Understanding Google Maps & Local Search – Developing Knowledge about Local Search

Google is obviously moving strongly towards NFC (near field communications) as their technology of choice for closing the loop of the “last mile” in the local link between consumers and Google. They have built the NFC chip into their new Nexus and they are testing NFC in both a payment and POS environments. They used NFC chips in Places signage in their Portland Hotpot promotion (although they were not very effective).

But their aggressive support for NFC seems to be the death knell for their support of QR codes. Why that should be is unclear but last week QR Codes disappeared from the Google Places Dashboard and yesterday Google provided me with this statement:

Users will no longer find unique QR codes in their Places accounts. We’re exploring new ways to enable customers to quickly and easily find information about local businesses from their mobile phones.

Yesterday, the All Facebook blog published a story titled Family Sues Facebook Over Photos of Daughter’s Corpse. From the article (bold is mine):

A couple in New York is suing Facebook after a paramedic posted photos of their daughter’s dead body on the social networking site.

Martha and Ronald Wimmer’s daughter Caroline died two years ago. She was found in her apartment, strangled with her hair dryer, according to NBC New York.

Paramedic Mark Musarella posted photos of Caroline’s strangled body on Facebook. That got him fired from his job and stripped of his EMT license. And he agreed never again to work as an EMT as long as he didn’t get jail time. He also put in 200 hours of community service.

Even so, the Wimmers are also suing Musarella and his employer, Richmond University Medical Center, as well as Fire Commissioner Salvatore J. Cassano and the Fire Department of New York, in addition to Facebook.

But the Wimmers aren’t asking Facebook for money; they are asking the social media site to delete the photos of their daughter from its data servers. They also are asking for user details about who viewed ad downloaded the photos. Facebook has refused to comply with the Wimmers’ demands.

“We believe this suit is completely without merit and we will fight it vigorously,” Facebook spokesman Andrew Noyes told NBC.

When I mentioned the suite to Eric Goldman, a lawyer that writes extensively on the legal issues surrounding internet law noted:

Tragic story, but Facebook is clearly immunized under Section 230.

Sec 230 of the Communications Decency Act is the same law that immunizes the search engines if your business listing was hijacked by affiliate spammers and all profits from your business were being funneled to theives. It is the same law that immunizes the major review platforms from any liability if a libelous review is placed on line.

The Communications Decent Act of 1996 was created in a futile attempt to regulate pornography on the internet. Sec 230 of the act was:

.. not part of the original Senate legislation, but was added in conference with the House of Representatives, where it had been separately introduced.. as the Internet Freedom and Family Empowerment Act and passed by a near-unanimous vote on the floor. Unlike the more controversial anti-indecency provisions which were later ruled unconstitutional, this portion of the Act remains in force, and enhances free speech by making it unnecessary for ISPs and other service providers to unduly restrict customers’ actions for fear of being found legally liable for customers’ conduct.

It has also been argued that the law has provided a stable legal environment in which encouraged internet service providers (in the broad sense) to invest in a range of services, functionality and software without fear of being sued for use of their platforms by 3rd parties.

Those were and are important goals. In 1996, 2001 and maybe even 2006 they made all kinds of sense. In 2011 less so.

(more…)

Update 7:30 PM 3/29: Reader Penguinopus reports that Google has fixed the mapping error that was directing folks to drive down an unfinished section of the Intercounty Connector in Maryland. Time to fix ~ 102 hours. (And that was over a weekend).

The Baltimore Sun reported on Friday, March 25th around noon that Google Maps is erroneously showing the complete Intercounty Connector between I-95 and Gaithershburg Md as being open. Apparently Gogle driving directions are directing drivers along a 12 mile stretch between I-95 and Georgia Ave that “is largely a muddy track where bulldozers are still doing what bulldozers do”.

This particular case is interesting to me for several reasons.

