged Listings problem. I also hope they&#8217;ll come up up with a permanent fix in the long run so that listings don&#8217;t get merged to begin with.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew Huskinson</title>
		<link>http://blumenthals.com/blog/2011/01/18/google-places-to-rollout-fix-to-merging-issue-this-quarter/comment-page-1/#comment-544105</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew Huskinson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Jan 2011 18:29:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blumenthals.com/blog/?p=8869#comment-544105</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[At some point google will have to trust a owner verified Places entry and add a feature where &#039;duplicates&#039; can be marked as such by the current owner of the location.

Either google will have to visit &#039;advertisers&#039;like Yellow Pages, for a small charge maybe, and physically verify they are legitimate occupiers of the location, whether an owner or renter or leaser, even if its a hot desk;
Or accept mailed proof such as two original utility bills, security marked by one time PINs as most are totally computer printed, which are used for anti-terror and money laundering control in the UK.

Owners should be allowed to mark a &#039;duplicate&#039; as wrong, old, spam or WHY and the listing not shown in a search result.  Other verified owners should be able to view  these &#039;stop lists&#039; and be able to Report a Problem with them.  The definition of a duplicate should include the verified Phone no or Address/PIN location or Business Name/Title as all of these should be unique in a locality.

Not hard to implement.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>At some point google will have to trust a owner verified Places entry and add a feature where &#8216;duplicates&#8217; can be marked as such by the current owner of the location.</p>
<p>Either google will have to visit &#8216;advertisers&#8217;like Yellow Pages, for a small charge maybe, and physically verify they are legitimate occupiers of the location, whether an owner or renter or leaser, even if its a hot desk;<br />
Or accept mailed proof such as two original utility bills, security marked by one time PINs as most are totally computer printed, which are used for anti-terror and money laundering control in the UK.</p>
<p>Owners should be allowed to mark a &#8216;duplicate&#8217; as wrong, old, spam or WHY and the listing not shown in a search result.  Other verified owners should be able to view  these &#8216;stop lists&#8217; and be able to Report a Problem with them.  The definition of a duplicate should include the verified Phone no or Address/PIN location or Business Name/Title as all of these should be unique in a locality.</p>
<p>Not hard to implement.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Google Places Tidbits and Quirks &#124; Understanding Google Maps &#38; Local Search</title>
		<link>http://blumenthals.com/blog/2011/01/18/google-places-to-rollout-fix-to-merging-issue-this-quarter/comment-page-1/#comment-544090</link>
		<dc:creator>Google Places Tidbits and Quirks &#124; Understanding Google Maps &#38; Local Search</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Jan 2011 15:54:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blumenthals.com/blog/?p=8869#comment-544090</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] Some readers reported here and on Twitter that Google was no longer allowing them to verify via phone and could only verify by [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Some readers reported here and on Twitter that Google was no longer allowing them to verify via phone and could only verify by [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