It is a high profile error in a very densely populated area of the US that has lots of road traffic. The Maps error has been picked up by the Washington Post and the regional NBC affiliate as well as the Baltimore Sun. Coverage of the issue has been persistent with the Baltimore Sun following up on their original reporting on 3/27 noting that 48 hours after reporting the problem to Google the problem is still in Maps.

Clearly, the reporter, Michael Dress of the Sun, thinks that Google should be able to fix the problem in a 2 day timeframe and is dismayed that it remains unrepaired. It is a reasonable expectation to think that a critical mapping error be fixed in 2 day timeframe. Whether Google can or will is another question. Typically they take 30-60 days to act on these corrections.  One of the realities of privatization of essential public services like this is that without strong and enforced regulations, the decisions like these are dictated by profit and not the needs of people. Should a private company that is providing a product for free be held to a higher standard when their product affects public safety in the public realm?

Secondly this story has already achieved a fairly high level of visibility by virtue of being covered in media sources that are very high profile and effectively national in scope. Google, in the past, has held that these types of public exposure have little impact on their willingness and speed to affect changes. Most in the SEO industry have seen obvious examples of “hand jobs” that seems to bely that. This will be an interesting case to test whether Google actually does intervene in these types of cases.

Thirdly and a bigger question is whether the overall quality of the underlying Maps data has improved over the past 12 months. Google stopped using TeleAtlas and started using their own geo data in October of 2009. They implemented a system of end user geo error reporting at the same. In May of last year, Google hired 300 temp workers in the Maps arena to improve the quality. As recently as last September, this reporting system was behind Google’s stated commitment of fixing geo errors in 30 days and there still was some reporting of whole towns going missing.

However since that time, complaints seemed to have dropped. While there have been some problematic and visible examples of large scale geographic map errors, for the most part the quality of the underlying map data seems to have generally improved. This seems to be true in both urban areas and rural areas as well.

Certainly the number of high level complaints on my radar has decreased. It was a common issue that affected visibility of business listings but reports in the Places forum of the problem have declined. Not a perfect proxy of reality but one that should reflect the general direction of the quality of the underlying data as businesses have a very high vested interest in being found and are thus motivated to report the problem. In my anectdotal test of Google’s mapping errors in my home town, most have been fixed.

It has been reported that Google receives over 10,000 corrections an hour to their maps. That’s a million corrections received every 4 days and over 87 million some odd changes every year. Do you think that they actually improved the underlying quality to a level appropriate for business listing accuracy?

Would love to hear your opinions on whether you think that Google has improved the quality of the underlying geo-data over the past year.

Does Google do hand fixes on visible data issues? Will they on this one?

Is the current level of Maps data quality good enough for business use?

Is it good enough for public safety?

Should Goolge be held to a higher standard as a result?

Does that require regulation or self monitoring?

Earlier this month I ran an article 5 Tips for Responding (or Not) to “Fake” Reviews that described the terrible situation of a dentist whose personal life had become the subject of reviews. When we last left this saga, the dentist was not fairing well in the drama to clear his name. The post generated lots of comments and interestingly, the dentist that the post was about showed up and joined the discussion.

He took the discussion to heart, hired an extremely competent copywriter, removed his original response and came up with the following response to his reviewer:

Nov 14, 2010

Completely Unprofessional I had heard some good things about Dr. Anderson and decided to switch dentists. Biggest mistake I could have ever made. Not only did I have to wait 30 mins past my scheduled appointment, he walked past me in the lobby laughing with his front desk girls as if I wasn’t even there. His hygenist was mediocre at best. She smelled heavily of perfume and scratched my gums and just giggled about it. When Dr. Anderson finally graced me with his presents, I felt completely violated! He touched my shoulder enough times to make me feel uncomfortable. His line of questions about my personal life and what I like to do for fun was borderline indecent. All in all, if you want to be hit on and visually molested by your dentist, then this is the denist for you. Anyone else should walk way as fast as you can! Just a plain horrible experience.

4 out of 15 people found this review helpful. Was this review helpful? Yes - No – Flag as inappropriate

Response from the owner

All ethical dentists comply with the practice of ensuring that a female hygienist or assistant is always present during dental appointments, and that doors are kept wide open, precisely to prevent these kinds of situations and very damaging complaints. My practice upholds these standards to the letter. For several years running, I’ve had the honor of being voted Ashland’s Favorite Dentist, due to my patients’ appreciation of the excellent care they receive in my office, and in-coming patients may be 100% certain that they will receive ethical, professional, respectful care here. Due to the seriousness of the complaints in this review, my staff and I felt forced to attempt to inquire into the identity of this reviewer, and unfortunately, had to conclude that this very hurtful review is the result of a personal conflict. This is a shame, and we sincerely invite all potential in-coming patients to take a glance at the glowing reviews our office typically receives and also, to come into the office to see for themselves the professionalism and dignity of our practice and staff. We are ready to provide you with the exceptional dental care that has made us ‘Ashland’s Favorite’.

Flag as inappropriate

Jared R. Anderson DDS, PC – March 24, 2011
Verified owner

The standard advice in responding to negative reviews is to “own the problem”. However, if the review is fabricated that sometimes becomes next to impossible. Rather than alienating the reader with too much drama, the response calmly and cooly pointed out the Dentist’s standard policy. I thought this review response language did a masterful job of putting the responsibility in this situation back onto the reviewer without being a jerk nor divulging too much personal information. Yet it still managed to raise the very real possibility that the reviewer was motivated by a personal vendetta.

He has worked his way through the first issue. While there is no perfect response, he has made the absolute best of a situation over which he has no control. Now that he has honed his response he can move onto phase two of local reputation management…. review management.

What do you think? Think we can now convince the good dentist to embark a review management strategy to get some more reviews?

I just upgraded to Firefox 4 and was offered the opportunity to try Awesome Screenshot. It solves several problems that I frequently deal with when writing this blog and communicating with clients – capturing a full screen of a Google search result (or any web page for that matter) and easily annotating it (see sample of output to the right – click for larger size).

This Firefox plugin (also available for Chrome and Safari 5) does just that as well as providing quick upload to a public URL for online storage of the image and the opportunity to easily share the image via Twitter, Facebook, Buzz and email clients. It passed the “Mike Test” with flying colors. The “Mike Test” is the ability for me to try, learn and use a piece of software productively in 10 minutes or less.

Here are some sample screen shots of the process using Awesome Screenshot: (more…)

The printable QR Code that directed folks to your Places Page that Google offered up in the Places Dashboard went missing last week. A number of posters have turned up in the forums asking where it went, wondering how to print out the QR Code for their Places Page and lamenting its absence.  Google has not yet made a public announcement whether the feature has been pulled or is just missing as a result of another bug.

My response to the posters: GOOD RIDDANCE!

While the availability of the QR Code in the Places Page raised the visibility of the idea of the QR Code for millions of SMBs that otherwise would not have thought about them, Google’s self serving implementation of QR Codes was never one that was in the best interest of the business owner.

It is incredibly easy to create and print your own QR Code that can be used in a range of environments that better meet the needs of business. For example this site CreateQRcode.appspot.com uses Google’s QR code API to allow a user to embed any URL in the code and print at a range of different sizes. It’s as simple as deciding which web page should be referenced in which campaign and pasting the URL in. The QR Code graphic is then generated in a choice of different sizes.

QR Codes could be added to newspaper ads, yellow page ads, billboards, business cards, TV commercials and signage. They are a useful way to encourage online engagement from the offline world. One suggestion that I have been making of late to clients with heavy foot traffic is to use the code to drive mobile shoppers directly to the Google mobile rating/review entry screen so as to facilitate the process….. here is the “recipe:

(more…)

The Dashboard analytic reporting that has been MIA since the 3rd week of February seems to be slowly catching up. Hat tip to E-mphaisis Internet Marketing for pointing this out. The data in most of the accounts that I check show the data is current as of March 11th. Still not current but only a week behind reality.

————

Google has slowly (very slowly) been quashing some of the bugs in their review system that have been so prevalent since last fall. They seem to have quashed another.

My business listing in Google had suffered from a bug that “orphaned” reviews and prevented their association with my business. Reviews that have been missing from my account since last summer but were visible in the review history of the posters have finally returned. While it hardly qualifies as adequate public comment on the many issues of surrounding reviews I will remove my sidebar reminder of Google’s lack of communication on the issue.

————

Google Places observer Plamen has noticed Google sporadically returning OneBoxes on direct phone searches of late. Whether it is a bug or upcoming feature it is hard tell:

As I read of Google’s newly stated public commitment to better customer service in Google Places, thoughts of a myriad of current issues swirled through my head. After mentally struggling through 10 or so current Places problems, the miasma settled around this one issue that I thought I could use to illustrate what an SMB confronts with the current “customer support” system.

The following is an actual example of a how a business affects a solution to the situation of their name triggering the “Term not Allowed” filter in Google Places. Any similarity to these drawings (of Rube Goldberg) is strictly coincidental.

(Click to view your very own printable, full size, Ed Reese Style, infographic of the current process)

While it might have its own uniques twists and turns, this chart is typical of the current methods available to an SMB to solve the dozen or so problems that can crop up in Places. As many of you know some of the solutions are actually more complex. One has to wonder just how many SMBs give up prior to solving their specific difficulty.

Google is staffed with lots of smart people who understand how to solve these types of problems. Usually, I refrain from making suggestions about specific fixes but I just couldn’t resist given that the iron might now be hot.

Here is a second chart that offers a suggested alternative flow that automates a fair bit of the solution. However the SMB might actually come away thinking that Google had provided “good customer service”:
(more…)

I just received the following email. Under the new plan, my current reading style would cost $35 /mo. That’s not going to happen.

An important announcement from the publisher of The New York Times  Dear New York Times Reader,  Today marks a significant transition for The New York Times as we introduce digital subscriptions. It’s an important step that we hope you will see as an investment in The Times, one that will strengthen our ability to provide high-quality journalism to readers around the world and on any platform. The change will primarily affect those who are heavy consumers of the content on our Web site and on mobile applications. This change comes in two stages. Today, we are rolling out digital subscriptions to our readers in Canada, which will enable us to fine-tune the customer experience before our global launch. On March 28, we will begin offering digital subscriptions in the U.S. and the rest of the world. If you are a home delivery subscriber of The New York Times, you will continue to have full and free access to our news, information, opinion and the rest of our rich offerings on your computer, smartphone and tablet. International Herald Tribune subscribers will also receive free access to NYTimes.com. If you are not a home delivery subscriber, you will have free access up to a defined reading limit. If you exceed that limit, you will be asked to become a digital subscriber. This is how it will work, and what it means for you: On NYTimes.com, you can view 20 articles each month at no charge (including slide shows, videos and other features). After 20 articles, we will ask you to become a digital subscriber, with full access to our site. On our smartphone and tablet apps, the Top News section will remain free of charge. For access to all other sections within the apps, we will ask you to become a digital subscriber. The Times is offering three digital subscription packages that allow you to choose from a variety of devices (computer, smartphone, tablet). More information about these plans is available atnytimes.com/access. Again, all New York Times home delivery subscribers will receive free access to NYTimes.com and to all content on our apps. If you are a home delivery subscriber, go to homedelivery.nytimes.com to sign up for free access. Readers who come to Times articles through links from search, blogs and social media like Facebook and Twitter will be able to read those articles, even if they have reached their monthly reading limit. For some search engines, users will have a daily limit of free links to Times articles. The home page at NYTimes.com and all section fronts will remain free to browse for all users at all times. For more information, go to nytimes.com/digitalfaq. Thank you for reading The New York Times, in all its forms. Sincerely, Arthur Sulzberger Jr. Publisher, The New York Times Chairman, The New York Times Company   As a loyal reader of NYTimes.com, you will receive a special offer to save on our new digital subscriptions. We will e-mail this special offer starting on March 28, the day we begin charging for unlimited access to our Web site and mobile apps*. We truly value your readership and look forward to bringing you the world’s finest journalism every day. *Mobile apps are not supported on all devices. Does not include e-reader editions, Premium Crosswords or The New York Times Crosswords apps. Other restrictions apply.  This message was sent to inform you about an important change to our Web site and NYTimes applications. Please note, if you have chosen not to receive marketing messages from The New York Times, that choice applies only to promotional messages. You will continue to receive important notifications that are legally required or could affect your service. To review our Privacy Policy, please go to: http://www.nytimes.com/content/help/rights/privacy/policy/privacy-policy.html © 2011 The New York Times Company / 620 Eighth Avenue, New York, NY 10018

Apparently, the subscriptions ($15, 20 or 35/mo) will be sold through iTunes. At least Apple will be getting richer if no one else does as they will get 30% monthly of each subscription they sell.

Bill Hartzer highlighted this recent FTC fine levied on Legacy Learning Systems for having its affiliate seller network aggressively laud the product on their websites in close proximity to affiliate purchase link back to Legacy’s site. The FTC argued that these affiliate websites “falsely posed as ordinary consumers or independent reviewers” and thus violated the FTC rules requiring endorsement disclosure.

It appears that Legacy Learning Systems was actively recruiting this “Review Ad” affiliate network. As part of the settlement they agreed to monitor the network and be responsible for any future behavior of the affiliates. An onerous task indeed.

Eric Goldman’s blog summarizes the issue as follows:

What did the reviewers do wrong?: Reviewers did not disclose that they were affiliates of Legacy – i.e., received a cut of the sales, and in some cases were paid to review Legacy products . These were not “the independent reviews reflecting the opinions of ordinary consumers.” (Examples of the reviews can be found in Exhibit A to the Complaint [pdf].) In some cases, the reviewer websites had disclosures, but the disclosures were anemic at best and were not contained in the posts themselves (e.g., “we are paid by some of the companies who’s [sic] products we review” – not exactly a robust disclaimer). [Italics added.]

Where did Legacy go astray: For one thing, Legacy called these affiliates “review ad” affiliates. I would probably avoid this terminology. The complaint did not include a copy of the affiliate terms, so we don’t know whether Legacy contractually required the affiliates to comply with the FTC’s guidelines or explained how to comply. The complaint also does not specify whether Legacy paid the reviewers for their reviews (it alleges that the affiliates received a cut of the sales), but judging from some of the reviews and the websites of the reviewers, and from Legacy’s suggestions to its affiliates, this seems to be the case (at least with some reviewers). Legacy offered suggested disclaimers (to affiliates) on its website but even these were ambiguous (“Affiliate Disclosure Requirements and Examples Legacy Learning Systems“):

[Suggested] Disclosure: We are a professional review site that receives compensation from the companies whose products we review. We test each product thoroughly and give high marks to only the very best. We are independently owned and the opinions expressed here are our own. [emphasis added]

Regardless of what Legacy may have suggested or required of its affiliates, Legacy also did not have any sort of compliance program to make sure that its affiliates made the necessary disclosures.

In this case, the FTC has essentially argued that affliates that are speaking highly of a product need to dislose that they are in fact benefiting from the product that they are touting. The FTC  previously fined an Ad Agency that posted fake reviews on iTunes on behalf of a client.

It is clear in this settlement that the FTC thinks any type of deceptive on-line self promotion is a violation of their guidelines. While this settlement does speak tangentally to the issue of online user reviews at review sites, the FTC has yet to directly the address the responsibility a business owner in encouraging faked reviews at sites like Google Places and Yelp.

Given the uptick in fake reviews coming from businesses large and small, one has to think that additional enforcement efforts focusing directly on businesses posting fake reviews can not be far in the future. From where I sit, it can happen none too soon.